Yes your not kidding. What I am still frustrated about is the Still Questionable Logonui's on their site. I say they are (That some) are Pornographic, and is unacceptible to have them available for download where Minors can easily Access them.

Or is this just me ? am I the only one that cares whether they can do this or not !

Jafo - you certainly hung in there... nice job. The guy is a little too distracted with himself to understand what you're saying, unfortunately.

Since when are images from magazine ads considered 'porn'? I didn't see anything that wasn't either a standard celebrity or fashion photo. Porn implies explicit sexual content, not nudity. Even nudity would be an inapropriate term for the few images of women I saw there. Don't go to any art museums, fashion shows or movies if you're shocked that easily.

The only 'objectionable' thing about the images on that site is the total disregard for intellectual property. It's fair to assume that none of the photos were taken by the folks that are posting them, and that none of them are authorized for redistribution.

Ok another Logon Picture I saw was of Jennifer Aniston naked lying on the floor showing her bum off.

So your telling me that she would apprieciate this picture being availble for download as a Logonui or any thing other. Does this protect her rights as an individual ? I mean ok she is an Actress. But it is so clearly obvious what the Picture entails.

The Victorian era, with it's extreme repression in fashion, morales, thoughts and behaviour, became known as the bawdiest and most perverted period in history. Attitudes about morality seem to be downright harmful when they deny human nature or try to make bodies shameful things.

Today the same effect is creating the popularity and availability of raunchy sex images and tasteless sleaze in advertising. All through our social development churches and public morality advocates have conditioned us, from the board of censors in Hollywood to the Sunday catechism classes, to think that sex or nudity is a shameful, bad thing. It's no wonder that now (thanks to the concerned efforts of artists and writers) when it's legal to show a lot more skin there is a rush to sleaze and debauchery that seems mostly fueled by the repressed masses.

The protections fought for in the sixties free speech movement came about because there were regional efforts to ban certain books for their offensive content. Great works of literary art were being threatened and the war engaged against the repression of thought and free expression was joined by most of the greatest names in the literary and art world.

The need for tolerance in artistic content is an absolute necessity to a free and healthy society. The offensiveness of material should not be judged by a religious or secular imperitive that forwards a single person's or group's agenda. There is hefty legislation in place to deal with the 'outer boundary' of offensiveness. It gets challenged all the time but it still seems to hold up to a majority opinion of what is going too far.

I find it easy to avoid pornography simply by the fact that it does not interest me and in fact turns my stomach. I also think everything I see on network television is distasteful to a degree that I can't relate to it at all. The whole concept of sleaze and titillation in the media just fosters more stereotyped images of women for those that are lacking in brains and manners. Teach your children respect for other human beings and inspire them to find their own identity rather than adopt some charicature from television as their mentor and give them unconditional love and support. The world's frustrated teens will figure out eventually that insulting women will prevent you from ever being friends with one.

And then there's the other pornographic plague of acceptable and highly promoted character builders... ultra violence. Overall I'd say the churches have failed miserably to prepare most people for life (or death).

Ms Cat...
I think it is safe to say that 'a picture of Pamela Anderson lying on her back ripping her underwear off' was not intended to 'offend', but to 'titilate'. The 'Offensiveness' is subjective and contextual.
Victorian times would perhaps have taken issue, but certainly at other times, both before AND since, society would be relatively unlikely to raise an eyebrow, let alone a storm of protest.

Now, as to whether that content is suitable for the site.....well, I have an extremely low opinion of that site anyway, and would consider it entirely appropriate for a site with no sense of decency and common respect of copyright issues and such-like, and I opt for the free-thinking concept of just ignoring the site totally as being a non-event....