# My first deleted thread



## steveindenmark (1 Nov 2014)

I have been on here for quite a while now and have posted lots of threads.

I have just had my a thread deleted, my first ever, on any forum, of any kind.

The thread was about advertising for Raleigh Bikes from back in the 50/60s. The advertising were sketches of scantily dressed Ladies. I have no idea how they related to Raleigh Bikes, but that was the amusing part. They were cheeky at best, certainly not offensive.

They were deleted as they were "Not suitable for Cycle Chat Forum". 

They were so unsuitable that they were already getting "likes".

I understand and respect the need to moderate sites like this but this was just someone with the power at there elbow being puritanical.


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Nov 2014)

If Admin deems images of scantily clad ladies not suitable for the forum... then so be it. There's plenty of other sites full of scantily clad ladies.


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

Looked like you could see something you shouldn't on second pic , possibly just a shadow .


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Nov 2014)

Eddy said:


> Looked like you could see something you shouldn't on second pic , possibly just a shadow .



Eddy, you need help.

Sort of a 6 oclock shadow was it?


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Nov 2014)

MontyVeda said:


> If Admin deems images of scantily clad ladies not suitable for the forum... then so be it. There's plenty of other sites full of scantily clad ladies.




But not with raleigh bikes there isnt.

Which sites were you referring to, specifically ;0)


----------



## MontyVeda (1 Nov 2014)

you want a list?


----------



## guitarpete247 (1 Nov 2014)

I saw your post and thought at first someone had photoshopped the ladies onto old posters. But a quick google found the original images. I cannot imagine how Raliegh got those poster allowed.


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> Eddy, you need help.
> 
> Sort of a 6 oclock shadow was it?



No honestly I thought it was a bit risky looking


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Nov 2014)

guitarpete247 said:


> I saw your post and thought at first someone had photoshopped the ladies onto old posters. But a quick google found the original images. I cannot imagine how Raliegh got those poster allowed.



I think they were Turkish, or maybe Greek.


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I think they were Turkish.



Definitely not Brazilian


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (1 Nov 2014)

Get over it.

Stop crying.


----------



## srw (1 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I think they were Turkish, or maybe Greek.


You think that's Turkish? Good job you arem't in international relations.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Nov 2014)

srw said:


> You think that's Turkish? Good job you arem't in international relations.



And it's a good thing you are not compiling a dictionary.

Instead of making oh-so-superior remarks, why not just enlighten us?

It's all Greek to me.


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Nov 2014)

I am not and am not concerned what language it is.


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Nov 2014)

srw said:


> You think that's Turkish? Good job you arem't in international relations.


Dunno either .... it's all Greek to me ....


----------



## BrynCP (1 Nov 2014)

It's Greek.

I personally saw no harm with the posters, bearing in mind they were vintage posters on topic and not just a screen grab of an "adult" site.

However, if it breaches the Forum's T&C then so be it. (In fact it seems to breach at least two parts of it, 1) sexual content and 2) non English (Edit: Language) content!


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

They are suggestive but not pornographic, they in no way offend me but I see why they were deleted .


----------



## subaqua (1 Nov 2014)

BrynCP said:


> It's Greek.
> 
> I personally saw no harm with the posters, bearing in mind they were vintage posters on topic and not just a screen grab of an "adult" site.
> 
> However, if it breaches the Forum's T&C then so be it. (In fact it seems to breach at least two parts of it, 1) sexual content and 2) non English content!



I never knew farage owned CC . When does the scots welsh and Irish get deleted


----------



## raleighnut (1 Nov 2014)

Missed it all.


----------



## BrynCP (1 Nov 2014)

subaqua said:


> I never knew farage owned CC . When does the scots welsh and Irish get deleted


Edited post to clarify English Language.


----------



## srw (1 Nov 2014)

Of course it's Greek. Turkish is written in the Roman script, like English - and has been since Ataturk began modernising the country about 100 years ago. The only language written in the Greek script is ...errr... Greek.

You might recognise some of the quite well-known Greek letters. There's a Gamma in the first initial of the shop name, a Sigma in the middle of the surname of the shop, a Pi as the first letter of the text and a few Omegas too. It doesn't take a lot of Greek to decipher "Elladi" (Hellas- Greece) and "Athenai" - Athens in the text.

My modern Greek is a bit ropey, but it seems to be claiming that Raleigh are the best bikes in the world.


----------



## srw (1 Nov 2014)

Anyway, back on topic. You can find both posters online quite easily (google Raleigh adverts). Both are basically images of naked women with a greek text underneath advertising Raleigh bikes. Fortunately cyclechat has got a bit beyond the sort of objectification of women that they represent. Of interest only to sad gits who can't find real pornography and people who wish we still had the mores of the 1950s.


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Nov 2014)

Can we Ban anything to do with Bianchi please.

Non English content and not a sexy colour.

How about my collection of Italian cycling stamps? I suppose I cant show them now :0)

My saucy seaside 1960s postcards. "Wheres the soap". ,,,"Yes it does sister"


----------



## theclaud (1 Nov 2014)

There we are, then - as we say down here...


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

raleighnut said:


> Missed it all.



Just for you but I will need to delete quick before the mods see it .


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Nov 2014)

srw said:


> Fortunately cyclechat has got a bit beyond the sort of objectification of women that they represent. Of interest only to sad gits who can't find real pornography and people who wish we still had the mores of the 1950s.



Patronising politically correct claptrap, of course.

But the sadder thing is a number of people on here buy into it.


----------



## srw (1 Nov 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> Patronising politically correct claptrap, of course.
> 
> But the sadder thing is a number of people on here buy into it.


If you can construct an intellectually coherent argument that a picture of a naked woman dangling knickers from her fore-finger isn't objectification and is relevant to the bikes being advertised I'd be delighted to hear it.


----------



## BrynCP (1 Nov 2014)

srw said:


> Fortunately cyclechat has got a bit beyond the sort of objectification of women that they represent. Of interest only to sad gits who can't find real pornography and people who wish we still had the mores of the 1950s.



To think all those people who go to art galleries, for example to see works such as Michelangelo's David, only need to go search Google for porn instead; they could save a fortune!

I seriously doubt those posters were *posted* in order to objectify women or as an alternative for pornography. They were created, they exist, they are part of the history. They are therefore of interest to people.


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Nov 2014)

srw said:


> If you can construct an intellectually coherent argument that a picture of a naked woman dangling knickers from her fore-finger isn't objectification and is relevant to the bikes being advertised I'd be delighted to hear it.



Looking at an old cycling poster depicting a semi-naked woman does not make me a misogynist.

Presumably you think the image should never have been created - you need to take that up with the artist.


----------



## Brandane (1 Nov 2014)

srw said:


> Anyway, back on topic. You can find both posters online quite easily (google Raleigh adverts).


All I could find was some young bloke with an over sized chopper......


----------



## Geoff Crowther (1 Nov 2014)

I can see both sides of this debate.
For what it's worth I can't imagine you meant any offence Steve and would agree, the posters were of HISTORIC interest. They WERE proper Raleigh posters.
It's a pity folk get so bogged down with political correctness these days.
I myself was accused (unjustly I felt) of being ageist on here just last week.
Oh dear.
At the risk of offending others ... you have my sympathy Steve.


----------



## srw (1 Nov 2014)

Brandane said:


> All I could find was some young bloke with an over sized chopper......


A picture of a 10-YEAR OLD with a large chopper. Arrest that man!


----------



## Mattonsea (1 Nov 2014)

Would be interesting to here from a woman's perspective. I found them backward and retrograde. Just because you can find image's else where does not make it OK to put them on here for everyone to view .


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Nov 2014)

Mattonsea said:


> Would be interesting to here from a woman's perspective.



Aye, so long as she's done the dishes and finished her other chores first.


----------



## Mattonsea (1 Nov 2014)

And there you go .


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Nov 2014)

Mattonsea said:


> Would be interesting to here from a woman's perspective. I found them backward and retrograde. Just because you can find image's else where does not make it OK to put them on here for everyone to view .




You missed the point totally.

It was the fact that the women had absolutely nothing to do with the bikes which made it amusing. It was not about belittling women or any of that political Clap trap. It was just the total nonsense of it all.


----------



## srw (1 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> You missed the point totally.
> 
> It was the fact that the women had absolutely nothing to do with the bikes which made it amusing. It was not about belittling women or any of that political Clap trap. It was just the total nonsense of it all.


Which is exactly why it has no place in the 21st century, especially without the appropriate context. And why you need to work out why "political Clap trap" is really quite important.


----------



## BrynCP (1 Nov 2014)

Some women will not be bothered and some will. Some men will not be bothered and some will.

You can't and shouldn't hide history; how do you even know such things were acceptable and shouldn't be now if you lock it away? If you don't learn from history and things like this, the future generations will go through the same process of finding it out for themselves again to somebody's detriment.

My first thoughts when seeing those images were "How did they get away with that?" and "The pictures have nothing to do with the product". It was those points that triggered my interest, nothing to do directly with the fact the woman was naked.


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

User13710 said:


> The same point, crisply made by a woman and by a man. This place is meant for both male and female cyclists to enjoy, but some of the pathetic male dinosaurs on here really let the place down.



Your so wrong !


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

Mattonsea said:


> And there you go .



Explain ?


----------



## steveindenmark (1 Nov 2014)

Well done Bryn, you saw the point. Some other readers have their own agendas in their heads and then want to convince everyone else that our views are incorrect. It doesnt worry me as it is their problem, not mine.

Anyway I am bored of this now,


----------



## Mattonsea (1 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> You missed the point totally.
> 
> It was the fact that the women had absolutely nothing to do with the bikes which made it amusing. It was not about belittling women or any of that political Clap trap. It was just the total nonsense of it all.


No you missed the point .Just because it happened in the past , does not mean it can be dragged up for the benefit of some people school boy humour .


----------



## Mattonsea (1 Nov 2014)

Eddy said:


> Explain ?


If I have to explain my view on those pictures at this juncture you need a help!


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Nov 2014)

Mattonsea said:


> No you missed the point .Just because it happened in the past , does not mean it can be dragged up for the benefit of some people school boy humour .



Here, don't you go disrespecting schoolboy humour, there wouldn't be a lot to this forum without it.


----------



## Svendo (1 Nov 2014)

srw said:


> A picture of a 10-YEAR OLD with a large chopper. Arrest that man!


And the child's thumbing his knob!


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

Mattonsea said:


> If I have to explain my view on those pictures at this juncture you need a help!




I never asked that !

Palerider posted -Aye, so long as she's done the dishes and finished her other chores first , then you posted " And there you go "

I asked explain your post " And there you go "


----------



## Pat "5mph" (1 Nov 2014)

Mattonsea said:


> Would be interesting to here from a woman's perspective. I found them backward and retrograde. Just because you can find image's else where does not make it OK to put them on here for everyone to view .


I haven't actually seen the offending thread - guess it got deleted before I logged in today.
I am not offended by those old adverts, but then I am not British.
The Greek advert simply compares the Raleigh's allure to the allure of a disrobing attractive woman. It is of historical cycling interest.
Of course, the other pictures might have been more explicit, not suitable for CC: I seem to recall that even the forum members on naked bike rides did not post the more explicit pictures of their rides, to keep to the forum rules.
Btw, also backwards and retrograde are old washing powder adverts of women feeling blessed to iron their husband's socks, or the modern advert for make up in this thread.
Still, I wouldn't say they offend me, more like annoy me.


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

User said:


> I have to admire the way you can post this so confidently
> 
> But then have to ask this



To two different people ?


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

User13710 said:


> And I said it was a good point well made, to which you responded that I was wrong - so you did understand it after all? Or are you just thick?



We could be at cross purposes here!
Or I might be thick !


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

User said:


> So they are, what of it?



Troll on


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

User13710 said:


> So you are a bit thick then. The point was exactly that the same point was made by both a man and a woman.





User said:


> I'll take that as a no reply.



If you have a problem then explain it or I cant answer it ?


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> You missed the point totally.
> 
> It was the fact that the women had absolutely nothing to do with the bikes which made it amusing. It was not about belittling women or any of that political Clap trap. It was just the total nonsense of it all.



No one could seriously thinks you posted to belittle woman , everybody gets apart from a few it seems how absurd these Raleigh posters are !

The sexist type comments are just a further expansion on the posters but some people on here just don't get the joke !


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

User said:


> You are so right, he clearly posted it because he has a keen interest in the history of cycle adverts.



Your a funny guy !


----------



## TheDoctor (1 Nov 2014)

Shaun's' gaff, Shaun's' rules.
Anything that reduces the everyday sexism is A Good Thing, in my book


----------



## Mattonsea (1 Nov 2014)

User said:


> You are so right, he clearly posted it because he has a keen interest in the history of cycle adverts.


If the nuckle draggers are so interested in Antique Cycle Posters better start a new thread ... Mind ya back for the stampede !


----------



## derrick (1 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I have been on here for quite a while now and have posted lots of threads.
> 
> I have just had my a thread deleted, my first ever, on any forum, of any kind.
> 
> ...


Have you got the link for it, i think i am old enough and wise enough to make up my own mind, if i don't like something on tv i don't watch it.


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

derrick said:


> Have you got the link for it, i think i am old enough and wise enough to make up my own mind, if i don't like something on tv i don't watch it.



Go to the first page , there is a link there


----------



## BrynCP (1 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3358578, member: 9609"]Quite funny to see so many jumping onto the wrong band wagon - clearly you all have dirty minds. Take another look at the ads link - "No Helmets" not suitable for a cycling forum for the inevitable trouble it will cause.[/QUOTE]

People like to conclude what will offend others without ever knowing, a form of prejudice in its self.


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

BrynCP said:


> People like to conclude what will offend others without ever knowing, a form of prejudice in its self.



and assume the intention of others .


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Nov 2014)

Eddy said:


> and assume the intention of others .



And take it upon themselves to realign the moral compass of others.

(Having first got the wrong end of the stick through their own ignorance and prejudice).


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Nov 2014)

User13710 said:


> As has already been said, it's Shaun's site and it was Shaun's decision. He knows that he has a good few loyal women members of the forum who dislike these sorts of demeaning threads. I admire his persistence. Men who want to gawk at naked women and keep on trying to start 'Girls in Lycra'-type threads are very welcome to clear off to BikeRadar.



TMN,
Are you really so stupid as to think this thread was started for men to gawp at images of women?

Give your head a shake.


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

User13710 said:


> As has already been said, it's Shaun's site and it was Shaun's decision. He knows that he has a good few loyal women members of the forum who dislike these sorts of demeaning threads. I admire his persistence. Men who want to gawk at naked women and keep on trying to start 'Girls in Lycra'-type threads are very welcome to clear off to BikeRadar.



If you look back to page 1 you will see I agreed with him taking the pics down , will you stop assuming otherwise !


----------



## User6179 (1 Nov 2014)

User13710 said:


> The sad thing is that you and your little chums demean us without even knowing that you have.



Please stop !!, no one is demeaning anyone , quote otherwise and I will try to explain why the comments are not demeaning but actually the opposite!


----------



## Pale Rider (1 Nov 2014)

User13710 said:


> The sad thing is that you and your little chums demean us without even knowing that you have.



My first thought was to tell you to 'grow a set', but I suspect that might only make things worse.

I do find it hard to take any of these objections seriously, but if you feel demeaned by this innocuous thread I honestly think you are being wildly over-sensitive.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (2 Nov 2014)

User13710 said:


> The sad thing is that you and your little chums demean us without even knowing that you have.


Ok, let's fight back then 
http://www.bikegobglasgow.com/bike-gob-at-the-playgirl-palace/


----------



## Pat "5mph" (2 Nov 2014)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Ok, let's fight back then
> http://www.bikegobglasgow.com/bike-gob-at-the-playgirl-palace/


Forgot to say: Bike Gob's video was in response to this:

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KPU7DWRe1Y


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Ok, let's fight back then
> http://www.bikegobglasgow.com/bike-gob-at-the-playgirl-palace/



Pat being of sound mind how did you interpret this thread ?


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

Pat "5mph" said:


> Forgot to say: Bike Gob's video was in response to this:
> 
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KPU7DWRe1Y[/QUOTE]
> 
> Is that you in the middle?


----------



## TheDoctor (2 Nov 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> My first thought was to tell you to 'grow a set', but I suspect that might only make things worse.
> 
> I do find it hard to take any of these objections seriously, but if you feel demeaned by this innocuous thread I honestly think you are being wildly over-sensitive.


farking spectacular fail there. The problem with owning a set of bollocks is that some feel compelled to think with them. And talk them.


----------



## Pat "5mph" (2 Nov 2014)

Eddy said:


> Pat being of sound mind how did you interpret this thread ?


Ach, do I look bovvered?


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

Duffest thread ever! I imagine that few people will be surprised or offended by Greek Raleigh ads from the 50s being sexist. It would be more surprising if they weren't. It might even have formed the basis for an interesting topic of discussion. Instead it was just schoolboy tit-pic with a sad commentary, nostalgically longing for a time when no-one would mind what a sad wan*er you might be and when you could assume your audience was as male and as half-witted as you were.


----------



## Wobblers (2 Nov 2014)

Pale Rider said:


> And take it upon themselves to realign the moral compass of others.
> 
> (Having first got the wrong end of the stick through their own ignorance and prejudice).



Has it never occurred to you to wonder why three out of four likes (at the current time) for srw's post are from women? Why do you think that is?


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

Oh, and for those who missed the highly sophisticated OP in the thread under discussion, it was something along the lines of "I bet she's good for a thousand-miler". It would not be to the detriment of the place if people of this frame of mind simply farked off and shared their tit-pics amongst themselves.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

McWobble said:


> Has it never occurred to you to wonder why three out of four likes (at the current time) for srw's post are from women? Why do you think that is?


I admire the heroic attempts at fairness, Wobblers, but the whole point of stuff like the OP of the original thread is to exclude women from the dialogue, and to start up a conversation for men.


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> Oh, and for those who missed the highly sophisticated OP in the thread under discussion, it was something along the lines of "I bet she's good for a thousand-miler". It would not be to the detriment of the place if people of this frame of mind simply farked off and shared their tit-pics amongst themselves.



I missed "I bet she's good for a thousand-miler".
If that's what was said then by the OP then he is on his own !


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

Eddy said:


> I missed "I bet she's good for a thousand-miler".
> If that's what was said then by the OP then he is on his own !


 I'm paraphrasing. It was schoolboy stuff.


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> I admire the heroic attempts at fairness, Wobblers, but the whole point of stuff like the OP of the original thread is to exclude women from the dialogue, and to start up a conversation for men.



That is fair enough but I don't think the posters on this thread saw the Original thread .


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

Eddy said:


> That is fair enough but I don't think the posters on this thread saw the Original thread .


Well then perhaps they should shut the fark up?


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3358638, member: 9609"]I guess we will reach true equality when such an image will be as innocuous to a woman as a role reversed image would be to a man.[/QUOTE]

No, true equality will come when men start getting offended by naked pics of men


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3358638, member: 9609"]I guess we will reach true equality when such an image will be as innocuous to a woman as a role reversed image would be to a man.[/QUOTE]
There is no 'role-reversed image'. The image itself is a product of particular social relations. There is no comparable context. You just need to accept that it's not about you.


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> I'm paraphrasing. It was schoolboy stuff.



So you made something up to score points !


----------



## Wobblers (2 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> I admire the heroic attempts at fairness, Wobblers, but the whole point of stuff like the OP of the original thread is to exclude women from the dialogue, and to start up a conversation for men.



Actually, I was subtly suggesting that @Pale Rider's post could be interpreted as suggesting that women get "the wrong end of the stick through their own ignorance and prejudice" which _may not _be the wisest course to take...


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

McWobble said:


> Actually, I was subtly suggesting that @Pale Rider's post could be interpreted as suggesting that women get "the wrong end of the stick through their own ignorance and prejudice" which _may not _be the wisest course to take...



Yes, but is he wrong ?


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

Eddy said:


> So you made something up to score points !


No - I'd have quoted verbatim if the thread were still there. If people posting trash want their shite remembered word for word, they ought to craft it more carefully.


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> No - I'd have quoted verbatim if the thread were still there. If people posting trash want their shite remembered word for word, they ought to craft it more carefully.



No , If you do not know then do not make it up , not fair!


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

Eddy said:


> No , If you do not know then do not make it up , not fair!



FFS - I saw the pisspoor thread. The exact construction does not matter much, as its author is not exactly Proust.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

Eddy said:


> Yes, but is he wrong ?


Of course he's wrong. Is it even a serious question?


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> Of course he's wrong. Is it even a serious question?



I Must of read the post wrong because the first time I read the post I thought it said - TWN got "the wrong end of the stick through their own ignorance and prejudice" which _may not _be the wisest course to take...


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3358660, member: 9609"]But women do talk about/refer to men in the same context now, in fact they could well be worse. I do appreciate how 40 years ago these images would have been seriously grating - but thankfully times have changed[/QUOTE]

Women exploit and degrade themselves now without the coercion of men , they think they are empowered is the difference .


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

[QUOTE 3358660, member: 9609"]But women do talk about/refer to men in the same context now, in fact they could well be worse. I do appreciate how 40 years ago these images would have been seriously grating - but thankfully times have changed[/QUOTE]

What are you on about? Where is this "same context"?


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> What are you on about? Where is this "same context"?



He is saying women are now as sexist as men.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

Eddy said:


> He is saying women are now as sexist as men.


Gee - thanks for the mansplainin'.


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> Gee - thanks for the mansplainin'.



You asked , I answered


----------



## classic33 (2 Nov 2014)

Pat "5mph" said:


> I haven't actually seen the offending thread - guess it got deleted before I logged in today.
> I am not offended by those old adverts, but then I am not British.
> The Greek advert simply compares the Raleigh's allure to the allure of a disrobing attractive woman. It is of historical cycling interest.
> Of course, the other pictures might have been more explicit, not suitable for CC: I seem to recall that even the forum members on naked bike rides did not post the more explicit pictures of their rides, to keep to the forum rules.
> ...


Pictures were never posted, by me, from the ride in York to avoid any trouble that might follow posting them. The only one that did make it, via a link, was the official picture of the ride. Also printed in many papers.
Later visible on here, for a short while.
There was also a request from many on here for no pictures.


----------



## theclaud (2 Nov 2014)

Eddy said:


> You asked , I answered


Unfortunately, your answer doesn't cut it. Reiver's contribution is gratuitous false equivalence. I can't be arsed with the search function right now, but feel free to enumerate the equivalent threads consisting of objectification of the male...


----------



## User6179 (2 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> Unfortunately, your answer doesn't cut it. Reiver's contribution is gratuitous false equivalence. I can't be arsed with the search function right now, but feel free to enumerate the equivalent threads consisting of objectification of the male...



Point taken , but I think I never said the objectification of females was a good thing and that I said thrice that the OPs pics should of been took down


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Nov 2014)

High time someone mentioned Hitler in this thread:

http://carbonaddiction.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/20131018-201352.jpg


----------



## classic33 (2 Nov 2014)

theclaud said:


> Unfortunately, your answer doesn't cut it. Reiver's contribution is gratuitous false equivalence. I can't be arsed with the search function right now, but feel free to enumerate the equivalent threads consisting of objectification of the male...


Pictures of that nature were actually posted on one of the forums at the top. Some by females, who seemed to feel that no harm was being done, and because it was pictures of men, they were okay 
Pictures later pulled.


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Nov 2014)

User13710 said:


> The same point, crisply made by a woman and by a man. This place is meant for both male and female cyclists to enjoy, but some of the pathetic male dinosaurs on here really let the place down.


.... and the rest really aren't trying hard enough ....


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Nov 2014)

User13710 said:


> As has already been said, it's Shaun's site and it was Shaun's decision. He knows that he has a good few loyal women members of the forum who dislike these sorts of demeaning threads. I admire his persistence. Men who want to gawk at naked women and keep on trying to start 'Girls in Lycra'-type threads are very welcome to clear off to BikeRadar.


 ... or for the hardcore stuff ... Tri-Talk ....


----------



## steveindenmark (2 Nov 2014)

Flippin Eck guys your not all still droning on about this are you?

I am the OP and I think its all time you put your sharp pencils away and moved on.

It was only a bit of fun. Its now moved on to some people wanting to make a point of their point.


----------



## Shaun (4 Nov 2014)

steveindenmark said:


> I have been on here for quite a while now and have posted lots of threads.
> 
> I have just had my a thread deleted, my first ever, on any forum, of any kind.
> 
> ...



*I want anyone to be able to read CycleChat anywhere* so have a simple rule of no nudity; I also extend that to images that are sexual suggestive or threads that use imagery in a sexist way. This applies to threads, posts, the photo gallery _and_ avatars.

Your comment on the adverts didn't help either: _Nice frames and no spare tyres. Good for a few thousand miles by the look of them._

I might have considered allowing thumbnails of them in the context of a serious discussion about the history of bicycle advertising but that isn't what the thread was about.

If anyone is unsure about whether an image would be suitable for posting on CycleChat or not, just PM me or the Moderators account and we'll let you know.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------

