tits_matilda wrote:

anyone have any use for this?

http://jezebel.com/assets/images/jezebe … ks0521.jpg

Surprisingly, no. I think that picture just made me straight.

pALEPHx wrote:

Don't pet it. It bites.

Phillip, you really are a small person, aren't you?

jesusluvspegging wrote:

Lurker wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

Don't pet it. It bites.

Phillip, you really are a small person, aren't you?

Ah, there you are.

Didja miss me?

jesusluvspegging wrote:

Lurker wrote:

jesusluvspegging wrote:

Ah, there you are.

Didja miss me?

miss1 (mĭs) pronunciation

v., missed, miss·ing, miss·es.

v.tr.

   2. To fail to perceive, understand, or experience: completely missed the point of the film.

Point?  White courtesy phone for Mr. Point.  JLP, you really are a dumbfuck.

jesusluvspegging wrote:

Lurker wrote:

jesusluvspegging wrote:

miss1 (mĭs) pronunciation

v., missed, miss·ing, miss·es.

v.tr.

   2. To fail to perceive, understand, or experience: completely missed the point of the film.

Point?  White courtesy phone for Mr. Point.  JLP, you really are a dumbfuck.

HA!  Lurker you cad.

No, that's CARD, I need to be dealt with...

pALEPHx wrote:

tits_matilda wrote:

anyone have any use for this?

http://jezebel.com/assets/images/jezebe … ks0521.jpg

Surprisingly, no. I think that picture just made me straight.

It looks like the gay version of a vagina oculata.

Last edited by choad (2008-05-22 23:32:49)

Many hands make light work.

tits_matilda wrote:

Many hands make light work.

Just might be able to control that.


you never know

tits_matilda wrote:

http://www.weirdspot.com/images/uploads/treeorgy.jpg

goatse + treehuggers =

sigmoid freud wrote:

https://cruelery.com/uploads/34_hs_beauty.jpg

I feel like I should pay you real money for that.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

New Banner Added:



Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

These fetuses must be Jewish. 

pALEPHx wrote:

tits_matilda wrote:

These fetuses must be Jewish. 
http://www.abort73.com/HTML/AbortionPic … 0-03th.jpghttp://www.abort73.com/HTML/AbortionPic … 0-02th.jpg

"Before going any further, we must establish the fact that showing abortion images, either in public or in private, can be done with a heart of love or with a heart of condemnation. The act itself is neutral, the heart determines whether the act is righteous or wretched."

WTF?

Umm, no. The act is NOT "neutral." Showing people (non-High Street people, for the most part) bloody, dismembered anything without their knowledgeable consent is improper. Specifically, images tied to a subject that--apart from NEVER becoming a banner/logo--rather universally creates discomfort, regardless of an individual's stance on abortion, is pressing your luck, Titsy. Dragging Judaism into the joke also makes little sense (it's the money, isn't it, har har). Apart any other context you might feel that post has, we can't have people thinking that's what the site's about, and get stuck in pointless debates over it. Spin that wheel again, dear. Thanks.

There, there.  Have two. 

Would you have been less tiffed if the little fella's arms were wrapped around a penny?

Although you do bring up an interesting issue: "we can't have people thinking that's what the site's about, and get stuck in pointless debates over it."  I really don't dig the animal torture pics that show up here and could bring over a nice mess of folks who would run the threads and message service into the ground with "pointless debates."  Same thing with images of women getting gored/impaled/variously tortured.  But I haven't, since  it was my understanding that this was an equal opportunity offensiveness area -- people here don't pull punches because of race, gender, culture, species, or developmental stage.  Why should a fetus in need of a change purse or who's been shanghaied on the way to his piggy bank be exempt?

Aren't you the guy who posted the image of late-term abortion soup?  Is presenting a fetus being eaten somehow less off-putting than suggesting that they're greedy? Would it have been OK if I had instead remarked that it needed someone to go feed its parking meter 'cause he was going to be hung up in the office for a while?

On the topic of greed:  If the site had advertisers, attracting rubes to engage in pointless and ridiculous debates would be a way to make money through generating pageviews.

All of what George said, and...

tits_matilda wrote:

Would you have been less tiffed if the little fella's arms were wrapped around a penny?

I'm not really 'tiffed' ('miffed' might work, but only because the level of ire is quite minimal). While I will not claim to speak for all minds here on the subject of Fetal Bits, I am sorta the ad hoc banner maven (or the Logo Kween, or the JPEG Jew, or whatever). I can step outside of my own so called propriety long enough to appreciate your sense of humor, but it will not be a banner. Sorry.

tits_matilda wrote:

Although you do bring up an interesting issue: "we can't have people thinking that's what the site's about, and get stuck in pointless debates over it." I really don't dig the animal torture pics that show up here and could bring over a nice mess of folks who would run the threads and message service into the ground with "pointless debates." Same thing with images of women getting gored/impaled/variously tortured. But I haven't, since  it was my understanding that this was an equal opportunity offensiveness area -- people here don't pull punches because of race, gender, culture, species, or developmental stage. Why should a fetus in need of a change purse or who's been shanghaied on the way to his piggy bank be exempt?

Well, I don't particularly like the antisemitic or homophobic content either, but that's the flag that was flying when this ship set sail. I wouldn't dream of curtailing anyone else's ability to express their personal beliefs as they saw fit, but even the worst offenders--for the most part--"get" what they're doing and know it's not about sneaking some Piece O' Nasty in under the radar just to hurt/harass/disturb someone in particular. It IS equal opportunity offensive, if you will, but Fetal Bits makes it too narrow, too fast. It is not exempt, it is just not up front and center[ed].

tits_matilda wrote:

Aren't you the guy who posted the image of late-term abortion soup? Is presenting a fetus being eaten somehow less off-putting than suggesting that they're greedy? Would it have been OK if I had instead remarked that it needed someone to go feed its parking meter 'cause he was going to be hung up in the office for a while?

That is humorous, but this is just one of those things--as George succinctly put it--that's limited by its context. It's also about choosing your battles. For a while, every time that Fnord put up one of his "Negroes Gone Wild" links (I am still convinced he has an RSS feed from StormFront.org), I promised I'd counter with some story of a poor little white girl being [insert horrifying act here]. That became tedious, fast. I don't care for the "gored women" either, but not every bit of craven impropriety needs to be countered.

tits_matilda wrote:

On the topic of greed: If the site had advertisers, attracting rubes to engage in pointless and ridiculous debates would be a way to make money through generating pageviews.

You do have a point here, but I'd take it up with Choad and/or Sofaking (hers is the only 'ad' HS presently displays). The technical/financial sense you make, however, may be overshadowed by what either or both are willing to do to associate ads with broadly offensive headers. As I am also the contributor of "House of Peking Fetus" (note, the fact that the source image was "designed" and not "D&C'd" may be a moot point), I'd say "imitation abortions, kinda fuzzed up a bit with Photoshop and in an implausible context" toes that line with a steel-tipped boot. Yours toys with the kind of ideology implicit by the reproduction of such imagery. That's fine in a thread, especially the NSFW or something else alerting all vistors (registered or guest) to the content, but cannot be used to "summarize expectations of the site," as is the primary job of a banner.

It's advertising, honey, an icon for the collective debauch that is HS. Fetal Bits doesn't push the envelope, it bends, staples, and mutilates it. And just to be fair, I do sometimes feel I should make a banner that is edgier or more viscerally disturbing, but I don't hold back just because I'm afraid of what people will think of me. It's because when I make a banner, I'm representing more than just myself and my ideas.

And for a group of offensive tits-spattered-with-feces- picture posters, I will say this is a remarkably thoughtful, dare I say humanist group. Fnord possibly excepted, though in his own peculiar Aunt Jemima lovin' way maybe even him.

pALEPHx wrote:

tits_matilda wrote:

On the topic of greed: If the site had advertisers, attracting rubes to engage in pointless and ridiculous debates would be a way to make money through generating pageviews.

You do have a point here, but I'd take it up with Choad and/or Sofaking (hers is the only 'ad' HS presently displays). The technical/financial sense you make, however, may be overshadowed by what either or both are willing to do to associate ads with broadly offensive headers ..

It's advertising, honey, an icon for the collective debauch that is HS. Fetal Bits doesn't push the envelope, it bends, staples, and mutilates it. And just to be fair, I do sometimes feel I should make a banner that is edgier or more viscerally disturbing, but I don't hold back just because I'm afraid of what people will think of me. It's because when I make a banner, I'm representing more than just myself and my ideas.

Ok, points taken -- but the little loose arms with the big loose change are so cute.

If you 'uns ever wanna branch out to have more than one largely accessible member's forum and put associated ads on them, allow me to offer my services as a moderator for the pro-ana forum.

New Banner Added:



Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

...for every one person posting, there are dozens, even hundreds, who are not.

This turns out to be true.  I would not have believed it without evidence; but back on the old Cruel, rcade used to show read counts of posts and they were routinely in the thousands and the tens of thousands.  I don't believe there were ever more than sixty regular posters on Cruel (if that many).  It freaked me out more than a little to realize we had that many (small-l) lurkers; I just figured they were too timid to throw their two cents in.

A glance at the read counts on the main forum page here shows the same phenomenon.

And now back to the BANNERS.

New Banner Added:



Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

New Banner Added:



Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

sigmoid freud wrote:

pALEPHx wrote:

sigmoid freud wrote:

https://cruelery.com/uploads/34_hs_beauty.jpg

It's a little bulky (tall), but upload it anyway.

What are the dimensions or proportions for proper bannerage? I will try to be good in the future.

I know the height is supposed to be 200 pixels...800x200, I think?  When we first started we had a whole lot of different sizes and shapes, and it started looking a little annoying.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs

MSG Tripps wrote:

tojo2000 wrote:

[800x200]

I believe that was said awhile ago.  I have done the few that I have at that size and they appear to fit rather well.

Yeah, the uploader O+ wrote is set only to accept images that are 400-800 pixels wide and 100-250 tall.  800x200 is a good target.