hmm, marijuana and alchohol don't kill people either. Its the drinkers killing themselves or others.

kona, cars kill more people and you don't see commercials telling you not to drive, you see commercials telling you to buy a car.

Yes I know.

But I was just pointing out that everday I see these Anti Weed and Anti Cigarette commercials yet alcohol kills more people then both those put together.

exactly but a weapon or car has use to most individuals for legitimate reasons. drugs or booze only have 1 use other than medicinal. and most the peeps shooting or running peeps over are under the influence of 1 or both of them. so exactly why are they acceptable ?

First admin comment on the submission...[from me]..was 'Probably not'.

Second comment ...[someone else]...'hehe'.

Third comment....[Someone else]...' I love it but aren't we supposed to be PC?'

Fourth comment ...[me again]...'Let's wake 'em up'.

Fifth comment....[someone else]....'Removed'.

So.....'twas me....small experiment as it were...to gauge response.  What it did was demonstrate a level at which it's deemed non-PC to display certain images.

It 'worked' technically as a wall....not intrusive, but maybe 'topical' or contentious.

It shows a 'general' aversion to any imagery related to drugs and/or drug taking, which does tend to raise the question about the depiction of Alcohol and its use....both are drugs of dependence, and both have been linked to death and injury, though alcohol use/abuse is more prevalent and therefore the greater problem in general.

When moderating submissions it's an on-going decision making process, not just weeding out [pun] the horrorshow walls but also the walls' subject matter/content.

9/11 was the first real 'test' as some of the imagery was pretty 'sick' [for the want of a better word].  Evidently several people had 'odd' interpretations of what was ever likely to be appropriate for a family site [or anywhere for that matter].

Topical events, ....Bin Laden....Saddam, etc....all 'inspire/d' people to submit inappropriate content, though it's at least a diversion from the 'chick walls' we more regularly see submitted.

But not to worry.....the comments to this submission posting and its subsequent removal assist in the drawing of 'the line in the sand'...

yes, tv and radio has only one purpose besides news and thats entertainment. Their is nothing wrong with entertainment, that is the purpose of both alchohol and marijuana when used properly, unless you think marijuana is spiritual (bunch of bull in my opinion). The problem is people doing things they shouldn't while under the influence. There is nothing wrong with responsible use of both substances.

Also in my opinion if somebody commits a crime while under the influence if the knowingly and wanted to take the drugs or drink then they are fully responsible for their actions. (I don't think that is laq though)

I guess discussing this topic here promotes a non-family enviroment, i guess we should quit.

i agree, that we should respect each others differences and end the discussion.

jafo good job i hope that our comments and opinions, have given u the information u were looking for. the best way to judge what the majority wants is to poll the respective patrons

passion and fashion collied

Ok...let's start burning the books. I found this thread to be a personal attack against freedom and an insult to those that fought and died for it. Everyone has a right to their opinion, but when that opinion denies someone else of their freedom...you crossed the line and made it personal.

And if I'm not mistaken...I think I saw some hidden messages in some of these wallpapers. We had better call out the morality cops because it's corupting my morals. But hey...the world is now a better place because that wallpaper showing a plant was removed.

I think wallpapers should be accepted or denied based on artistic value...not moral acceptability...I thought this was a skinning community...not a morality community. I'm perfectly capable of deciding what skins are acceptable to me...and if they aren't I have the choice of either using my back button or moving on to the next page...but I am not about to deny someone else the freedom to express themselves. I think we would all agree that wallpapers showing such things as violence or pornographic images would be crossing the line...but there ya go...it's just my opinion and my final comment on this issue.
[Message Edited]

What part of "family site" do you not understand? >

you don't have complete freedom within this site. The moderators and admins (and those above them) control this site. If they don't want drug related work on this site so be it.

If they don't want drug related work on this site so be it.

I don't want drug related content on this site either. and I am just a citzen.

webgizmos...sorry, but 'free speech' doesn't raise its [ugly] head here at all.

Wincustomize.com is a Private site....where every 'member' [me, too] is a Visitor, nothing more.

It is this very membership, from Frogboy [UserID 1] to the latest...[UserID 740,000+ somewhere] who collectively determine through consensus what is, and is not acceptable.

At various 'levels', various people are charged with the task of 'overseeing' that appropriate [agreed] conduct/material is maintained.

Wallpapers [being story boards, as such] are one prime concern as their content is frequently contentious on MANY levels, and is simply not accepted.

If you want the so-called 'right to free speech' [often mis-quoted and mis-understood] there are sites wher one can post whatever they wish, and many do.

Or...

One can create one's own site and D.I.Y......though be wary of the rules of one's ISP, and also the Telecommunications Act, which prohibits quite more than one would imagine...

Do I get a prize for using all those 'one's?....

I'd give you a dollar if i had one

want a Fosters instead?



/me makes notice that this was just a joking poke in Leo's ribs with a slight tickel attached
[Message Edited]

No problem Jafo...I can and will always respect a websites rules. But It's one thing if a site lays out the rules ahead of time and someone trys to get passed them, but when a wallpaper is submitted, accepted, and then removed because of one persons opinion or propaganda...then that is a problem that needs to be addressed. I just get tired of people laying blame on inanimate objects..i.e. guns, cars, pot...rather than taking responibilty for their own actions and then I'm told I'm being offensive! I probably shouldn't have wasted my time on this thread.

webgizmos....just read #54...it's the salient point...

yeah and salty too!

jafo posted the wall and then posted here just to get the consensus of what the community deems as acceptable ...the majority opposed it being up.

then I would assume that it is found not to be acceptable and not even under consideration when such is submitted

but when a wallpaper is submitted, accepted, and then removed because of one persons opinion or propaganda...

webgizmos..
Just because I started the thread, does not mean it is "one persons opinion or propaganda".
If I had not started this, then someone else would have.
It should be painfully obvious to you that the vast majority of users here, do not find this type of material satisfactory for a "Family Oriented Site". Most of us probably have no personal objection to the item itself and might even use it. But it simply does not belong here. That is all we are saying.

Hmmm.... Interesting fight here (sorry Debate)and my opinion will not change anything, but I will add that nobody has thought of the copyright (or Trademark) issues and the fact that the manufacturer may not be amused that their product was associated with a rather iffy substance.

Being a smoker myself (and once upon a time the other substance also) I will refrain from commenting on the actual content of the wallpaper, but on the subject of protecting children from such images is akin to protecting them from Porn Images.

Sorry to ramble, carry on the good work all

Stumpy....the concept of 'fair use' would apply to the use of the Camel image, particularly as it's in 'parody', an 'out' under US Copyright usage provisions [though interestingly no comparative clause applies in Australian law, for example].

The issue therefore was not with legitimacy of use, but with 'content'...

Ok, did not really see a large version of said picture, as it would not zoom, but can see your point, thanks