|
|
Welcome to the Database Correction page. This page is for letting me or the other editors know of corrections that need to be made. Please read the posting instructions carefully.
|
|
| Saturday November 20 00:33:01 2004 [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| Jennifer Lopez is seen later in the movie wearing a posture collar locked to a chain which is (apparantly) locked to a bed.
|
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| Saturday November 20 00:51:54 2004 Re: [10945] cd album |
| Biff wrote:
> Again, let me possibly answer my own question: No. Right, covers would be similar to Detective mags, books, etc. |
| Brian R |
| Saturday November 20 00:56:22 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> Jennifer Lopez is seen later in the movie wearing a > posture collar locked to a chain which is (apparantly) > locked to a bed. I'm not sure this fits with what we've been allowing. |
| Brian R |
| Saturday November 20 01:18:28 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| Brian R wrote:
> AsbestosFilter wrote: > > Jennifer Lopez is seen later in the movie wearing a > > posture collar locked to a chain which is > (apparantly) > > locked to a bed. > I'm not sure this fits with what we've been allowing. Really? In that case, someone has some work to do in the db. You probably want to delete record numbers 579, 2828, 3695, 7226 and modify - if not outright delete - records 5597 and 5860. There are a couple (dozen) others, I got bored pretty quickly. Do you actually have any guidelines? I ask because, well, it's pretty obvious that they need a wee bit of clarification. I somehow doubt that anybody on this site would think that the Star Wars 4 scene with Carrie Fisher and Jabba doesn't belong. But hey, if you want to delete it, go right ahead. It's #579. |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asbestosfilterscaps/ |
| Saturday November 20 01:33:06 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> I somehow doubt that anybody on this site would think > that the Star Wars 4 scene with Carrie Fisher and Jabba > doesn't belong. But hey, if you want to delete it, go > right ahead. It's #579. > Done and done. For the record: Record number: 579 Title: Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983) Medium: Movie Actress: Carrie Fisher Description: Carrie stars as Princess Leia. In the opening sequence, she tries to free her love, Han Solo, from Jabba the Hutt's palace. Caught in the act, she is forced to be his dancing girl. Wearing a metal bikini with a metal collar and a chain around her neck, she shows off a super body, including excellent abs and lots of cleavage. The fight scene on the sail barge has her with lots of struggling, and then the final swing to safety has the strings of the bikini hidden in one spot so she looks nude from her head to her feet down her right side. |
| Biff |
| Saturday November 20 01:55:13 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| Biff wrote:
> Done and done. For the record: You've got to be shitting me. What's next, deletion of scenes where the actresses names begin with A? |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asbestosfilterscaps/ |
| Saturday November 20 02:32:07 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> > You've got to be shitting me. > Oh, I think the shitting began somewhat earlier in the thread. Yahoo! groups have a database capacity ... if collar and cage scenes are your cup of Chamomile, have at it. |
| Biff |
| Saturday November 20 02:59:29 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| Biff wrote:
> Oh, I think the shitting began somewhat earlier in the > thread. > Yahoo! groups have a database capacity ... if collar and > cage scenes are your cup of Chamomile, have at it. Funny how the scene was ok for the last, what? 5 years? 7? Nobody had a problem with it, until you decided to start purging. What's next? Perhaps you should go an delete foreign scenes, or maybe the "guy alert" scenes. You don't seem like those. After all, it isn't like you actually entered any of them and it seems that you are having a fair bit of fun deleting entries. In fact, why don't you delete 10% of the scenes in the database tonight? Perhaps throw darts or look to the stars to see what gets deleted. Apparantly db entries are supposed to be "describing female bondage or restraint scenes from a variety of mainstream media: TV shows, movies, videos, games, etc." Of course, there are exceptions, but nobody will actually tell you what they are. And, of course, people can, on a whim, decide that certain things are not appropriate and promptly delete all entries from years past. "We umm, never, umm had, umm those types of scenes in the db." Cheers to you, Winston. Here are some cigarettes to go with the saccharine in your Victory Chamomile? |
 |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asbestosfilterscaps/ |
| Saturday November 20 03:09:02 2004 Re: [10945] cd album |
| Biff wrote:
> I'm just curious as to why this incorrectly-formatted > entry would be flushed out of hand while you'd said you > wouldn't have done so with the one in question > yesterday. > > why wouldn't it apply in this instance? Pictures haven't been included in the DB. Like ones in the Nancy Drew books and such. If Music video has a scene, then the cover picture description can be added in bottom of the entry. |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 03:09:46 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> Jennifer Lopez is seen later in the movie Got it thanx for assist here |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 03:16:40 2004 Re: Jennifer Lopez Collar |
| Brian R wrote:
> I'm not sure this fits with what we've been allowing. We have been allowing extra details like this at the bottom of the entry. Mostly for skirts fans and such |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 03:21:45 2004 AsbestosFilter Post |
| "In that case, someone has some work to do in the db.
You probably want to delete record numbers 579, 2828, 3695, 7226 and modify - if not outright delete - records 5597 and 5860. There are a couple (dozen) others, I got bored pretty quickly." I'll look into. "Do you actually have any guidelines?" I'll hunt up the posts go by. |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 03:52:20 2004 AsbestosFilter - Guidelines |
| Here some Moderator posts from Discussion and such, that use as a guideline for editing: "Don't mention ages!" Common Moderator post, so left out date. Here's the others: Thursday January 31 01:21:35 2002 Database "A reminder: this is a bondage database, not torture, not rape, not any other fetish. Entries without bondage elements will be deleted. The editors reserve the right to eliminate or tone down other elements as they see fit." The Moderator _______________________________________ Wednesday January 16 20:35:41 2002 From DB Corrections Title: unknown Medium: TV Series Actress: unknown Description: bound and gagged "Deleted a few like this in one night, as figured one of Brian's buddies was having some fun with him. But, they keep appearing, so figure it's a serious attempt at assistance here. Just I find ones like this unworkable, kind of a wasted effort on the part of Buddy who entered them." Big amen to that. There's little point in putting in any entry with an unknown title. If all you remember is the description or the actress, post it here first, see if anyone can ID it. One of the things on my to-do list is change the database entry to disallow Unknown as a title. Brian R _____________________________________ Friday December 28 13:34:56 2001 Notes from the database fixup Speculative" entries should not be placed in the database. That likely leads to duplicates, because someone else adds the real entry after the show actually airs. Certain correspondents, particularly our non-native English speakers, seem to have a fear of capitalization. I will probably make a tweek to the posting software to check for that, and bounce the entry ahead of time. Also, check the IMDB to prevent egregious misspellings of titles and actress names. I don't like the term "putz". Besides just sounding dumb, it's an insider thing to the Discussion page. The database is supposed to be a stand-alone feature, outside users (especially non-native English speakers) would likely have no idea what was being said. I did a search and replace on that, it now says "guy" everywhere. Those who care will know. I found a few, not a lot, of people putting web links in their entries. That's bad. We know how likely a link is to be valid in a month or so. I wiped out all I could find. I don't like the use of acronyms or abbreviatons. Especially AOH, OTM and B&G. This screws up the search feature. I also think "arms over head" makes no sense. Their arms aren't overhead, their hands are. The arms are below and alongside the head for much of the distance. The Moderator __________________________________________ Wednesday June 20 22:05:14 2001 Database entries Time for some more complaining: Record number: 5627 Title: trail of a serial killer Medium: Movie Actress: thea gill Description: i haven't seen this movie but the trailer is available at IMDB 1. Are capital letters in short supply? 2. No description of the scene. 3. Person hasn't seen it, why make the entry? 4. Who cares if a trailer is in the IMDB? It may not be a month from now. Since I didn't see anything salvagable about the entry, it has gone off to live on a farm, where it can run and play all day with other database entries. The Moderator |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 04:20:18 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> You probably want to delete **** 579 ***** Can't bring up 579 **** 2828 ***** Mercy (2000) Correct. Very close to off-topic **** 3695 ***** Fatal Conflict (2000) aka Prey, The Correct. Very close **** 7226 ***** BeastMaster, ep: "Riddle of the Nymph" (1.10) Appears okay. Age ref a concern but I'll just edit it out. **** 5597 **** Hell Mountain (1998) aka Chained Heat 3 Looked okay, but turned this one around so collar descript at bottom where favour descriptions normally go ***** 5860 ***** First Wave, ep: "Checkmate" Looked okay, but edited it so favour descript at bottom ****** There are a couple (dozen) others, I got bored pretty quickly. ******* Understand, as gone through entire DB making sure Titles line up |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 04:31:28 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> You've got to be shitting me. > What's next, deletion of scenes where the actresses names > begin with A? Go slow here. I've dug you up some posts, and can explain other things specific if you'd like? Rather any acid be directed off this page. Thanx |
| Jay L |
| kdnpr@yahoo.com |
| Saturday November 20 05:39:23 2004 AsbestosFilter Post |
| "Funny how the scene was ok for the last, what? 5 years? 7? Nobody had a problem with it, until you decided to start purging." Keep in mind that we normally work off complaints. Biggest ones from fellas missing scenes due to Search failures. Recall when a space between letters in a title would cause a failure, or things like that. Most of my effort sorting that. As you noticed, going through entry by entry can be tedious, correct? Imagine when up to the 4000th one in a check, so yes, I've not paid same attention to Descriptions as say Titles. "What's next? Perhaps you should go an delete foreign scenes, or maybe the "guy alert" scenes. You don't seem like those." Can tell you foreign scenes aren't a problem. Quite afew are mine. Also, did a list check awhile back and I'd mailed rough 1690 to 1700 tapes to the United States. One of the common fellas send to is Brian here. Neither "Guy Alert" a problem. What I don't like, is when our friend the "Unsigned" bored kid, posts males as females based on alternative sites to set off certain foolish individuals on Discussion Page "it seems that you are having a fair bit of fun deleting entries." Definitely not fun my friend. DB entries aren't signed, so guess whom fellas email to vent when in error? Only Pull afew to make posters aware of other's complaints. Use pull instead of delete, as normally check into them. "Apparantly db entries are supposed to be "describing female bondage or restraint scenes from a variety of mainstream media: TV shows, movies, videos, games, etc." Of course, there are exceptions, but nobody will actually tell you what they are." I normally relate the reasons. If unclear? Bring up the entries in question and I'll go over them. "And, of course, people can, on a whim, decide that certain things are not appropriate and promptly delete all entries from years past." Can recall checking and re-entering. Don't mind this if fellas question and Brian agrees. Have one which want to discuss? Let me know. |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 06:20:35 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| Jay L wrote:
> AsbestosFilter wrote: > > What's next, deletion of scenes where the actresses > > names begin with A? > Go slow here. > I've dug you up some posts, > and can explain other things specific if you'd like? The only thing that I think needs to be explained is "What exactly isn't allowed as a db entry?" You see, it's not defined anywhere - the most help we get is the very vague "It is not a database for general fetish or torture scenes, unless such scenes feature bondage as well." That is a bit broad. Does it mention cages? Newp. Collars? Newp. Are both banned? Apparantly so - although that isn't written down anywhere on a FAQ page. It might be interesting to note that, from the conception of the database years ago to oh, about 8 hours ago, it was perfectly fine to submit an entry where the only bondage was a collar with a chain attached to something. NOBODY had a problem with it. Not that anyone would know now. Someone, in a matter of seconds and without any warning, just decided that such entries were unacceptable and decided to purify the database. Why? Well, it sure makes using arguments like "We never had scenes like this before" a lot easier. But besides that, I really don't know why else... It would seem to me that if THOUSANDS of people (including mods and the such) have seen the entries MULTIPLE TIMES, and nobody has EVER complained about a scene, then it would seem that those entries were OK. Logical no? Apparantly not. In a couple minutes, with no reason or explanation given, a policy was apparantly changed and a bunch of entries - some that had been in the database for years - got deleted. Perhaps somethng a bit less arbitary could be used as criteria for a db entry? If people can find out what isn't welcome, less people would waste their time adding stuff to the database that would only be deleted by others 15 minutes (or 5 years) later. Since the database relies on user submissions / additions, I don't see how this could be a bad thing. |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asbestosfilterscaps/ |
| Saturday November 20 06:47:04 2004 Re: AsbestosFilter Post |
| Jay L wrote:
> "Funny how the scene was ok for the last, what? 5 years? > 7? Nobody had a problem with it, until you decided to > start purging." > Keep in mind that we normally work off complaints. Come now. 11,000 entries, and someone just happened to notice #500. As I said, hundreds, if not thousands of people saw that entry. Nobody complained. It apparantly wasn't an issue for the majority of people here, and I'm willing to bet that if you asked a bunch of people on the general discussion page, you would find that most would vote to keep the scene. > As you noticed, going through entry by entry can be > tedious, correct? Not really, it took me less than 3 minutes to find the ones I posted to Biff. There are a several more with collars and no other bondage, like I said, someone else could look for them. I'm not going to waste my time so Biff can complete his activity. If it means so much to him. . . I was just pointing out that the database had entries like this in the past and that people were apparantly ok with them. And again, in the db, many entries with a specific theme means that people either a.) like the theme b.) don't care enough to complain. > Perhaps you should go an delete foreign scenes, etc . . . There was a bit of sarcasm here. Actually, my original post advising someone to delete the "metal bikini scene" in Star Wars was nothing but sarcastic, this a little more so. > What I don't like, is when our friend the "Unsigned" > bored kid, posts males as females based on alternative > sites to set off certain foolish individuals on Discussion Agreed. Although the entry with Carrie Fisher wasn't created by a troll. (I know you didn't delete it) <DEAR BIFF AND ONLY BIFF> > "it seems that you are having a fair bit of fun deleting > entries." </DEAR BIFF AND ONLY BIFF> > "Apparantly db entries are supposed to be "describing > female bondage or restraint scenes from a variety of > mainstream media: TV shows, movies, videos, games, etc." > Of course, there are exceptions, but nobody will actually > tell you what they are." > I normally relate the reasons. > If unclear? Bring up the entries in question and I'll go > over them. Well, it would seem to me that some themes in entries are automatically unacceptable. What is a list of those things? I think I've started it off. If someone wanted to finish, that would be great. Stuff that isn't allowed (no real order) 1. Under-aged / young entries 2. Cages 3. Bondage that only involes a collar (a la Star Wars or Madonna's "Express Yourself" 4. The standard stuff, no unconfirmed entries, no blank / unknown fields. 5. cross dressers 6. ? 7. ? |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asbestosfilterscaps/ |
| Saturday November 20 11:35:16 2004 Re: What exactly isn't allowed as a db entry? |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> arguments like "We never > had scenes like this before" a lot easier. "Argument" really doesn't apply. There have been times learned what thought off-topic was okay. I really don't mind that. What have got irritated with is the "so & so was allowed to post pictures of unbound women everybody knows, about shows with no scenes. Favourtism! sqwack, sqwack, sqwack." How to settle down a fella whom figures I favour others over him? I also related that I never gave descriptions the same attention as Title-Actress Search line up. Often have to go back and fix up things missed. Not seeing "we never had scenes like this before"? As for rest, I'll have to go through. I've edited in certain information as favour at the bottom line of entries that wouldn't be on topic by itself. So can see potential problem. Get back to you on it. |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 11:45:57 2004 Re: Jennifer Lopez Collar |
| Jay L wrote:
> We have been allowing extra details like this at the > bottom of the entry. Excellent point. I started to put it in, but didn't want to contradict my own policies. That's why I posted that I wasn't sure, confident you'd remind me of what it is that I actually think on the matter. Now of course, I'm not that inclined to do ANYTHING this guy want from here on out, but we won't let that affect editing too much, right guys :) |
| Brian R |
| Saturday November 20 11:58:32 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> Do you actually have any guidelines? I ask because, well, > it's pretty obvious that they need a wee bit of > clarification. Guidelines develop, usually in reponse to specific situations that arise, where I have to stop and think about what *I* think is appropriate. Ultimately, I make all the decisions regarding policy. You are free to question my policies. You WILL stop bashing my editors, NOW. Is that extremely clear? There ain't a thing about this that's fun, these guys do tremendous work for no compensation, and remove a big burden from me, allowing me to concentrate on other things that need doing here. Your problems are with me, and you need to address me with any complaints. And I'll tell you right off, whiny expositions do little to move me. As always, I'm happy to refund the price of admission. You have some interests that are divergent from mine. So what? I feel no need to cater to you or anyone else. The database, as with other elements of this site, reflect my vision and judgement. If you don't like it, feel free to start your own, I'll link you up. |
| Brian R |
| Saturday November 20 12:23:49 2004 Re: AsbestosFilter Post |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> Come now. 11,000 entries, and someone just happened to > notice #500. As I said, hundreds, if not thousands of > people saw that entry. Nobody complained. Correct, I related normally deal with ones complaints made about. They require most of my attention. It an ongoing effort In general, didn't really start contributing with editing team to enforce what thought on topic. David put in most of the effort due to his better knowledge of United States scenes and the Collectors were more interested in myself putting effort into the foreign scenes. There were some older United States shows airing dubbed at the time with different Titles & Ep titles, same as German ones. Recall Moonlighting was one of them of interest. Appeared harder on certain entries than others when trying to line them up. Also, made quite afew posts about "Actress: Unknown" in German shows, which noticed. Once realised actress name the one thing they don't change, even German ".." accents left in, made easier to search on in IMDB for IDing, became aware wasn't a case of singling anyone out. Yes, have missed some things, but an ongoing effort here. |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 14:51:37 2004 Re: Jennifer Lopez Collar |
| Brian R wrote:
> Jay L wrote: > > > We have been allowing extra details like this at the > > > bottom of the entry. > > Excellent point. I started to put it in, but didn't > want to contradict my own policies. That's why I posted > that I wasn't sure, confident you'd remind me of what > it is that I actually think on the matter. > Ancillary material is one thing ... but the STAR WARS entry was based solely on a collar scene. I looked it over, saw nothing aside from that, and flushed it. |
| Biff |
| Saturday November 20 14:52:39 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| Brian R wrote:
> You have some interests that are divergent from mine. > So what? I feel no need to cater to you or anyone else. > The database, as with other elements of this site, > reflect > my vision and judgement. If you don't like it, feel free > to start your own, I'll link you up. > Mr. Filter could've made a nice start on his own DB of cage, collar and whatnot scenes at his group with the effort expended on invective toward me and the eds in general ... but this being the internet, where kvetching and character assassination is the coin of the realm, I suppose I shouldn't have expected anything other. |
| Biff |
| Saturday November 20 17:00:47 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| Biff wrote:
> Mr. Filter could've made a nice start on his own DB of > cage, collar and whatnot scenes at his group with the > effort expended on invective toward me and the eds in > general I've been lax at making sure that people understand that all policies are mine. Apparently, some people want to avoid dealing with me and bash the editors instead. They seem to think that they should avoid bad-mouthing me, but that I won't care if they attack the volunteers. The reverse is true. I don't much care what people say to or about me, but I'll fight like mother bear to protect the editing team. |
| Brian R |
| Saturday November 20 17:11:12 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| Brian R wrote:
> The database, as with other elements of this site, > reflect my vision and judgement. If you don't like it, feel > free to start your own, I'll link you up. Great. You're still missing the point. What else is banned? What scenes don't belong? That's all I want to know. |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asbestosfilterscaps/ |
| Saturday November 20 17:27:40 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| Brian R wrote:
> I've been lax at making sure that people understand > that all policies are mine. Apparently, some people want > to avoid dealing with me and bash the editors instead. To me, it appeared that Biff decided to make policy when he started deleting an entire slew of entries. Nobody else weighed in - nobody discussed it (at least on this forum) - it was just delete, delete, delete, delete, done. And as above, these entries have been seen by moderators and have been ok for years. That is just how I saw the situation. |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asbestosfilterscaps/ |
| Saturday November 20 17:28:45 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| Biff wrote:
> Mr. Filter could've made a nice start on his own DB of > cage, collar and whatnot scenes at his group with the Whatnot. Exactly my point. |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asbestosfilterscaps/ |
| Saturday November 20 18:03:07 2004 Re: Complaints |
| Brian R wrote:
> Apparently, some people want > to avoid dealing with me and bash the editors instead. Was a perception problem between Discussion Page & Database, I edited things you'd allowed on Discussion, so I appeared the stricter. Hence, the boy here the one to sqwack at. Understandable. Mentioned earlier In General, problem settling down fellas whom assumed others being favoured over them. Don't want that. Why try to be polite as can, whilst explaining. |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 18:10:29 2004 Re: What else is banned? |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> What scenes don't belong? Give me abit, I'll go through the notes and bring up more posts, etc. |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 19:11:34 2004 Re: What else is banned? |
| First of more specific posts, which use as guideline for what on-topic & off-topic, etc: Sunday October 19 11:50:54 2003 Does this belong? Question came in to me via email: You may have read reviews of Margaret Cho's one-woman show "The Notorious C.H.O." that she discusses her bondage experiences. Since Margaret Cho has said for years that she's into it and even worried at Stormy Leather, I watched the film and...Nothing. I wasn't expecting reenactments, but she mentions being in a bondage sling and about to be used by a Mistress in front of everybody...while wearing a leather hood. But she indicates that she wasn't actually bound. Her mouth was zipped, but apparently not really gagged . . . I considered creating a database entry for those who might be tempted to rent it expecting lascivious talk and instead get nearly nothing. But would you consider this a waste of space, since it would only have been an anecdote about bondage, at best? My feeling is probably not, what do you guys think? It seems like this falls more into that fetish but not really bondage category we talked about before. Brian R Sunday October 19 16:48:04 2003 Does this belong? Brian R wrote: "My feeling is probably not, what do you guys think?" Agreed. Been deleting the hoods, leash, fetish entries up till now. Jay L Realise should have added "deleting as come across them" Sunday October 19 17:34:47 2003 Does this belong? (unsigned poster) wrote: "Just my 2 cents. Jay maybe you misunderstand Brian, by agreeing to "propably not", if that means "it is propably not a waste of space to include it"." No, Jay understood me correctly. "(Read the question he answered to; but what do I know?)" I think if you read my entire reply, it's clear: "My feeling is probably not, what do you guys think? It seems like this falls more into that fetish but not really bondage category we talked about before." Ergo, I'm saying it probably doesn't fit the criteria for database inclusion. Brian R Have to go through the notes some more. Give a sec |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 19:47:42 2004 Re: What else is banned? |
|
Friday January 17 00:03:43 2003 Re: Biff's Post- Burqa? "I favor a "big tent" policy, but which "second cousins" are granted admittance is a subjective determination. I'm all for solo handgags and chloros, I don't feel blindfolds by themselves merit inclusion, and *some* faux gags pass muster with me, while others don't." I think as a minimum there should be an attempt at restraint. Ergo clothing that looks like gags, food, pencils between the teeth, etc. should not be in the database. Brian R Recall this one vivid. Had the Arab (Morroccan? Saudi?) film features. Only bondage in all of them was fellas, but featured a gal with a tight black cloth from under her eyes, right down around her chin and neck. Ruled the same as the foolish "pulling a turtle neck on", post by the bored immature individual. At this point, heard United States reporter (Barbara Walters?), had gone to an Arab nation. Started up again. "Forced Detective Gags" Ruled "News", and off-topic. More notes re: Cages, etc, going to try and dig up. |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 20:04:18 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
. > You're still missing the point. No, you're missing the damn point. You can raise questions without being jackass. |
| Brian R |
| Saturday November 20 20:12:58 2004 Re: What else is banned? |
| From Jan 29 2002: "Merely making it into the IMDB doesn't necessarily make it eligible for our DB. The goal is list items that may reasonably be seen on TV or found in regular video outlets. Available only from certain mail-order sources doesn't cut it." |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 20:26:27 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| Brian R wrote:
> AsbestosFilter wrote: > > You're still missing the point. > No, you're missing the damn point. You can raise > questions without being jackass. I tried asking a simple question and you called me a jackass. Is there a list of themes that you don't want in the database? If yes, could you please post it? If no, just say so. |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| Saturday November 20 20:30:43 2004 Re: [90] Cell, The (2000) |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> To me, it appeared that Biff decided to make policy when > he started deleting an entire slew of entries. > I deleted one entry ... one which you snarkily offered up for flushing. However, I would've tossed any others in that vein ... because the subject's been discussed here and the consensus was clear: collar scenes are not "bondage" for the purposes of the DB. You can define the term as you wish ... elsewhere. You can offer your thoughts here ... civilly. You've done neither. > Nobody > else weighed in - nobody discussed it (at least on this > forum) - it was just delete, delete, delete, delete, > done. > See above. > And as above, these entries have been seen by moderators > and have been ok for years. > There are a handful of editors. We don't go through periodic reviews of the 10000+ entries and weed out what doesn't belong ... although Jay has been diligent in dealing with many of the older entries and vetting new ones. Some slip through the cracks. > That is just how I saw the situation. > And you decided to urinate on anyone who saw it differently. (FYI, "whatnot" referred to whatever other fetishes that get your knickers in a twist that have nothing to do with this DB ... I don't know, and have no interest in knowing, what they may be.) I assume you're an adult, although I prefer to make such a determination based on empirical evidence ... and there's been precious little of that in your posts. Act like one. |
| Biff |
| Saturday November 20 20:44:04 2004 Re: Whilst on the Topic- Album Cover |
| Noticed from Nov 13 2002, post related to that album cover. This related to the blonde twins B&G'd in Sweet Valley Cheerleader book: "What's wrong with the entry? It should be included because: 1) it's based on a TV series" Doesn't matter, it isn't an episode of that series. " 2) it's a photo, not a drawing" Doesn't matter, it won't be available on tape, broadcast or other media. "3) it has at least one actress from the TV series (Brittant Daniels)" Doesn't matter, it doesn't fit the criteria for inclusion in the database. "Someone looking up 'Brittany Daniels' in the DB would appreciate seeing that entry." Doesn't matter. "Scenes" from books or magazines are not included in the database. Just as if an actress does a fashion shoot featuring bondage elements, won't be included. |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 21:02:11 2004 Re: What else is banned? |
| Here things I edit out when come across in Descriptions, and reasons why: Ex: "Miss Muffet (Katie) was bound wrists behind by StL SWAT. Would have been better if Partygirl (Paige) had the scene" Figure Discussion better place for this, as Database doesn't allow for comment from Katie fans. Fair all around solution was to take out. |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 21:07:46 2004 Re: list of themes that you don't want in the DB? |
| AsbestosFilter wrote:
> If yes, could you please post it? Making one for you at moment based on gathered posts |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 21:37:27 2004 Re: What Banned- Cages |
| Re: March 9 2003 Cage only, no. This related to a request from poster whom fancied a small bamboo cage scene. |
| Jay L |
| Saturday November 20 21:43:05 2004 Re: Whilst on the Topic- Album Cover |
| Jay L wrote:
> Noticed from Nov 13 2002, post related to that album > cover. > Thanks. See earlier posts ... I sussed out and Brian confirmed that such "inert" material was persona non grata. |
| Biff |
| Saturday November 20 21:49:52 2004 Re: What Banned- Cages |
| >
> > Got references for collar scenes. Mentioned in 3 posts over a year ago. A bit difficult to find because dumping forum posts from a long time ago sometimes results in errors like this. "Fatal error: Unable to initialize a new token cache in /web/home2/w220131/docs/forums.php on line 137" Saturday October 04 18:46:13 2003 Re: Recnt Entry [#9164]- Question? Biff wrote: > Additionally, the only restraint mentioned is the collar. > Would that clear the bar set for inclusion? It's pretty marginal. If there's some sort of leashing or something as suggested in the Discussion post, then probably clears. If just wearing a collar, then no. Brian R Saturday October 04 21:31:15 2003 Re: Recnt Entry [#9164]- Question? Brian R wrote: > > It's pretty marginal. If there's some sort of leashing > or something as suggested in the Discussion post, then > probably clears. If just wearing a collar, then no. > Ah. Actually, I was taking tethering as a given off what I'd read. Biff Saturday October 04 23:54:08 2003 Re: Recnt Entry [#9164]- Question? Brian R wrote: > If there's some sort of leashing > or something as suggested in the Discussion post, then > probably clears. If just wearing a collar, then no. Actually, we have been ejecting the leash entries Recall one vivid, felt I favouring buddies' handgag preferences over his leash and collar preference. Jay L |
| AsbestosFilter |
| AsbestosFilter@yahoo.com |
| http://groups.yahoo.com/group/asbestosfilterscaps/ |
|
|