Lois & Clark Forums Forums General Discussion Fun with Polls Clark or Superman?

Oh, *great* picture, Amanda! Thanks for the visual aid

PJ

I would definately choose Clark over Superman... Actually I like Clark without glasses, but without the slicked-back hair too. Clark with glasses is just about as good though!

Just IMO, I think you're all being a little harsh towards Mel

Well, I am 22 years old and I *did* understand the "references" and I *did* take offense to them. And it's not like I am prude either -- I read the occasional nfic -- but the "sitting on a towel" comment just made me go "EEEEEEEEEEW, go ahead and do that, but don't tell *me* you're doing it".


- Alicia

I'm sorry if it is coming across that way. No one is trying to be hard on anyone else. However, this is board open to people of all ages and we are therefore required by law to keep the content at or below a PG-13 level. We could be in very serious trouble if we don't.

Beyond that, comments of that nature just aren't appropriate in many circumstances. Even many of people who are legally allowed to read content of that nature choose not to. They should not have to be exposed to it here. We want the boards to be a comfortable, welcoming place for all people.

I'm sorry if any of the comments came across as harsh, but it was simply an honest reaction to an offensive and potential legally risky situation.

Just to clear up - or have someone else clear up <g> - a couple of points regarding Mel's post:

Firstly - has it been edited by Mel subsequent to the posts in reaction to it? And if so are some of us reacting to the new post and not the original content and thus having our impressions of the reaction to Mel's comments distorted?

When I read the thread yesterday I thought Mel's post (as it stands right now) was a little risque but not that terrible. However reference in a subsequent post which I've just caught up with this morning to 'sitting on a towel' - content which doesn't appear in Mel's post as it now stands - now makes me think that Pam and Missy's posts were in response to other content which is now not visible in the thread.

If so this could obviously be distorting impressions of what was originally said and what was said in reaction to the original comment. And could be making the reaction posts seem harsher than they were, since what they were reacting to is no longer visible to those of us who came late to the discussion and didn't view the original.

So perhaps we shouldn't judge those who responded to the original unless we see what they were responding to.

Secondly, whether individuals of any age were offended or not offended really isn't the point, as Annie has pointed out. It's the parents of the underagers reading this that we have to look out for. We've all seen incidents in the past on other forums where the parents of little Suzy have been less than pleased to glance over her shoulder when she's been online and seen some salacious content and threats of legal retribution start flying like blizzards thereafter. It's this kind of consideration that the admins of the forums have to take into account in this kind of circumstance.

LabRat

LabRat,

I don't know if you've noticed it already, but Melisma wrote two posts. The first one was the 6th reply (where the "towel" comment is taken from) and the second one is the 11th reply (with the other comment I'd rather not to mention).

-

Hmm... as my parents have no idea about PC's, Internet etc. and never come to check me, I tend to forget what they'd say...

I get your meaning now, and I'm sorry if my previous comment was annoying or offending in any way.
Besides, the truth is that I avoid using this kind of "references", wherever I am (RL or here).

AnnaBtG.

Not in the slightest, Anna, and no need at all to apologise. My post wasn't directed at anyone in particular - certainly you weren't on my mind at all when I posted - and I didn't think anyone was offensive or rude in their responses to the original 'problem'. Or even the responses to the responses. Quite the opposite in fact.

And thanks for pointing me to Mel's second post - that clears up some of my confusion, at least. Yes, you're entirely right - I hadn't understood that we were talking about two separate posts. For some reason I'd thought that this all started after my last post to the thread and so it didn't occur to me to look back further than that. :rolleyes: So the only thing that made any sense was that the post everyone was talking about had been edited.

But I see the pattern now; thanks for the headsup.

LabRat (who is almost ashamed to destroy her gutter reputation by saying she didn't even get the towel reference. )

Yeah, what they said

And I must admit that my reaction was colored by the fact that Melisma has pushed this particular envelope on these boards before -- and been warned about it before. And from the gutter reference in her second post, it seemed that she knew very well she was pushing the envelope again.

Plus I happen to believe there are a *few* twelve year olds out there who have somehow managed to hold onto some innocence, and I don't want this board to be the place that some more of it slips away. We're all clever enough here for discretion and subtle references. Exactly the way the show handled things, actually.

PJ

Perhaps I've misunderstood the concept of administrators and moderators. But if a post is found to have offensive language in it, wouldn't it make more sense for one of them to simply edit said post, rather than have an entire thread devoted to making sure that those of us with somewhat naive world views finally get the double entendre?

Schoolmarm (who admits to having lived a somewhat sheltered life)

I think the problem with your proposal, Schoolmarm, is that there wasn't enough of an offence in what Mel posted to warrant that stage of intervention.

If you read Pam's post you'll see that she talks of pushing the envelope. IOW, Mel was pushing dangerously close to being over the line - but she wasn't all the way there yet. It was a borderline case. Therefore, a gentle warning to Mel to keep in mind the ratings limit of this section of the board was issued instead. I wasn't involved in that decision, but I think it was the right one - we're not in the business of being draconian or editing/deleting posts without giving posters a fair chance first to realise their mistake and play by the rules.

In that sense, yes, you have misinterpreted the role of the moderators and admins. It's all about trying to gently persuade members to abide by the clearly stated rules of the mbs, rather than forcing them to with arbitrary acts of censorship or editing. It's a balancing act, taking each case on its merits, rather than a strict policing role.

I am certain, however, that if Mel - or anyone else - continued to push and not heed the warnings given to her, then other options would be considered by the Admins. And certainly if someone posted outright offensive language then action would be taken to remove the post.

I take your point regarding the debate that followed on naturally from the warnings issued. The Admins didn't start a thread of discussion on the subject, but there was, of course, no way to prevent those with genuine concerns on the issues raised or questions from posting their opinions. Nor should there have been as they're perfectly entitled to do so - and as I stated earlier no one was rude about it.

But this did mean that Mel's inopportune comments got more attention than they might otherwise have done - always the problem in this kind of matter.

Perhaps, in future, we might mail someone a reminder of the ratings limits instead. However, there is also a bonus in making the warning public in that you shake out any misunderstandings among other members about what is permitted and what isn't and save yourself time in repeating yourself. While reminding one member you will probably in passing remind others too and prevent a situation arising before it does. Which is obviously preferable to having to warn someone after the event.

Again...a balancing act. And there is an element of feeling our way in this - it's a new situation for most of us acting as moderators/admins and we're learning as we go. But I'm sure we'll be discussing the issues arising out of this matter and thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. It's certainly something I'm sure we'll consider for the future.

LabRat

Back on topic.

Clark looks better. He actually smiles. Superman occasionally smiles, but it's not nearly as genuine. It's more like he's holding back...

And the glasses are really okay; they sort of suit him. The Superman Hair was too.........slicky. The Clark Hair was greasy, but not nearly as much.

Anyway, this is MHO.

Okay, that's what I get for making a post and then going away for a few days...

My apologies to everyone who was offended by my remarks. I do tend to get a little R-rated from time to time, but I try to keep from being offensive if I can. How-be I go back and edit the post in question?

And I'll try to watch my language on the PG boards from here on in...

EDIT - Admins, let me know if either of my previous posts needs further editing, please?

Melisma (contrite, here under her Rock)

PS, Amanda, that picture of Clark is just so... wonderful... to look at. Thanks for posting it!

Clark without a doubt cos I love the tousled hair look more than the slicked back straight stuff. Though to be completely honest I like it when he is Clark Kent but he has lost the glasses the scene where Lois pulls his glasses off him in WHALTTA is a great example!

I totally agree. I also don't mind taking his shirt off for him or slipping my hands through that shirt to satisfy an irresitable urge in my right arm to rub his abs (six-packs).

off topic
And there I thought labrat was a male. Big mistake.

Come on, guys, what's not to like?



Smile, dimples...

I agree on the Clark look too but don't be too hard on Mister Hardbody

Clark definately he looked good in those suits and glasses, especially when he wore black shirts like in Barbarians at the planet, Honeymoon in Metropolis, And the Answer is and so on....

the essential problem with this question is the fact that both Clark *and* Superman are the same person, therefore, aside from dressing styles, they are identical... and they both look like Dean Cain.

BF

Undoubtedly, they're the same person, Laura; I don't think you'd find anyone arguing with that. But this was the question:

Are you really telling me that there is no difference in appearance between these three pictures?








(And note, I didn't go for a scruffy-look Dean Cain picture )


Wendy

I chose Clark. I don't really like the way he looks as Superman - I don't like the hair, and I don't even really care much for the suit.

Like Labrat, my real favorite it Clark without glasses - and for the same reason.

But, as BrightFeather rightfully points out, there's no getting around the fact that it's still Dean! He looks good all the time. Off hand, I can think of three times in particular when he just took my breath away. Interestingly enough, each one is a different "look":

Clark - when he was on his knees telling Lois "marry me". (end of Krypton arc, I forget the episode name)

Superman - when he kissed Lois' hand in Contact

Clark w/out glasses - when he came down the stairs and took off his glasses in Sex, Lies & Videotape.

- Vicki

Clark definitely.

I also prefer his internpretation of Clark to his Superman ones.