Carbon, Rings
The First Carbon Planet? - ScienceNOW - http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/scienceshot-the-first-carbon.html Violent Origin for Saturn's Rings - ScienceNOW - http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/12/violent-origin-for-saturns-rings.html ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Breastfeeding on Facebook
>> I didn't say that. What I said is that only >> sociopaths, perverts and baby killers can think >> that breastfeeding is obscene. > Would you agree that it is in bad taste > to use foul language, even though it is an expression > of free speech that some feel is disrespectful and > offensive, or are they just prudes who don't deserve > to have an opinion? Non sequitur. How does the use of foul language correlate to breastfeeding? Do you think breastfeeding is some way disgusting or offensive? >> and another picture of the Google model: >> http://www.iamboredr.com/media/1645/Boobs/ >> The girl is fully clothed, what's the point? > NO way was she fully dressed! (although her nipples > were covered) QED. And I still can't see why you posted that image. Is it to protest against the induction of breast cancer caused by the use of tight bras? > I have never heard of a Facebook rule > outlawing pictures of women breast feeding in public. > Are you certain about this, Alberto? I was trying to make the point that there are far more important issues than a breast feeding ban on Facebook, such as privacy, or using foul language, which I have seen all over Facebook. I was a bottle baby myself, which may explain why I posted those cleavage pictures!~) Do you think I may harbor some deeply buried resentment because I was denied my own Mommy's breast?~) As for the Google girl with the giant titties; I was being ironic. I honestly had no idea tight bras caused breast cancer!~) Thanks to Charlie's link I recognize that Facebook truly is banning breast feeding pictures. I wonder who were the people who were posting the obscene pictures of breast feeding that prompted Facebook to take such drastic action. Nevertheless, I will continue to use Facebook and guard my privacy as best I can; which is what I consider to be a far more important reason to avoid using the electronic interface. Jon ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: For Alberto and others
Ronn! Blankenship wrote: > > The middle segment on tonight's "60 Minutes" was on Brazil and its > economy. I don't know if when the show becomes available on cbs.com > > (tomorrow morning?) it will be accessible from outside the U.S. or not. > I hope they didn't base their research on the Uncyclopedia article... Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook breastfeeding ban
Jon Louis Mann wrote: > >> I didn't say that. What I said is that only >> sociopaths, perverts and babykillers can think >> that breastfeeding is obscene. > > Would you agree that it is in bad taste > to use foul language, even though it is an expression > of free speech that some feel is disrespectful and > offensive, or are they just prudes who don't deserve > to have an opinion? > Non sequitur. How does the use of foul language correlate to breastfeeding? Do you think breastfeeding is some way disgusting or offensive? >> and another picture of the Google model: >> http://www.iamboredr.com/media/1645/Boobs/ > >> The girl is fully clothed, what's the point? > > NO way was she fully dressed! (although her nipples > were covered) > QED. And I still can't see why you posted that image. Is it to protest against the induction of breast cancer caused by the use of tight bras? > I have never heard of a Facebook rule > outlawing pictures of women breast feeding in public. > Are you certain this, Alberto? > They removed _all_ breastfeeding images. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
Re: Facebook censorship and internet porn
> Bruce Bostwick wrote: >> Charlie wrote: > > Jon wrote: >> ...that may prevent a woman from learning how to examine herself for >> cancer or her options if she is diagnosed... >> ...policy of removing pictures of breastfeeding. I glanced at the La Leche League site (an org. that promotes breastfeeding) - no easily accessible pix; perhaps one needs to join? Interesting article on age-of-weaning, which here in the US is typically less than one year, but in developing countries can be 3 or 4 yo. Huh! - I'd draw the line at teething! > > evidently there are a lot of riled up women about > > this. evidently, some few were using breastfeeding > > as a way around the facebook restriction on frontal nudity. [on facebook] Some people just can't deal with bodily functions in a non-kindergartener way, tittering instead of just acknowledging. Not that there isn't genuine humor to be found in many cases (I've _so_ had to adjust to living with a guy)... > The problem, and this seems to be endemic to the industry [porn] > as far as I can tell, is that the industry would very much > rather do business the way it does now and take every > possible tactical and/or strategic action available to make > sure they're not only net-ubiquitous, but that they actually > crowd out legitimate web search results for completely > unrelated subjects, and appear in your inbox even if your > junk mail filtering is strong enough that you end up > filtering out your friends before you filter out the porn > ads. Rather than target a perfectly willing and > sex-positive demographic that would be happy to pay for > their premium content, they would rather make the maximum > possible nuisance of themselves trying to convert maybe one > in a thousand or so of the largely sex-negative remainder of > the population that doesn't want to see anything they have to offer. Indeed. > As for free speech, deciding what's abuse of it and what's > legitimate use of it is a formitable philsophical problem > indeed. Likewise, which restrictions on it are > legitimate and which are overbroad and possibly > draconian. There's room for considerable debate along > that boundary... I personally find porn repugnant, but as long as only consenting adults are involved, I can't advocate banning it. As in the wikileaks dump - I don't want anyone endangered, but there's far too much being covered up by various govt's. > And I repeat my assertion that our society (particularly > that of the USA, and even more particularly that of some > regions of the USA and/or specific segments of the > population) is not exactly objective or even rational on > this subject, and is influenced by social and cultural > standards that I consider dysfunctional and destructive at > the very least. Not the least of which is the > perception that nudity == sex, or the related perception > that sex == bad/dirty/evil. Or a whole list of > others... We do seem to be schizoid and schizophrenic as a society WRT sexuality. > The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace > alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing > it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them > imaginary. - H.L. MENCKEN Good one! 'It's hard to fight the fire while you're feeding the flames' - Rush Debbi Condoms For The Mind? Maru Debbi ___ http://box535.bluehost.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
