The Chron's war on nudity


Poor Scott Wiener. He tries to do something practical -- telling naked guys to sit on a towel or something when they occupy public benches -- and all of a sudden the Chron launches a war on nudity. First there's this shit from Chuck Nevius, who suggests that anyone who isn't wearing clothes is some sort of a pervert:

Why? If these guys were opening a trench coat and exposing themselves to bystanders in a supermarket parking lot we'd call them creeps. But if they sit on public chairs and expose themselves to bystanders, they're defenders of free speech. Here's some free speech - when moms and dads walk their kids to school, they don't want to see you naked. This isn't a civil rights issue, it's just obnoxious.

Actually, I've often walked my daughter to school along Castro Street, and I don't care whether people are naked or not. Neither does she. My kids are San Francisco city kids; it's all a big Whatever. And the naked guys in the Castro, mostly middle-aged men, aren't "exposing themselves" in the way of a sex offender who gets off on it; they don't confront anyone, or jump in front of anyone, or try to force anyone to look at them. They aren't fucking in the streets. They're just walking around (and sitting down) without clothes on.


But then the Chron decides this is all worth a scathing editorial:

Here's an idea, San Franciscans: Keep your pants on - at least in public. Most people don't want to see that much of you. And even in a city known for tolerance of unusual behavior, inflicting nudity on an unsuspecting public can scare youngsters and offend adults. ... People who insist on walking down Market Street without clothes should be cited.

Now there's going to be pressure on the cops to find a way to bust the nudists (some of whom will love the attention), and the city will either waste a lot of money prosecuting and defending them when there's no actual law that's been broken -- or the supervisors will be under pressure to outlaw public nudity, which will create another big fuss and waste a lot of all of our time.

Besides, the Chron ought to love the Wiener law. If I ran that paper, I'd put a couple of new racks at Castro and Market. The guys who forget their towels are going to need something to sit on.

PS: If nudity doesn't offend you, check out our hottest butt in SF contest here.


"but it's ok to prance about shedding scrotal hair in public."

Clearly, you've not seen any of the naked guys despite your protestations. All of the naked guys I've seen have shaved all of their pubic hair off. They have none. "Clean-shaven." 2-3 of them have a piece of cloth covering their dick. And why would you want to douse them with cold, soapy water? Out of vengeance, spite and anger because of a hang up about body issues that YOU have? Is anyone forcing YOU to look at them? Doesn't your head pivot in the opposite direction of the naked guys? Doesn't your head turn towards the Twin Peaks bar, for example, if you're walking towards the Bay? The naked guys (there's only about 4-5 of them at the most....that's what this is all about---there are usually 3-4 depending upon the day, so we're not talking about a bus load full of people being naked which is the impression the rabid right wing basura are trying to give). It's a very, very small group...a minority of people who are being harassed by a larger "conservative" group who won't be satisfied until this city looks like every right-wing hell hole elsewhere in the country and world. Get a fucking grip! The guys are already clean. They look well-showered so there's no need for some "conservative" busy-bodied prude to come along and out of their miserable spite try to mess with the guys. They are not bothering you or anyone else so leave them alone. Mind your own damn business. Look away from them if you can't bear to see them. Take your cold soapy water and put it on your own "genitals" where it would likely be better needed. Or do you even look at your own "genitals?" Is that too much for you also?

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 09, 2011 @ 10:27 pm

It's absolutely reasonable to have a discussion around public conduct - including whether it's appropriate for anyone to walk the city sidewalks naked. If put to a vote, I'd wager that most D-8 residents would be in favor of a ban. In fact, the "right wing hell hole" of Berkeley already has a ban on public nudity. Whether you like it or not, Wiener is responding to complaints from his district in proposing this legislation.

And in terms of your broader attack on Scott - there were 4 candidates in last year's race - a "progressive" (Mandelman - 35% of first round votes), two moderates (Wiener - 42% and Prozan - 17%), and a moderate-conservative (Hemenger - 5%). In the second round of RCV, this translated to Mandelman receiving 44.6% and Wiener 55.4%. In other words, the vast majority of voters voted for moderate candidates in the first round, and the leading moderate (Wiener) increased his lead over the progressive (Mandelman) when 2nd and 3rd round votes were counted.

So clearly most voters knew they were voting for a moderate candidate, not just a "nice guy" who wrote personal notes on post-its and knocked on a lot of doors. If you support district elections, you have to be willing to live with the consequences. In the case of D-8, voting behavior over the past 3 elections has shown a consistent trend toward supporting moderates over progressives.

Posted by Paul Noe Valley on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 8:28 am

That isn't called for buddy. You got me alllll wrong. I'm no prude, conservative or christian. All I'm saying is nobody has a right to be publically nude in residential and retail areas. Folks have every right to expect others to have their genitalia covered in public. Folks have every right to be offended and as prudish as they want. Public nudity infringes on the personal liberties of others that expect modest attire in civilised society. Society has every right to impose modest attire and deportment in public areas. Those who choose to misbehave have stern measures coming to them.

You are downright wrong,,,they bother a lot of people very badly.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 7:25 pm

"...they bother a lot of people very badly. "

Well, BUDDY, that's because "a lot of people" ALLOW themselves to be bothered very badly, BUDDY. Why do "a lot of people" come to the Castro when they know that the nudist have been here for how long now? How many decades now? Why do people like yourself come to a place they don't like to begin with? Why don't you go to a place you'd rather be? Why do we need to change the Castro for YOU and make it fit your myopic, homogenous view? The residents (including myself) like it this way. We're not coming to YOUR neighborhood and making you change to "our" way. And when you see something you don't like when you are out and about, do you confront it and stare it down, or do you just ignore it and move on (hint, hint), BUDDY.

Get a load of this (see link) and learn what the rest of the world thinks about nudity. This country (the US Empire) is one extremely gymnophobic country...along with homophobic, bigoted, prejudiced, hypocritical, hateful, violent, imperalistic, sick, STUPID, extremely willfully-ignorant of the rest of the world (and the list goes on and on and on and on and on). And one wonders why this country is in a downward spiral to the bottom? (The problem is NOT naked people). It's the right-wing basura (many of whom pretend to be "moderates"). And one can come on here and claim to not be this and that (ex. "I'm not conservative, I'm not a christian, "I'm not a prude....HA!), but your words speak otherwise about you. Then of course, there's always the BUTT...

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 8:33 pm

If the strong feeling of Tim Redmond and certain others in this thread is any indication, our local progressive sect is about to make support for public nudity into an issue during the upcoming election campaign.

The same crew is moving toward making support for the BART vandals into an issue, too.

The progressives are doing everything they can to make progressives suffer a huge rout in November.

Let's all enjoy the show!

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 8:48 am

This place needs more eco-chamberism among The Believers

And less descent

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 9:13 am

"Conformity needed here"=TROLL one-liner attacking progressives

Posted by vigilante on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 9:36 am

Vegemighty is right.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 9:17 pm

I've said before and I'll say it again, once and for all clothes should be banned!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 9:47 am

here, here!

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

Sorry to be a grammar nerd, but thought you and others should know.

Posted by grammar troll on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 7:08 pm

"This place needs more eco-chamberism among The Believers."

- Guest

Right you are.

The clear goal of the progressive posters here is dogmatic conformity. Their great enemy is intellectual diversity.

This attitude will work with sects that have little or no connection with the real world. But it's lethal for a sect that hopes to influence the election process.

Because of the sectarian dogmatism of The Guardian and its boosters, progressive candidates for office have been faring poorly in recent election cycles. The voters want practical solutions, not dogmatic conformity.

The debate over public nudity is a good example. Anybody who expresses a view different from that of The Guardian is stigmatized as a troll, a shill, a right-winger, you name it.

The effect of sectarian dogmatism is to generate Darwin Awards for the most doctrinaire of true believers. But they don't care. They'd rather have dogmatic conformity than practical success in politics.

No more toxic effect exists for progressive politicians in SF than The Guardian and its boosters.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 10:03 am

Male exhibitionists are calling for a nude-in in the Castro to protest Scott Wiener's proposed ordinance dealing with sanitation and nudity (link below).

Ted Redmond and his Guardian followers have made male exhibitionism into a progressive issue. Will we see the progressive politicians show up in the buff to support this event?

Not to mention Redmond and the Ayatollah Brugmann!

Stay tuned as the election cycle unfolds. This is going to be rich, folks.

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 12:58 pm

"Will John Avalos & Ross Mirkarimi Join Nude-In?"=ArthurEvans bs

Posted by vigilante on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 1:23 pm

Gymnophobia is a fear (phobia) of nudity.

A phobia is:

So to the prudes: Get help...(although I know you're not about to.)

And many (most?) of the prudes would likely claim to be a "christian" and say that their god made the human body in "god's image" and "he" made all beautiful things. Okay. (Let's go with that, even though I think it's bull shit.) So why the hell do you want to cover up the "beautiful thing" called the human body that YOUR god supposedly made? Are you saying that "he" made a mistake (it's especially fundamentalist "christians" who claim "he" is perfect and omnipotent and all-knowing and all that other stuff). Are you saying that "he" made something ugly (how could that possibly be?..."he's" omnipotent, remember?), and that you can't bear to look at a naked body (such as the naked guys) that your "almighty" made? Just asking.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 1:54 pm

Not a Christian here, just wanting to not have to look at really unattractive naked people.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

Oh, so if the 4-5 guys were "attractive" (according to you), you wouldn't have any problem looking at them? But of course, no one is forced or required to look at them. One can very easily look away or in the opposite direction if one so chooses to do so. One wonders how many people get through life being unable to look away from things they find "unattractive."

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 4:05 pm

I dont know, how do people usually deal with you? All that bile cant be good for your skin.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 5:45 pm

"I dont know, how do people" = useless one line personal attack

Posted by vigilante on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 7:13 pm

Starving artists, take note~ this could save you the fee for a live model. Show up with canvas to paint the body beautiful~

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 4:09 pm

whoops, those were the ladies. here's to men with beautiful bods~

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 4:33 pm

I can't wait to see progressive politicians accuse the voters of gymnophobia because the voters want minimal sanitation measures in place in cases of male exhibitionism.

I've known for some time that our local progressive sect would fare poorly in the November elections.

But now with progressive hostility to sanitation, combined with progressive support for the BART vandals, we're going to witness a complete wipe-out of the progressive politicians.

Way to go, Guardian enthusiasts!

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 2:18 pm

Some people have called for the banning of that right-wing Arthur Evans. In my opinion, the reason Arthur is not banned nor will he be banned is because he likely brings in lots of visitors and hits to the site. What does that mean? It means that the commercial value of the ad space for the BG online is worth more. Controversy pays.... because people keep coming back. More than likely Arthur Evans works for the Bay Guardian (of course he and they will completely deny this and may resort to talk about "loony conspiracy theories" et al). But I've noticed in the past that if one brings up the words Hitler or fascism one gets a warning and/or are banned (can't possibly get past that spam filter). The BG doesn't want those words (Hitler or fascism, Nazis) on their site no matter how bad things are getting here in the US Empire.

So, don't think that the BG staff is going to ban Arthur Evans any time soon no matter what he says in his nonstop, in-your-face campaign against "progressives" and the left UNLESS he were to use the words Hitler or fascism and/or say that he believes that 911 was an inside job, as another example. THEN one might see him go away. But I very much doubt that too....he's $$$$$$$$$$$ for them and aren't they hurting financially? They need $$$$$$ so why ban the bait that brings the $$$$$$$$ in?

The best thing for the left and/or "progressives" on this site to do---some have already done so---is to go to another site because this site is not going to change anything about Arthur Evans. I agree, this site has become unreadable. I, too, have been going to other sites instead of the BG although I've not posted at other sites. I find those sites much more pleasurable and less annoying without an Arthur Evans being there shitting out the place, and I'm not talking about views contrary to my own.

That last Comment Policy thing that the BG staff put out likely created lots of hits but as I said at the time, it was meaningless even though many people fell for it and said how good it was at the time. Then later, they began to realize nothing had changed (oh really?....which is what I had said to begin with). I said at the time it was lame, tame and weak and wasn't about to change any behavior with Arthur Evans.

There are other local "alternative" non-corporate sites one can switch over to if you want to write posts there and have had enough of the Arthur Evans' stench here. I mean, why spend time on a site with mainly right-wing basura hating on "progressives" in one post after the other? Of course the people I'm talking about charade as "moderates" to disguise that they are actually right-wing. Let them have this site and sit here and whine, moan, complain and argue among their pathetic selves about "progressives" whom they despise. It will get pretty boring here for them when there's no one here to argue with them, pick a fight with and take their bait.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

differ from yours? Is that the open form of government we could expect from the left if they were actually given any real power? Can you not see the message thats ends out - that the left is a bunch of intolerant control freaks who seek to silence any dissenting voice?

As much as I disagree with the SFBG's politics, they do get one thing right. They understand that a society in which there is allowed to be a vocal opposition is a healthier society than one in which all dissent is quashed.

If you want the latter, there is a smallish island in the Caribbean that I feel sure would suit you better. And it's actually warm enough there for you to swan around naked, for whatever reason you might seek to do so.

Posted by Bob on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 4:55 pm

"It is your mind that creates this world." ~Buddhist saying

You know it's kind of humorous, really. Lately, whenever I drop by here the "recent comments" are filled with rants about trolls. So the trolls have succeeded in creating a diversion from issues that are important to progressives. I think it would be a mistake to cede this forum to the trolls. It would signal that won by disrupting this site. Like it or not, this is one of the few sites that progressives have to communicate our views. There is an election coming up, so I think it would be a bad idea to give the site over to trolls to trash the progressive ideas.

Honestly, Arthur Evans and the other trolls have NO more power than we give them. By reacting to the trolls as a threat, we are making them more powerful than they really are. Why waste time on them when we could be discussing the issues? It might make more sense to take ourselves a little less seriously. It's a beautiful day outside. Go out, meditate, dance, paint, catch some rays. Why let Arthur spoil it for you? He's a mere flea in the grand scheme of things, wouldn't you say? Lighten up, hombre ;-)

Posted by Lisa on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 4:56 pm

Nice sentiment Lisa, but not true.

When you have a forum on which asshole trolls are allowed to run willy nilly constantly digitally spitting in everyone's face, it becomes essentially impossible to have a real community discourse.

Arthur has made clear that he has the time and will to simply -flood- this place with bile.

Ignoring him makes no difference.

The editors need to act, or soon, no one is going to participate.

Posted by vigilante on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 6:17 pm

Trust me Jorge, the picture you paint isn't accurate. I know these guys, and they would not pay Arthur as you suggest.

What's going on is that the Guardian editors have a great grasp of on-paper newsprint as a medium, and almost no grasp whatsoever of the -internet- as a -totally- different medium.

They are not making a simple connection. When you print a newspaper and people send you rants to print as letters to the editor, you rightly -choose- which, if any, of those rants to print, so that your paper doesn't become both too large to afford to publish, and also so that it doesn't become so overwhelmed and mired in outside comments that it ends up putting out a worldview that you as the editors, never intended your paper to be about.

So the connection that they are not grasping, is that just because a paper is online and there is nearly infinite space to print every rant that people send to you, that doesn't mean that you have to, or should, print them all. YOU are the editors, and your job is to craft a web site which has a specific voice, and style, and conceptual space, with which to create a reasoned public discourse with an -emphasis- that YOU choose, JUST as you do with your physically printed paper.

And if blog posters flood your site with an avalanche of text that doesn't serve that vision, it is perfectly ok, and even -necessary- to be an EDITOR and delete much of it, so that you can create the public space and discourse that you intended to create.

You can do this in just the same way that you screen readers' letters to the printed paper, and you should.

Because there is only so much mental and emotional, space, time, and tolerance, that your readers can give to the electronic version of your paper before they have to tune out because it isn't worth wading through all of the ever more voluminous anything-anyone-wants-to-say garbage, to get to the relevant core and discourse which -used- to be easy, and artistically fun, to read.

In a very real way, if you allow trolls to overwhelm the comments section of your site, you are allowing those trolls to trash compact your freedom of the press and speech, by drowning your paper and your reports (and the comments of honest readers who actually give a damn about what you write) in a sea of opaque, caustic, filth.

Anyone who has used the internet since the early 90s, or who has actually had to manage community email and discussion lists knows that you can't just let people post whatever the hell they want, because if you do, it will utterly destroy your ability to have an honest community discussion.

The SF Guardian editors have clearly never had to make such choices, because they totally fail to grasp, that this sort of editing is both normal and absolutely necessary to electronic survival as a definable public forum.

They are totally misinterpreting the new print medium in which the Guardian now finds itself; and unfortunately this may well lead to the Guardian's undoing, as it becomes more and more dependent upon a life online. The Guardian must specifically -define- its online presence so that it is meaningful and identifiable, not a hopeless hodgepodge of anything-goes.

Look at it this way Tim, Bruce and all.

Imagine that you are in a small town hall meeting in Vermont, deciding on crucial community issues to your town, and properly letting every member of your community have an equal voice in that decision making.

Now imagine that there is suddenly a citizenship/teleport machine that allows -any- -one- of the 7 billion people on this planet to immediately view your meeting, and then also immediately become a legal citizen of your town and teleport into your meeting as if they are beaming in from the Starship Enterprise.

Would you then be able to have an effective public discourse to continue your community as a livable home?

How many neo-con republicans, teapartiers, and fascist dictators would have to show up before you would set some different rules on participation in the community meeting?

The internet is exactly the same. Anyone can show up. Anytime they want. And that means you have to make -decisions- about who is freely welcome, as opposed to who is there to either take over your community discourse and destroy it, and/or to simply be a pain in ass for their own amusement.

You all at the SF Guardian need to get wise to the fact that you have to set some boundaries, or your paper will cease to be definable as a coherent and meaningful journalistic space. And once that happens, the Guardian will essentially no longer exist.

It will instead become the Arthur Evans gazette.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 6:04 pm

"It will instead become the Arthur Evans gazette."

It already is that and has been for awhile now.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 8:37 pm

posts that you don't like.

If SFBG staff spent hours a day policing and censoring this space, maybe you'd get the one-dimensional space you clearly need. But they'd probably have no time to do anything else.

The idea of free speech in a free press doesn't sound very right-wing to me.

Posted by Bob on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 11:59 am

Eric, Jorge, Pat, etc...

all arguing for censorship - plain and simple. This is amazing to read, loving it. You guys don't want community discourse, you want an echo chamber where you can all repeat your failed ideas and collectively ignore reality. And make no mistake, the reality is that your movement is falling apart.

I could really care less about Arthur. But the guy has people calling him old, senile, drunk, creepy, etc.. on a daily basis on here. Yet you don't see him whining and crying about it like you tragic messes.

Shut up, lol.

Posted by Sambo on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 4:54 pm

Dear Arthur Evans,

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah.

Sincerely Irish

Posted by SF Irish Rebel on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

As they don't head down the the Mission to strut their stuff.

But these nudists are essentially forcing people to take part in their fetish.

It's not like gender preference which seems to be genetically identified or a persons race which people have no choice in, these nudists are taking what is their fetish and involving everyone else in it if they like it or not. These particular nudists are involving people with no interest in their exhibitionism in their sex lives.

It's not closed minded to not want to be involved in peoples demonstrative sex lives.

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 4:12 pm

Who'd want to be nude in 50 degree weather with a wind blowing all the time?

Posted by Right on Sister Snapples on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 5:13 pm

nudity and sex are two different things...although it helps ;)

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 5:22 pm

nope, I'm not looking to be offended.

I'm very aware of people and their fetish schemes..

Would you think it OK to be forced into a dom scene?

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 9:38 pm

I'm not telling you who to hump, nor am I telling you what sex to hump, I'm obviously stating that whatever you chose, "count me out."

If some couple was wondering down the street with a woman dominating a dude in some sort of sex thing and asked you to partake, would you be OK with that? Lets say you were with your relatives or boss?

Same thing, these people are including you in their sex live, weather you like it or not. You may be "OK" with it in this area, but they have giving you no choice in taking part in their sex lives.

Posted by meatlock on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 9:51 pm

Yes, I think dogmatism is a very good term here. Even though we are loathe to admit it, even the most radical of we lefties, libs and progressives are known to turn our agendas in to just another "orthodoxy" of sorts. That is the case with the nudists and their supporters.
Those of us more inclined towards modesty have been unfairly labled as prudes, christians and conservatives. I made the BUTT CRUSTY post and I fit none of those descriptions.
I have been known to spend a lot of money for beer and lap dances at titty bars. I get a kick out of the ladies baring their parts at concerts and rock festivals. I've given a wink and nod to old fashioned streakers. Nude paintings, sculptings and such artwork do not distress me. As for myself, I'm straight so I'm quite indifferent to the sight of another mans body.
The difference is I chose to be around for those activeties where nudity might happen. I did not inflict my choice on anyone else. That is exactly where these public nude guys go wrong. Those who do not approve of or are offended by public nudity are compelled to participate in something they are not comfortable with. This kind of behaviour goes against the rights of others to choose.
These men are just plane rude and force others to accept their agenda. Accordingly, I am in agreement with whatever measures must be taken to force these exhibitionists to behave.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 5:25 pm

"these nudists are essentially forcing people to take part in their fetish."

- Meatlock

They're exhibitionists. That's what this is all about.

The remarkable thing, though, is that Tim Redmond of The Guardian is beating the drum to turn this exhibitionism into a progressive issue.

The exhibitionists will rise to the occasion that Tim Redmond has provided them. They will show up in the buff at City Hall when the board holds a hearing on Scott Wiener's sanitation measure.

It will be a true San Francisco moment. You'll see media from around the world, with cameras whirring away.

SF Progressives will stand up and denounce gymnophobia. They will embrace the exhibitionists in the name of progressive politics.

And then the whole world will have a good laugh.

Thank you, Tim Redmond, for your outstanding sense of political theater.

(By the way, where is the Reset button for The Guardian?)

Posted by Arthur Evans on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 5:33 pm

This is the kind of crap the wing-nuts, ditto heads and tea baggers make hay with. Yup,,Tim is doing none of us any favors,,,other than the wing-nuts.

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 5:50 pm

@Queer Boy. You make some excellent points. I remember years ago when there used to be meaningful non-meetings of minds here, but it fostered dialog and communication, exposing us to opposing views in a constructive way, encouraging the consideration of alternative approaches and sometimes, wash my mouth, even compromise. That has not been true for some time. It's too easy and simplistic to blame it on "Arthur". He is irrelevant, just a sad old bugger sacked out on his lazy boy pullin' his pud.
I think one issue might be that Bruce and Tim (despite some of his postings) have lost the fire in the belly and don't really care anymore. Maybe to focused on how to best invest the settlement from VVM and ensure a comfortable, well deserved, retirement. Fortunately we still have Sarah, Rebecca etc, to keep the flame burning.
Like many others I quit regularly checking or relying on this site a long time ago, as you stated there are many other sites where it is possible to engage in the rational, adult exchange of divergent opinion. I enjoy tilting spears with Tony and Bevan for example.
I can't see how "Ruthie and the Hagfish" could possibly be a positive for SFBG's bottom line, this site is gonna end up with Ruthie, Lucie, Mattie, Meathead. "Guestie", et al, in an internet circle jerk, quelle horreur; let's agree to try not feed or indulge their fantasies, at least not to often. Ignore 'em, but occasionally check in to insult, demean and expose 'em for the pathetic poltroons they are. Just for the hell of it and to blow off some steam.
Arthur's auditions for "Hagfish"
My audition piece.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 8:18 pm

Where's my post to Pat Monk (that I posted in this exact location earlier) where I told him that Sarah Phelan was no longer with the BG because she and others had been fired recently? I don't see that post here now. The article I read said that none of those fired had any idea they were going to be fired considering the settlement "with a lot of zeros in it" the BG had come to an agreement with SFWeekly over. Why would the BG delete that post? All of this is public information (I read it on SFWeekly) so why would the BG staff feel the need to remove that from this site? Why so secretive? Strange. You remove THAT (I don't see that post here) but you won't remove Arthur Evan shitting on you and slapping you on the head every day on this site and making an ass of you. You have a unique (I'm being kind) "moderation" style, like none I've ever seen before.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 2:16 am

Why does the BG delete a post containing public information? Here's the public information...

Bay Guardian Newsroom Hit with Layoffs

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 2:26 am

Look at how many posts have been made in this thread about banning or censoring other posters. What about the topic of the thread?

If you disagree with a post, make a convincing counterargument.

Or ignore the post.

What's the point of spending all your time arguing in favor of censorship, except to display your intolerance to all?

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 8:54 pm

Are you the same "Guest" I gave the following link to about nudity in a earlier post? If so, you couldn't have possibly had time to read that Wikipedia page before you wrote your inappropriate post in your misplaced attempt to serve as a "moderator" of this forum (when you're not one). Here's the link again and it's about nudity (uncover your eyes):

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 9:09 pm

"By reacting to the trolls as a threat, we are making them more powerful than they really are. "

I disagree with you and agree with vigipanty. Arturo should be banned

Posted by Guest on Sep. 10, 2011 @ 9:21 pm

Remember reading that now. Getting a little absent minded and don't keep up with SFBG like I used to. Anyone know who Sarah is writing for now ?
Two other reporters I really miss are Savannah Blackwell and Daniela Kirschenbaum.

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 9:08 am

In the public interest, could you provide some clarification. A couple of months ago the news broke regarding the apparent layoff of at least three editorial staffers, including Sarah Phelan, however she is still listed on your Masthead. Wassup dude?

Posted by Pat Monk.RN. on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 10:11 am

Back in the spring, when the financial troubles of SF Pride were in the news, Wiener was quoted in the BAR saying it would be good for the parade committee to merge with the SF gay community center, as a way to regain a solid fiscal footing. Wiener broached the idea again after the gay parade in June, and told the BAR a merger was still on his radar.

One little problem, though. He didn't check with either SF Pride or the gay center about his idea, and he's done not a thing to bring about a public forum about a potential merger.

Today I read in the Chronicle that Wiener made no effort to have the health department informed or on board for his anti-nudity legislation, despite telling the world he was addressing a health issue. From Heather Knight's piece:

The Department of Public Health is keeping mum on this one. And that's saying something for a department known for its 6-foot-tall Healthy Penis character that promotes syphilis awareness at parades and street festivals. The department wasn't contacted by Wiener as he wrote the legislation and is issuing a firm "no comment" now.

Wiener said he didn't talk to any medical professionals, but that it's clearly an issue of health. "It's not an expert opinion kind of thing," he said. "I believe it's unsanitary, and other people agree with me."

Read more:

Wiener should do his homework with the nonprofits and city departments, before he puts forward ideas that involve them. It's called leadership and reaching out to folks, before going public with serious proposal. He might benefit from taking a class in leadership.

Posted by MPetrelis on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 10:30 am

Scott Wiener is certainly throwing his weight around. First, the Alice B. Toklas Board pretty much bends over backwards to endorse everyone and everything he supports on the November ballot, and now this.

I'm looking forward to the pro-nudity protest in the Castro coming up. Wiener should be there to shake hands (or other body parts) with his constituents.!/event.php?eid=135923019828006

Posted by Common Sense SF on Sep. 11, 2011 @ 11:55 pm

He's been throwing his weight around since he took office. He clearly has an agenda (in the wrong direction).

So he and others are supposedly concerned about the naked guys placing their butts directly on chairs (or wherever they sit). I was thinking: other animals such as cats and dogs also sit in chairs on occasion without anything between their butt and the chair. Does anyone have a problem with THAT in their homes, for example? If people don't mind sitting where their cat or dog's bare butt just was, why do they have a problem with the naked guy's butts having been on chairs? How is it different? Or is this really not about bare butts being on a chair? Is that just the excuse given for this nonsense? Is this really about nudity in general in this extremely sexually fucked-up country where many people can't bear to see a woman's nipple or someone's bare butt on television (the bare nipple is called a "wardrobe malfunction" here in the dysfunctional US Empire).

And in the Castro of all places, the sex videos displayed in store windows have to have the dick/ass pics all covered up with a white sticker so that the dysfunctional prudes (who don't have the ability or self-control to look in the opposite direction when walking by the store window) don't get their bowels in an uproar over seeing a nude guy's hard-on displayed on a video cover. Gasp! Sigh.

We seem to be a nation full of people with gymnophobia. Of course, most people won't get help for their disorder...they will instead just lash out like lunatics (and hate on the 4-5 guys who are nude and who are not bothering anyone), rather than dealing with their own phobia.

Posted by QUEER-Boy Jorge Orwell 1984 on Sep. 12, 2011 @ 2:16 am