Conquer Club

I was quite offended when I saw his avatar also, being catholic. That is flat out not morally correct and if no action will be take, I hope owen comes to his senses and realizes that isn't cool.

trapyoung wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:All these posts miss the point. It's not about whether saying the word "f*ck" is allowed; it's about whether saying "f*ck Jesus" is allowed. The policy regarding whether that message is allowed obviously ought to be unaffected by the intent of the user who made the avatar.

Issue of first impression eh? Would you like the C&A mods to crucify him?

Certainly. I could not make my avatar a pornographic photo even if I claimed it was because I am scientist studying sexual imagery, because people who have no idea what's going on won't realize I was trying to make a particular point - they'll just see the image (and potentially be offended).

I don't want anyone to crucify anyone. I just want the rules to be consistent, and if the mods agree, then owenshooter should just be blocked from using that avatar.

owenshooter wrote:the precedent...

Subject: Calidrmr / avatar abuse [closed]lv

the word f*ck is not offensive on an avatar... good luck...-the black jesus

I would like to say that they are completely different avatars and while i find her avatar to be comical i find yours to be highly offensive based on the other aspects of the avatar. Combinations of two things you can put in your avatar can make something that you cant put in your avatar.

Am I an offensive avatar?

I would like for him to understand his political commentary isn't really all that clever (i.e. his avatar and "the black jesus" tagline)

- The uncomically annoying

trapyoung wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:All these posts miss the point. It's not about whether saying the word "f*ck" is allowed; it's about whether saying "f*ck Jesus" is allowed. The policy regarding whether that message is allowed obviously ought to be unaffected by the intent of the user who made the avatar.

Issue of first impression eh? Would you like the C&A mods to crucify him?

Well played.

bigpash wrote:If I remember correctly, the picture did not use to have f%&£ embossed across the front of it.
But I seem to remember owenshooter starting a C&A thread against an avatar with f%&£ on it which was cleared I think.

So therefore he may believe that this is acceptable.

This was due to Calidrmr's avatar. He found it offensive, but since it didn't get overturned, it set the precedent that the 'f' word is ok if used, erm, correctly?
This is just a frivolous post made by hairy potter to cause some ripples

Ah, but he has not used it correctly. Using the word f*ck in front of a picture of Jesus? (Well, a black Jesus, but that is a whole 'nother story.) That is wrong.

RedFlyingGolf wrote:Ah, but he has not used it correctly. Using the word f*ck in front of a picture of Jesus? (Well, a black Jesus, but that is a whole 'nother story.) That is wrong.

but don't you see? by placing it there he's forcing us to consider why we're offended.

I don't care. Then again, I'm not Jesus (or black, for that matter).

squishyg wrote:

RedFlyingGolf wrote:Ah, but he has not used it correctly. Using the word f*ck in front of a picture of Jesus? (Well, a black Jesus, but that is a whole 'nother story.) That is wrong.

but don't you see? by placing it there he's forcing us to consider why we're offended.

No by placing it there he sought attention.

There are many wrongs in the world... protesting with a f*ck black jesus avatar is one of the dumbest biggest wastes of time)s= in the history of protesting.

And if you are offended by someone that obviously has so little respect for others because he thinks he has to offend people to ÑprotestÑ then you are thin skinned and a weak human.

Owen is wrong because he is offending people to prove something to mods... Mods are wrong because in general they are immature morons on a power trip. And you people in this thread are wrong because you empower owen by giving him this attention he craves.


I am the only one right here in fact ''' Bri= The white Budda.

RedFlyingGolf wrote: (Well, a black Jesus, but that is a whole 'nother story.)

You do realize that based on where Jesus was born, he would have been a lot closer to black than white... right? He's only portrayed as fair skinned because of the popularity of Christianity that spread into Europe. So of course artists are going to depict their deity as themselves.



But then again, if you're offended by someone referring to Jesus as "black", you have deeper issues to worry about.

I never noticed it until you said something, but as a catholic that offends me as that is just as bad as saying **** Jesus

Bones2484 wrote:

RedFlyingGolf wrote: (Well, a black Jesus, but that is a whole 'nother story.)

You do realize that based on where Jesus was born, he would have been a lot closer to black than white... right? He's only portrayed as fair skinned because of the popularity of Christianity that spread into Europe. So of course artists are going to depict their deity as themselves.



But then again, if you're offended by someone referring to Jesus as "black", you have deeper issues to worry about.

But Jesus is white because the Bible tells me that blacks are sinners...

army of nobunaga wrote:There are many wrongs in the world... protesting with a f*ck black jesus avatar is one of the dumbest biggest wastes of time)s= in the history of protesting.

I believe it ranks second only to protesting against the f*ck black jesus avatar.

Bones2484 wrote:

RedFlyingGolf wrote: (Well, a black Jesus, but that is a whole 'nother story.)

You do realize that based on where Jesus was born, he would have been a lot closer to black than white... right? He's only portrayed as fair skinned because of the popularity of Christianity that spread into Europe. So of course artists are going to depict their deity as themselves.



But then again, if you're offended by someone referring to Jesus as "black", you have deeper issues to worry about.

I never thought his avatar was insulting or offending or anything until he added the word f*ck. Heck, I don't care if Jesus was black or white. I just think it is stupid how he put it there to protest and in his way he insulted others.

i am catholic, i send my son to private catholic school, i have a private catholic education from K-9 and graduated from a catholic university... hell, i was an altar boy and taught sunday school and was a youth group leader. what does that have to do with anything we are discussing? is this about who is more catholic? it doesn't matter. the question is if f*ck is offensive within an avatar and the previous ruling is f*ck is not offensive within the forums or on an avatar. it is that simple... and if you allow a simple picture and word to shake your faith, there is something wrong with you...-the blackest jesus possible

Just a point of clarification - the word f*ck is automatically edited on the forums so that the entire word is not visible.

owenshooter wrote:the question is if f*ck is offensive within an avatar and the previous ruling is f*ck is not offensive within the forums or on an avatar

the word 'f*ck' and the word 'f*ck' on a background of jesus are two different things

just like the word 'lol' is no problem whatsoever but the word 'lol' on a picture of the twin towers would probably provoke some strong feelings

Either everythings acceptable, or nothings acceptable. Make a choice and f*ck off.

Metsfanmax wrote:All these posts miss the point. It's not about whether saying the word "f*ck" is allowed; it's about whether saying "f*ck Jesus" is allowed. The policy regarding whether that message is allowed obviously ought to be unaffected by the intent of the user who made the avatar.

He clearly is not saying "f*ck Jesus" in his avatar. I'm not sure how you get the idea that he is.

hairy potter wrote:

owenshooter wrote:the question is if f*ck is offensive within an avatar and the previous ruling is f*ck is not offensive within the forums or on an avatar

the word 'f*ck' and the word 'f*ck' on a background of jesus are two different things

just like the word 'lol' is no problem whatsoever but the word 'lol' on a picture of the twin towers would probably provoke some strong feelings

Strong feelings don't make something illegal. Standing on an American flag evokes very strong feelings in me, but it's still (thankfully) legal.

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:All these posts miss the point. It's not about whether saying the word "f*ck" is allowed; it's about whether saying "f*ck Jesus" is allowed. The policy regarding whether that message is allowed obviously ought to be unaffected by the intent of the user who made the avatar.

He clearly is not saying "f*ck Jesus" in his avatar. I'm not sure how you get the idea that he is.

hairy potter wrote:

owenshooter wrote:the question is if f*ck is offensive within an avatar and the previous ruling is f*ck is not offensive within the forums or on an avatar

the word 'f*ck' and the word 'f*ck' on a background of jesus are two different things

just like the word 'lol' is no problem whatsoever but the word 'lol' on a picture of the twin towers would probably provoke some strong feelings

Strong feelings don't make something illegal. Standing on an American flag evokes very strong feelings in me, but it's still (thankfully) legal.

hairy potter is right. You're missing the point. Having multis isn't illegal but still gets you banned, doesn't it? It isn't a matter of it is illegal, it is if it breaks conquer club rules.

Twill wrote:In no circumstances is bigotry allowed.
* Bigotry includes racism, sexism, ageism, homophobia, religion bashing, lack of religion bashing, or wishing violence on any minority group, etc.

and if this somehow doesn't fall under this category, what about this:

Twill wrote:Posting controversial or irrelevant messages or topics with the intent to provoke someone else into a pissing match, emotional response, flame fest or to generally disrupt the discussion, community or user is not cool. Prompting or provoking others to do that is just as bad.

Woodruff wrote:He clearly is not saying "f*ck Jesus" in his avatar. I'm not sure how you get the idea that he is.

Strong feelings don't make something illegal. Standing on an American flag evokes very strong feelings in me, but it's still (thankfully) legal.

Well stated woody. You are now off my foe list.

As for owens "jesus" avi. Sorry but that pic is not one that I had ever seen associated with CHRIST. Ever. So how could that pic even be associated with how peeps are trying to twist this crap.

knight to g7 - Check

Woodruff wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:All these posts miss the point. It's not about whether saying the word "f*ck" is allowed; it's about whether saying "f*ck Jesus" is allowed. The policy regarding whether that message is allowed obviously ought to be unaffected by the intent of the user who made the avatar.

He clearly is not saying "f*ck Jesus" in his avatar. I'm not sure how you get the idea that he is.

I didn't say he intended to say "f*ck Jesus" in his avatar. I said only that someone who didn't know him and his peculiarities might think he was saying that, and be offended by that.