hee hee

xeni said “baloneyshit”

for some reason that just brought out the sniggering kid in me – from now on all incidences of hypocritical self-serving fartward censoring will be referred to as “baloneyshit”

hee hee – baloneyshit

Bravo! You win the big prize!

@ #18: I LOL’ed! Although I don’t really get your point. Do you have one?

Xeni, and everyone else at BB: please, don’t change a bit, even if DIA has blocked you. This is an adult site. That’s why I like it. I’m an adult! Where else can I get such wide ranging ecclectic info from howto sneak shit past the TSA, all kinds of whistleblowing articles on egregious abuses of power by government and corporations, pop and geek culture, art, technology from the high to the low tech, and yes, (sometimes weird) erotica?

That’s what it’s all about. As intelligent, educated open minded adults, I don’t see why these things should be segregated, and I enjoy the fact that you mix it all up. Just be honest about it. That’s all I’m saying.

American culture has always been and will always be prudish and has always enjoyed scapegoating sexuality as the root of all of society’s ills. That will probably never change. Even places like so-called liberal Denver will practice “won’t somebody think of the children” CYA policies. This is non-news. Get over it.

Can I get my membership fee refunded?

Listen, I love you guys, been reading for years, but there are plenty of posts on this site that are gratuitously vulgar. I am by no means in favor of censorship, but come on. Be honest.

For that matter, any REALLY experienced traveler will have their porn collection pre-loaded on their hard drive already and won’t need the help of the internet, thank you very much.

Charles Merriam (10), the word you want is offensive, not offendable. How hard would it be to settle on tag for offensive content? As hard as it is to sort out any other aspect of the “offensive material” issue, viz.:

1. Is the unclothed human body offensive per se? Does it matter what the body’s doing?

2. Does the stated intent of the author, photographer, or editor matter?

3. Which is naughtier: (a.) Someone masturbating, seen nude from behind, so that you can only infer what he or she is doing? (b.) Someone masturbating, photographed with thin opaque latex stretched tightly over the pertinent area, so that you can see all the outlines clearly, but no skin is showing? (c.) Someone masturbating under a heavy quilt that hides all the details, but with a description of their methods and fantasies printed alongside the photo in 24-point boldface?

4. Does a purely technical discussion of teledildonics qualify as “sexual content”? Is it offensive?

5. Does a story about an erotic encounter in which one or more characters are under eighteen years of age constitute child pornography? Is it offensive?

6. Does that change if it’s a first-person nonfiction account? Is it offensive?

7. Is a photo of a woman in her underwear offensive?

8. Is a photo of a woman in her underwear, striking an intentionally suggestive pose, offensive?

9. Is it more offensive if she’s got her hair up in pigtails, a teddy bear under one arm, a lollipop in her hand, and a credit line in eight-point type under the photo saying she’s twenty-two years old?

10. Are naked men more offensive than naked women?

11. If nudity occurs in a Renaissance or Baroque painting, is it offensive? How about Ukiyo-e?

12. Is color photography more offensive than black and white?

13. If a magazine runs a breathtaking photo spread of feet and shoes, and you don’t have the shoe thing and consequently don’t register the photo spread as intensely sexual, is it offensive?

14. If the foreground of a comic book splash page is a lovingly rendered butt shot of a scantily dressed female warrior about to go into battle, and the middle and background is taken up by a massive and elaborate monster that’s charging the babe head-on, which figure will a ten-year-old boy focus on? Is the one he’s not looking at offensive?

And that’s only scratching the surface.

Radboy (13):

“Last time I checked, the Constitution does not require the government to provide free wi-fi, complete with access to adult sites.”

Last time I checked, the law was perfectly capable of adjudicating questions involving technologies that weren’t an issue when the law was written.

Last time I checked, the Constitution didn’t specifically require the government to provide any
commercial services to speak of, so WTF are you on about?

Last time I checked, the Constitution said nothing about how Denver’s city and county governments run their airport.

“The law does make the government liable for potential crimes, like child internet porn,”

Note: “having your child see porn” does not equal “child pornography.” Furthermore, the government is not Constitutionally required to forestall potential crimes.

“so they take preventive steps.”

The production of pornography is not governed by the existence of content filters in the wireless at Denver International Airport.

“Consequently, the service is free, it sucks, and it monitors users’ movements and credit info to boot. Sounds like typical government; they shouldn’t have gotten into airport wi-fi in the first place.”

Squa tront? I give up. If you couldn’t be bothered to sort out what you were saying and make something coherent out of it, why should I do it for you?

Bolamig (19), good comments.

Dafoink (20), vulgarity is not the issue.

Drinian (23): excellent point. If other airports don’t have to filter their WiFi, DIA doesn’t have to do it either.

Seyo (26), I disapprove of all-caps shouting.

How can something be offensive if there’s no art in it? How can a purely technical article be sexual? Those are both serious questions.

The good news is that they haven’t blocked port 22, so it’s entirely possible to SSH out and use a SOCKS proxy to browse the Web instead, or connect to a VPN. But that really shouldn’t be necessary, and the fact remains that the connection is so slow as to be unusable. DEN must be aware of this, but they haven’t done anything about it in three or four months now. Maybe this is because they also have pay-per-minute “Internet cafés” scattered around the terminals that you can use to play WoW or browse the Web.

and by imputation they were being dishonest? I don’t recall the word vulgar emerging until you brought it up and some other hanger on jumped on the bandwagon.

I’ve looked all through the Constitution, and I don’t see the part that permits government officials to make that sort of judgment call.

You beat me to it.

I did a quick google on W.H.Smith (one one the UKs biggest bookshop chains) and they definitely carry Penthouse, Mayfair, For Women and Playboy in their airpost branches.

It does seem silly to block a content delivery system based on the chances of someone seeing something they don’t like, when it’s as easy to accidently see the same things (or worse) in magazines that patrons may be perusing.

And @ #5 & #6, is vulgarity a reason to lock it down completely, when I can just as easily bring the latest edition of 2GirlsOneCup-Uncovered magazine and look at it all I like?
(yes I may be asked to not do so by staff, but so can a laptop user.)

ANSWER! ANSWER THE HOLY INQUISITOR! For the good of your immortal soul! CONFESS! (guard, the pilliwinks)

I remember when DIA was just being finished and there was a spectacular piece of conspiracy about it being the Queen’s “danger room”, has a world-wide control center buried deep beneath the ground, and suspicious freemasonry symbols all over the place… Oh sweet, it’s back up: http://www.geocities.com/Baja/5692/

wow, no baloneyshit, the runways DO make a swastika … hrm…

What law? Why does this law only apply to DIA but municipal wifi and private wifi don’t have to install filters? Nevermind, it must be a seecret law like the TSA guidelines.

No, there are only two reasons for these filters:

1. Lazy CYA (Is that vulgar :-?)
2. Nanny state.

Since Denver’s a pretty liberal town I’m guessing it’s lazy CYA. Someone just installed the filter because they thought it would make their job easier. Posts like Xeni’s shift the balance so it’s easier for the lazy admin to remove the filter.

Well, duh. “Pubic” wouldn’t get past their filter.

Not at all. I think our (my at least) point is that BB et al shouldn’t call themselves tastefully artistic. Sometimes it’s purposely vulgar. It doesn’t do “the cause” much good to talk one way to the press but act another online.

“just because it occasionally posts respected artworks that might include nudity.”

is dishonest.

Posts about Uncle Dirty the 100 year bodybuilder in a thong who enjoys pasting penises onto magazine photos are VLGR. Posts about tele-dildonics are VRTLY SXL. There are tons of posts to this site that are about sexual things having NTHNG T D WTH RT. Not just the occasional peepees or teetees as depicted by a work of art. That statement makes it sound like they were banned for showing Michelangelo’s David. And that, again, is DSHNST.

What is your problem anyway? You have a real baloneyshit attitude.