<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>odd time signatures - Latest Comments in Dopey DOPA-ites take aim at Flickr?</title><link>http://drumsnwhistles.disqus.com/</link><description>life in 19/7 time</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:14:35 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Dopey DOPA-ites take aim at Flickr?</title><link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2006/08/04/dopey-dopa-ites-take-aim-at-flickr/#comment-3777802</link><description>Hi JJJ, and welcome --&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I looked at all of those links and found nothing even vaguely resembling child pornography.  I did find a lot of parody, but nothing even close to the real deal, or at least, what I would imagine the real deal to be.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;DnW</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">drumsnwhistles</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 01:14:35 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Dopey DOPA-ites take aim at Flickr?</title><link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2006/08/04/dopey-dopa-ites-take-aim-at-flickr/#comment-3777801</link><description>my photo was linked among others that you claimed to depict "nude children"&lt;br&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonfeinstein/94689093/" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.flickr.com/photos/jonfeinstein/94689...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;this is a photo of a blowup doll wearing a dress jacket. It's supposed to be funny and idiosyncratic. If you have an argument make sure the photos are directly relevant.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;thx&lt;br&gt;JJJ</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">jonfeinstein</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:23:29 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Dopey DOPA-ites take aim at Flickr?</title><link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2006/08/04/dopey-dopa-ites-take-aim-at-flickr/#comment-3777800</link><description>J -- &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;When you said you posted them it occurred to me that the spam filtering software I use might have caught them -- which it did. (Usually posts with this many links in them are spam...).&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;It's there now.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I think the photos speak for themselves -- they're hardly pornography.  On the other hand, if I were tagging I wouldn't have tagged them with those terms, even if they're truly descriptive.  It still doesn't justify banning flickr.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;DnW&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;12-8-2006: I've placed the comments with links to the photos in question in the "moderated bucket" because they are attracting far too much spam.  Thanks.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">drumsnwhistles</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:50:48 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Dopey DOPA-ites take aim at Flickr?</title><link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2006/08/04/dopey-dopa-ites-take-aim-at-flickr/#comment-3777799</link><description>......oh.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;I posted them somewhere.  Hold on, I'll find them again.  It's not really anything SEXUAL, and I agree with that.  There weren't any other posts on here that I posted to?&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Crap.  I knew I shouldn't use IE again.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Ok, anyway, no, not many of them were sexual (unless you're into seeing naked kids), but then again, I didn't sign up for Flickr...I just did a search.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Actually, I'll just bookmark this page and I'll look again if you want.  I found quite a few of "nude children" on Flickr.  I think that's what they're going after, and calling it "child pornography", because of the fact that it's kids and they're not wearing clothes.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Anyway, on the subject of the OTHER thread I was posting to, I'm not trying to come off as an angry bastard or anything.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;And as for the one on here, I could have SWORN I posted those links.  Bah...</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">J.</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 18:35:44 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Dopey DOPA-ites take aim at Flickr?</title><link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2006/08/04/dopey-dopa-ites-take-aim-at-flickr/#comment-3777798</link><description>J, I haven't ever had any links on this blog to photos of nude children.  As my post implies, I couldn't find any.  Certainly none that were in any way sexual -- perhaps a photo of a two-year old playing in the pool but I hardly consider that pornographic.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;This post has not been edited since it was posted, so I'm at a loss to know what you're talking about.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">drumsnwhistles</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:13:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Dopey DOPA-ites take aim at Flickr?</title><link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2006/08/04/dopey-dopa-ites-take-aim-at-flickr/#comment-3777797</link><description>Thanks, Donna!  It was a very cool idea on their part.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">drumsnwhistles</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 17:36:54 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Dopey DOPA-ites take aim at Flickr?</title><link>http://www.drumsnwhistles.com/2006/08/04/dopey-dopa-ites-take-aim-at-flickr/#comment-3777796</link><description>This is pretty outrageous. I don't know if I've ever seen a site that's as responsible as Flickr. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;On the other hand, congrats on your seconds of fame!</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Donna</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 04 Aug 2006 10:42:50 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>