i would suggest that the focus be on the positivity of this place and ignore the other channel
by - Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC ? on - 20:36 Sun - www.ukclimbing.comIn reply to Hjort:> (In reply to UKC News)> Given the grief UKC has dished out on this issue elsewhere on the interweb, is this really appropriate? JUst wondering.UKC have not dished out any grief on the internet about the images of women.Problem is when you publish images of women, climbing or otherwise, on unmoderated forums, you will get gross inappropriate comments.UKC has a policy on this subject: they are here: http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/guidelines.htmlWe delete gross inappropriate comments. Others don't.M
We delete gross inappropriate comments. Others don't.
by - Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC ? on - 12:54 Tue - www.ukclimbing.comShe's a young dirtbag climber, and very talented.She probably got a call from Outside asking,"Hey do you want to appear in a photo-shoot for Outside magazine. We are doing a profile and fashion shoot of young women outdoor athletes?"What would anyone say? Especially a 22 year old these days."Hmm sounds good. Can you assure me the images will not be sexist, exploitative and demeaning to women? If you can, I'll let you talk to my agent"I think not.Good on her I say.I bet she'll get an agent soon though.
by - Fawksey ? on - 23:00 TueIn reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:> She's a young dirtbag climberwhat does this mean?
? on - 23:08 TueIn reply to Fawksey:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dirtbag
In reply to Mick Ryan - Senior Editor - UKC:'She's a young dirtbag climber, and very talented.She probably got a call from Outside asking,"Hey do you want to appear in a photo-shoot for Outside magazine. We are doing a profile and fashion shoot of young women outdoor athletes?"What would anyone say? Especially a 22 year old these days."Hmm sounds good. Can you assure me the images will not be sexist, exploitative and demeaning to women? If you can, I'll let you talk to my agent"I think not.Good on her I say. 'Maybe. Thanks for painting us that picture of events.It diverts attention away from the question which is being asked on here by others though, which is: why did ukc feel the need to go into detail about a girl's magazine glamour shoot in an article about same girl's bouldering 'killing spree'.Personally I'd log on to ukc a lot more if you just dropped the pretense of serious journalism and went all out with a no-holds barred 'Dead Fit Birds Who Go Climbing' photo special on the front page. It'd save me the time of sifting through pages of moron-talk to find the hot bits.
In reply to TeaGirl:It's neither unacceptable nor acceptable, that's entirely up to the person viewing the article. Some people think hard-core pr0n is acceptable (it's not illegal).Your missing the point. The point being made by myself and a few others relates to what constitutes relevant information in an article about a climber, and perceived differences of consistency in the treatment of male and female climbers in media articles. It's totally academic really as I honestly don't care how much of the lovely Puccio's body ukc decide to show in their articles, I'd happily see her bouldering naked if that's what she wanted to do and was cool with other people publicising it.If you take a look around UKB (hint, in DFBWGC poll at bottom) you'd get a better idea of the context behind my probing, and maybe question alan and mick of ukc a bit more yourself.
In reply to Papillon:> UKC should not be prevented from highlighting a top female boulder's media profile by a minority of idiots who can't glimpse a bit of flesh without with making some daft comment.The sort of daft comment which wouldn't make anyone bat an eyelid if it was down the pub with some mates.However, because this is a commercial site and the owners have a vested interest in presenting a certain image such comments are moderated (i.e. deleted).So why bother promoting material that will (and you can't stop idiots unfortunately, just look around the world about you) attract such comments only to moderate them? Perhaps the mods like making work for themselves, who knows. Just seems completely illogical to my mind.Promote the top female boulder's profile for their bouldering achievements (the crushing in Magic), but not their "media profile" (being in a magazine, which to be honest is cheap journalism "Look here's an article by someone else", a simple link to the Outside web-site would have sufficed).In reply to Papillon:> (In reply to slacky)> [...]>> UKC should not be prevented....Similarly other sites shouldn't be prevented from moderating themselves in their own chosen way without interference from the owners here on UKC no matter how idiotic the comments, its down to the owners of the other sites to choose how to moderate their forums and UKC have no place to interfere whatsoever.
I was going to post on UKC, but couldnt get to grips with their quote system
Quote from: tomtom on October 13, 2010, 07:52:21 amI was going to post on UKC, but couldnt get to grips with their quote system I know what you mean - you go to quote the previous poster's comments and all of a sudden they're not there anymore.
That thread is so highly edited now it's ridiculous.Poof- all comments upon Mick's "dirtbag" comment gone.
That's DISGUSTING!! He's misspelled "losers".
