Fantômas’ avatar

Fide:

Actually, it depicts a scene from the movie Scanners; in fact, one of the best, if most gruesome.

It may or may not be unpleasant, but I don't think it rises to the level of ejectable.

Perhaps you should keep in mind that it is only "special effects" from a movie, and not the real thing...

Peace.

Jim Garten wrote: Strange, I've no problem with that avatar, but the one Crimson Prince uses.... Yes, it's only animation, but I still find it a little distasteful. Sorry CP.

Despite having used it myself,in my forum youth,so to speak-I dont like it.Fantomas will change it when he realises that nobody takes his posts seriously because of it.

Sometimes the need to be perceived as cool overrides one's objectivity.

Great seminal movie. Avatar doesnt really bother me, but I dont really like it. Its not the spirit of the site somehow. Its obviously intended to shock too.

BTW where does one find these animated Avatars?

Snow Dog wrote: Great seminal movie. Avatar doesnt really bother me, but I dont really like it. Its not the spirit of the site somehow. Its obviously intended to shock too. BTW where does one find these animated Avatars?

Best way is to search other forums and then copy and paste them.

greenback Collaborators @ Progarchives.com Joined: 14 August 2004 Location: Canada Online Status: Online Posts: 1457

Posted: 26 April 2005 at 8:55pm | IP Logged hey! there are too many bloody avatars here! __________________ [MY AVATAR IS DEDICATED TO LUCAS!>

I'm glad to see i'm not the only one to disapprove such avatars: just think about anyone (could be jon anderson or neal morse themselves) who come here in the forums and see those avatars....mmmmm.....i don't think that it would make the unanimity! this exploding head is very popular, i have seen it on many sites, and i always wondered if it was not real! what is the point to IMPOSE us such distaseful animated avatars? i think we do not need this to attract interesting people. The same goes for Crimson King's fratricide avatar. humour, yes, but porn & death representation, NO!

tuxon wrote: He's not the first to use that avatar, it doesn't annoy me, but I don't like  it I prefer mine.

I solved that problem by being lazy and not chosen an avatar.

Fantomas's avatar is tasteless and Bob/Easy's remark about prudery is one to make me ponder!

How can one not offended by this sheer horror scenes and gruesome killings in most films (US or others) and sits fine with most censors(on the account that it is fiction and fake/trickery) but the slightest hint of pornography/nudity (i.e. the Janet Jackson tit ) creates havoc (because it is real and no reconstitution?!?).

Most people offended by nudity and a bit of erotism should get psychiatrist's help.

Do not get me wrong , I did not even see the slightest pornographic picture posted by this Belva character and certainly condemn the use of those in a site such as this. But if pornography is to be banned (hurray to that in the Archives) Bloody, gruesome gore shopuld also be banned.

Floyd Wright and Ivàn:

I will make absolutely no comment on those threads since I did not see any posting (nor have I really looked for them either) from this Belva character. However , I trust that the uproar created by the members is completely justified. I condemn the use of pornography on this site because it is out of place and not the subject/scope of the Archives.

FW,

I said that comment about getting psych help in context of my entire posts: people getting offended by nudity or erotism (there is a difference with pornography) but not by gruesome killings, gorry murders and general bloodshed as so often graphically shown in War Movies or Horror movies. There is a solid problem here. By the time a kid is 14 , he will have seen 10000 murders on TV without anyone saying anything , but if he saw once the very act that drives not only human life but every kind of Earthly animal life, the very essence of the sentiment so warmly sung in every possible manner , the act of love-making, then there is major havoc. Is there not a huge hypocrisy?

The uproar at the view of Janet Jackson's tit was another source of world laughter at American prudery (no offence meant at US or at anyone else) and would've gone unnoticed in the world if such a scandal was not made.

As for kids not seeing pornography on the Archives , you are right. But kids are not likely to be shocked by a slight nudity unless their parents induce in their minds that nudity is dirty/evil , so we end up repeating/reflect/pass-on  our hang-ups on future generations.

However , the other risk is that nudity/erotism is used at commercial ends to sell us cars , food , soaps etc.... is problematic but on a different scale. No uproar of that because it is business.

Read your response with interest.

Hugues