Members, Log In. Not a member? Sign Up

Ultimate Rollercoaster > Discussion Forums > Roller Coasters, Parks & Attractions > For LONNOL

For LONNOL

PKI_Girl
Posted: 6/4/04 at 2:29:17 PM
Views: 2676

Kids read these forums, and I think its innappropriate that you continue to post that picture as part of your signature. If it was at least posted in a topic that was titled adult matter, it wouldnt be as big of a deal, but there is no way to avoid it as it is unexpected.

Just my opinion.
PKI Girl

Re: For LONNOL by Olov at 6/4/04 5:55:16 PM

Just wondering, what happens if a kid sees a nipple? Does their heads blows up or what?

Re: For LONNOL by MattD at 6/5/04 12:27:59 AM

Adam,

Next time make sure the coaster isn't a B&M so we can see everything. Those damn restraints block the good stuff!

-Matt

Re: Actually... by TheReverend at 6/5/04 2:59:55 AM

... getting away from the Mayberry theme...
I just wanted to say that...

well...

In some ways I should be thankful to Adam.

...because (this is kind of embarassing to admit - being that I'm 45 years old)

well...

(here goes)

Up until this recent post...

I had never seen a woman's breast before.

Don't get me wrong, I had a pretty good general idea
of what one might look like, but... well...

...being that I missed the superbowl halftime show this year (because of a late coaster-related Christmas gift giving exchange) I've been more than a bit dejected since February. I thought I had missed my chance.

Rest assured I didn't miss THIS opportunity - and I've taken full advantage. I've been staring at that picture for hours.

Adam...

Thank you

-The Rev

Opie's Favorite Giant Dipper Site

Re: For LONNOL by NitroChillerNJ at 6/5/04 4:13:12 AM

so I went looking to find this offensive picture that was in Adam's signature.

I find a 1.5 inch by 2 inch picture of a B&M train with obvious naked riders on it, but all you can really see are legs, since the harnesses and side walls cover everything else.

If anyone really sees something offensive in that picture, they need to stop looking at it through a magnifying glass.

THEME PARK COMPANION

Re: For LONNOL by Frissbeking at 6/5/04 8:54:52 AM

> Kids read these forums, and I think its
> innappropriate that you continue to post that
> picture as part of your signature. If it was at
> least posted in a topic that was titled adult
> matter, it wouldnt be as big of a deal, but there
> is no way to avoid it as it is unexpected.

> Just my opinion.
> PKI Girl

If you are offended by something in his posts, simply stop reading them. All complaining and whining about it does is cause future arguements and turmoil.

The site clearly says you must be ATLEAST 13 to read the forums. Anyone over 13 that has not seen a nipple, other than the Rev, I feel bad for.

It's only a big deal because you made it one.

Re: For LONNOL by Snoopy at 6/6/04 12:38:48 AM

> Kids read these forums, and I think its
> innappropriate that you continue to post that
> picture as part of your signature. If it was at
> least posted in a topic that was titled adult
> matter, it wouldnt be as big of a deal, but there
> is no way to avoid it as it is unexpected.

> Just my opinion.
> PKI Girl

I agree. I did not really want to have to post this, but it seems most of the people here are smoking crack or something. Kids do come here, and you only have to be 13 to register, not to read. People should be able to come to a coaster site and expect a clean atmosphere, and you should not assume your standards are the same as everyone’s. I know my parents would have had a problem with it when I was a kid, and I am sure others do too. I can't believe this is even an issue. No nudity in pics just seems like common sense.

Re: For LONNOL by chillforce chillforce Profile at 6/6/04 1:15:21 AM

Well, I have to agree with the poster to ignore the posts of Lonnol but then you loose the intelligence of someone deeply into history. Then again, Lonnol has probably not hit the Human Resources Seminars yet on Sexual Harrassment. Whatever the case, this picture he posts was in the newspapers in England, this was news and was free for everyone to see. He is just copying the newspapers. If we are that more repressed than the Limeys, we have a problem Houston, beam me out of here Scotty.

Ed

Re: Well... actually.... by TheReverend at 6/6/04 1:24:11 AM

...I had no idea that the people at arnr knew my life so well. Someone must've tipped 'em off to my real name.

I guess everyone knows now.

I hope everyone will forgive me for my former hateful
ways.

Also, I trust that... well...

...you won't tell my wife(?)

-The Reverend Howard Ferstler

Re: For LONNOL by Olov at 6/6/04 8:04:57 AM

I still don't get it, why is it so dangerous for kids to see a nipple.
Please enlighten a lost soul...

Re: For LONNOL by CoasterFanatic CoasterFanatic Profile at 6/6/04 11:50:09 AM

> I still don't get it, why is it so dangerous for
> kids to see a nipple.
> Please enlighten a lost soul...

I don't know, My first memory as a baby was seeing a nipple.

Chuck

Help save Lesourdsville Lake

Re: For LONNOL by Spyder Spyder Profile at 6/6/04 7:47:46 PM

I would have to agree with PKI Girl, if sex is just manifested everywhere (Like it is today) than doesn't it eventually lose its forbidden pleasureness?....I like boobs and all, but i don't need them rubbed in my face 24/7....Soon it would just lose its uniquness and become another "eh"....And i come to URC for coasters, i go to porno sites for porn.....no need to mix them up. And in PG-13 movies, boobs are a no no, only in R & up they're uncencored....This forum caters to people 13-16,(as well as the adults), the PG-13 crowd, so they shouldn't be allowed here either. and anyone any age can read it......

-DAN

Re: For LONNOL by Olov at 6/6/04 8:03:27 PM

But there's a difference between porn and nudism. The picture was from a park supported event at Thorpe Park. How was that porn?

Re: For LONNOL by MattD at 6/6/04 8:35:45 PM

> And in PG-13 movies, boobs are a no no,
> only in R & up they're uncencored....

I hate to break it to you, but they do show topless women in PG-13 movies. It may not be as gratuitous as in and R-rated film, but I've definately seen some nips in PG-13 flicks. Enlighten yourself at mrskin.com

I'm sure the people complaining about Adam's link have no problem when a woman whips out a tittie to breastfeed a baby. Now THAT is tasteless, IMHO.

-Matt D.

Oh Come on. by CoasterFanatic CoasterFanatic Profile at 6/6/04 11:58:14 PM

> Kids read these forums, and I think its
> innappropriate that you continue to post that
> picture as part of your signature. If it was at
> least posted in a topic that was titled adult
> matter, it wouldnt be as big of a deal, but there
> is no way to avoid it as it is unexpected.

> Just my opinion.
> PKI Girl

That pic was the on the pages of a newspaper.

In these days of Buffy mindlessly boffing on Public TV that is very minor.

Help save Lesourdsville Lake

Re: For LONNOL by Snoopy at 6/7/04 12:06:20 AM

Yeah, there are PG-13 and PG movies with nudity, but I really don't think that matters. Some kids are not allowed to watch them...and why do we need that here? So what if it was in a newspaper. I doubt it would have made it in an American newspaper. Some countries let kids drink and have an age of consent of 12.

Re: For LONNOL by freakylick at 6/7/04 12:39:57 PM

> I still don't get it, why is it so dangerous for
> kids to see a nipple.
> Please enlighten a lost soul...

I agree...I mean kids should be able to see whatever they want. What's the big deal?!?! Who cares?!?!

If they see a nipple, it's no big deal.
If they see a butt, it's no big deal.
If they see a man's privates, it's no big deal.
If they see a man's and a woman's privates, it's no big deal.
If they see a man and womans privates touching, it's no big deal.
If they see...You get the picture...let 'em look at whatever they want. They are going to see it eventually, right! If I had kids, I would let them watch porn whenever they want.

Ya know...One of the reasons that I enjoy this hobby so much is that it is a good, clean way to have a great time.

I guess that just isn't the case anymore.

Re: For LONNOL by coaster1robert at 6/7/04 12:54:58 PM

I agree,looking at the female smurf licking papa smurf butt is a shock for kids to see!

http://coaster1robert.tripod.com

Re: For LONNOL by coaster1robert at 6/7/04 12:55:24 PM

I agree,looking at the female smurf licking papa smurf butt is a shock for kids to see!

coaster1robertgraphics

Re: well...(lol) anyone not truly interested - please don't read this by TheReverend at 6/7/04 4:44:54 PM

> I still don't get it, why is it so dangerous for
> kids to see a nipple.
> Please enlighten a lost soul...

lol -
Because of the liklihood of what people will decide to think about a "Reverend" anyway (on any topic) - I've tried to stay in the realm of humor about being one (a Rev) with this coaster hobby (i.e. "coaster riding Reverend" -which I still think is pretty funny/strange - and humor is all I've ever
intended by the usage of the screen name).

I realize there are likely numerous differences of opinion on a subject like this (most of which is determined by which "moral compass/standard" we're using)- if any at all.

I also realize many (if not most) on here aren't going to use the same "compass" I try to use (even though I admittedly fail to stay on my own defined "direction guide" from time to time - as some of you who know me personally could easily point out - lol).

Also ("geez Rev" - lol)- Even though I don't know Adam very well, I've always appreciated his contribution to this board and I've always respected his intelligence/humor/writing skills as well as his (obvious) knowledge of the subject(s). For myself - Humor aside (and being that my own kids don't come on this site) the picture Adam posted in his response to my post really wasn't an issue for me (nor am I in any way "miffed" at Adam - or really any one else - including "Dr. Allen" btw - lol). I actually laughed hysterically at the 2nd "picture" btw.

so GET to the lousy, pathetic, POINT Rev, just ANY DAY NOW

(lol - ok)

"Olov" (?) - even if just for the sake of your own protection for the future, you might want to know that
it is illegal (in the U.S. - and from my understanding of the law) to intentionally "exhibit" or "display" pornography to minor children, even if the material is not considered "obscene" for adults (see below site). You might also note what the legal definition of "pornography" is in the U.S. (also in the below site - which includes much elaboration on the subject).

http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/pornlegaldefinitions.htm

I want to be up front (again) with the fact that (being I'm not a minor) I don't see that Adam has done this (broken the law). Also, as I think about it, I broke the law just this morning when I didn't make a full stop at a stop sign while taking my son to school.

"BREAKIN-THE-LAW BREAKIN-THE-LAW!!!" bomp bomp
(J. Priest) -- (sorry)

Legal consequences (for breaking different laws) of course, are different. IE - Olov, if you're planning
(in the U.S.) to "display a nipple/breast" to a minor in relation to the above definitions (to incite arousal)you might want at least think twice about it -even for your own protection. In other words, it wouldn't be a good idea to download that picture and show it to a child (even any minor) who might be walking home from school in your neighborhood today (not that that's what you were thinking about doing - lol).

"But Mr. police officer... this has 'literary, scientific, and even artistic value!'" (lol - ok).

Also ("please stop, rev, PLEASE! - lol), I realize that some might "interpret" these laws (as written) differently. If someone on here has a legal background I'd be genuinely interested to know what
his/her perspective is on this and how it typically is or isn't enforced (even from the perspective of my being a parent). With movies, my understanding was that a child (under 13) couldn't (legally/going with the rules) get into a PG-13 movie without being accompanied by an adult/legal guardian. Granted, there may be some inconsistencies in these laws (like with other laws). Some on here (I'm certain) would also say "that's what's wrong with our country, we're too puritanical... etc" (there's that theme of the different compasses, obviously) - and (again) there are likely numerous ways these "laws" can be shown as being inconsistent (I'm thinking there are still laws in some places against spitting on the sidewalk...)

BREAKIN-THE-LAW BREAKIN-THE-LAW!!! BOMP BOMP!!!
(J.P again) - sorry

- yet even, if only, for people's protection (even from the consequences of the law) I think this is worth noting.

Olov, as for the impact on kids themselves, you might want to read this bite - the last couple of paragraphs
are what I'm talking about... not that this particular picture on URC qualifies as much of what is addressed.
http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm

Also (way below) is (much longer) bite about some overall issues related to the topic. Once again, for clarity, I'm not trying to equate these "mountainous" themes in the posted sites with the "molehill" molehill posting by Adam. What I'm addressing is the issue that Olov brings up of the danger to kids - and some studies on even the "progression" of these matters. Maybe this will help even just one or two think discerningly in relation to kids (even his/her own).

I'm certain there are numerous other studies that could be shown (and I'd be willing to read them - even for my own personal usage - and would be willing to reconsider any positions I hold - particularly as it relates to objective cause/effect studies).

I've "worked/ministered" (whatever word one wishes to use)to numerous porn "addicts" (by their own wording - not mine) / and even "ex-cons" who were convicted as "pedophiles" (etc) and I'm always interested in reading studies on this.

Anyway - enough for now (probably too much - lol)

I've really run the risk (I know) of alienating myself from friends on here, but hopefully the friendships will continue. My friendships with people on here (and other sites) mean a lot to me. I also run the risk of being directly featured on arnr's ridicule list (but that would actually be a great privilege because I find the site to be quite hilarious - lol).

If the subjects on these posted sites are going to make anyone truly angry and you're not genuinely interested in the topic - maybe not reading them is the best plan... it seems like Olov, at least, is genuinely interested in the topic.

Also... ("again... AGAIN...HELP us REV - for the LOVE of PETE STOP!" - lol)

... rest assured, I'm not mad at anyone... least of all Adam (or "Olov", whoever you are)

-The Rev

http://www.enough.org/justharmlessfun.pdf

Re: For LONNOL by LONNOL at 6/10/04 3:13:10 PM

Dear Lord, I go out of town for a few days and turn the world upside down. It is early & I am tired, so I will keep this short- I don't care. The site is for people over 13 only, Eric apparently doesn't mind that it is on the board and lastly it is only breasts, not an orgy on a loading platform. As Olov noted, it is not a big deal. So, I'll probably continue to post it, but feel free to continue to complain.

Adam

PS: Enjoy the photo. User Submitted Picture

Re: Oh Come on. by freakylick at 6/10/04 6:55:09 PM

> That pic was the on the pages of a newspaper.

Hold on a sec...I need to get out my files...Let's see, that goes right next to:

"It's true...I read it on the internet"

Sean

Re: For LONNOL by Corkscrew_Foley Corkscrew_Foley Profile at 6/10/04 8:19:35 PM

I have seen these pics and find nothing wrong, in fact this is a bloody miracle! Anyone who knows the English (and loves them like moi) will know that for them to get naked is unheard of, and maybe break the myths that the English DO get naked. Hell, if you ever bump their arm on the street, that's considered sex. lol!

In all honesty, if Adam would have put up pics of naked blokes, all the guys would be complaining about it, while the girls would defend it.
This is still a clean, atmosphere site, but it's not the showing of boobies that would worry me if i had kids going here, it would have to them over exposed to all of our bizarre antics and humor.

C-Screw.

Anton Schwarzkopf

Re: For LONNOL by Graeme Graeme Profile at 6/10/04 8:39:36 PM

> I have seen these pics and find nothing wrong, in
> fact this is a bloody miracle! Anyone who knows
> the English (and loves them like moi) will know
> that for them to get naked is unheard of,

Only because it's normally too bloomin' cold! In any heatwave (three days per year when it's over 20F), there are loads of young girls (18+ of course) who go to the beaches and parade about topless to get into the papers! The Sun dutifully shows this the day after, picturing the beaches where the best totty were!

The French are even 'worse'! When I was over there recently, all the postcards at family resorts are of totally naked women! Now, I'm not suggesting America stoops to French standards (as if I'd dare!), but I loved all this when I was young! Seeing Page 3 was a daily treat when I was about 10.

I honestly don't understand how you can have the most terrible violence (which does harm) in PG and PG-13 films, but not nudity. :(

As long as it's not perverted, it's only the human body, which one has been familar with since they were born. It's not like there's a time when you're older, you have to learn what it's like and it's suddenly a terrible shock...

> and
> maybe break the myths that the English DO get
> naked. Hell, if you ever bump their arm on the
> street, that's considered sex. lol!

Oh man, in that case I had 'sex' with some big, burly bloke the other day who spilled my pint!

Re: For LONNOL by PKI_Girl at 6/10/04 8:50:14 PM

It is not any of your decision to determine what children look at, and at what age. Just because you think that it is acceptable, does not mean that their parents agree with you, and you should be respectful of that.

Again, I didnt say not to post it, I merely suggested that you title your post appropriately.

And, incidentally, its obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is probably the closest you've ever come to a naked woman, LONNOL. Sorry to stoop to a comment of that nature, but you need a reality check.

PKI Girl---who is surprised by the fact that you all ponder why women dont hang out with you.

Re: For LONNOL by LONNOL at 6/10/04 9:47:27 PM

Is it really necessary to bring personal insults into this? I could say you pull more train than Amtrak, have more camel toe than Saudi Arabia or can suck a golf ball through a garden hose, but obviously none of those would be mature or appropriate to post on a public forum. There really is no need to stoop to that level.

Adam

Re: For LONNOL by PKI_Girl at 6/10/04 9:50:02 PM

You're going to address and explain maturity?

I am actually interested in hearing this...

Re: For LONNOL by LONNOL at 6/10/04 9:53:58 PM

> You're going to address and explain maturity?
> I am actually interested in hearing this...

I'd be happy to. Webster's defines it as:

"ma·tur·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-tyr-t, -tr-, -chr-) n. pl. ma·tur·i·ties

The state or quality of being fully grown or developed.
The state or quality of being mature.

The time at which a note or bond is due.
The state of a note or bond being due.
Geology. A stage in the development of streams or landscapes at which maximum development has been reached or at which the process of erosion is going on with maximum vigor. Maturity of a landscape continues throughout the period of maximum topographic differentiation or until about three fourths of the original mass is carried away by erosion."

If you need me to address anything else I would be happy to.

Adam

Re: For LONNOL by ray_p ray_p Profile at 6/10/04 9:58:16 PM

> PKI Girl---who is surprised by the fact that you
> all
ponder why women dont hang out with you.

I have to say PKIGirl that your generalized statement there isn't entirely accurate. I know for a fact that not "all" of the guys here are pondering why women won't "hang out" with them. Many (if not most) are married or have a significant other. I'll step to the plate and say that I have a girlfriend of 3 years, I do not live in my parent's basement (I- surprisingly- have my own place), I have a very good paying job, and I have several female friends who enjoy "hanging out" with me. Guess that rules me out of the "all" category.

Sorry, but when you make a statement like that, I can't sit back quietly and take it.

ray p.

Re: For LONNOL by TrickTrack TrickTrack Profile at 6/10/04 10:07:46 PM

I'll step to
> the plate and say that I have a girlfriend of 3
> years,

Ay carramba! I think that opens a new door to the discussion. :)

Re: For LONNOL by TheReverend at 6/10/04 11:07:18 PM

> PKI Girl---who is surprised by the fact that
> you
> all
ponder why women dont hang out with you.

> I have to say PKIGirl that your generalized
> statement there isn't entirely accurate. I know
> for a fact that not "all" of the guys
> here are pondering why women won't "hang
> out" with them.

I'm sorry to say that - well... even though I try not to ponder it... that... most women wouldn't even dare to "think" of "hanging out" with me.

> I do not live in my parent's basement (I-
> surprisingly- have my own place)

I wish I could say the same. I will go on record, though, to say that on occasion...

...my mom lets me out.

-The Rev

Re: For LONNOL by PKI_Girl at 6/10/04 11:16:20 PM

I have no problem with some of you attacking what I have to say. Your defensive responses actually exemplify some of the secondary points that I have made. Unfortunately, it shifts the topic away from my original pt. of this being a site that young children who dont pay attention to "must be 13 years" rules, etc, visit, and its respectful to post that crap in an appropriately labelled topic.

To those of you who are married, obviously I'm not referring to you. I don't know how many times I've seen posts on these boards about how there are no women, and its no wonder why. Moreoever, the only other female I've seen on this board is Mommabeast.

I went through two degrees in engineering surrounded by geeks with self esteem issues, so I know one when I see one. And Adam falls right into that category. Grow up.

Re: For LONNOL by TheReverend at 6/10/04 11:17:12 PM

> This is still a clean, atmosphere site, but it's
> not the showing of boobies that would worry me if
> i had kids going here, it would have to them over
> exposed to all of our bizarre antics and humor.

well... I wasn't offended before, but now I am...
It sees to ME that you're insinuating that people like ME are causing all kinds of...

well...

...ok there was the time that...

...but... I didn't mean to...

...and it seemed like things turned out ok...

...except for...

nevermind - just forget it

-The Rev

Re: For LONNOL by LONNOL at 6/10/04 11:22:41 PM

> Unfortunately, it shifts the topic
> away from my original pt. of this being a site
> that young children who dont pay attention to
> "must be 13 years" rules, etc, visit,
> and its respectful to post that crap in an
> appropriately labelled topic.

I saw it, understood it and said simply- I don't care. Personally I refuse to act in loco parentus for all the kids surfing the net, seeing what they aren't allowed to by law. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Adam

Re: For LONNOL by CoasterFanatic CoasterFanatic Profile at 6/11/04 1:02:06 AM

> It is not any of your decision to determine what
> children look at, and at what age. Just because
> you think that it is acceptable, does not mean
> that their parents agree with you, and you should
> be respectful of that.

> Again, I didnt say not to post it, I merely
> suggested that you title your post appropriately.

> And, incidentally, its obvious to anyone with
> half a brain that this is probably the closest
> you've ever come to a naked woman, LONNOL. Sorry
> to stoop to a comment of that nature, but you
> need a reality check.

> PKI Girl---who is surprised by the fact that you
> all ponder why women dont hang out with you.

Actually they pay me for my services :)

Your one of few that see anything sexually explicid about that pic. True it may not be for all eyes to see but what do you do, Lock your kids in a closet or teach them how to handle life?

Put it this way, We in america are so uptight that if you went to some areas of the world you would be shocked by normal every day activities that nobody there takes offense too.

You have to be 13 to visit here and I guarantee almost all thirteen year olds minds are on nothing but the subject matter.

Chuck

Help save Lesourdsville Lake

Re: For LONNOL by CoasterFanatic CoasterFanatic Profile at 6/11/04 1:08:17 AM

> I have no problem with some of you attacking what
> I have to say. Your defensive responses actually
> exemplify some of the secondary points that I
> have made. Unfortunately, it shifts the topic
> away from my original pt. of this being a site
> that young children who dont pay attention to
> "must be 13 years" rules, etc, visit,
> and its respectful to post that crap in an
> appropriately labelled topic.

Crap? Your the one who attacked, I thought the pic was rather tasteful.

> To those of you who are married, obviously I'm
> not referring to you. I don't know how many times
> I've seen posts on these boards about how there
> are no women, and its no wonder why. Moreoever,
> the only other female I've seen on this board is
> Mommabeast.

There are lots of women readers, Matter of fact There is a group of coaster divas that hang with many of us. All respectable family people too.

> I went through two degrees in engineering
> surrounded by geeks with self esteem issues, so I
> know one when I see one. And Adam falls right
> into that category. Grow up.

Adam probably has more class in his pinky than you will ever have.

Stop while your ahead, You can't win.

Help save Lesourdsville Lake

Re: For LONNOL by CoasterFanatic CoasterFanatic Profile at 6/11/04 1:10:04 AM

> PKI Girl---who is surprised by the fact that
> you
> all
ponder why women dont hang out with you.

> I have to say PKIGirl that your generalized
> statement there isn't entirely accurate. I know
> for a fact that not "all" of the guys
> here are pondering why women won't "hang
> out" with them.

> I'm sorry to say that - well... even though I try
> not to ponder it... that... most women wouldn't
> even dare to "think" of "hanging
> out" with me.

> I do not live in my parent's basement (I-
> surprisingly- have my own place)

> I wish I could say the same. I will go on record,
> though, to say that on occasion...

> ...my mom lets me out.

> -The Rev
>

I'll hang with Al's mom anyday :)
Chuck, who thinks shes a dish :)

Help save Lesourdsville Lake

Re: For LONNOL by loriu loriu Profile at 6/11/04 6:41:39 PM

> There are lots of women readers, Matter of fact
> There is a group of coaster divas that hang with
> many of us. All respectable family people too.

Thanks Chuck. I happen to be one of those women/divas and a mother, and I have no problem with the picture Adam posted. That picture has been all over the internet so kids could've seen it in many places besides here, not to mention seeing such pictures in school text books.

You know it's funny, but when I first saw the picture (on another site), the first thing I noticed was the fact they covered the seats before letting their naked bodies sit in them, lol.

Re: For LONNOL by Coasterwench at 6/11/04 7:26:14 PM

lol.

LOL Lori, we think alot alike then because when I first saw that picture The seat covers were the first thing I happened to notice as well. Right now my kids are to young to even care (I have control over what they see on the internet anyway!) about this website let alone that picture.

I have to agree that since Eric's sign up requires you being 13 or older, there is no reason to throw a fit over the picture since alot of kids over 13 have access to much worse then that without looking to much harder for it. I know when my boys turn 13 It will be a blessing if all I have to worry about is something as harmless as them seeing some boobs on the internet. :-/

Diana <~~ Another of those so called Divas ;-)

Re: For LONNOL by CoasterFanatic CoasterFanatic Profile at 6/11/04 8:06:29 PM

> lol.

> LOL Lori, we think alot alike then because when I
> first saw that picture The seat covers were the
> first thing I happened to notice as well. Right
> now my kids are to young to even care (I have
> control over what they see on the internet
> anyway!) about this website let alone that
> picture.

> I have to agree that since Eric's sign up
> requires you being 13 or older, there is no
> reason to throw a fit over the picture since alot
> of kids over 13 have access to much worse then
> that without looking to much harder for it. I
> know when my boys turn 13 It will be a blessing
> if all I have to worry about is something as
> harmless as them seeing some boobs on the
> internet. :-/

> Diana

By God by thirteen I had already raided my fathers National Geographic collection.

There is nothing sexual about the pic other than Naked Riders, Same as National Geographic showing people in thier natural habitat.

Thanks Diva's See you in a week when I get back from vacation. KISS!

Chuck

Help save Lesourdsville Lake

Re: For LONNOL by freakylick at 6/11/04 8:37:55 PM

PKI_Girl…Let me start by saying that I truly appreciate your efforts. But let me give you some advice (whether you choose to take the advice is entirely up to you). Continuing this discussion with them is futile. As evidenced by the fact that they claim that they just don’t care. They don’t care what you have to say. They don’t care about the effect that there actions have on others unless it personally gratifies them. They use childish arguments like: “But Billy does it, so it must be okay” and “I don’t care” and “If they can see it elsewhere, let them see everywhere” and my favorite “But you have to be at least 13 to sign up” (What does an age limit for sign-up have to do with who views the pictures?!?!). They claim to have maturity and class. But when people say that it offends them, the response is…You don’t like it, well then I am going to keep doing it.

Just leave it go. You will not change them, but rather make them defensive which in turn subconsciously strengthens their “beliefs”. Also, history has shown me that insulting someone in an argument never helps and almost always makes the situation worse.

To the parents out there that monitors their child’s internet usage…Thank you. But keep in mind (if you don’t already) that just because you are responsible doesn’t mean that other parents are. Exercise a little more care for those children whose parents don’t.

Sean
-who finds it peculiar that the folks that think posting the picture is okay are using terms of divinity-

Re: For LONNOL by NitroChillerNJ at 6/11/04 9:19:51 PM

It's 2004. Halfway to 2005.

Technology is beyond frightening. Wars are killing people. The environment is fragile. Violence and man's inhumanity to man have gotten to sickening levels.

And yet.....people are worried about what I see as a rather wholesome, squeaky clean photograph of some bare boobies.

THEME PARK COMPANION

Re: For LONNOL by the_winged_beast the_winged_beast Profile at 6/11/04 10:25:12 PM

> PS: Enjoy the photo.

The spooky thing for me is I know the girl in the far left seat!

I first met her back in school, then she turned up at the same college as me and currently she’s turned up at the same university as me, now she’s riding butt naked on my favourite seat on one of my favourite coasters . . . I can’t help thinking she wants me to notice her?

p.s. no i'm not giving anybody her number ;)

http://www.urbanmonsters.com

Re: For LONNOL by WildOne at 6/12/04 4:36:44 AM

I think the photo isn't anywhere near porno (not that I'm all that familiar with porn anyway), but I also agree with PKI Girl that it probably shouldn't have been posted. I don't have a problem with the picture, but like she said, there are kids that read on here. I also agree with other people who pointed out that it isn't Lonnol's job to police what other people's children see on the internet. It seems like a lot of people use the net as a babysitter and then get upset when their kids bump into something questionable. I guess to sum up: I don't really have a problem with the picture and I don't really think it was "wrong" to post it, but it might not have been the best judgement. That should clear up the issue (not!).

Aaron

P.S. That chick in the middle has a cute face.

I'LL SURE MISS THIS WEBSITE--NOT!

Re: For LONNOL by CP_Fan_in_Texas CP_Fan_in_Texas Profile at 6/12/04 4:56:16 AM

> lol.

> LOL Lori, we think alot alike then because when I
> first saw that picture The seat covers were the
> first thing I happened to notice as well.

Notice that none of us guys say thats the first thing we noticed? I had to go back and look at the picture to see the coverings on the seats, lol.

To add my 2 cents on this. Its just a fun picture. Nothing obsene, nothing perverse, just a few breasts. Kids see almost as much when some girls get off the waterslides and rapids rides at parks these days.

-Gary

My Coaster Photos

Re: For LONNOL by chillforce chillforce Profile at 6/12/04 7:22:11 AM

> I have no problem with some of you attacking what
> I have to say. Your defensive responses actually
> exemplify some of the secondary points that I
> have made. Unfortunately, it shifts the topic
> away from my original pt. of this being a site
> that young children who dont pay attention to
> "must be 13 years" rules, etc, visit,
> and its respectful to post that crap in an
> appropriately labelled topic.

> To those of you who are married, obviously I'm
> not referring to you. I don't know how many times
> I've seen posts on these boards about how there
> are no women, and its no wonder why. Moreoever,
> the only other female I've seen on this board is
> Mommabeast.

> I went through two degrees in engineering
> surrounded by geeks with self esteem issues, so I
> know one when I see one. And Adam falls right
> into that category. Grow up.

I grew up, with only 1 degree, but it was fine since it was a BA meaning the arts were included. Please do notgo to a meuseum, or to Europe or Asia as they respect the human body rather than take offense to it. The site of nudity is not pornographic material, it is as natural as nature itself. We were created as a society of people that were inherently afraid of the human body and we continue to adhere to this premise more than 300 years after the Puritans started coming to North America. Strangly, they sought refuge from the religions of Britain, and now we are still trying to seek refuge from the puritanical holdings they have instilled on the minds of the North American soul.

So please, either make a complaint against your local meuseum for showing the masters, please send a letter to the Vatican to have the Statue of David destroyed, or grow up yourself to look at the human body not as porno, but as of art that only the Creator can make.

Ed

Re: For LONNOL by TheReverend at 6/12/04 1:17:00 PM

> The site of nudity is not
> pornographic material, it is as natural as nature
> itself.

Ed, you know I love you, and...

I agree with this of course and actually have ALL you guys to thank for pulling me out of my own (personal) repressed/puritanical ways. Just the other day at my family's local video store (with my 9 yr. old son) -
I walked by rows and rows of every 3rd video being entitled something like "Psycho Sex-Fiend Vixons from Space" and I was thinking to myself...

..."When are we, as a nation, ever going to get away from being so puritanical?"

It's been a long climb out of my mom's basement but I'm slowly starting to get out... I might even get a bus ticket out of Mayberry someday.

I'm actually, now (believe it or not), progressively WANTING to see more nude (natural) pictures posted
on URC along with trip reports (etc). However, I kind've have a special request...

Some of you guys are married, and... (well, I can't speak for everyone) but... I was wondering if you guys would go ahead and post for me some nude pictures of your wives.

I, for one, would appreciate being able to see them
in their natural (intended) way, aside from any puritanical trappings. This isn't a sexual thing -
think of it as... well... art.

If you're not married, then some nude pictures of your steady girlfriends, or even your sister(s) will suffice.

For that matter, if you're younger (and your mom's about my age) I wouldn't mind seeing some nude pictures of your mom also (if she's a hottie - oops... I mean, an "arty").

Being that some of you are about my age (or a little older - I have a 15 yr. old daughter), I want to ESPECIALLY encourage you to post some nude pictures of your daughters (There's something about that YOUNGER flesh that especially gets my "artistic" juices pumpin')

My goal, of course, is to download the pictures and put them together in a kind of "booklet" to keep with me (being that I'm certain many of my bowling buddies will want to see them also - they've always been such true art connoisseurs). They already told me they'd PAY to get into a "gallery" for a chance to leer at the women you're closest to.

For that matter, I highly recommend that you send me VIDEO footage of all of the above. Film is probably my favorite art form of all... and nude footage of your wives, girlfriend(s), sister(s), and mom(s) will work nicely into what I have in mind.

Tell them not to be afraid of this...it's only nudity. Tell them I'm trying to get over my puritanical ways, my fear of the naked body...and that they can, well... help me.

I'm looking forward to the natural, free, de-purified, non-repressive, "re-nude" URC

-The Rev

The Lords of the New Church

Re: For LONNOL by CP_Fan_in_Texas CP_Fan_in_Texas Profile at 6/12/04 3:26:13 PM

> For that matter, if you're younger (and your
> mom's about my age) I wouldn't mind seeing some
> nude pictures of your mom also (if she's a hottie
> - oops... I mean, an "arty").

Interesting point....

Here's another question.

If the women in that photo were not considered "attractive" would anyone be defending it, or even posting it?

Please answer honestly.

My Coaster Photos

Re: For LONNOL by d_n_s_u at 6/12/04 3:53:16 PM

"I agree. I did not really want to have to post this, but it seems most of the people here are smoking crack or something. Kids do come here, and you only have to be 13 to register, not to read. People should be able to come to a coaster site and expect a clean atmosphere..."

...Even if posts do refer to the smoking of Crack cocaine...

All those BPB rides

Re: For LONNOL by Snoopy at 6/12/04 6:40:28 PM

> Kids do come
> here, and you only have to be 13 to register, not
> to read.

Yeah, I think I mentioned that a while back. It is pretty obvious that there are several members here that have no class. Maybe I should just start posting tons of nudity till there is a rule about it. Apparently there are some people who need rules to tell them what to do. They cannot function without them.

Re: For LONNOL by CortexBomb CortexBomb Profile at 6/12/04 7:09:04 PM

> Yeah, I think I mentioned that a while back. It
> is pretty obvious that there are several members
> here that have no class. Maybe I should just
> start posting tons of nudity till there is a rule
> about it. Apparently there are some people who
> need rules to tell them what to do. They cannot
> function without them.

And you have room to talk concerning obedience to rules / decrees how exactly?

Michael W.

Dippin' Dots: The Only "Ice Cream" with the URC Seal of Approval!

Re: For LONNOL by TheReverend at 6/12/04 11:53:06 PM

> I think the photo isn't anywhere near porno

Whether this picture is, or isn't - just for my own frame of reference... what would be considered pornography - or even "near" pornography?

If someone posted a picture from Playboy (w/ either full or partial nudity - topless - etc) - would that be considered pornography?

(I realize that in many minds "pornography" isn't inherently "wrong" - but I'm thinking down the lines of what qualifies ... a picture etc... as such)

It seems as if what we're saying is that nudity isn't pornography. Ok - clear enough. I guess then, what I'm asking is - at what point does nudity become pornography?

Being that I took a shower this morning (yes - in the nude - lol) obviously I don't consider nudity to be pornography. However, if someone (let's say) took a picture of me taking a shower - and then printed/ posted it etc. with the intent to "arouse"...

(...and all the women laughed vehemently until they passed out from exhaustion...)

...then would it become - or be "near" becoming pornography?

The only working definition I've read is on one of the sites I posted which describes it as "encompassing all sexually oriented material intended primarily to arouse the reader, viewer, or listener" (Webster's Dictionary; Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 18n.2 1973)

My understanding is that it goes on to say - it is not "mere nudity" that (for reasonable people)
has "artistic, scientific, historical (etc) value"

I guess what we're saying, then, is that either this picture has "artistic, scientific, historical (didactic) value"

... or that the "intent" isn't to arouse.

If it has one of the former "values" - then which one does it have?

If the "intent" isn't to arouse (meaning the intent of the young ladies or of the photographer) then... what...
...is the intent?

I guess another option, is that what we're saying is about 80-90% of the people on this board don't agree with our nation's legal definition (ok)

Maybe (in all fairness) what we're saying is that the issue of "arousal" is different for different people
- which is why our definitions vary.

I guess it could be a riddle: "How many topless women does it take to arouse the average male homosaphien?" - lol

The study I've personally done on this seems clear enough that the degree of "arousal" (in response to subject matter) is determined by the degree(s) to which an individual has already been exposed.

http://www.thefight.net/site/thefight/section.php?id=5562

Hence, I guess, what one person might deem to be "soft-core" another would call "hard-core" - and what one would deem as "just nudity" someone else might call "pornography"

oh well.. just thinking out loud. Maybe just one perspective from Mayberry brings some balance to discussion. I really don't mean any ill-will toward anyone.

You guys can e-mail each other and make fun of me now
(lol)

-The Rev

Re: For LONNOL by Snoopy at 6/14/04 8:46:59 AM

> Yeah, I think I mentioned that a while back. It
> is pretty obvious that there are several members
> here that have no class. Maybe I should just
> start posting tons of nudity till there is a rule
> about it. Apparently there are some people who
> need rules to tell them what to do. They cannot
> function without them.

> And you have room to talk concerning obedience to
> rules / decrees how exactly?

> Michael W.

Good point Michael. Nudity it is then.
User Submitted Picture

Re: DEAR ARnR - "Site of the Week?" by TheReverend at 6/19/04 10:31:21 PM

I must say... I'm truly disappointed.

In fact, I'm appalled.

"Site of the Week?"

... I can't believe it.

Here I pour my self... my life... into this thread and all I get is a "group" lumping-thumping entitled "site of the week"?

I'm spilling more puritanical blood than anyone over this and I just think I deserve more.

It's, quite frankly, an insult.

Let's face the facts:

1 - I'm an extremely insecure coaster-geek loser
2 - I live with my mother
3 - I'm a reverend
4 - I post puritanical rantings... incessantly

Shouldn't I be in the running for some kind of an ARnR "lifetime achievement" award?

I defy you to show me someone more deserving

In the very least, I'd hope to recieve a "poster of the month" nod.

-The Rev

The Site that Gyped me

Re: For LONNOL by Corkscrew_Foley Corkscrew_Foley Profile at 6/20/04 9:45:09 AM

Shouldn't I be in the running for some kind of an ARnR "lifetime achievement" award?

Keep at it, Rev. You're gonna make it after all.

Tim.

Anton Schwarzkopf