Quantcast

Subscribe to:
POZ magazine
E-newsletters
Join POZ: Facebook MySpace Twitter Pinterest
Tumblr Google+ Flickr MySpace
POZ Personals
Sign In / Join
Username:
Password:
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
August 01, 2014, 12:56:05 AM

Login with username, password and session length


Members
  • Total Members: 23101
  • Latest: whale.
Stats
  • Total Posts: 632601
  • Total Topics: 47916
  • Online Today: 263
  • Online Ever: 585
  • (January 07, 2014, 02:31:47 PM)
Users Online
Users: 5
Guests: 253
Total: 258

Welcome


Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and others concerned about HIV/AIDS.  Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning:  Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

  • The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own physician.

  • All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

  • Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

  • We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are true and correct to their knowledge.

  • Product advertisement—including links; banners; editorial content; and clinical trial, study or survey participation—is strictly prohibited by forums members unless permission has been secured from POZ.

To change forums navigation language settings, click here (members only), Register now

Para cambiar sus preferencias de los foros en español, haz clic aquí (sólo miembros), Regístrate ahora

Finished Reading This? You can collapse this or any other box on this page by clicking the symbol in each box.

Author Topic: Troubled by the new edict.  (Read 10721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,109
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #50 on: September 12, 2011, 05:28:53 PM »
awww, no more drugs, dick and ass.   

Bridge, anyone?

Roflmao
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline Jody

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,818
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2011, 06:36:13 PM »
Part of the issue is that we have fun with sexuality in the context of the website itself.  And it's true that with that in play some folks might stay away.  Without it some others would perhaps stay away.  And yes, I'd be lying if I said that JRE (Ray's) pictures of the St. Pete Aidswalk including the young man with the Santa cap and the little red shorts wasn't a real turn on and VERY nice to look at.

Jody :)
"Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world".
 "Try to discover that you are the song that the morning brings."

Grateful Dead

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,361
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #52 on: September 12, 2011, 08:13:38 PM »
Tim,

Thank you for the clarification.  It was most helpful in understanding the background and the struggle you have been battling for us.  The clarity was much needed and gives me greater comfort.

I want to make clear that my earlier comments were not directed at you personally -- this one is though........  Thank you!

Hugs,
Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline anniebc

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,938
  • AM member since 2003
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2011, 09:44:51 PM »
I have been struggling with how to respond to Dachs post, I find it hard to express myelf in words, so I would like to thank Phil and Ann for doing it for me, and to thank Tim for his post, a  post that I'm sure was a difficult one to write


Also thanks Mark for this:


We can, and will, have frank and pointed discussions about sensitive issues because they come with the territory here. 

However, I am virtually certain the majority of us are familiar with human anatomy and don't need a refresher via photos or links  in the Off Topic forum.



Hugs to all who respect, admire and appreciation these forums.

Jan :-*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Never knock on deaths door..ring the bell and run..he really hates that.

Offline wolfter

  • Member
  • Posts: 4,395
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #54 on: September 12, 2011, 10:50:27 PM »
I have been struggling with how to respond to Dachs post, I find it hard to express myelf in words, so I would like to thank Phil and Ann for doing it for me, and to thank Tim for his post, a  post that I'm sure was a difficult one to write


Also thanks Mark for this:
Hugs to all who respect, admire and appreciation these forums.

Jan :-*

I too was still processing the situation and wasn't sure how to respond so I hadn't yet.  Your words speak my sentiments on the entire issue.

Thanks!
Wolfie
productivity breeds content

Offline next2u

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,761
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #55 on: September 12, 2011, 11:30:50 PM »
understood and will do. im not troubled by the new edict as i work in corporate america and deal with too many conflicting and diametrically positioned ethos. until im willing to pay more i can keep the dick/pussy/ass links at bay.

money and ad revenue matters. and to be honest ive clicked on more than one of the links out of curiosity. i also do not feel that a large part of what i contribute and what i have gained from this site will be compromised by less ass/dick/pussy shots. i'm sure that the filthy geniuses that make me chuckle can still get a smile out of me without the graphics :)~.

i'm guilty and i'll clean my act up. my language, not so much, but the dirty pics in the i love porn thread will cease. it is a simple and understandable request.

i do greatly appreciate the work and dedication from the poz/aidmeds team.

best,
d
midapr07 - seroconversion
sept07 - tested poz
oct07 cd4 1013; vl 13,900; cd4% 41
feb08 cd4  694;  vl 16,160; cd4% 50.1
may08 cd4 546; vl 91,480; cd4% 32
aug08 cd4 576; vl 48,190; cd4% 40.7
dec08 cd4 559; vl 63,020; cd4% 29.4
feb09 cd4 464; vl 11,000; cd4% 26
may09 cd4 544; vl 29,710; cd4% 27.2
oct09 cd4 ...; vl 23,350; cd4% 31.6
mar10 cd4 408; vl 59,050; cd4% 31.4
aug10 cd4 328; vl 80,000; cd4% 19.3 STARTED ATRIPLA
oct10 cd4 423; vl 410 ;); cd4% 30.2
jun11 cd4 439; vl <20 ;); cd4% 33.8 <-Undetectable!
mar12 cd4 695; vl ud; cd4% 38.6
jan13 cd4 738; vl ud; cd4% 36.8
aug13 cd4 930; vl ud; cd4% 44.3
jan14 cd4 813; vl ud; cd4% 42.8
may14 cd4 783; vl *; cd4%43.5

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,699
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #56 on: September 13, 2011, 12:06:14 AM »


  While I read this thread there was an advertisement of some guy sticking his sword in a cat's mouth.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,208
  • Ninja Please
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #57 on: September 13, 2011, 08:46:16 AM »
Heh. :)

So finally the other shoe has dropped.

Now y'all might understand what motivated Peter Staley to sell this concern to Poz/S+S back in 2005.

You can't run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.

You can't take the corporate shilling and still claim to be a community of activists.

Remember, this is a for profit organisation. It's not run to provide a service, but rather to provide an income to those what own it.

Taste the pain, bitches.

MtD

Offline Ann

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 28,140
  • It just is, OK?
    • Num is sum qui mentiar tibi?
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #58 on: September 13, 2011, 09:29:44 AM »

Remember, this is a for profit organisation. It's not run to provide a service, but rather to provide an income to those what own it.


That doesn't make a single bit of sense. Most companies are run to provide goods and/or services - for profit.

We all get support and information here, don't we? How is that not providing a service? Over-all it's a good quality site and you just don't get that for free.

And don't forget that many hiv positive individuals work for the company that provides the SERVICES on this site. People have to make money to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables - and this place provides jobs for some of our fellow pozzies.
Condoms are a girl's best friend

Condom and Lube Info  



"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,208
  • Ninja Please
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #59 on: September 13, 2011, 09:45:24 AM »
That doesn't make a single bit of sense. Most companies are run to provide goods and/or services - for profit.

We all get support and information here, don't we? How is that not providing a service? Over-all it's a good quality site and you just don't get that for free.

And don't forget that many hiv positive individuals work for the company that provides the SERVICES on this site. People have to make money to keep a roof over their heads and food on their tables - and this place provides jobs for some of our fellow pozzies.

Oy. For fuck's sake. ::)

S+S is a for profit company. It's ultimate aim is to return a profit for those what own it. As is the aim of any business. Now, presumably, it does that by running advertising along side it's content rich sites, including this forum.

That's all I meant.

As for the pissy rant about people having to keep a roof over their pointy heads, save your tiresome indignation for someone who gives a fuck.

MtD




Offline thunter34

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,305
  • His name is Carl.
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #60 on: September 13, 2011, 11:55:38 AM »
Oy. For fuck's sake. ::)

S+S is a for profit company. It's ultimate aim is to return a profit for those what own it. As is the aim of any business. Now, presumably, it does that by running advertising along side it's content rich sites, including this forum.

That's all I meant.

As for the pissy rant about people having to keep a roof over their pointy heads, save your tiresome indignation for someone who gives a fuck.

MtD






Right.  And I'm sure that most of these potential advertisers want to throw their money toward a site that has a more sanitized, family-friendly, feel good Susan G. Komen kind of vibe on it.  They want red ribbons.  They want Bono.  They want little doe eyed African children.  

They don't want a bunch of queens posting about Justin Bieber and butt sex.

The site costs money to run.  S+S wants to cover their costs and turn a penny, too.  The lion's share of folks populating these forums are - well....we ain't exactly rollin' in dough.  We need the site.  They don't.  The hat has to be held out.  The fact that Off Topic is every bit as important in the grand scheme of this support forum (as the section where we can actually interact as just regular people and not have to act like the whole of our existence is measured in blood draws and bowel movements) or that porn (and even the pictures) might actually be a very valid thread within that forum (hey...let's face it:  for a lot of us, after diagnosis porn and a good wank can become the primary - perhaps only - sexual outlet have left.  "I Love Porn"?  Damn skippy, I do.), is completely irrelevent.

The potential advertisers don't really get stuff like that, and they don't have to.  They hold the coins.

« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 11:57:20 AM by thunter34 »
AIDS isn't for sissies.

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,208
  • Ninja Please
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #61 on: September 13, 2011, 12:20:36 PM »

Right.  And I'm sure that most of these potential advertisers want to throw their money toward a site that has a more sanitized, family-friendly, feel good Susan G. Komen kind of vibe on it.  They want red ribbons.  They want Bono.  They want little doe eyed African children. 

They don't want a bunch of queens posting about Justin Bieber and butt sex.

The site costs money to run.  S+S wants to cover their costs and turn a penny, too.  The lion's share of folks populating these forums are - well....we ain't exactly rollin' in dough.  We need the site.  They don't.  The hat has to be held out.  The fact that Off Topic is every bit as important in the grand scheme of this support forum (as the section where we can actually interact as just regular people and not have to act like the whole of our existence is measured in blood draws and bowel movements) or that porn (and even the pictures) might actually be a very valid thread within that forum (hey...let's face it:  for a lot of us, after diagnosis porn and a good wank can become the primary - perhaps only - sexual outlet have left.  "I Love Porn"?  Damn skippy, I do.), is completely irrelevent.

The potential advertisers don't really get stuff like that, and they don't have to.  They hold the coins.



None of which I dispute Timberley. I just note the obvious. Money speaks for money, the devil for his own and all that.

All I'm saying is folks shouldn't be shocked that concern for the advertiser's ruble trumps their right to post links to Raw Desert Knights.

Also, fuck Off Topic. It's been a sewer trap ever since Staley introduced back in Aught-Five. Abolish it, sez I.

MtD

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #62 on: September 13, 2011, 12:40:52 PM »
Remember, this is a for profit organisation. It's not run to provide a service, but rather to provide an income to those what own it.

Taste the pain, bitches.

MtD

So what's the solution ? To get big corporates to divert some of their funds to us bitches on this site- in the name of Corporate Social Responsibility ?  Colour me queer ::)
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 12:55:19 PM by spacebarsux »
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline Matty the Damned

  • Member
  • Posts: 12,208
  • Ninja Please
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #63 on: September 13, 2011, 12:52:33 PM »
So what's the solution ? To get big corporates to divert some of their funds to this site in the name of Corporate Social Responsibility ?  ::)

Solution? I'm not offering a solution. Fuck, I don't think there's a problem.

I'm merely making a waspish observation about How Things Are.

Fuck-the-skull-of-Jesus, you queers need to lighten up.

MtD

Offline Miss Philicia

  • Member
  • Posts: 23,904
  • celebrity poster, faker & poser
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #64 on: September 13, 2011, 01:08:49 PM »
This is an outrage! It's Piss Christ 2.0!
"I’ve slept with enough men to know that I’m not gay"

Offline Theyer

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,490
  • Current ambition. Walk the Dog .
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #65 on: September 13, 2011, 01:50:10 PM »
This is an outrage! It's Piss Christ 2.0!
Erect the barricades then decorate them ✄✄!!!
"If we can find the money to kill people, we can find the money to help people ."  Tony Benn

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,109
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #66 on: September 13, 2011, 02:03:00 PM »
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline Andy Velez

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 24,414
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #67 on: September 13, 2011, 02:47:44 PM »
This thread has taken a turn south and all to no good purpose. Matty, you've had your say and thrown a few cursey grenades. Your position is duly noted. Personally I'll also say that repeated use of the f word seems to me to be lazy and a dead end form of expression. Your capacity to communicate with intelligence and wit is well known. You can do better than obscene flaming. 

If there is anymore to be said, let's not have this conversation degenerate any further from you or anyone else.

This maybe a schoolmarmish thing to say, but then again it seems to bear saying: it seems to me that Tim is reiterating that with freedom comes responsibility.

Otherwise things fall apart. Maybe they'll always fall apart anyway in this life, but we don't need to contribute to that (inevitable) happening.

Playing shoolmarm/cop is not a favorite role of mine, but I will do it if I have to.





« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 03:03:54 PM by Andy Velez »
Andy Velez

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,699
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #68 on: September 13, 2011, 03:20:48 PM »


  I wonder if the dance videos I use to post are still allowed....
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline OneTampa

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,104
  • "Butterflies are free."
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #69 on: September 13, 2011, 05:04:52 PM »


Willy,

I love the animated domagiggywhatchamacallit!  It's a mind teaser, at least for me.

Can I take a stab at it's context?

How about:

"This threaded discussion brings to mind an elephant jumping on a trampoline. Easy to imagine but difficult to do."

I'll now go the conference room and await my cognitive test results.    :D
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 05:07:23 PM by OneTampa »
"He is my oldest child. The shy and retiring one over there with the Haitian headdress serving pescaíto frito."

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,503
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #70 on: September 13, 2011, 05:21:16 PM »
How about:

"This threaded discussion brings to mind an elephant jumping on a trampoline. Easy to imagine but difficult to do."

Or:

"This thread discussion brings to mind an elephant jumping on a trampoline. Hard to imagine, but with enough effort, anything is possible."

Offline WillyWump

  • Member
  • Posts: 7,109
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #71 on: September 13, 2011, 06:20:01 PM »
Or:

"This thread discussion brings to mind an elephant jumping on a trampoline. Hard to imagine, but with enough effort, anything is possible."

I'm not sure about any meaning.... All I know is this thread desperately needed an "Elephant on a Trampoline" GIF
POZ since '08

Last Labs-
6/3/14 CD4- 736, UD 34%
6/25/13 CD4- 1036, UD,
2/4/13, CD4 - 489, UD, 28%

Current Meds: Prezista/Epzicom/ Norvir
.

Offline Inchlingblue

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,119
  • Chad Ochocinco PETA Ad
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #72 on: September 13, 2011, 09:01:16 PM »
This thread has taken a turn south and all to no good purpose. Matty, you've had your say and thrown a few cursey grenades. Your position is duly noted. Personally I'll also say that repeated use of the f word seems to me to be lazy and a dead end form of expression. Your capacity to communicate with intelligence and wit is well known. You can do better than obscene flaming.  

If there is anymore to be said, let's not have this conversation degenerate any further from you or anyone else.

This maybe a schoolmarmish thing to say, but then again it seems to bear saying: it seems to me that Tim is reiterating that with freedom comes responsibility.

Otherwise things fall apart. Maybe they'll always fall apart anyway in this life, but we don't need to contribute to that (inevitable) happening.

Playing shoolmarm/cop is not a favorite role of mine, but I will do it if I have to.


Andy, all due respect, I think part of the problem here is the vagueness of the "edict."

Is it the "F" word, the "N" word, porn sites, all of the above? Madonna post plastic surgery pictures? What is it that has these (potential) advertisers up in arms?

It's like walking on egg shells around here.

Just sayin'

PS: Miss P, what's Piss Christ? I'm too young to know.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2011, 09:17:36 PM by Inchlingblue »

Offline NycJoe

  • Member
  • Posts: 236
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #73 on: September 13, 2011, 09:46:19 PM »
Tim, Andy, Ann, Jan, etc,

This site rocks.  Most informative site on the net for HIV, a great way to network with others,  and learn from each others experiences.

What Tim is requesting is not rocket science nor is it too much to ask.  We all know what is and isn't appropriate.  We are all big boys and girls.  We can always pm each other or go to porn sites etc.  Every site has it's own purpose.  If you need a list of specific rules..lol, well I don't know what to say. 

Joe


Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,361
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #74 on: September 13, 2011, 09:53:00 PM »
Andy, all due respect, I think part of the problem here is the vagueness of the "edict."

Is it the "F" word, the "N" word, porn sites, all of the above? Madonna post plastic surgery pictures? What is it that has these (potential) advertisers up in arms?

It's like walking on egg shells around here.

Just sayin'

PS: Miss P, what's Piss Christ? I'm too young to know.

Go back and read Tim's post in this thread (#38) -- he clarifies his original post here.

Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline Since2005

  • Member
  • Posts: 419
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #75 on: September 14, 2011, 12:42:12 AM »
I am a very new member and I hope its okay to make comments, at least, some of you would get an idea about what newer members think about forums. I want to start by saying that the impact the forums community has on me is invaluable. I have been using this site little over a month only and it's been terrific. I could honestly say form my personal experiences that others have personally helped me tremendously and I am glad and lucky to have this support as a newbie. These kinds of supports are always needed and are very helpful for anyone.

I wanted to say after reading the thread, it seems like that conclusion and boundaries have been set and we (speaking for myself and the majority hopefully) agreed. I myself also counter played few things on my head to draw a line between the freedom of expressions and the concept of being able to be dealt with others who may or may not have the ability to control things about forum and eventually lose it all (I meant the off topic forum). What a relief! Everyone thanked moderators (Andy and Ann) and Tim (Sorry not sure about the title but fair enough to say who in charge to make decisions, one of which we were discussing earlier).

I, of course, do realize and agree as a new member and what have I learned form other threads in the forums and the contribution that moderators (Ann and Andy and others) have been making is huge. Tim, as everyone agreed on the comments that we read earlier on from the AIDSMED forum is doing a great job keep it running and everyone is happy under his supervision and support that we talked about.

I would also wanted thank all the LTS/members who have been contributing to the forums for years and years. The amount of time they have put in is also invaluable. I personally believe that we needed this thread very much. So, moderators and forum members are able to express their opinions. I know it was hard for Tim as he indicated that he was personally taken back but if we look at the result and the outcome turned out to be great. I am sorry, Tim, you felt that way but I am glad it happened as majority, if not everyone, would agree we have come to a conclusion, which was very much needed as it cleared the confusion, helped Tim to set up the guidelines and the communication is very much clearer. I am sure that's what you wanted at the end. So, I wanted to thank the person who started the thread, as we also needed someone like him sometimes to open up discussions to clear up the dirty air that we don't want to poison ourselves with. So, many thanks goes to members who have participated and special thanks goes to OP, Dachshund, for not being afraid to speak up and at the end made most of us happy and it reflected when members expressed comments to Tim and the other moderators.

P.S. This is what I wrote last night. I did not post it till now and I see things have changed a bit. I am keeping my thoughts now just like the last night. For one reason, I would rather have this site and follow some guidelines (trust me that's not that hard, please read that once.. twice.. and I am pretty sure we will get used to it soon)! what has been said, to me, I got it and I also understand there is a rope hanging but hey there is always something hanging on our head anyways. So, I rather have this 'Off Topic Forum' going rather than not having it at all.

Edited to add: To make my point clearer, I am not saying porn, sexually explicit pics/stuff are bad things to share and whoever shared/posted are in the wrong (why would I say that? As I see 'those' in a way of  expressing my sexuality and exercising my freedom for things that I feel common or have fun to share with etc. not to mention I kinda like that..). However, if I have to outweigh my deal, l will rather have this 'off topic' forum going because the way I see it is to have the forum is more beneficial to our members.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 06:44:22 PM by Since2005 »

Offline ademas

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,151
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #76 on: September 14, 2011, 02:02:50 AM »
sounds like we've offended some right-leaning, corporate big shots, most of whom probably vote against queers in every election. 

Offline edfu

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,084
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #77 on: September 14, 2011, 04:47:29 AM »
PS: Miss P, what's Piss Christ? I'm too young to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Is it art?  Is it blasphemy?  Is it pornography?  Inquiring minds want to know. 

"No one will ever be free so long as there are pestilences."--Albert Camus, "The Plague"

"Mankind can never be free until the last brick in the last church falls on the head of the last priest."--Voltaire

Offline Inchlingblue

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,119
  • Chad Ochocinco PETA Ad
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #78 on: September 14, 2011, 08:30:40 AM »
Go back and read Tim's post in this thread (#38) -- he clarifies his original post here.



I missed that.  I appreciate Tim's very reasonable and well-written response. He should know he's very appreciated around here.

Offline austinguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 10
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #79 on: September 14, 2011, 11:17:37 AM »
I can identify with some of what Since2005 has said. Since my diagnosis I have used these forums to help me understand myself as someone living with HIV. I can not even express how important reading others experiences has helped calm my mind and helped warm my soul. I feel it would be a bad thing if the forums were to go away. For me personally having to follow a couple of guidelines would not be a big deal to be able to continue to participate in this amazing community.

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,335
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #80 on: September 14, 2011, 11:22:02 AM »
I want to start by saying that the impact the forums community has on me its valueless.

To be helpful to anyone skim-reading and more important to Since for his future writing (as we do aim to educate in the Forums)....the intended word choice was 'invaluable' rather than 'valueless'.

Offline Since2005

  • Member
  • Posts: 419
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #81 on: September 14, 2011, 02:32:29 PM »
Thanks EM. Very good catch! I appreciate that and I edited to correct that...

Invaluable - Exactly!
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 02:38:53 PM by Since2005 »

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,335
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #82 on: September 14, 2011, 03:32:05 PM »
You're welcome. As you're apparently keen on editing, then you'll wanna get the second one, too.

"I would also wanted thank all the LTS/ older members who have been contributing for years and years. The amount of time they have put in is also valueless. "

Offline Since2005

  • Member
  • Posts: 419
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #83 on: September 14, 2011, 06:34:49 PM »
OMG ...............
Hope I did not upset anyone by now already.. please don't be mad :)
Yes LTS and others who have been contributing to the forum for years and years - YOU ARE INVALUABLE

I can identify with some of what Since2005 has said. Since my diagnosis I have used these forums to help me understand myself as someone living with HIV. I cannot even express how important reading others experiences has helped calm my mind and helped warm my soul. I feel it would be a bad thing if the forums were to go away. For me personally having to follow a couple of guidelines would not be a big deal to be able to continue to participate in this amazing community.

Thanks for sharing Austin. Just to clarify here we are only talking about the ‘off topic’ forum. If members continue to post sexually explicit materials then ONLY as members were saying ‘off topic’ forum may go away as this forum seems to be one that “They” are talking about. In a way, I kinda feel bad not having the freedom to post whatever I want and not be able to feel liberated but  life is all about do what is best for you. So, if I have to pick one, I would vote to keep the off topic forum and follow some guidelines. I would still be able talk about 'other things' that are important to me.  Okay, I have made my point. ( more than once).. No more.. Peace out everyone!!
« Last Edit: September 14, 2011, 06:40:17 PM by Since2005 »

Offline Jablair09

  • Member
  • Posts: 4
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #84 on: September 14, 2011, 07:35:26 PM »
If you really stop and think about it guys/gals this site was NOT established to link to PORN or any other 'off-color' subjects. It's a forum to help those of us living with HIV...why not just keep it to the point. I don't see what the big deal is. I mean I don't agree with the censureship but they offer these forums for FREE and they aren't FREE to the site owner(s)...they have to be paid for somehow...even if the sources of that revenue are not 'user-friendly'. Just be cordial and keep it clean. Not only does it resolve the issue but it shows that you have you respect, not only for yourself, but for the others here that may not WANT to hear and/or see those types of comments, links, pics, etc. It's quite simply called COMMON COURTEOUSY...act here the way that you would in public...it IS a PUBLIC forum...FYI..I'm not 'calling anyone out', simply stating my opinion. I don't mean to offend anyone.

Offline Dennis

  • Member
  • Posts: 781
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #85 on: September 15, 2011, 10:42:56 AM »
As far as posting sexually explicit material, let us not forget that there may be minors who are HIV+ who visit this site, as well as their family members. 

We are aslo aware that there are students who are not HIV+ who frequent this site as part of their research.

Dennis

Offline skeebo1969

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,699
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #86 on: September 15, 2011, 10:55:29 AM »
As far as posting sexually explicit material, let us not forget that there may be minors who are HIV+ who visit this site, as well as their family members. 

We are aslo aware that there are students who are not HIV+ who frequent this site as part of their research.

Dennis

They need to get with it then, I knew what dick and pussy was when I was in the third grade.  Anyone with a sister 13 years older who doesn't have a bedroom door closed should know this stuff.
I despise the song Love is in the Air, you should too.

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #87 on: September 15, 2011, 11:02:47 AM »
They need to get with it then, I knew what dick and pussy was when I was in the third grade.  Anyone with a sister 13 years older who doesn't have a bedroom door closed should know this stuff.

Oh just make this web-site GP-13 and get it over with  ::)
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,335
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #88 on: September 15, 2011, 01:53:20 PM »
Oh just make this web-site GP-13 and get it over with  ::)

Hey Den,

So, clue us in...is there a new code GP-13? -- and is it Generally Pornographic ? Guardedly Pornographic?
or Gently Pornographic?

Just messin' w/u.
Em

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #89 on: September 15, 2011, 01:58:35 PM »
Hey Den,

So, clue us in...is there a new code GP-13? -- and is it Generally Pornographic ? Guardedly Pornographic?
or Gently Pornographic?

Just messin' w/u.
Em

 :D I was referring to what age group this web-site is appropriate for. The ratings are G,PG, PG-13, R ,NC-17 and X. G is for children. PG means Parental Guidance.. PG-13, R, NC-17 and X are for mature audiences. I'm sure TIM will come up with something along those lines that the Advertisers and all can agree with  ;)
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline Dennis

  • Member
  • Posts: 781
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #90 on: September 15, 2011, 02:25:03 PM »
Perhaps having members have to log in to view the "off topic forum" with an age restriction.  This way, members can still feel free to practice their freedom of speech and post whatever they feel is appropriate. The rest of the forums would remain viewable to anyone.

Offline Assurbanipal

  • Member
  • Posts: 2,173
  • Taking a forums break, still see PM's
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #91 on: September 15, 2011, 03:01:01 PM »
A little more discretion doesn't trouble me, but then I edit out all the good bits before I post anyway.

I'm rather puzzled though, in comparing the problem to the proposed solution.  It seems that potential advertisers are troubled by the fact that several of the top threads in the forums are about or feature links to porn.  Those threads are relatively old, and don't have many recent posts.  But they are/were very popular and are likely to remain high in the ratings for a long time.  Seems to me you will only fix "the problem" if you eliminate those old threads.  The proposed solution doesn't really address that problem it only prevents new offending threads from growing.  Perhaps off topic threads should periodically expire?

I am troubled by the suggestion of personal attacks on the ethics or postings of Tim Horn.  Internet postings are generally pretty cold, since they lack the warmth of intonation, vocal register or touch and it is always possible to take away the wrong impression from a single posting.  But it is impossible to read Mr. Horn's collected postings and come away with any impression other than that he cares deeply about people living with HIV and the people who post on this site. 

Finally, it is unclear to me what the financial ownership structure of the site has to do with the issue of potential advertisers being repulsed by a portion of its content.  If the site were not-for-profit and looking for advertisers to support the forums the same issues would arise.
5/06 VL 1M+, CD4 22, 5% , pneumonia, thrush -- O2 support 2 months, 6/06 +Kaletra/Truvada
9/06 VL 3959 CD4 297 13.5% 12/06 VL <400 CD4 350 15.2% +Pravachol
2007 VL<400, 70, 50 CD4 408-729 16.0% -19.7%
2008 VL UD CD4 468 - 538 16.7% - 24.6% Osteoporosis 11/08 doubled Pravachol, +Calcium/D
02/09 VL 100 CD4 616 23.7% 03/09 VL 130 5/09 VL 100 CD4 540 28.4% +Actonel (osteoporosis) 7/09 VL 130
8/09  new regimen Isentress/Epzicom 9/09 VL UD CD4 621 32.7% 11/09 VL UD CD4 607 26.4% swap Isentress for Prezista/Norvir 12/09 (liver and muscle issues) VL 50
2010 VL UD CD4 573-680 26.1% - 30.9% 12/10 VL 20
2011 VL UD-20 CD4 568-673 24.7%-30.6%
2012 VL UD swap Prezista/Norvir for Reyataz drop statin CD4 768-828 26.7%-30.7%

Offline spacebarsux

  • Member
  • Posts: 1,350
  • Survival of the Fittest
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #92 on: September 15, 2011, 03:39:03 PM »
Perhaps having members have to log in to view the "off topic forum" with an age restriction.  This way, members can still feel free to practice their freedom of speech and post whatever they feel is appropriate. The rest of the forums would remain viewable to anyone.

I don't understand this. So it would be ok for a 16 year old to ask questions about sucking cock in the AM I Forum but can't view porno here ?

There are plenty of other places on the internet (and elsewhere) to view porno, and it's not really that big a deal if we refrain from pasting porno links here. I can't speak for anyone else but that's not why I come here and such a rule is barely even a restriction to me.

I agree with everyone about how these forums have been and still are most invaluable to me and have become an indispensable part of my routine.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 03:54:30 PM by spacebarsux »
Infected-  2005 or early 2006; Diagnosed- Jan 28th, 2011; Feb '11- CD4 754 @34%, VL- 39K; July '11- CD4 907@26%,  VL-81K; Feb '12- CD4 713 @31%, VL- 41K, Nov '12- CD4- 827@31%

Offline Dennis

  • Member
  • Posts: 781
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #93 on: September 15, 2011, 04:18:48 PM »
I don't understand this. So it would be ok for a 16 year old to ask questions about sucking cock in the AM I Forum but can't view porno here ? ...

Not every minor who visits this site acquires HIV the way you mentioned above.  When I think about the porn in these forums I think about a very young girl who is HIV+ and graced us with her prescense at AMG Boston with her mother. It's young people, like herself, I think about who should not be subjected to such material.

But I agree with your point.  This isn't the first place I come to view porn either.  There are other sites for that which I'm sure we can all find for ourselves without anyone's help here.  Seeing it here dosn't bother. But I can see how it could be an issue.

Anyway, it was just a suggestion; a possible solution to what is apparently a problem.

Offline Joe K

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 3,503
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #94 on: September 15, 2011, 04:45:44 PM »
I am troubled by the suggestion of personal attacks on the ethics or postings of Tim Horn.  Internet postings are generally pretty cold, since they lack the warmth of intonation, vocal register or touch and it is always possible to take away the wrong impression from a single posting.  But it is impossible to read Mr. Horn's collected postings and come away with any impression other than that he cares deeply about people living with HIV and the people who post on this site. 

In my decade of being on these forums, I have never been more disappointed than by the comments, attacking the character of Tim Horn. I have known Tim since I joined these forums and there is no one, bar none, who has done more for these forums than Tim. Unlike many of us, Tim spends his days in the “real” world, juggling his many roles and passions. I can only imagine the pain that Tim may feel, about this over reaction to a very reasonable request, on his part, to keep these forums up and running.  AIDSmeds is part of this man’s very fiber and for anyone to doubt his commitment to both these forums and the HIV community is a moral failure of the highest order.

If you think you can run these forums, while keeping them funded, in a better fashion, then step up. Otherwise, realize that without people like Tim Horn, these forums would not exist at all.

He’s not asking for anything for himself. He’s asking for our help to keep the forums running.

Ignoring his request will only hurt us.

Joe

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,335
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #95 on: September 15, 2011, 05:05:27 PM »
:D I was referring to what age group this web-site is appropriate for. The ratings are G,PG, PG-13, R ,NC-17 and X. G is for children. PG means Parental Guidance.. PG-13, R, NC-17 and X are for mature audiences. I'm sure TIM will come up with something along those lines that the Advertisers and all can agree with  ;)

Den -- I get it, trust me, totally get it. You'd typed GP (not PG) so I capped on that and that's why I wrote I was messin' w/u. Em

Offline bocker3

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,361
  • You gotta enjoy life......
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #96 on: September 15, 2011, 05:10:44 PM »
Honestly, I do not recall reading a thing in this thread that attacked Tim.  
I know that my earlier posts were not aimed at Tim, but at the message -- and I might add, the vagueness that surrounded it initially.  My comments would have been the same regardless of who posted the original message.  

It wasn't about the messenger, it was about the message.  

I have not, and would not, ever question Tim's dedication to these forums and its members.  Once the vagueness was lifted, I was more at ease with the message and do not find it unreasonable.

I thought we had moved beyond this the other day -- but somehow this is back up here today.  I think it's time to put this to bed.

Mike
Atripla - Started 12/05
Reyataz/Norvir - Added 6/06
Labs - Pre-Meds
Sep05 T=350/25% VL98,559
Nov05 288/18%  47,564
Current Labs
May2013 691/31% <20

Offline denb45

  • Member
  • Posts: 5,051
  • "1987 Classic Old School POZ+"
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #97 on: September 15, 2011, 05:45:45 PM »
Den -- I get it, trust me, totally get it. You'd typed GP (not PG) so I capped on that and that's why I wrote I was messin' w/u. Em

I know you did EM, please forgive my dyslexia, it creeps up on me @ times  :D
"it's so nice to be insane, cause no-one ask you to explain" Helen Reddy cc 1974

Offline emeraldize

  • Member
  • Posts: 3,335
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #98 on: September 15, 2011, 11:02:07 PM »
I know you did EM, please forgive my dyslexia, it creeps up on me @ times  :D


No reason for forgiveness as my disorder is dyseditoriahumorosis.

Offline Tim Horn

  • Member
  • Posts: 799
Re: Troubled by the new edict.
« Reply #99 on: September 16, 2011, 07:02:22 AM »
I think we can pretty much wrap this thread up.

I appreciate everything that's been written here, the supportive and the critical, and am not reading that anyone sees this as a radical shift in posting etiquette. And for what it's worth, I don't take anything written above as attempted character assassination, but rather questions about my (and Smart + Strong's) motives and the context of the vague and closed-to-conversation "edict" posted on September 9th (a mistake I will never make again). Of course some of it hurt, at least initially -- if it didn't, then I probably shouldn't be doing this job at all.

Thanks everyone.

Tim

 

 


Terms of Membership for these forums
 

© 2014 Smart + Strong. All Rights Reserved.   terms of use and your privacy
Smart + Strong® is a registered trademark of CDM Publishing, LLC.