New warnings have been added to the top of every page of "Not For Everyone" forum.

[Nick Gromicko]

The "Not For Everyone" forum is in members-only, password-protected area, outside of public view and is of course.... not for everyone.

[James H. Bushart]

Since we are aware that minor children of members can...and have...been able to view obscene images on the NACHI message board in the NFE section and since the general message board rules prohibit the posting of obscene images on the message board....will you be deleting obscene images, now, when they are brought to your attention? Particularly, by obscene images I am referring to images depicting the genitals of a minor child.

[ldapkus]

Aren't images of adult genitals considered to be obscene for children's viewing?? Will those images also be deleted if you are requested to do so?

[Joe Farsetta]

I believe that verbiage is absolutely protected, but images are something else. I am no prude, but some things have no place on a professional message board.

I also strongly believe that there should be a separate and distinct non-cookie-enabled login for NFE.

This way... there can be no mistake.

Once I login to NACHI as a member, I have unfetteredaccess to virually everything. My computer remembers my password, and cooking enable me to zip in with no further log-in attempts.

Theoretically, my 10-year old son could access NACHI anytime and go anywhere on the site. I have the absolute right, as a member of this org, NOT to expect vile images.

So, what are we to do if the libertarians are fearful of censorship???!!!

A separate login, I believe on a separate server, just like a porn site.

And this **** is a direct affront at Jim Bushart for referring to the stellar images once posted in NFE:

Please do not link to threads in this forum without including a warning about the nature that thread's content

.

[Michael Larson]

I suggest leaving it up to each user to designate which forums would require a secondary login.

This would allow a user to exercise more control over his account and who can access it.

This would give parents better control of what sections of the forum their children could access without parental permission and still allow those who prefer one login access to keep it.

[James H. Bushart]

And this **** is a direct affront at Jim Bushart for referring to the stellar images once posted in NFE:

.

I linked to an image that the poster and several of his friends stated was suitable for viewing by children. In fact, even after they knew that a child had already viewed it and more could do the same, several of them encouraged the member to allow his image depicting the genitals of a small child to remain.

What would a "warning" to a link to photograph that the poster insisted was suitable for small children look like, exactly?

Although extremely lame, this attempt to legitimize a gross error in judgment in such an "after-the-fact-manner" does show,

[Joe Farsetta]

Mike... BRILLIANT.=D>

[Michael Larson]

And this **** is a direct affront at Jim Bushart for referring to the stellar images once posted in NFE:

.

Originally Posted by jbushart

I linked to an image that the poster and several of his friends stated was suitable for children. In fact, even after they knew that a child had already viewed it and more could do the same.

What would a warning to a photograph that the poster insisted was suitable for small children look like, exactly?

That is as misrepresentation at best.

[Joe Farsetta]

I'd qoute Rodney King, but what's the point?

Regardless, I believe there, at the very least, needs to be a secondary log-in. Once this happens, however, I expect that any degree of acceptable and professional decorum will evaporate, and NFE will degrade to a sloth-fest.

[Brian E. Kelly]

Originally Posted by jfarsetta

I'd qoute Rodney King, but what's the point?

Regardless, I believe there, at the very least, needs to be a secondary log-in. Once this happens, however, I expect that any degree of acceptable and professional decorum will evaporate, and NFE will degrade to a sloth-fest.

It is a Sloth fest for the most part now Joe.....

[Michael Larson]

Don't accuse me of misrepresentation, Larson. I don't buy any of your crap.

It's simply the truth Jim and anyone who read those threads before they were altered knows it.

[Nick Gromicko]

I believe the images in question were of an abortion in thread discussing abortion in the password-protected, members-only forum titled "Not For Everyone" that now includes the warning on every page.

The moderation of such images will remain the responsibility of the members who post them, and not InterNACHI.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by mlarson

It's simply the truth Jim and anyone who read those threads before they were altered knows it.

The threads were not "altered".

I agreed to delete my public references to the image of the child's genitals when the poster deleted the image. I kept my word and then, after deleting them, certain people began fabricating what they contained. Thankfully, before deleting them, I had them scrutinized by the ESOP Chairman to assure they contained no code violations.

Your false representation as to the public knowledge to what "anyone who read those threads before they were altered" is - represents only your bias, not fact. This is a matter for record.

[Michael Larson]

Your false representation as to the public knowledge to what "anyone who read those threads before they were altered" is - represents only your bias, not fact. This is a matter for record.

Jim I am not going to play nice with you when you misrepresent facts.

I have made no fabrications.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by gromicko

I believe the images in question were of an abortion in thread discussing abortion in the password-protected, members-only forum titled "Not For Everyone" that now includes the warning on every page.

The moderation of such images will remain the responsibility of the members who post them, and not InterNACHI.

The man who posted them does not agree. He said, and I agree, that the photos represented the body of a once living human being. A child. A "baby" that was "killed", hence the title of the thread.

It was only AFTER the knowledge that the police were called that the image depicting the genitals of a male child were referred to by the poster as a "fetus" and according to him, this change was made after a phone call with Nick....who referred to it as "medical waste".

Larson refers to "alterations" that were made after-the-fact, and this is the only one that is evident. What initially was claimed to be an innocent depiction of life suitable for the viewing of children - with the intent and purpose that they grow up to later "choose life" - was quickly set aside and replaced with terms such as "fetus" and "medical waste" when it was feared that the police could determine the depiction of the child's genitals as obscene.

Tell us, Mr. Larson.....did the image simply represent "medical waste" in your opinion? Do you agree that it was simply an "aborted" "fetus"?