Miscellany
It's come to my attention, via adela_terrell, that LiveJournal is putting pressure on people who have user icons featuring breast feeding. Most of these LJ users, understandably, thought they were on safe ground considering how explicit some people's pictures are, and are understandably cheesed at having to get rid of their pictures.
I've racked my brains as to why this might be worth censoring in some people's opinion, and I can only assume that they're worried it might be down to fear of posting an indecent image of a child. Which is nonsense on no less than three levels - firstly, that no court in the free world would make such a conviction, secondly, that paedophiles are generally none too interested in adult breasts, and thirdly that paedophiles are generally aroused by any picture of a child, so unless LiveJournal is planning to ban all pictures of children their position has a hole in it.
If you find all this as baffling and indefensible as I do, why not drop LiveJournal a line?
Happy links! MaryAnn Johanson comes up with a good definition for that odd Colin-Bakeriness that Colin Baker-era Doctor Who has; it's "baroque" TV, which probably explains why I have such a perenially unfashionable soft spot for it. The BBFC rules that Walking With Monsters contains "mild fantasy violence", no doubt to the chagrin of the BBC, who continue to insist that every single second of it is eight hundred per cent factomation. But what's with "None" under "Sex/Nudity"? Some of those Dimetrodons looked pretty damn naked to me!
Meanwhile, Lindsay Lohan's publicist... no, I can't describe it. Just read it for yourself and wish along with me that all publicists were as amusingly indiscreet.
I'll reply to comments and LJ updates later. Current reading material - Postcards by Annie Proulx and Game For Antyhing - Writings On Cricket by Gideon Haigh. Current favourite album - They'll Have To Catch Us First - A Domino Records Sampler featuring Adem, Franz Ferdinand, Quasi, Four Tet et al.
I've racked my brains as to why this might be worth censoring in some people's opinion, and I can only assume that they're worried it might be down to fear of posting an indecent image of a child. Which is nonsense on no less than three levels - firstly, that no court in the free world would make such a conviction, secondly, that paedophiles are generally none too interested in adult breasts, and thirdly that paedophiles are generally aroused by any picture of a child, so unless LiveJournal is planning to ban all pictures of children their position has a hole in it.
If you find all this as baffling and indefensible as I do, why not drop LiveJournal a line?
Happy links! MaryAnn Johanson comes up with a good definition for that odd Colin-Bakeriness that Colin Baker-era Doctor Who has; it's "baroque" TV, which probably explains why I have such a perenially unfashionable soft spot for it. The BBFC rules that Walking With Monsters contains "mild fantasy violence", no doubt to the chagrin of the BBC, who continue to insist that every single second of it is eight hundred per cent factomation. But what's with "None" under "Sex/Nudity"? Some of those Dimetrodons looked pretty damn naked to me!
Meanwhile, Lindsay Lohan's publicist... no, I can't describe it. Just read it for yourself and wish along with me that all publicists were as amusingly indiscreet.
I'll reply to comments and LJ updates later. Current reading material - Postcards by Annie Proulx and Game For Antyhing - Writings On Cricket by Gideon Haigh. Current favourite album - They'll Have To Catch Us First - A Domino Records Sampler featuring Adem, Franz Ferdinand, Quasi, Four Tet et al.