Ping-chan

I hope if you have questions for the moderators that you have first contacted them via e-mail privately and are only making a spectacle on the board about it because you've been ignored and haven't received a response to your inquiry, right?

I still like you so I'm going to act 'buddy', I try to act friendly in general but unlike many it rarely takes any effort (now being an exception) with people I like, such as you.

I don't really pay attention to whether or not friendship requests get received, I really just make a habit of sending them out because I hope to brighten days. Anyway, I can't seem to find VoA at the moment, much less remember anything from it. I'm sure if it were accessible you would use the PM function there to contact me privately with your concerns and that making a new thread about it here is a last resort needed to deal with an immediate concern.

I am not agile enough to prance. My attempts at prancing look very uncoordinated, I associate that word with deer, or better yet, gazelles. I have a lot of work to do to be able to prance properly.

"Sexualized" (noun: sexualization, verb: to sexualize) is not 'vigilanti gibberish' (exotic e>i btw). It's an actual word, and its use is not correlated with taking the law into your own hands.

To clarify my meaning from the previous thread: as you have stated, the board attracts 'like minds' (although I don't see anything in the rules telling people to GTFO if they disagree, as you have insinuated I should) so clearly there is a context which would give an abnormal perspective to pictures of girls posted here.

That would be a sexual perspective, and thus yes, if you posted topless little girls here the pictures would be sexualized by the atmosphere, and this would not be appropriate. It would not foster clearheaded conversation amongst those who are either aroused (or enraged) by seeing stuff like that.

Art is certainly a topic I have seen brought up here, but it's not a model site and clearly not the best way to view such images and discuss them. Again, I do wonder if you disagree with the forum policies, have you contacted the moderators privately about your beliefs on how and why the policies should be changed? I tend to throw out some ideas too, but it's a bit rude to be insistent about big overhauls like that when not actually financially supporting it (I'm not, are you?)

Now, you ask how the pics are made sexual when given the topic of the site. I would ask: how would posting such images fall within the description you have given? How would showing a little girl's nipples help in giving verbal support to people, or to learn and understand how to love?

They're culturally, private parts. Exposing them puts undue focus upon the body and physical form. If the focus is on the support of love or romantic feelings rather than upon sexual objectification then why would the censorship of controversial body parts be an issue?

I think it's certainly wrong if a government wanted to censor showing stuff like that, but it's really not a problem at all if a private website chooses not to allow users to display it.

If you want to host a site that shows topless girls where people can discuss the pics then it would be possible to host it yourself as opposed to trying to get someone else to use their own bandwidth (and stake their own asses on the line) for doing it.

You're essentially asking people to take a risk upon them self for your own desire. I certainly try to do that all the time too, but you really shouldn't get angry at people who point out the potential problems with such changes in policy.