Sat May 19, 2007 6:11 pm
From this string of threads I think we can tell who looks at porrnnography and who doesn't. 
:
:
Sat May 19, 2007 7:21 pm
Wait a minute. Are you saying that the bombs painted on a cartoon offend you, but the WWII bomber that it is attached to does not. Not much offends me. People get too offended these days. I don't have a problem with hot naked chicks being painted on airplanes. I do see where Ryan was coming from about trying to read about the restoration project. I am not offended by naked girls, and I am not offended by a cartoon painted on a WWII bomber for nose art. Especially when that bomber is an American one, and the bombs that it is dropping is on people that started the whole thing anyway. What the hell happened to this world where everyone gets offended by everything?
Sat May 19, 2007 7:29 pm
Yea , What happened to the good old days when you just left a flamming bag of poo on their porch!
Sat May 19, 2007 8:31 pm
C'mon folks, just be happy. 
Sat May 19, 2007 8:35 pm
i think mustangdriver summed it up.
Sat May 19, 2007 8:51 pm
and while were at it, let's post censor marks on world reknowned works of art by legendary artists going back centuries, whose works are is in museums like the smithsonian & lourve in france........... by the way, many of them being nudes!!!!
Sun May 20, 2007 3:39 am
mustangdriver wrote:Wait a minute. Are you saying that the bombs painted on a cartoon offend you, but the WWII bomber that it is attached to does not. Not much offends me. People get too offended these days. I don't have a problem with hot naked chicks being painted on airplanes. I do see where Ryan was coming from about trying to read about the restoration project. I am not offended by naked girls, and I am not offended by a cartoon painted on a WWII bomber for nose art. Especially when that bomber is an American one, and the bombs that it is dropping is on people that started the whole thing anyway. What the heck happened to this world where everyone gets offended by everything?
If your asking me well I'm not offended but I do think alot of kids are going to want that nose art on a T-Shirt or something just because its a cartoon plane and having it dropping bomb may not be the best message to send. What surprise me is that it made it by the elected staff who wanted (not sure thats why I asked Gary) a totally family friendly nose art.
Phil
Sun May 20, 2007 8:01 am
Phil, you keep saying that we put the cartoon art on the airplane because we wanted to be PC. That actually couldn't be further from the truth. Although I'm not an elected staff member, I was involved with all of the meetings that took place regarding the noseart. Not once was the subject of banishing topless babes or no images of burning cities, or anything else regarding political correctness mentioned. Not once.
All the discussion revolved around originality (translation: me whining about any art not being original) and marketability. We knew from the start that whatever we did....no nose art, art with bombs, art with boobs, or art with flowers sticking out of the bombs (or boobs), would piss somebody off. It's just the way it is. No biggie. The art chosen was one of about 5 or 6 submitted, and was deemed the best looking and most marketable. Period.
If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times, everyone here is certainly entitled to their opinions. Personally, I think it's great to see how passionate folks can be about this, as it shows interest in the airplane. I very much respect your (and other's) thoughts regarding the noseart that was chosen. However, political correctness had ZERO to do with why it was chosen.
If you wish, you could become an active member, then get elected to our Squadron's staff, and have your vote in difficult decisions such as this. It's an overused statement, but "it's an ugly job, but someone has to do it."
Maybe we can talk about it further at an airshow sometime.
Gary
All the discussion revolved around originality (translation: me whining about any art not being original) and marketability. We knew from the start that whatever we did....no nose art, art with bombs, art with boobs, or art with flowers sticking out of the bombs (or boobs), would piss somebody off. It's just the way it is. No biggie. The art chosen was one of about 5 or 6 submitted, and was deemed the best looking and most marketable. Period.
If I've said it once, I've said it a hundred times, everyone here is certainly entitled to their opinions. Personally, I think it's great to see how passionate folks can be about this, as it shows interest in the airplane. I very much respect your (and other's) thoughts regarding the noseart that was chosen. However, political correctness had ZERO to do with why it was chosen.
If you wish, you could become an active member, then get elected to our Squadron's staff, and have your vote in difficult decisions such as this.
It's an overused statement, but "it's an ugly job, but someone has to do it."
Maybe we can talk about it further at an airshow sometime.
Gary
Sun May 20, 2007 11:43 am
phil65 wrote:mustangdriver wrote:Wait a minute. Are you saying that the bombs painted on a cartoon offend you, but the WWII bomber that it is attached to does not. Not much offends me. People get too offended these days. I don't have a problem with hot naked chicks being painted on airplanes. I do see where Ryan was coming from about trying to read about the restoration project. I am not offended by naked girls, and I am not offended by a cartoon painted on a WWII bomber for nose art. Especially when that bomber is an American one, and the bombs that it is dropping is on people that started the whole thing anyway. What the heck happened to this world where everyone gets offended by everything?
If your asking me well I'm not offended but I do think alot of kids are going to want that nose art on a T-Shirt or something just because its a cartoon plane and having it dropping bomb may not be the best message to send. What surprise me is that it made it by the elected staff who wanted (not sure thats why I asked Gary) a totally family friendly nose art.
Phil
I should have made it clear that I did not to aim that at anyone here. I for one am just tired of all the P.C. crap.
Sun May 20, 2007 3:28 pm
Gary thanks for clearing that up about PC.
I didn't care much for the "Flying Elvis" logo the that New England Patriots picked at first either but after 3 Super Bowl wins I'm starting to like it alittle more
"Maybe we can talk about it further at an airshow sometime."
Sure,When are you bring those P&W back home to CT.
Good luck with the rest of Ol'927
Phil
I didn't care much for the "Flying Elvis" logo the that New England Patriots picked at first either but after 3 Super Bowl wins I'm starting to like it alittle more
"Maybe we can talk about it further at an airshow sometime."
Sure,When are you bring those P&W back home to CT.
Good luck with the rest of Ol'927
Phil
Sun May 20, 2007 5:02 pm
tom d. friedman wrote:and while were at it, let's post censor marks on world reknowned works of art by legendary artists going back centuries, whose works are is in museums like the smithsonian & lourve in france........... by the way, many of them being nudes!!!!
I'm sure the right-wing religious nut jobs out there would love to do just that if they got the chance. Remember...it's their god given right to pass judgement on others and to decide what's moral and what's acceptable these days.
John
Sun May 20, 2007 7:22 pm
I'm sure the right-wing religious nut jobs out there would love to do just that if they got the chance. Remember...it's their god given right to pass judgement on others and to decide what's moral and what's acceptable these days.
...and we will soon be getting out a hammer and chisel and refacing the 200 year old marble facades of half the buildings in DC, and giving up our supposed unalienable rights to practice a religion if the secularists get their way. Good try though....
Sun May 20, 2007 9:37 pm
OK, ok it's settled. When I win Lotto and buy my B-25 I've decided on the paint scheme!
http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce ... eMaria.jpg
http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce ... eMaria.jpg
...and check out some of her stablemates on Corsica. (One looks vaugely familiar).
http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce/planes5.html
http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce ... eMaria.jpg
http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce ... eMaria.jpg
...and check out some of her stablemates on Corsica. (One looks vaugely familiar).
http://www.warwingsart.com/12thAirForce/planes5.html
Mon May 21, 2007 1:01 am
"Meet Mrs. Runyon" 
Thanks,Phil
Thanks,Phil
Mon May 21, 2007 8:31 am
Here goes trouble...
Just for the record, I'm not so much anti-"nose-art" as I'm against nose art that violates principles that I think are universally applicable to life. For instance, I think that the picture on Dick Bong's aircraft was completely appropriate, respectful, and did not violate any sense of propriety. The nose art I was objecting to, DOES violate Christian principles. Public nakedness has been a sin ever since Genesis 3, and the fall of man from the state of perfection in the garden, and it is clearly considered shameful throughout the whole Bible. Yes, there are mentions of it in the historical record, witness Bathsheba in particular, and other places that I could mention, but those places, the thing is always mentioned with a carefulness not to engage in lusting upon the thing, but to put it in a negative, non-descriptive (as much is neccesary only) light. As you can see from the small sampling of verses below, the idea of someone's public nakedness being shameful is quite apparent, and is throughout the whole Bible.
Isa 47:3 Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen:
Lam 1:8 Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she is removed: all that honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness
Eze 23:18 So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness
Nah 3:5 Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame.
Hab 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!
Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Am I perfect? NO! I've seen stuff that I don't need to see, and am tempted by such things just like any other guy, but the reason I brought the subject up is that I want to be able to enjoy the good aspects of aviation, and the sacrifices of our servicemen who fought for our freedoms, without having my conscience violated, my mind seared to evil, or to have to glorify those aspects of our wars, that I do not think should be glorified.
I also find it somewhat hilarious that some of my friends here are so concerned about dropping bombs, and equating that with the sin of adultery, or lust... Objection to that, and mentioning that as if it's an issue, and making ridiculous comments such as that you'd rather your kid wear a pin-up girl than a bomber dropping bombs, I find quite ironic. You are presupposing a standard of morality, that it's wrong to kill people. Funny thing is, you basically only have three ways to defend that kind of arguement. 1) It's wrong to kill people because God said so, because He made all human beings in His image, 2) because of a general consensus that it's wrong, or 3) because you just feel it's wrong. Either way, you are making a judgement that there is some standard of morality.
It's funny because if you believe that it's wrong to kill because of God's moral standard, then you should also believe that what He says about morality is also valid. If you just believe that it's because of consensus, well, I guess that become's up the majority, and that's dangerous, because if the majority say that it's ok to do something, like kill Jews, then you've got a problem, much like we do now with abortion. And if you believe that you're the standard, or something else, well you're going to have a hard time defending it ultimately, because it's my word vs. yours.
I just think that it's safer to believe that there is Absolute truth given by the ultimate absolute, the God of the Bible, who says that there is a time and place for warfare, for the defense of the nation and for righteous purposes, which should be strictly defined and limited.
Some have essentially accused me of wanting to start a religious war, which is something I have no intention of doing, neither do I think it should be done. I belive that Scripturally, the only kind of war a nation should engage in is a defensive war for just purposes (We could get into what defines that, but I don't think it's really neccesary). Now sometimes that might involve religious rhetoric, such as the idea that it's wrong for Muslims to call for the subjection of all infidels.
The reason I can appreciate WW2 as much as I do is that despite some US foreign policy that may have precipitated other nations' actions, we were essentially fighting a fairly just war. We were attacked first by Japan, and both Japan and Germany were clearly fighting for evil, racist purposes. That said, we were not completely blameless, especially in the way we demonized the Japanese as in or sub-human, but I believe that essentially, the war was worth fighting. Just look at the name that was given the aircraft that started this whole discussion. The Liberator! The American people at least for the most part in World War Two had a sense of the justice of their cause, the noble intentions, and the evil of the enemy's actions.
Anyway, rant over for now.
Ryan
Just for the record, I'm not so much anti-"nose-art" as I'm against nose art that violates principles that I think are universally applicable to life. For instance, I think that the picture on Dick Bong's aircraft was completely appropriate, respectful, and did not violate any sense of propriety. The nose art I was objecting to, DOES violate Christian principles. Public nakedness has been a sin ever since Genesis 3, and the fall of man from the state of perfection in the garden, and it is clearly considered shameful throughout the whole Bible. Yes, there are mentions of it in the historical record, witness Bathsheba in particular, and other places that I could mention, but those places, the thing is always mentioned with a carefulness not to engage in lusting upon the thing, but to put it in a negative, non-descriptive (as much is neccesary only) light. As you can see from the small sampling of verses below, the idea of someone's public nakedness being shameful is quite apparent, and is throughout the whole Bible.
Isa 47:3 Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen:
Lam 1:8 Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she is removed: all that honoured her despise her, because they have seen her nakedness
Eze 23:18 So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness
Nah 3:5 Behold, I am against thee, saith the LORD of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will shew the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame.
Hab 2:15 Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness!
Mat 5:27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
Mat 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Rev 3:18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Am I perfect? NO! I've seen stuff that I don't need to see, and am tempted by such things just like any other guy, but the reason I brought the subject up is that I want to be able to enjoy the good aspects of aviation, and the sacrifices of our servicemen who fought for our freedoms, without having my conscience violated, my mind seared to evil, or to have to glorify those aspects of our wars, that I do not think should be glorified.
I also find it somewhat hilarious that some of my friends here are so concerned about dropping bombs, and equating that with the sin of adultery, or lust... Objection to that, and mentioning that as if it's an issue, and making ridiculous comments such as that you'd rather your kid wear a pin-up girl than a bomber dropping bombs, I find quite ironic. You are presupposing a standard of morality, that it's wrong to kill people. Funny thing is, you basically only have three ways to defend that kind of arguement. 1) It's wrong to kill people because God said so, because He made all human beings in His image, 2) because of a general consensus that it's wrong, or 3) because you just feel it's wrong. Either way, you are making a judgement that there is some standard of morality.
It's funny because if you believe that it's wrong to kill because of God's moral standard, then you should also believe that what He says about morality is also valid. If you just believe that it's because of consensus, well, I guess that become's up the majority, and that's dangerous, because if the majority say that it's ok to do something, like kill Jews, then you've got a problem, much like we do now with abortion. And if you believe that you're the standard, or something else, well you're going to have a hard time defending it ultimately, because it's my word vs. yours.
I just think that it's safer to believe that there is Absolute truth given by the ultimate absolute, the God of the Bible, who says that there is a time and place for warfare, for the defense of the nation and for righteous purposes, which should be strictly defined and limited.
Some have essentially accused me of wanting to start a religious war, which is something I have no intention of doing, neither do I think it should be done. I belive that Scripturally, the only kind of war a nation should engage in is a defensive war for just purposes (We could get into what defines that, but I don't think it's really neccesary). Now sometimes that might involve religious rhetoric, such as the idea that it's wrong for Muslims to call for the subjection of all infidels.
The reason I can appreciate WW2 as much as I do is that despite some US foreign policy that may have precipitated other nations' actions, we were essentially fighting a fairly just war. We were attacked first by Japan, and both Japan and Germany were clearly fighting for evil, racist purposes. That said, we were not completely blameless, especially in the way we demonized the Japanese as in or sub-human, but I believe that essentially, the war was worth fighting. Just look at the name that was given the aircraft that started this whole discussion. The Liberator! The American people at least for the most part in World War Two had a sense of the justice of their cause, the noble intentions, and the evil of the enemy's actions.
Anyway, rant over for now.
Ryan