Babes thread kybosh.

[Roland Rat]

The statement to nowhereman would in no way be sanctioned if it was made by any other poster.

And the accusation was clearly implied in your statement. Again this is nothing for which people have been sanctioned. But please do try again

................___

__
......_____//_____?._\_________
.....o-------FORUM-POLICE-----0)=
.....`---(@)===========(@)---

 

[Anonymous]

I get the fact that there are all sorts of things on the forum and they are not all to do with cycling but most of them are. And most of them fall within the bounds of common interest, humour etc and generally offend no one. Things that do offend people generally (but not always) get removed. The not always is more about lack of bandwidth by volunteer admins rather than some agenda, conspiracy or hypocracy etc

The question of what is in and out of bounds is a good one and is constantly under review - as you might expect. It is subjective - there will always be areas of disagreement. And if we were really interested in supressing expression we would delete this and all the associated threads - that's not what any of us are about.

Why it wasn't closed sooner? It was not considered an issue by all but it was by some - myself included. In general people felt it would run its course and drop off the radar. It didn't. So in the end it got closed. It was closed because it wasn't really about cycling and because it offended some.

I know this will not satisfy everyone I doubt that's achieveable with issues like this. We continue to be interested in people's views about what will enhance the forum and continue to try to strike a balance that works for everyone.


Terry

I think you will find that what is "balanced" to you, is quit imbalanced in terms of actual opinion.

I am all for protecting the minority opinion. That is why I am fervently against censorship. However, in this case, you didn't protect a minority, you imposed your arbitrary moral view on the great majority of posters. If that is balance to you, we disagree on the substantive elements of "balance."

 

[180mmCrank]

I think you will find that what is "balanced" to you, is quit imbalanced in terms of actual opinion.

I am all for protecting the minority opinion. That is why I am fervently against censorship. However, in this case, you didn't protect a minority, you imposed your arbitrary moral view on the great majority of posters. If that is balance to you, we disagree on the substantive elements of "balance."

You are right we do disagree - long live the ability to disagree!

T

 

[Anonymous]

You are right we do disagree - long live the ability to disagree!

T

That I agree with.

 

[Archibald]

Originally Posted by HL2037
I'll try to explain something, even though I don't expect you guys to be able to see through your self righteous rage right now.

So why do I have a problem with b.o.b. thread, even though I never open it? That's because it influence the way women in cycling are seen. You sit here on cyclingnews.com and confirm to each other that it is ok to view cycling women as objects who only exist for you to have something to **** over. Weather you are concious about it or not, that attitude will transfer into how you act towards women that you meet out on the road.

I don't want to judge over anyones fetisch, and there are probably many places on the internet where you can share it with others. I just don't think that a serious site like cyclingnews should support that view on women, and I am glad and relieved that they closed the thread.

Ok, I have to disagree with this.

Before I start, let me point out that I don't really care what happens to the BoB thread, it was a mild amusement for a few minutes every now and then, and even then more for the comments and competition to see who had found the latest pic as much as the pics themselves. If the people viewing just wanted to see naked women, it's not too difficult to find that on the internet now, is it? So I'm not full of "self-righteous rage". In fact, this thread has been more amusing than the BoB thread so I'm quite happy!

Anyway, it seems you are taking out on the BoB thread your views on society as a whole. Yes, parts of society do objectify women, but you cannot possibly complain that the BoB thread would cause the forumites who read it to alter how they act to women out on the road. Firstly, their opinions on women will already be formed by society as a whole, this is a microscopic spec compared to what is seen for the rest of the day. Secondly, the people viewing are, have been or have an interest in cyclists/cycling. If there's one part of society that you should not be concerned about, it is this part.

Furthermore, you complain that the BoB thread would influence the way women are seen. Do you have any proof of that, or is it simply your opinion? And if that is the case, perhaps you should start a campaign to ban those who are guilty of this in far more visible forums, I suggest you start with trying to ban the following:

- Daniel Greiger and all who model on his Cycling Passions Calendar http://www.cyclepassion.com ;
- Liz Hatch
- Julie Krasniak
- Vicky Pendleton
- Hanka Kupfernagel
- Willow Koerber
- Heather Irmiger
- Veronica Andreasson
- Mona Eiberweiser
- Fabienne Heinzmann
(and that is the 2011 line-up alone).

And there are many quotes from some of the above stating that they are happy to do this as it raises the profile of professional womens' cycling. As someone above mentioned, even the BoB thread made many people more aware of womens' cycling.

Finally, on the point of the BoB thread influencing the way women are seen, IMO the current banning and reaction to it will influence the way women are seen in a much more negative light. Look at TFF's response as evidence of this. If women are to react like this, by trying to shut down anything they do not agree with (when it is not offensive), you will find they will start to be excluded from other areas. For example, how many men on a winter training ride would start to complain and exclude women if the presence of a woman meant they could not enjoy the usual banter that comes along with a standard winter training ride? Again, not offensive banter, but the usual banter.

Again, I don't really care what happens to the BoB thread but I think your accusing it of influencing how women will be perceived, rather than accepting it as something that you do not like but is simply mild amusement for others, is misguided.

Good point, well presented.

I'll add some more to this...

Firstly, I'm rather offended by those who sit there saying that because I viewed that thread on occasion, that I only go there to jerk off over the pics.
exhibit A: "women as objects who only exist for you to have something to **** over"
talk about judging a book by it's cover - "you're a man, therefore a pervert"

Secondly, as a cyclist and a photographer, I appreciate both the photography and beauty of some of those images, and what they contain. Sure, there were quite a few that I didn't think much of, but there were others that I did.
I appreciate fine art. I appreciate beauty, no matter whether it is a sunrise across the water on the beach, a particular colour, a particular view of a street... that would also include the eyes of Alam Bibi when she was on the cover of National Geographic all those years ago. Sure, I see beauty in the shape and curves of women - this is what makes them beautiful.
And beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which is why some of the pics in the BoB thread work for me and others don't. To each their own...
To suggest this affects the way I view women cyclists is just bosh, stereotypical tar brushing and offensive.

One of the best things about the BoB thread was the complete lack of that sh*t-slinging carry-on that seems to occur in so many other threads...

agree that this has been a quality thread with a few laughs and also valid points.

 

[Anonymous]

Good point, well presented.

I'll add some more to this...

Firstly, I'm rather offended by those who sit there saying that because I viewed that thread on occasion, that I only go there to jerk off over the pics.
exhibit A: "women as objects who only exist for you to have something to **** over"
talk about judging a book by it's cover - "you're a man, therefore a pervert"

Secondly, as a cyclist and a photographer, I appreciate both the photography and beauty of some of those images, and what they contain. Sure, there were quite a few that I didn't think much of, but there were others that I did.
I appreciate fine art. I appreciate beauty, no matter whether it is a sunrise across the water on the beach, a particular colour, a particular view of a street... that would also include the eyes of Alam Bibi when she was on the cover of National Geographic all those years ago. Sure, I see beauty in the shape and curves of women - this is what makes them beautiful.
And beauty is in the eye of the beholder, which is why some of the pics in the BoB thread work for me and others don't. To each their own...
To suggest this affects the way I view women cyclists is just bosh, stereotypical tar brushing and offensive.

One of the best things about the BoB thread was the complete lack of that sh*t-slinging carry-on that seems to occur in so many other threads...



agree that this has been a quality thread with a few laughs and also valid points.

Wow, thank you!

As a cyclist and photographer, I have to agree. You point out something that is inherent to the counterargument, yet none on that side seem to see. It is also contained in their continued usage of the term "soft porn" to describe the thread. While there may have been some pictures that ventured in that direction, the easiest thing to do there is to delete the pictures, not close the thread.

 

[Anonymous]

I get the fact that there are all sorts of things on the forum and they are not all to do with cycling but most of them are. And most of them fall within the bounds of common interest, humour etc and generally offend no one. Things that do offend people generally (but not always) get removed. The not always is more about lack of bandwidth by volunteer admins rather than some agenda, conspiracy or hypocracy etc

The question of what is in and out of bounds is a good one and is constantly under review - as you might expect. It is subjective - there will always be areas of disagreement. And if we were really interested in supressing expression we would delete this and all the associated threads - that's not what any of us are about.

Why it wasn't closed sooner? It was not considered an issue by all but it was by some - myself included. In general people felt it would run its course and drop off the radar. It didn't. So in the end it got closed. It was closed because it wasn't really about cycling and because it offended some.

I know this will not satisfy everyone I doubt that's achieveable with issues like this. We continue to be interested in people's views about what will enhance the forum and continue to try to strike a balance that works for everyone.


Terry

Terry,

I realize you have taken an unpopular decision... having said that, if the thread is inappropriate then you should delete it. Please don't dance around with philosophical nuances as it's tedious and irritating.

If it's not inappropriate, then move to the cafe and re-open it.

My opinion.

 

[red_flanders]

Terry,

I realize you have taken an unpopular decision... having said that, if the thread is inappropriate then you should delete it. Please don't dance around with philosophical nuances as it's tedious and irritating.

If it's not inappropriate, then move to the cafe and re-open it.

My opinion.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[usedtobefast]

I'll try to explain something, even though I don't expect you guys to be able to see through your self righteous rage right now.

So why do I have a problem with b.o.b. thread, even though I never open it? That's because it influence the way women in cycling are seen. You sit here on cyclingnews.com and confirm to each other that it is ok to view cycling women as objects who only exist for you to have something to **** over. Weather you are concious about it or not, that attitude will transfer into how you act towards women that you meet out on the road.

I don't want to judge over anyones fetisch, and there are probably many places on the internet where you can share it with others. I just don't think that a serious site like cyclingnews should support that view on women, and I am glad and relieved that they closed the thread.

so you did not look at the thread, yet you are glad it is closed? and fetish? please. it is more an homage to women and the bikes they ride, and yeah men like that. a lot of the images were not new. it's like the clinic, enter at your own risk. and much more friendly.

 

[krebs303]

Ok Wonderlance always wanted to be a moderator I say let Wonderlance make the final decision. closed is nowhere, either open it or delete it. get off the friggin' fence

 

[nowhereman]

I get the fact that there are all sorts of things on the forum and they are not all to do with cycling but most of them are. And most of them fall within the bounds of common interest, humour etc and generally offend no one. Things that do offend people generally (but not always) get removed. The not always is more about lack of bandwidth by volunteer admins rather than some agenda, conspiracy or hypocracy etc

The question of what is in and out of bounds is a good one and is constantly under review - as you might expect. It is subjective - there will always be areas of disagreement. And if we were really interested in supressing expression we would delete this and all the associated threads - that's not what any of us are about.

Why it wasn't closed sooner? It was not considered an issue by all but it was by some - myself included. In general people felt it would run its course and drop off the radar. It didn't. So in the end it got closed. It was closed because it wasn't really about cycling and because it offended some.

I know this will not satisfy everyone I doubt that's achieveable with issues like this. We continue to be interested in people's views about what will enhance the forum and continue to try to strike a balance that works for everyone.


Terry

So, let me see if I've understood what you just said..... Our conversation (that you suggested we undertake) is all well and good. But, BoB is staying locked whether most of us like it or not. Because you are trying your darndest to be the ultimate ambassadors of good taste and discretion, in the Universe. And your wisdom shall see that, that mission is accomplished, no matter how much chatter, by the rabble, and no matter what the imbeciles at the gates think.
Does that summarize your stance?
BTW since all this conversation is futile, I'm with ScottSoCal, just delete the Phukkink thread altogether.

 

[rhubroma]

You didn't open the thread. What other threads haven't you opened? We'll close them down too - let's start with the Cafe; it isn't cycling related.

Censorship...it's really bad news.

Indeed, really bad news. And I couldn't have cared less about the Babes on Bikes thread, just to be clear. I live in Italy and so all I have to do is take a walk out on the street to go gaga.

Real respect has nothing to do with taking away from guys their incurable boyishness, everything else is just a puritanical moralism born of a society which has transformed PC, so often hypocritical, into moral beating stick.

 

[nowhereman]

Indeed, really bad news. And I couldn't have cared less about the Babes on Bikes thread, just to be clear. I live in Italy and so all I have to do is take a walk out on the street to go gaga.

Real respect has nothing to do with taking away from guys their incurable boyishness, everything else is just a puritanical moralism born of a society which has transformed PC, so often hypocritical, into moral beating stick.

Sounds like you've interpreted the whole mess perfectly.
And I'm envious, I LOVE ITALY! riding, sipping espressos, making pasta, LOVE IT!!!

 

[Master50]

I enjoyed that thread and often checked it with my wife as she enjoyed the pictures too and no she is not Bi.
The problem here is someone gave 180 a big stick and now he wants to beat something with it. It is obvious from the number of visits and posts to that thread that it is popular and well accepted. Terry. You have ignored that completely just to exercise your superior moral judgement and frankly I hope you lose your moderators power soon.
See you in church along with your Taliban friends. After all we need to protect those women from seeking attention.

 

[Leopejo]

It was not considered an issue by all but it was by some - myself included. In general people felt it would run its course and drop off the radar. It didn't. So in the end it got closed. It was closed because it wasn't really about cycling and because it offended some.

"it wasn't really about cycling" - how so? Much more than some General Politics thread.
"it offended some" - for what reason, I wonder. Some thin skinned guys/gals here.

so you did not look at the thread, yet you are glad it is closed? and fetish? please. it is more an homage to women and the bikes they ride, and yeah men like that.

And most women, may I add. Female beauty, whether it's in the history of art or on fashion magazines, attracts regardless of gender. No need to see sex/fetish/arousal everywhere.

I live in Italy and so all I have to do is take a walk out on the street to go gaga.

I do live in Italy as well, but here I am more attracted by bicycles than by the local girls.

 

[Anonymous]

the other mods are incredibly notable by their abscence on this one

 

[Barrus]

the other mods are incredibly notable by their abscence on this one

That is quite a statement, especially considering at least 3 moderators have reacted in this thread. And if I am correct in remmebering it this way, the viewpoint of Susan is already common knowledge. The fact of the matter is however that we have very few moderators at the moment which are often online, especially at the moment

 

[hiero2]

That is quite a statement, especially considering at least 3 moderators have reacted in this thread. And if I am correct in remmebering it this way, the viewpoint of Susan is already common knowledge. The fact of the matter is however that we have very few moderators at the moment which are often online, especially at the moment

I checked, and you are correct. At least two other mods have responded in this thread besides Terry.

Ok - so this is the CN forum. It is not a democracy, nor is it obligated to respect any particular standards, other than those agreed upon by the mods. Fine, no problem, been there and done that (truthfully, as I have modded online groups, and played my leadership role in volunteer orgs in the past). The mods need to do what they think is right.

I disagree with the decision to close the BoB thread. The arguments have been well-stated throughout this thread. I heartily disagree with the opinion that the material here objectifies women for the readers here. {On the other hand, one of my soapboxes - usually left unattended, because I don't like arguments - is that most advertising and media DOES use idealized imagery which damagingly objectifies women. But this thread has been well-contained, and barely touches on idealized imagery. For that matter, I see MORE 'damagingly objectifying' material when I go to Yahoo news, where I can't escape the latest about any one of the current crop of body-modified, photoshopped stars, usually accompanied by mildly prurient photos}.

I strongly agree that this was a good-humored and fun thread that could lighten my day, when so many threads drone on in negativity.

I went back and looked at the last ten or so pages of postings. Approximately half were cheesecake, but the other half were REAL people, doing REAL bicycle things - racers, a reporter, a local getting some really cool air, etc. I love the photo in THIS thread of the woman in the burka.

I strongly agree that the thread should be reinstated.

We have REAL problems in this world - worrying about this one is over the top.

IMHO.

Cheers,
Hiero

 

[Anonymous]

That is quite a statement, especially considering at least 3 moderators have reacted in this thread. And if I am correct in remmebering it this way, the viewpoint of Susan is already common knowledge. The fact of the matter is however that we have very few moderators at the moment which are often online, especially at the moment

Sorry I only spotted you, didnt spot the other two (i dont count terry as obviously he will automatically be in here as the closer person)

 

[nowhereman]

Based on past experience, I think the issue will be allowed to meander along aimlessly for a long, long time. Partly because when a group has the kind of power that the Mods/Admin. have in this context, there is no need to rush into undoing an injustice( especially when they are the perpetrators of the injustice). It seems to me( and quite a few others amongst us) That to undo the lock would, in their minds, show a lack of solidarity amongst themselves. Nevermind the amount of forum users who contributed to, and/or viewed the thread with no problem. The only ones that seem to be important are those that complained, or feel uncomfortable with the mere existence of the boB thread.
So, as I've said, The Mods/Admin will let this issue drag on forever. Just like in the Bicycle racing world where controversies take forever to get resolved(ie: Valverde finally gets penalized for Operation Puerto in 2010, years after the discovery of the "Piti" bags!) What we have here, is in the same vein. They are better satisfied in a "controversial" world, an environment where there are "differences" that someone is needed to put their foot down, and stop certain undesirable goings on from happening. Thus their names: Moderators (although some of them don't seem to understand the meaning of the word: moderate) And Administrators, ideally, should be in place to back up their Mods with policy, and their overseeing, broader wisdom in regards to enforcing that policy.
Unfortunately, in this case, in this forum, the above party's have fallen far short of their supposed reasons for existence (whether my definitions are correct or not).And so, now that one Mod has finally(almost 900,000 viewers later! Isn't this a little like closing the barn doors AFTER all the animals have fled?) deemed a thread inappropriate, and locked it down. The issue will now, just fester, on and on. Because they have the power to do NOTHING, and they feed off of this input into the controversy. I have known this about these people, for a long time . Once, it made me angry. Now, I just see it for the pathetic model that it is. Now, it's simply amusing, because now everyone else is getting a taste of this undelectable dish. Bon Apetit!

 

[Susan Westemeyer]

And I am on vacation. Following the forum and all these activities, but nothing more.

As Barrus pointed out, my viewpoint on this subject is fairly well known anyway.

Now back to my vacation........

Susan

 

[Barrus]

Now what some people appear to have overlooked is the fact that there was a specific instance as to why the thread was banned. A certain .gif was posted and sexist remarks came about due to this .gif. It was this which was the cataclyst for the closing of the thread

 

[krebs303]

Now what some people appear to have overlooked is the fact that there was a specific instance as to why the thread was banned. A certain .gif was posted and sexist remarks came about due to this .gif. It was this which was the cataclyst for the closing of the thread

after already being posted at least 8 other times?

 

[Barrus]

after already being posted at least 8 other times?

I don't know exactly, I don't think I saw the .gif in question. Also it was probably similar to the final straw that broke the camel's back

 

[krebs303]

I don't know exactly, I don't think I saw the .gif in question. Also it was probably similar to the final straw that broke the camel's back

12/04/09 pg56 post#558