The question of photos & privacy!

[Manny]

I started this on the back of a point raised by Alfie which Dan suggested would be better employed on a new thread rather than on the one it was on. Alfies quote is below......

I was wondering whether posting pictures indiscriminately can become a privacy issue between your RW and yourself. For me, I would be worried. Not because of ridicule but because something which is special is mitigated by the public viewing it with judgment. Any thoughts?

How does the idea of "privacy" differ in the FSU than in the US/UK/West?

Just my 2 Kopecks - my lady was originally on 2 agencies, one of those (AFA) managed to place her on many sites. (as many AFA agencies are one and the same in semi disguise)  After we became committed, she decided to remove herself from them and eventually we did manage this, but only after a few e mails to AFA mentioning lawyers etc did they pull ALL her pics from all their sites. (not an easy task) Her pic remains one one site tagged as engaged (to me of course) but that is not a problem as it is in context and it is a good honest site.

Most English people are quite shy about pics and I notice few use them as avatars in the way that Americans often do - maybe the English are more reserved? (an exception would be Ste's Nadia who appears here in gallery)

I discussed the pic sharing issue with my lady recently, her opinion was that many RW have family, friends and former work colleagues back home who of course also have internet and google and she recalled one case of a teacher in her university who put herself on a dating website with half a dozen pics and one of her students found it and printed it and put it all over school, along with her profile. Which obviously did the young lady in question no good profesionally and opened her up to ridicule.

Also, one cant underestimate the power of google - on a thread recently elsewhere about pics of our ladies, my comment was that I would not post one without her explicit permission, and another poster (in jest) said "maybe you cant - but I could?"

Obviously, we may send our pics to other people by e mail who we are corresponding with, (forum people for example, in order to put a name to a face etc) and we assume they will stay private, but there is always the chance element that they will appear without your permission.

Also, I sometimes wonder about men who are with ladies who posted originally on some agency a quite provocative photo, the pic although it attracted the guy first off may be still around in the back rooms of google and subject to posting etc by others if they felt the need. That could cause embarrassment to the man and his new found lady.

Comments people?

[BillyB]

Also, one cant underestimate the power of google - on a thread recently elsewhere about pics of our ladies, my comment was that I would not post one without her explicit permission, and another poster (in jest) said "maybe you cant - but I could?"

Talking about me Manny? Yes I said something to that effect. You know the reason. Not everyone is good with google but I read trip reports where guys change the names of their lady and she is still easily found based on other info they provided. I've warned a few guys who didn't lock up their woman or was in a recent flame war to be careful since their releationship could be sabotaged.

I'm not worried if someone tries to e-mail my fiancee and bad mouth me or try to offer her the bigger, better deal. I'm confident that my fiancee has exceptional character and won't respond to gossip or be tempted by money.

Of course if your woman doesn't want her photo on the internet, then one must respect her wishes though it doesn't make total sense since she posted photos in her profile previously before meeting you.

[KenC]

Manchester,
For over seven years I never posted photos of Lena and I.  I would only email photos to friends with a stern warning not to share them with anyone else.  Still, I had an incident on the old Planet Love where a troll posted our photo for mocking and ridicule.  So I even cut back on the emailed photos.  I guess there was a "friend" that wasn't so friendly.

RWD has evolved to a point where it has really become a friendly place.  I was comfortable in posting my photos here as were many others.  It was just a bunch of guys sharing family, fish and boat photos. Not once in that thread did anyone take a "shot" at anyone else.  There were times in the past when posters did take "shots" at a guy's woman.  Photoguy took a lot of grief that was way out of line.  (For the record, the most guilty party was banned)

Imagine my shock when you took it upon yourself to lift my photo here only to post it to RWG for ridicule and mocking purposes.  (For the record, whether I was a member of RWG or not is immaterial)  I am of the strong conviction that Dan is running a very classy forum here with very high standards.  He would never allow the reposting of photos for such purposes.  He has my great respect for that.

There are many members here that value their privacy.  That too is fine.  But when some choose to share their private photos here, we need to respect their choice in a mature fashion.  There should be no fear of ridicule or mocking, even if you have an opinion that the couple does not "look" like a good match in your eyes.  (As you have posted here about Lena and I)  Why is your opinion warrented when the photo was not posted for your approval?  Some opinions are best kept to yourself.  The photos were posted in the spirit of sharing something personal with friends here not as a target for your insults.  There is a much higher expectation of decency here than you seem to comprehend.
KenC

[Admin]

One other thing to help allay any concerns about posting here - I am not going to provide details, but suffice to say there are some 'security' features which will help if any member feels information they posted here is being misused here, or elsewhere.

- Dan

[corp]

Yeah it really shows "No-class" to make comments about some ones woman.
 I was turned off to this forum for a while when I read the comments like that made here some time back.
I don't have much experience with these "on-line communities", but I was shocked at the effort some will go to to dig into some ones past to belittle or purely for sport.
This was too often the case at "the other site".

I am usually a very open person but when I saw this, it made me limit myself in a public way.
It's one thing to bump shoulders and disagree it's another to get so personal you breech the zone of privacy.
 I am not one for much moderation, but when this type of stuff rears it's head, it should be deleted from the record.

As far as posting pictures of chicks, or family, if they are in good taste, nothing wrong with it. If I had a current lady... I would not ....without her permission but those in the past are fair game.
The chance of it turning up in a google search would be very slim and whats the harm done, unless you are giving out personal contact info.

[Manny]

Ken,

I did not start this for you to start harping on about old news!

Change the record Ken - please stop polluting threads with the Ken and Manchucker show - everyone is tired of it I am sure!

I would add however on the general topic that if someone posts a pic of themselves all over the place - ie as with an avatar, one should not be surprised if someone makes a negative comment about it. Nor should they throw their dummy out of the pram if they hear/see a negative comment - when you put such a pic out there you do so for a reason and must expect the worst.

BillyB - was that you? Yes I remember now! 

[KenC]

Ken,

I did not start this for you to start harping on about old news!

Change the record Ken - please stop polluting threads with the Ken and Manchucker show - everyone is tired of it I am sure!

I would add however on the general topic that if someone posts a pic of themselves all over the place - ie as with an avatar, one should not be surprised if someone makes a negative comment about it. Nor should they throw their dummy out of the pram if they hear/see a negative comment - when you put such a pic out there you do so for a reason and must expect the worst.

You know what Manchester?
You only get to choose what you write, not anyone else!  And you asked for comments too.  My post was on topic and very relevant.  (Maybe too relevant?)  I do find it curious that you are sympathetic to your finacee's friends dilemma over the ridicule of her photos and yet you do exactly the same thing.  To ridicule someone's photo is a classless thing to do and no one "asks" for that regardless of what you may think.  Only you and a few pin heads from RWG choose that course of action.  My photos have been up here for months without one negative comment.  But you are correct on one thing though, I have grown to expect the worst from you.
KenC

[viking]

Hey Ken,

Where have I heard that a couple ' does not look right' together?

You two look wonderful. Smiles from ear to ear. Just shows to go ya.

Viking

[Manny]

Hey Ken,

Where have I heard that a couple ' does not look right' together?

You two look wonderful. Smiles from ear to ear. Just shows to go ya.

Viking

You heard it from many on your thread and you heard it from JB also! You also proved us right Viking so not a good argument.

Ken - which part of the comment "change the record" did you not understand? 

[KenC]

Manchester,
I can understand your desire to try and bury the past, if I had your history, I guess I would too.  But as I said in my post up thread, you do not get to choose what I write here.  Instead of your typical, change the subject and do not respond to direct on topic thoughts, (which seems to be your MO), how about you responding to:
How can you be sympathetic to your finacee's friend when you, yourself choose to ridicule photos on a public forum?

Out of all the members here, why is it only you that chooses to criticize my photos?

Do you think your silly cartoon giraffe is a better personal representation than my photo of me and my wife?

Why should I "expect the worst" when I post a photo here?

What give you the right to ridicule someone's photo when you haven't the guts to post your own?
KenC

[Admin]

So let's see.

We have those who post photos as a way to connect more closely with the RWD community members.

We have those who are "too shy" to post photos - they live on the other side of the Atlantic.

We are told that *if* we post a photo, we should expect negative comments.

The facts are that most, if not all, of the ladies involved have, at one time or another, consented to their photo being posted on the internet. Admittedly, this does NOT apply to those who were not a part of any agency scene - but at least the majority would probably fall into the category of having given consent in the past.

Here at RWD there have been a couple of incidents in which negative comments were made toward someone's posted photos - but I can count those on one hand (and have fingers left over). Unfortunately, those few events have been quite memorable.

For the most part, photos posted here have been warmly received and are genuinely appreciated by other members of the community, as it allows us to draw just a little closer in this internet venue.

Here is a link to some of the photos members have shared here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=1974.0

And one of the most popular topics of all time may be found here -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=1255.0. It is photos of the people who are dear to us. Does anyone think those should be "fair game" for public scrutiny and "negative" comments??

I wonder what it says about someone who fails to post any photos of themself? Are they being particularly "shy" - or maybe paranoid? Or maybe the "shy" behavior is masking (or an excuse for) a more pernicious motive or character? I certainly do not know the answer to this question - but for my part, I find it to be engaging when someone shares a little something of themselves - and more than a bit off-putting when someone is extremely focused on other's photos, but cannot find it within themselves to share anything of their own.

FWIW

- Dan

[prince_alfie]

Dan, much agreement here.
As a photographer myself, I realize that pictures can speak much about the tenor of a man's character. Granted, short of meeting the person himself/herself, a photo reflects the intonation of how a man thinks. One cannot hide the true elements of his/her desires and emotions.

It is ironic that in today's society that when people put themselves on public display, that their intentions is to grab fame or notoriety. But here where things are much civil, having photos really helps to understand the variety of people who pursue the RW search rather than for a cynical reason.

I think criticism of photos are typically done in poor taste esp. if the photos are from personal archives. We could only hope that people are beyond ad hominem attacks based on superficial judgment.

[jb]

I think Dan's comments are on the mark, I recall an old adage about people who live in glass houses throwing stones.  Until we see a recent photo of Manchester, (verifiable), we have to assume Manny is an old, ugly, short, bald, fat, toothless, cannot find a willing hooker in a cathouse with a suitcase full of fivers, loser of the first water.

Just my take on people who are overly critical of other's photos.  Everyone can be a Brad Pitt, hunk-a-mania look-a-like on the internet, of course the rest of us who have actually posted a photo are just average.

[viking]

Manchester

In my thread, I said that I would keep in mind both you and Olgas words about people 'looking right' together in a photo. I also said I have seen some pretty strange and oddball couples who seemed good for each, for whatever reasons. I feel that the photo litmus test is only one part of the overall picture (no pun intended). If I am correct here, I did not 'look right' because (in your mind as well as others) she was too young looking for an older gent like myself. And I was taken for a ride. Ken may look older than Lena, but here they are married and very happy. I have nothing negative to say about the issues of photos. It is not meant to be a final yea or nay on a potential relationship but just something else to factor in.  And there are a lot of other factors.

[Son of Clyde]

When I have posted pictures, a certain member, who shall remain nameless has used them as ammo to make rude comments about my being bald and wearing a hat to cover my baldness. Not on the board, but in nasty Pm's. I have even mentioned that a drug I take, Hydrochlorothiazide makes me sensitive to the sun and I must wear a hat when it is sunny outside.. Some people will always have a rude comment especially when they have a superiority complex. I may still post some photos, I don't think I am an ogre. Why does everyone think bald people only wear hats to cover their baldness? I have as many pictures of myself without the blasted hat.

[Son of Clyde]

Here is one with my head shining in the sun.
I am having a chat with Harvey the rabbit on my right and the invisible man on my left.

[TexasBoar]

Here is one with my head shining in the sun.

Dang, must be tough going through life with all that testosterone coursing through your veins, SOC. 

Just funnin' with ya.  As I've posted before, there's just something intrinsically gay---and by "gay" I mean homosexual---about men being obsessed with other men's physical attractiveness.

And something inherently porn addicted and masturbatory about the idea that only pretty people should have sex.

And, like Forrest Gump, that's all I've got to say about that. 

~Boar

[KenC]

You heard it from many on your thread and you heard it from JB also! You also proved us right Viking so not a good argument.

Ken - which part of the comment "change the record" did you not understand? 

Just to set the record straight (you do have a way of twisting the facts) jb never posted any comments about the viking/gf photo on that thread.  BillyB, OlgaS and BC did however.  But BC's "I think a good term would be 'subjective optical litmus test'" is a good example of how to handle things with dignity and class.  Even though viking did open the door for criticism as he said "I offered myself up as a sacrifice of sorts so that others will learn from my mistake. I have learned from my mistakes" there is no reason to be derogatory with your comments.
I certainly was not part of the thread until you decided to make disparaging remarks about how I look in comparison to my wife.  You went way out of your way to insult me and my wife (as you went on to include remarks about her marrying me for my money).  That was the second time you dragged me into a thread to ridicule my wife and I for no apparent reason.  And you want me to forget the past?  No way Bucko.
KenC

[Manny]

So we seem to have a management sanctioned pi$$ing contest here..........

I can understand your desire to try and bury the past, if I had your history, I guess I would too. 

Its not about "bury" - I merely suggested that you stopped harping on about an old issue that you claimed, by PM, was forgotten and history. Remember? I have no problem with my history - you do!

how about you responding to:
How can you be sympathetic to your finacee's friend when you, yourself choose to ridicule photos on a public forum?

I am sympathetic of her as she did not intend them for local consumption as they were on a foreign facing website - and the resultant fall out damaged her professionally.

Out of all the members here, why is it only you that chooses to criticize my photos?

Your pic was quite heavily commented on where it was reproduced. Some of those people are members here also - wrong Ken.

Do you think your silly cartoon giraffe is a better personal representation than my photo of me and my wife?

I think your pic is reprensative of who you are and how you want to be perceived. Beyond that it speaks for itself. My "silly cartoon giraffe" is here to stay now I know it annoys you! 

Why should I "expect the worst" when I post a photo here?

Because it is a public media and people will do what they want with any published media. They will also add their own opinion, it is a free country. (at least the UK is)

What give you the right to ridicule someone's photo when you haven't the guts to post your own?
KenC?

Its not a question of guts. Most people dont post their own pic on forums. Often it is people who feel they have something to prove or wish to make a statement, such as yourself.

a certain member, who shall remain nameless

Which was not me BTW (for the benefit of the casual reader)

I did not 'look right' because (in your mind as well as others) she was too young looking for an older gent like myself. And I was taken for a ride.

I agree the pic is not the only factor but as is often teh case with improbable age differences you were taken for a ride - but you are a bigger man to admit it and for that you get my respect.

I wonder what it says about someone who fails to post any photos of themself?

Your avatar is somewhat blank Daniel - perhaps you are paranoid as you suggest others are?

but for my part, I find it to be engaging when someone shares a little something of themselves

Lead by example Dan.

and more than a bit off-putting when someone is extremely focused on other's photos, but cannot find it within themselves to share anything of their own.

This thread was your suggestion Dan. I hope you approve of the direction it is taking with your participation. Your pal Ken is very focused on others' perception of his own photo, the rest of us dont give a toss. KenC's following me about from post to post merely to flame me on a very tired issue is a breach of TOS. Actually its about his 5th in a week. Has he been warned? I doubt it - old pals act eh? 

I think Dan's comments are on the mark, I recall an old adage about people who live in glass houses throwing stones.

JB - As we have proved before here and elsewhere, you yourself despite being a sometime moderator here dont even know all the TOS rules. (I am referring of course to the copyright you granted that Dan rescinded later) added to which you yourself was critical of Vikings pic with him and the young woman.

So I agree - people in glass houses should not throw stones.

It is ironic that in today's society that when people put themselves on public display, that their intentions is to grab fame or notoriety.

My point entirely to KenC.

As far as posting pictures of chicks, or family, if they are in good taste, nothing wrong with it. If I had a current lady... I would not ....without her permission but those in the past are fair game..

I wonder if this mans ex girlfriends know they are "fair game"? - Clearly demonstrative of the classier poster KenC and others constantly refer to here at RWD

As it is Management, moderators and people who are held in "enormous regard" by the former who have turned an innocent thread that would have been good debate and conversation into the debacle we see above - my question is shall we get back on topic or do we have Dans further permission (before he blames me!)  for a pi$$ing contest that is of course wonderful for RWD?

Gentlemen and others - the forum is yours.............

[Manny]

Just to set the record straight (you do have a way of twisting the facts) jb never posted any comments about the viking/gf photo on that thread. 

No - he was very subtle and did it on another thread!

Who is twisting the facts now Ken old son?

And something inherently porn addicted and masturbatory about the idea that only pretty people should have sex.

Another example of a classy post by RWD posters that KenC claims are far and beyond those found elsewhere.

[Manny]

Until we see a recent photo of Manchester, (verifiable), we have to assume Manny is an old, ugly, short, bald, fat, toothless, cannot find a willing hooker in a cathouse with a suitcase full of fivers, loser of the first water.

JB - at the risk of you being labelled "mastubatory" by TexasBoar (see above) I would refer you to a moderator here, a poster or three here and others at RW* that have met me. That is a better verification than a pic.

[jb]

Manchester,

If you want a *pissin'* contest, we can easily take this to the "No Holds Barred" section,,, your choice.  Otherwise I suggest you keep your assine little comments to yourself.  I've not seen a likeness of you, nor has KenC, as far as we are concerned you are as discribed above.

[KenC]

So we seem to have a management sanctioned pi$$ing contest here..........

Why is it when someone disagrees with you, you need to attack the very concept of debate?

Its not about "bury" - I merely suggested that you stopped harping on about an old issue that you claimed, by PM, was forgotten and history. Remember? I have no problem with my history - you do!

#1 the topic of this thread was relevant to your actions and #2 You took the very same action after I sent you the PM.  So there is no remorse on your part in anyway as you suggested in your PM to me.

I am sympathetic of her as she did not intend them for local consumption as they were on a foreign facing website - and the resultant fall out damaged her professionally.

You have a very strange way of looking at things.  It was OK to post my photo for ridicule on RWG because you didn't know I was a member.  So it is OK as long as you don't get caught?  We have a word for that here in America: "snake."

Your pic was quite heavily commented on where it was reproduced. Some of those people are members here also - wrong Ken.

There were no derogatory remarks here (until you made your's).  That is why I prefer RWD over RWG.

I think your pic is reprensative of who you are and how you want to be perceived. Beyond that it speaks for itself. My "silly cartoon giraffe" is here to stay now I know it annoys you!  

Don't flatter yourself, you really aren't that important.

Because it is a public media and people will do what they want with any published media. They will also add their own opinion, it is a free country. (at least the UK is)

Free, yes, but not without consequences.  You are free to make an azz out of yourself.

Its not a question of guts. Most people dont post their own pic on forums. Often it is people who feel they have something to prove or wish to make a statement, such as yourself.

I was wondering when you were going to play the "trophy wife card"  If you bothered to read (and comprehend) the thread that I posted that in, you would know that was not the intention.

Your avatar is somewhat blank Daniel - perhaps you are paranoid as you suggest others are?

Lead by example Dan.

Dan has many photos posted here you fool.

This thread was your suggestion Dan. I hope you approve of the direction it is taking with your participation. Your pal Ken is very focused on others' perception of his own photo, the rest of us dont give a toss. KenC's following me about from post to post merely to flame me on a very tired issue is a breach of TOS. Actually its about his 5th in a week. Has he been warned? I doubt it - old pals act eh?  

My original post directly followed the topic of your thread starter.  Again, don't flatter yourself to think you are important enough for me to seek out your posts,  And yet when I see something so stupid, I cannot stop myself from commenting.

As it is Management, moderators and people who are held in "enormous regard" by the former who have turned an innocent thread that would have been good debate and conversation into the debacle we see above - my question is shall we get back on topic or do we have Dans further permission (before he blames me!)  for a pi$$ing contest that is of course wonderful for RWD?

Gentlemen and others - the forum is yours.............

It is never a "good debate" when someone chooses to talk out of both sides of his mouth.  Maybe the title should have been "The question of photos, privacy and expectant decency", but the last is too much of a stretch for you.
KenC

[Admin]

So we seem to have a management sanctioned pi$$ing contest here..........

Nope - just that "management" has just as much right to express an opinion as others. Don't you agree?

Because it is a public media and people will do what they want with any published media. They will also add their own opinion, it is a free country. (at least the UK is)

Repeating my earlier question - here is a link to another topic containing a LOT of photos -- http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=1255.0

Shall we expect people to "do what they want with any published media" - including this? Or more to the point - what do YOU plan to do with the photos in that topic? Maybe I shouldn't ask.

Its not a question of guts. Most people dont post their own pic on forums. Often it is people who feel they have something to prove or wish to make a statement, such as yourself.

"Most people"..."Often it is people"...

I'll offer the counter that it is neither of your asserted hyptheses - but rather, those with a deep-seated fear of rejection and latent insecurities which prevents them from posting photos. Those whom are secure and feel they have nothing to be ashamed of, are able to post photos without concern.

Your avatar is somewhat blank Daniel - perhaps you are paranoid as you suggest others are?

Lead by example Dan.

I just KNEW this was coming.

As a late-comer you would not have seen the avatar that I had up here for..... about 2 years.

BUT - if you had the initiative (as I am sure you will discover now), you will find numerous photos of mine in... of all  places.... the Gallery.

Come on now - you can do better than that - right?

This thread was your suggestion Dan. I hope you approve of the direction it is taking with your participation. Your pal Ken is very focused on others' perception of his own photo, the rest of us dont give a toss. KenC's following me about from post to post merely to flame me on a very tired issue is a breach of TOS. Actually its about his 5th in a week. Has he been warned? I doubt it - old pals act eh? 

If I perceived Ken's posts/responses as "flames", I would be obligated to do something about it. As it is, my perception is that Ken has *mostly* been responding to your messages with counter-positions.

As it is Management, moderators and people who are held in "enormous regard" by the former who have turned an innocent thread that would have been good debate and conversation into the debacle we see above - my question is shall we get back on topic or do we have Dans further permission (before he blames me!)  for a pi$$ing contest that is of course wonderful for RWD?

Yes, I do hold Ken in "enormous regard." I have never made any secret of that. But it also does not mean we agree on everything - we don't. It also does not mean we have not clashed from time to time - we have. There are even some members here at RWD who seem to have a 'natural toxicity' with Ken, but I get along with them just fine. My regard for Ken does not outweigh my consideration for the facts of a situation and my ability to draw my own conclusions. Nor does my regard for Ken limit my ability to enjoy friendships with those who clash with Ken.

And finally, you make the assertion that a "pissing contest is wonderful for RWD" - with the distinct implication that I would sanction such things. What a load of horsesh!t. If it was my intent to build traffic at the exclusion of civillity, I could allow things to devolve into a 'Jerry Springer' type site - but I have not, and I will not.

- Dan

[SANDRO43]

G'blimey, Manchester, you pushed KenC back into BOLD mode. Damn your eyes (but have pity on ours ).