Odd

[rejectomorph]

Heh. Google has communication problems about GData. Internet comedy gold.


I still don't get why so many people get so upset by mere teats. Or by being denied (by frightful prigs, of course) the opportunity to publicly display images of them in certain virtual situations in which, of course, no actual feeding is taking place!. ("No children were starved in the non-display of this icon.") As for the teat-fear itself, it reminds me of that dictator in Singapore who banned chewing gum from the city. The Bonnet Bee is the most inscrutable of species, and probably the least likely to ever become endangered.

People are being too weird today. I'm going out to look at bugs.

Comments

[marseille.livejournal.com]

Are the people objecting to this ok with the display of the same apparatus without infants? One wonders. It's not like anyone is able to avoid THAT at every turn. I don't much mind either, as long as the ones shown are within the range of "normal," not inflated to dangerous sizes.

[rejectomorph]

Current LJ policy is no human female nipple (or, I suppose, male nipple that would be mistaken for female nipple) in any default icon. I think it's applied even to icons depicting works of art. Venus de Milo would probably be OK because being white marble there's no red areola, but a painting showing red areola would be banned. But it's OK to use such an icon as long as it isn't your default icon. In fact, there appears to be no limit to what your non-default icons can be- GIF's of humping and humming, gay or straight, and all sorts of other stuff, sexual or violent or both, can all easily be found on the site. I find the whole nipple contretemps incredibly silly, on both sides.

[marseille.livejournal.com]

People worry about all the wrong things.

[gutbloom.livejournal.com]

Everyone should link to the article so that it ends up on the top of a google search for GData.

[rejectomorph]

Heh. Google bomb them! Meta Google bombing! Excellent!