Digital Camera

wolf bite · September 06, 2004, 09:39:28 PM

I don't think starwars was real, nor talking rodants, but I am not going to stop people from posting pics of them. Now back to the pick of his back that the topic is on.

Wolf Bite

Mark · September 06, 2004, 09:40:14 PM

If it's going to make a lot of trouble, I will change. Maybe I could make a poll? See what everyone wants. Any objections?

Veranor · September 06, 2004, 09:40:35 PM

Quote from: wolf biteI don't think starwars was real, nor talking rodants, but I am not going to stop people from posting pics of them. Now back to the pick of his back that the topic is on.

Wolf Bite

That's not the point! The point is it's extremely gory and such an image is not suitable for all audiences. I can't say hades but he can post an image of a man bleeding excessivly!

RazorClaw · September 06, 2004, 09:40:39 PM

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just saying... Wolf ,would you allow people to post pics of a rat turned inside out with its intestines torn about? You can't say hades? But you just did!

wolf bite · September 06, 2004, 09:43:22 PM

but putting up a pic of a dead rat has the meaning of a dead rat, puting up a pic of christ is a pic of christ. I know there seems to a no differance to some, But if a differant admin wants to ban it, that is up to them.

Wolf Bite

Veranor · September 06, 2004, 09:43:49 PM

Quote from: RazorClawI'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just saying... Wolf ,would you allow people to post pics of a rat turned inside out with its intestines torn about? You can't say hades? But you just did!

Personally if I was a parent I would have less of a problem with my child seeing the word "darn" than seeing such a gory picture. The film is rated R for gory scenes for goodness sake.

EDIT: Ok, you're an admin, then what you say goes. Ok, that is all, I'll just turn off sigs.

RazorClaw · September 06, 2004, 09:45:21 PM

I'm just trying to make Veranor's point clearer. Personally, I find nothing more wrong with a depiction of Christ than Christ Himself. I think perhaps, though, Mark, it would be better to put in a pic with less blood, if not no blood... Because there are non-Christians on this board that will take offense at the goryness of it... Whoa, this is like, the fastest growing topivc ever, man!

Veranor · September 06, 2004, 09:45:52 PM

Quote from: RazorClawI'm just trying to make Veranor's point clearer. Personally, I find nothing more wrong with a depiction of Christ than Christ Himself. I think perhaps, though, Mark, it would be better to put in a pic with less blood, if not no blood... Because there are non-Christians on this board that will take offense at the goryness of it...

Thank you. That was my point.

EDIT: Thank you Mark.

Mark · September 06, 2004, 10:01:37 PM

Well, there we are. Hope this is better. Sorry for causing so much trouble, I think I attacted quite an audience :P .

Well, anyway, What if Christ really did exsist? What if he did really die for us? Wouldn't he deserve to be remembered? The pic I had before wasn't just made up, people did that kinda stuff top Christians. It's history, not something that never happened.

Veranor · September 06, 2004, 10:04:28 PM

Quote from: MarkWell, there we are. Hope this is better. Sorry for causing so much trouble, I think I attacted quite an audience :P .

Well, anyway, What if Christ really did exsist? What if he did really die for us? Wouldn't he deserve to be remembered? The pic I had before wasn't just made up, people did that kinda stuff top Christians. It's history, not something that never happened.

Yes this is true. But do we need to post it all over the forums? I think faith is great but I'm sorry I can't and don't want to see a bloody man (despite who it is) everytime I try to read a topic you've posted in. And if we can't deal with the word "darn" ....

And millions of soldiers died for us in wars, but would it be right to post pictures of decapitated soldiers? I don't think so. Others may disagree

Anyways thank you for changing it though.

RazorClaw · September 06, 2004, 10:13:05 PM

But "darn" was unbanned like half a year ago...

Veranor · September 06, 2004, 10:14:09 PM

Quote from: RazorClawBut "darn" was unbanned like half a year ago...

Ok sorry h to the ell.

EDIT:

Anyways, back on topic.

I'll say what I said over aim: Nice shirt. Looks like it's high quality, you know 100% cotton, pre-shrunk etc. Now the logo...

RazorClaw · September 06, 2004, 10:15:19 PM

But h to ell I believe is allowed as long as it is used in the context of the place, not saying, "What the h-" or, "Go to h-!"

Scarwake · September 06, 2004, 10:28:20 PM

Okay, I have umm...2 digital cameras that are MINE nobody else's. One is a normal digital camera a Samsung something or other.....and then my cellphone has one and my cell is also a samsung so, yeah...

But, on Veranor's little issue thingy. 1st off I see the point of both sides, so I'm not taking sides, but this will prolly seem a bit one sided anyways, even though I've only got like a sentence to say on both parts.

Points:

1. Its not showing any blood or the such to make it gory. That's like saying a necklace with a cross & christ on it is gory, totally not true. Like I said the picture has no blood or anything, its just a shadowed picture of 'christ' on the cross, you cannot see any blood or the such.

2. While some people do believe in the ways of Christianity others do not, some believe in buddishsm(sp not right, i know), others muslim, mormon, jewish, ummm....etc etc....And others don't believe in any religion, which is atheistic, but those who don't believe are said to be worshippers of the devil....I personally find that untrue, because you're not worshipping anybody because you don't believe in it. So that is why a religion based pic shouldn't be on here.

3. But then again this is america and its freedom of expression & a person can express themselves in whatever way they choose, so let the pic be.

Veranor · September 06, 2004, 10:29:41 PM

Quote from: ScarwakeOkay, I have umm...2 digital cameras that are MINE nobody else's. One is a normal digital camera a Samsung something or other.....and then my cellphone has one and my cell is also a samsung so, yeah...

But, on Veranor's little issue thingy. 1st off I see the point of both sides, so I'm not taking sides, but this will prolly seem a bit one sided anyways, even though I've only got like a sentence to say on both parts.

Points:

1. Its not showing any blood or the such to make it gory. That's like saying a necklace with a cross & christ on it is gory, totally not true. Like I said the picture has no blood or anything, its just a shadowed picture of 'christ' on the cross, you cannot see any blood or the such.

2. While some people do believe in the ways of Christianity others do not, some believe in buddishsm(sp not right, i know), others muslim, mormon, jewish, ummm....etc etc....And others don't believe in any religion, which is atheistic, but those who don't believe are said to be worshippers of the devil....I personally find that untrue, because you're not worshipping anybody because you don't believe in it. So that is why a religion based pic shouldn't be on here.

3. But then again this is america and its freedom of expression & a person can express themselves in whatever way they choose, so let the pic be.

Scarwake, he changed the picture.
For all those who want to view the original picture: http://www.christiananswers.net/spotlight/...fthechrist4.jpg

And your 3rd point is just wrong. If that's true why can't I say [expletive] or [expletive] or any of those words here?

Edit: I heard the book was so much better.