Lisa porn post - likely suspect

Phil Askey said:

You're welcome to explore his galleries (and appreciate the NORMAL
photography too):

http://www.pbase.com/frances/galleries

http://www.pbase.com/frances/bikini_candid
http://www.pbase.com/frances/new
http://www.pbase.com/frances/beach
http://www.pbase.com/frances/comfy_readers
http://www.pbase.com/frances/lounge_chairs___

JohnM said:

I'm curious, what was wrong with the bikini pics??

Where people objecting to them??

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ruvy said:

Well,well. Threatening shouldn't be tolerated and good you did for
bringing it up. I didn't read all the responses here but read
enough to wonder were are all the people woh love his photography.
I hope that some disagreement with you is still acceptable.
Personaly I like Frances spirit maybe because he is so hot tempered
maybe because he can express himself so well with three words and
an image, maybe because he is so colorful and not like everyone
else (me included).
As someone who painted nude models from the age of 15 and enjoy the
beauty of the human body I see NOTHING WRONG in Frances bikini
images. Most of them have good fundamentals of photography no
matter if it is a Hwaiin dancer or a beach gower or just a group of
palms. I think he is great and a great deal of injustice is
happening here as well as a lot of hypocracy.
It is true that being as hot tempered as he is sometime he does
foolish things (threatening) but lets keep thing in proportion,
otherwise we will have to go against everyone whose passion gets
him a bit too far. Lets appreciate what there is to appreciate and
not start a witch haunt as I read in the first dozen of posts in
this thread.
As far as what is permited and what is not, it is your board and
you can impose your moral values. So far you did right for not
censoring his photographic work. If your advertizers or yourself
don't like photographic art that express the beauty and poetry of
the femail body is too bad but I doubt this is the case. Perhaps it
should be clearer stated what is the line. I think nudity by itself
shouldn't be the line but erotic gestures or implied erotics
should. Difficult to define, I know but so much wrong have happen
in the world because of too puritan attitude that it is important
to drow a liberal (maybe not too liberal) line. I was under the
impression that this was your attitude too. your last comments made
me doubt that and made me sad too.

Ruvy

Phil Askey said:

You're welcome to explore his galleries (and appreciate the NORMAL
photography too):

http://www.pbase.com/frances/galleries

http://www.pbase.com/frances/bikini_candid
http://www.pbase.com/frances/new
http://www.pbase.com/frances/beach
http://www.pbase.com/frances/comfy_readers
http://www.pbase.com/frances/lounge_chairs___

JohnM said:

I'm curious, what was wrong with the bikini pics??

Where people objecting to them??

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

sam lee said:

Hi, all: Just a thought....

a) I agree that Phil has every right to maintain this site
according to the guidelines set by him. Whoever wishes to
participate in this forum have to follow these guidelines. Frances
shouldn't send out any threatening email to Phil - no excuse...it
is just unacceptable.

b) It is seriously wrong to post a link to an xxx site.

c) Frances has been posting females in bikini for some time.
Those who were not comfortable with his postings then why kept
quiet? You made a mistake by not letting Frances know about your
feeling? Don't forget: silence means consent.

d) Females in bikini at the beach vs on the internet - Since both
are for public viewing (no restriction to the minors), is there any
difference?

sam

Click to expand...

sam lee said:

c) Frances has been posting females in bikini for some time.
Those who were not comfortable with his postings then why kept
quiet? You made a mistake by not letting Frances know about your
feeling? Don't forget: silence means consent.

Click to expand...

Jarrell Conley said:

Ruvy said:

Well,well. Threatening shouldn't be tolerated and good you did for
bringing it up. I didn't read all the responses here but read
enough to wonder were are all the people woh love his photography.
I hope that some disagreement with you is still acceptable.
Personaly I like Frances spirit maybe because he is so hot tempered
maybe because he can express himself so well with three words and
an image, maybe because he is so colorful and not like everyone
else (me included).
As someone who painted nude models from the age of 15 and enjoy the
beauty of the human body I see NOTHING WRONG in Frances bikini
images. Most of them have good fundamentals of photography no
matter if it is a Hwaiin dancer or a beach gower or just a group of
palms. I think he is great and a great deal of injustice is
happening here as well as a lot of hypocracy.
It is true that being as hot tempered as he is sometime he does
foolish things (threatening) but lets keep thing in proportion,
otherwise we will have to go against everyone whose passion gets
him a bit too far. Lets appreciate what there is to appreciate and
not start a witch haunt as I read in the first dozen of posts in
this thread.
As far as what is permited and what is not, it is your board and
you can impose your moral values. So far you did right for not
censoring his photographic work. If your advertizers or yourself
don't like photographic art that express the beauty and poetry of
the femail body is too bad but I doubt this is the case. Perhaps it
should be clearer stated what is the line. I think nudity by itself
shouldn't be the line but erotic gestures or implied erotics
should. Difficult to define, I know but so much wrong have happen
in the world because of too puritan attitude that it is important
to drow a liberal (maybe not too liberal) line. I was under the
impression that this was your attitude too. your last comments made
me doubt that and made me sad too.

Ruvy

Phil Askey said:

You're welcome to explore his galleries (and appreciate the NORMAL
photography too):

http://www.pbase.com/frances/galleries

http://www.pbase.com/frances/bikini_candid
http://www.pbase.com/frances/new
http://www.pbase.com/frances/beach
http://www.pbase.com/frances/comfy_readers
http://www.pbase.com/frances/lounge_chairs___

JohnM said:

I'm curious, what was wrong with the bikini pics??

Where people objecting to them??

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

sam lee said:

oops, another point:

If Frances agrees to give an undertaking to Phil that in the future
he would follow the guidelines and apologize to Phil for what he
did, personally I feel he should be given another chance to
participate in this forum...

sam

Click to expand...

Ruvy said:

Jarrel

You may be wasting your time and may be I do too but to set the
record streight I didn't see the image. Even if it was pure
phornography (I doubt it was) this thread is too vendictive of a
member that I like his work and his passion. He might have been
wrong but this thread is a Lynch trial orchestrated by Phil that
goes personal way beyond the issue itself. As much as I owe Phil a
lot of knowledge and enjoyable hours on this board, I do critisize
him for this thread. IMHO he should have stopped posting after
exposing the thread. He is too powerful here to get in an open
personal fight and fuele this any further. Frances passion carried
him too far, if this is the case, there are more human ways to get
a person back to his bounds.

As far as my wrinting making sense to you or not. I am not an
American and English is not my language. Enjy what ever you could
understand that did make sense to you. All I write makes perfect
sense to me.

Ruvy

Click to expand...

Jonathan said:

My take is this, Phil why do you even bother to let us know that
you blocked someone? In my opinion you don't have to. It is your
site we are Guests that come here to learn, explore, talk, and
enjoy the comunity.
You are our mayor if some one pisses you off can them no
explanation needed. "you the Man" remember that and act acordingly.
Good job.
J.Z

Click to expand...

Ruvy said:

Jarrel

You may be wasting your time and may be I do too but to set the
record streight I didn't see the image. Even if it was pure
phornography (I doubt it was)

Click to expand...

Bob Graham said:

Bob Graham said:

oops, another point:

If Frances agrees to give an undertaking to Phil that in the future
he would follow the guidelines and apologize to Phil for what he
did, personally I feel he should be given another chance to
participate in this forum...

sam

Click to expand...

Bob Graham Wrote:

He has been given many chances. He won't change.
And I'm pretty sure he won't apologize to Phil. Frances
enjoys pestering him.

Click to expand...

JohnM said:

Ruvy said:

Jarrel

You may be wasting your time and may be I do too but to set the
record streight I didn't see the image. Even if it was pure
phornography (I doubt it was)

Click to expand...

You're wrong there Ruvy. It was images of a very well endowed
black man recieving oral sex from a white women. Bill Clinton may
not call that sex, but I certainly do.

Click to expand...

Ruvy said:

John

If this was the case censoring it might have been the right thing
to do but this got carried too far into a personal fude.

Click to expand...

Ruvy said:

John

If this was the case censoring it might have been the right thing
to do but this got carried too far into a personal fude.

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

Yes i agree with the need to maintain some boundaries for freedom of
expression,

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

The issue is outcasting a person (rather than his act)

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

and the roll of the moderator in this board in doing so. Most of
the images Phil brought as an example for Frances distast were
perfectly fine and often I have shared them with my wife. While I
agree that a moderator should set up limits I think he should set
some limits to himself too. My experience was that he always does -
this publicly presented fude between him and Frances was uneven and
wrong.

Click to expand...

JohnM said:

I wouldn't want it of my wife or
16 year old niece

Neither would I, but I guess if my wife was lying on the beach in a
string bikini she would certainly be fair game for photographers.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here at all by the way Phil.
It's your site, you do a great job, & are certainly within your
rights to enforce any rules you wish.

Click to expand...

markE said:

Ruvy said:

John

If this was the case censoring it might have been the right thing
to do but this got carried too far into a personal fude.

Click to expand...

Ruvy, read now carefully: Frances posted direct links to a porno
site. A PORNO SITE. Apparently this wasn't even his "work"! OK, got
that? Now, in addition to that, Frances threatened Phil. Yes, Ruvy,
HE THREATENED PHIL.

markE59102 said:

Yes i agree with the need to maintain some boundaries for freedom of
expression,

Click to expand...

And Phil is attempting to do just that. If recieving threats
wouldn't ruffle your feathers, then what would?

markE59102 said:

The issue is outcasting a person (rather than his act)

Click to expand...

Oh for God's sake Ruvy! You have to hold a person accountable for
their actions! What are you supposed to do? Maybe take Frances'
porno trash and threat, print it out on paper, put it in a little
box and say, "You've been bad. You need to stay off the DP forum.
Bad porno! Bad threat!" Is that your idea how to deal with such
behaviour? Tell me Ruvy, when a person shoots and kills another
person, do you blame the gun? Bad gun! We must separate the act
from the person, right?

markE59102 said:

and the roll of the moderator in this board in doing so. Most of
the images Phil brought as an example for Frances distast were
perfectly fine and often I have shared them with my wife. While I
agree that a moderator should set up limits I think he should set
some limits to himself too. My experience was that he always does -
this publicly presented fude between him and Frances was uneven and
wrong.

Click to expand...

Phil is protecting his investment and reputation, while Frances was
trying to ruin it. Can't you understand it? Philis not the problem
here, Ruvy. Anyone who doesn't want to be here is free to leave and
start their own forum.

Sorry to lay into you like this Ruvy. You do have good English, but
your moral character leaves much to be desired.

markE

Click to expand...

cj said:

JohnM said:

I wouldn't want it of my wife or
16 year old niece

Neither would I, but I guess if my wife was lying on the beach in a
string bikini she would certainly be fair game for photographers.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here at all by the way Phil.
It's your site, you do a great job, & are certainly within your
rights to enforce any rules you wish.

Click to expand...

I have to dissagree.
Of course if you're lying on the beach in a bikini you should be
aware that people that are there will look at you. But you've
certainly not signed up for being the subject of someone's online
gallery! So i don't know what you mean by fair game ? Are we as
photgraphers now predators or what did you mean ?

In my opinion it is just common courtesy not to take pictures of
people lying halfnaked on the beach. And if you did do this to my
girlfrind i'd consider your camera fair game and maybe test if it
floats !

cj

Click to expand...

Ruvy said:

I am a bit overwhelmed with your morals and wish mine were just as
high as yours. Will be even happy with half as much. Your tone of
speach (pritch) is even more impressive. You must be a very
important person - a leader of sorts, a pillar of your community.
You must be very confident in your way to dare writing like that.
Though I never use porno ( most I have seen was pleasing to my eyes
but I can imagine also a nice one too). Because I don't consume it,
porno is not a big issue for me as it may be for other here. On the
other hand people, be it Phil or Frances or any other human being
are very important to me, and despite my infirior moral standards i
feel that there is justice and it is not all in one side. (you have
easier time with it).
I see the wrong doing of both Frances and Phil. Since our world is
full with people that like rules and other that are challanged by
them, we, as a society have to give as much slack as possible to
all as long as they are not threateniing our lives and the ways we
want to handle them. This is something more difficult to accept for
prichers with your absolute truth. It is called humanizm - looking
at truth from different perspectives.
Frnaces was wrong (do you get it Mark? wrong read again in all my
posts since I have heard about the porno issue) should I repeat it
mark? just for your moral.. Mark?) and so are you. To say that
Frances wanted to destroy/ruin Phils board is one of the most
rediculous things I have read here. Frances live and thrives in
this board, he is one of the most active participants. Where do you
get your ideas? (Mark!). He might have gotten too far out and Phil
is absolutely right, (and so are all his defenders like yourself)
for trying to set the limits and to enforce them. I didn't argue
against that.
All that was said was: 1. In my opinion (do you mind it Mark?) Phil
was wrong for the way he had handled it. If Frances was insulted by
it he might acted out of anger and done more things he shouldn't
have at the first place. 2. I was amazed that all the people who
appreciated and complemented Frances for all his great shots have
disappeared and everyone was too fast to hit on him. I am sure he
enjoys the attention but what about commradery - or is it just
hypocracy? (does it bare any moral value in your eyes? mark)

I like this board and participate in it when I can afford the time.
It is a great one. The owner and creator of this board do not need
my recomendation. I would have never been able to handle something
like that and keep it in such high standards as Phil does. If it
was possible to isolate this case alone me being Phil, I would have
handled it by e-mail and stop my posting here after I have made the
issue known (if I got to the pppoint of no other choise). I would
have not carried on my participation in the discussion here. To my
eyes it is more respected/respecting way to do it.

Ruvy

markE said:

Ruvy said:

John

If this was the case censoring it might have been the right thing
to do but this got carried too far into a personal fude.

Click to expand...

Ruvy, read now carefully: Frances posted direct links to a porno
site. A PORNO SITE. Apparently this wasn't even his "work"! OK, got
that? Now, in addition to that, Frances threatened Phil. Yes, Ruvy,
HE THREATENED PHIL.

RuvyA said:

Yes i agree with the need to maintain some boundaries for freedom of
expression,

Click to expand...

And Phil is attempting to do just that. If recieving threats
wouldn't ruffle your feathers, then what would?

RuvyA said:

The issue is outcasting a person (rather than his act)

Click to expand...

Oh for God's sake Ruvy! You have to hold a person accountable for
their actions! What are you supposed to do? Maybe take Frances'
porno trash and threat, print it out on paper, put it in a little
box and say, "You've been bad. You need to stay off the DP forum.
Bad porno! Bad threat!" Is that your idea how to deal with such
behaviour? Tell me Ruvy, when a person shoots and kills another
person, do you blame the gun? Bad gun! We must separate the act
from the person, right?

RuvyA said:

and the roll of the moderator in this board in doing so. Most of
the images Phil brought as an example for Frances distast were
perfectly fine and often I have shared them with my wife. While I
agree that a moderator should set up limits I think he should set
some limits to himself too. My experience was that he always does -
this publicly presented fude between him and Frances was uneven and
wrong.

Click to expand...

Phil is protecting his investment and reputation, while Frances was
trying to ruin it. Can't you understand it? Philis not the problem
here, Ruvy. Anyone who doesn't want to be here is free to leave and
start their own forum.

Sorry to lay into you like this Ruvy. You do have good English, but
your moral character leaves much to be desired.

markE

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ruvy said:

Dear MarkE

I am a bit overwhelmed with your morals and wish mine were just as
high as yours. Will be even happy with half as much. Your tone of
speach (pritch) is even more impressive. You must be a very
important person - a leader of sorts, a pillar of your community.
You must be very confident in your way to dare writing like that.

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

Though I never use porno ( most I have seen was pleasing to my eyes
but I can imagine also a nice one too). Because I don't consume it,
porno is not a big issue for me as it may be for other here.

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

other hand people, be it Phil or Frances or any other human being
are very important to me, and despite my infirior moral standards i
feel that there is justice and it is not all in one side. (you have
easier time with it).

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

I see the wrong doing of both Frances and Phil. Since our world is
full with people that like rules and other that are challanged by
them, we, as a society have to give as much slack as possible to
all as long as they are not threateniing our lives and the ways we
want to handle them.

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

prichers with your absolute truth. It is called humanizm - looking
at truth from different perspectives.

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

Frnaces was wrong (do you get it Mark? wrong read again in all my
posts since I have heard about the porno issue) should I repeat it
mark? just for your moral.. Mark?)

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

Frances wanted to destroy/ruin Phils board is one of the most
rediculous things I have read here.

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

this board, he is one of the most active participants.

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

get your ideas?

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

is absolutely right, (and so are all his defenders like yourself)
for trying to set the limits and to enforce them. I didn't argue
against that.
All that was said was: 1. In my opinion (do you mind it Mark?)Phil
was wrong for the way he had handled it. If Frances was insulted by
it he might

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

have at the first place. 2. I was amazed that all the people who
appreciated and complemented Frances for all his great shots have
disappeared and everyone was too fast to hit on him.

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

enjoys the attention but what about commradery - or is it just
hypocracy? (does it bare any moral value in your eyes? mark)

Click to expand...

RuvyA said:

I like this board and participate in it when I can afford the time.
It is a great one. The owner and creator of this board do not need
my recomendation. I would have never been able to handle something
like that and keep it in such high standards as Phil does. If it
was possible to isolate this case alone me being Phil, I would have
handled it by e-mail and stop my posting here after I have made the
issue known (if I got to the pppoint of no other choise). I would
have not carried on my participation in the discussion here. To my
eyes it is more respected/respecting way to do it.

Click to expand...