Fin's pics gone. Software glitch?

[RockHard]

Well, of course I'm on a Mac and it seems, ever since the maintenance weekend, there's a snafu with pics. I've checked Fin's posts in both Safari and IE and all images are not visible.

 

What's really bizarre is I saw the Greg Gorman/Alexis image this morning in Safari without problem. Maybe it's time to hire someone better skilled than deej? :-)

[IceFireWizard]

RE: Fin's pics

 

The problem comes from Sean Cody's website, NOT the DC Board, Mister Rock Hard.

 

The Ice Fire Wizard

[RockHard]

RE: Fin's pics

 

The Greg Gorman pic of Alexis has no relationship to Sean Cody's website.

[IceFireWizard]

RE: Fin's pics

 

>The Greg Gorman pic of Alexis has no relationship to Sean Cody's website.

 

Agreed. Still the problem doesn't come from the DC Board.

 

The Ice Fire Wizard

[Steven_Draker]

>What's really bizarre is I saw the Greg Gorman/Alexis image this morning in Safari without problem.

 

Rock Hard, let me try to post that picture for you.

 

http://www.geocities.com/stevendraker/AlexisArquette001.jpg

 

Steven Draker ~

http://www.hotsexystud.com/uk

[RockHard]

I keep forgetting about bandwidth restrictions, here or elsewhere. Makes perfect sense. We should be grateful for the ability to post images here since we don't pay to view.

 

Thank you deej for the explanation and Stephen for the eye candy.

 

Rock :-)

[Lookin]

Here's a trick just for Safari users that usually lets you see the missing pics.

 

Under the Window menu in Safari, click "Activity". You'll see a list of all the elements in the web page you're currently viewing. (You may have to click the triangle thingy so it's pointing down, in order to display all the items that make up that page.) In that list of page elements, you'll see some that are pictures; i.e., they end in "jpg". Just double click on that item, and you'll probably see the picture. It may be marked "forbidden", which is why it doesn't show up in the post, but you can still click and view.

 

 

In FinFangFoom's Keefe post, the three picture elements listed in the "Activity" window are:

 

http://seancody.com/preview/0370NudresTu7uC9uM7/photo.jpg

http://seancody.com/preview/0370NudresTu7uC9uM7/photos/01.jpg

http://seancody.com/preview/0370NudresTu7uC9uM7/photos/03.jpg

 

Just click on them and enjoy!

[RockHard]

Thank you, Lookin, for that trick. That's a first for me and I appreciate the info.

 

After clicking on all three jpegs, I didn't see any hard-ons. Of course, a cock has various stages of arousal and Fin's pics offer a very suckable stage, in spite of not being "full" or "raging." I still say it's worth spending a small fee for private membership here so we can have an ADULT site free from censure. :-)

[+ deej]

>I still say it's worth spending a small fee for private membership here

>so we can have an ADULT site free from censure.

 

The two issues are unrelated.

 

We have (continually) considered charging a membership fee and the cons have always outweighed the pros.

 

There are, in fact, many places on the net where you can pay a membership fee to see naked men, including the site these very photos were stolen from. M4M is NOT a clearing house for pirated porn. That is not our mission or our goal. We are also not a porn production site.

 

As far as explicit images goes, paying a membership fee wouldn't help at all. We'd have to have proof-of-age on file for each model in each photo. That is a clerical burden the original producer is unlikely to want to undertake and we certainly don't have the clerical staff to handle just the sorting and filing, much less the acquiring.

 

If you do not agree with current 2257 restrictions, I urge you to join the Free Speech Coalition and support their on-going legal wrangling with DOJ.

 

I'm repeating this here mainly for the benefit of lurkers who might not have seen the original reasoning behind all this the first time around.

[Barry]

>After clicking on all three jpegs, I didn't see any hard-ons.

 

No you didn't. As I stated in the other thread, there were five jpegs and I removed the two with hard-ons leaving three.

 

Barry

[RockHard]

I think I FINALLY got it.

 

Gentlemen, thank you. I finally pulled my foot from my ass and read http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/2257.htm. I don't view much porn and was only peripherally aware of these developments.

 

I can certainly understand a parent's interest in trying to prevent their young kids from viewing porn. Some of the porn spam that infects my email seriously offends me. I can only imagine the reaction of a religious orthodox parent, my mother, my favorite teacher, my son and everyone else in between.

 

It seems there are no easy answers on this subject and, as long as we have a Republican/conservative government leading the charge, pictures of women having sex with horses are going to drive a stake in the heart of certain individuals who sincerely believe they belong to a caring society. Unfortunately, this subject goes way beyond my enjoyment of seeing a simple image of a pretty cock in an online forum for gay men.

 

This so-called "free" internet is forcing business and modern societies to delve deeper and ask many hard questions. Since many creative industries haven't figured out how to deal with copyright infringement on the internet, why should any similar issue surrounding porn be less perplexing?

 

>I still say it's worth spending a small fee for private membership here

>so we can have an ADULT site free from censure.

 

The two issues are unrelated.

 

I see that now and will no longer relate the two.

 

M4M is NOT a clearing house for pirated porn.

 

But M4M is, at times, a convivial place for gay men to share all aspects of life. One can argue, possibly in some noble court of law, the difference between robbing an image without authorization and sharing one already published with an online compadre. I guess until the lawyers figure this online-dialogue-nuance out, I will refrain from any assumptions or criticisms that accuse M4M for falling prey to any hyper-conservative leanings.

 

Thank you, both, for your patience with me.

 

>After clicking on all three jpegs, I didn't see any hard-ons.

 

No you didn't. As I stated in the other thread, there were five jpegs and I removed the two with hard-ons leaving three.

 

I didn't read there were five originals and I forgot you stated that you removed two, Barry. The three remaining are still not working in Safari, so I wrongly assumed they were out for censure reasons. I know, the bandwidth issue. I'm learning, albeit too slowly for my liking. :-)