Rich Urschel wrote:
> Brooks,
> Speaking as but one member of the SFR Steering Committee
> who finds nothing "safe, sane, and consensual" objectionable,
> I would never vote to allow the words "Bondage.Com" on
> one our participants' car for the following reason:
>
> SOED:
> Bondage, n. Sadomasochism involving binding, hand cuffs, etc.
>
> That's a hot button. Just consider MTV's refusal to play
> one of Madonna's videos with simulated (actually just hinted)
> S&M after hawking it for a week. (Don't cry for her, it was her
> best seller.)
>
> There are people who object to AUTOCROSSING.
> Displaying morally provocative words on our cars would be
> tantamount to giving political ammunition to the enemy.
Right on -- that's exactly what I was looking for. I certainly don't want
to be stirring up trouble for the sport in general.
What I'm looking for is some guidelines or precedent. If other people are
doing it, or will soon be doing it, I don't want to pass up a good
opportunity. But I also don't want to be the one to break the new ground
what should not be broken, and cause stress and mayhem in the process. If
it's a big deal in uncharted waters, I'd just as soon leave it alone. (I'm
happy to fight for principles, but not having to pay for car parts is hardly
a principle, right?)
On the flip side, as something of a troublemaker, I have to wonder what the
policy would be. Would "playboy.com" or "gay.com" or "nerve.com" be ok? I'm
absolutely *not* being snotty here, I just want to be sure that if I'm going
to pass up a couple of thousand dollars in parts, it's based on a more or
less consistent policy (even an informal, consensus-based policy, as has
been forming on this list).
> Now I have to go edit my Netscape browser files.
heh heh.
Thanks... and cheers
-b
|