actually, i don't reply to 90% of your threads. in this one GMac even decided to make things generally safer by hiding ALL images and you "couldn't be wrong" so hard that you refused to see this as equal treatment and kept claiming you were being censored unfairly.

as for people going back over there because of me, that's their choice... a lot stay for the same reason. "fucking retarded" is getting your panties all in a bunch because people don't want you putting them at legal risk. you still don't get the whole concept of context. and "richard" from "phuket" is hardly posting your real identity. richard is what, the 7th most common male name in the english language? way to set yourself out there buddy.

again, i don't really find them "offensive" as your persecution syndrome seems to make you think anyone not agreeing with your stance here does. i find them inappropriate for the context of this site, and their presence here a real and tangible legal risk BECAUSE of that context. Just like with the whole posting them, innocent as they are, on kiddie porn sites they will without a single bit of doubt be classed as kiddy porn in your arrest... posting them here, with Cambodia's sketchy reputation on the subject, makes it a very clear and real risk of the same happening. And we'd rather not have our site labeled as such. Admittedly I didn't see your pictures... you'd had your temper tantrum foot stomping and taken them down for them being put in spoilers (on a site where we do that with ANY nudity outside the restricted sections) before the general had steered me to this thread for my input on how to handle it.

The fact you want to go ahead despite that gives some credence to Digg3rs post...

Also, 2 particular cases of me being wrong and admitting to it:
https://cambodiaexpatsonline.com/viewtop ... 305#p20305
https://cambodiaexpatsonline.com/viewtop ... 553#p23553

I make mistakes, and when I do I own them. But when I'm NOT wrong I won't bow and scrape and pretend I am just to satisfy your ego. Sorry it doesn't happen more often for you. Can you now admit that YOU were wrong on that? Didn't think so. Because as you like to throw at me, you never are.

phuketrichard wrote:I am the ONLY One that everyone knows my name and dont hide behind some silly user name, I stand by what i write an where i live , can u say the same.

No you're not. My parents named me Soi Dog. The bastards!!

Whoa, whoa ... whoa.

Richard I empathize that younger posters don't hold the same values and judgement as our generation,

but there is no need to burn bridges.

I read your link to huffington post where I read many pro/con comments. Quite balanced and radical in a way.

The big one was fear of Kink, that someone somewhere would wank to an innocent photo. I don't buy it but it could not happen if it was not on the internet. Perhaps a compromise would be to have those photos only available in a gallery. Commercially it sucks but that wider market is getting shut down.

The only credible concern, imho, was of consent by an underage kid. Consent by the parent is legal but maybe not fair.

I've been to weddings (years ago) where the brides nude baby picture was on display, much to their embarrassment.

The world is changing. You can't even buy a cool Chemistry set anymore. Nor glassware either.

OD, I hoped that your Tone of Moderation would be more conciliatory. Not, I'll (website) be sued or poorly judged in Web Land but instead, "Sorry, times have changed, people have changed and I don't need the headaches." Point it to Google and let them take the heat.

Something both you Yanks need to learn. Just be cool like we Canadians. (cold up here)

edit: to answer the OP's question, NO not pornography but unacceptable now in this climate of Control and Fear.

Like being labeled a Heretic during the Inquisition, not because of God but for Money and Politics and Control.

Milord wrote: The big one was fear of Kink, that someone somewhere would wank to an innocent photo. I don't buy it but it could not happen if it was not on the internet.

Been happening. Read the wiki on the artist and his book richard posted about on the first page... it goes into the one person who had a court case involving images from the book who had collected over 19,000 such images, all legally purchased "art". All purchased as hard copies from places like WH Smith, Tesco, Waterstones.... art and book sellers.

Here's a case of a guy bringing a bunch of those "not porn" type images into Canada in fact, all mixed in with his actual child porn. He had 2x as much of the "not porn" as he did of the porn. He'd been traveling around taking "innocent" pictures with these kids and their families:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/ ... n-1.777061

I would imagine it's fairly frequently the case with these guys, since it's much easier material to "acquire". Much in the way young boys (before the internet of things) used to get a kick out of the African editions of National Enquirer because it was "educational" and they could get access to it.

Milord wrote: OD, I hoped that your Tone of Moderation would be more conciliatory. Not, I'll (website) be sued or poorly judged in Web Land but instead, "Sorry, times have changed, people have changed and I don't need the headaches." Point it to Google and let them take the heat.

https://cambodiaexpatsonline.com/viewtop ... =40#p31378

I started out that way... then was accused of taking a "cop out" position, or just plain ignored as more images were posted.

OrangeDragon wrote:

Milord wrote:

Milord wrote: OD, I hoped that your Tone of Moderation would be more conciliatory. Not, I'll (website) be sued or poorly judged in Web Land but instead, "Sorry, times have changed, people have changed and I don't need the headaches." Point it to Google and let them take the heat.

https://cambodiaexpatsonline.com/viewtop ... =40#p31378

I started out that way... then was accused of taking a "cop out" position, or just plain ignored as more images were posted.

FYI
1 painting was posted ( in addition to my 3 innocent photos) and that was it, which gm placed in a spoiler
so nobody ignored anything

You did say u would have deleted them and GM was being lenient by only placing them in a spoiler

I pulled my photos hence reason u never even got to see them, so u ( or anyone) would have no reason to say i was stiring shit up.
also all the images i posted are in fact on MY website so if u want a link i can give it to you

I still do not feel i did anything to jeopardize your site, but do accept there are some sick fucks out there


We know ur right wing position, enough ok,
please make ur comment

The point I was trying to make was having a "wank" did not necessarily make it porn. Some people will wank to anything. Feet, shoes, clothing, whatever Kink you can name. So not a valid reason for banning.

But I thought, lack of Consent a more valid reason for banning.

I'm sure some Canadians are fucked up, but more likely our Border Control went Femen-nazi PC on them because of the Political Atmosphere. Our prime minister is worse than a Born Again Bush.

I've heard of ppl coming back from family holiday and being treated disrespectfully because they had family photos of their kids.

Sure is a weird world we live in.

I would not cross any Border now with anything but a plain vanila phone.

edit: p.s.: Glad you guys are chilled out now. Interesting topic, I had no idea it was such a big deal.
I still think it was a front to rationalize spying on people. Why collect phone conversations?

Milord wrote:The point I was trying to make was having a "wank" did not necessarily make it porn. Some people will wank to anything. Feet, shoes, clothing, whatever Kink you can name. So not a valid reason for banning.

But I thought, lack of Consent a more valid reason for banning.

The issues becomes that gray line between what was really taken with innocent intent (real family photos) and what was taken with devious intent (that canadian guy pretending to make family photos). No one can ever be sure of a another person's intent, but context really seems to be the key. And Cambodia/Thailand/etc all make for shitty context thanks to the likes of Gary Glitter and company who have given this whole region some international fame for child abuse.

The consent line is fuzzy as well. As in how far parental consent can reach.

This is all why making laws/rules/etc on subjects like this sucks so bad, and why it's super easy to sit on one side judging someone for the rules they make and calling them cop outs and right wingers. Because for every person doing that, there will be one sitting on the other side judging them opposite for making more lax rules. For the rule maker it comes down to which of those sideline judgmental jerks is more damaging...

Francis wrote:Ahhhh, let go man, and throw your American attitude over board. If all people were like you we would have to close and ransack all picture galleries and burn masterpieces of Duerer, Dupre, Van Gogh and Goya at the stake.

Francis, if you want to have a go at someone, try to not use their nationality against them or as a negative. You might piss off others. Thanks.

An American.

When I was a kid, I was at the beach with my family and there was a guy sitting in the dunes taking photos with a massive telephoto lens of young girls playing in the surf. Personality already firmly in place at that age, I marched right up to him and asked him what he was doing and why was he taking photos of little girls? Apparently getting told off by a seven year old girl was too much for him, and he quickly packed up and left the beach.

Don't know if this has been mentioned already, but Sally Mann is a famous photographer who has been widely criticized for taking (and publishing) photographs of her unclothed children. She was never charged with a crime, but many wanted her to be. It was an interesting controversy.

giblet wrote:Don't know if this has been mentioned already, but Sally Mann is a famous photographer who has been widely criticized for taking (and publishing) photographs of her unclothed children. She was never charged with a crime, but many wanted her to be. It was an interesting controversy.

Ah well, but then Sally is a woman.