Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The latest on Steve Gough

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Now that the discussion has cooled down a bit perhaps I can make a few comments about the picture Rik posted.

    On second thought, I really don't have much to say. Beautiful. Peaceful. Natural. (This despite the man's hair being cropped and the woman's looking as if its color came from a salon.) Magnificently composed. The children look very safe between their parents (guardians?).

    But beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One man's meat is another man's poison. And so forth.

    Comment


    • I never was a "stick-in-the-mud prude". All my life I've enjoyed nudity, mine and other people's. I just had a problem with others seeing me nude, but I got over it.

      Comment


      • Glad you're back stick in the mud, I mean Stu.

        P.S. be careful which end of that stick you touch [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif[/img]

        Comment


        • "It's very hard for me to imagine what goes through the mind of a naturist when they openly divest themselves of all their clothing in the presence of others."

          It isn't that hard to imagine. stu. I'm sure some very religious people find it hard to imagine what goes through the minds of non-believers as well. And also, we have been trying to find out what goes through the mind of a non-nudist as well. But the only one we have is you, who has had an unusual childhood and unusually extreme reactions to nudity.

          "Because of their length, frequency and content, Stu's posts are nothing more than discussion forum spam."

          And basically, the difference between stu's messages and mine is that mine you agree with while stu's you disagree with. This is a topic that has come up before when stu and I promised to shorten our posts. It worked for a while but I think we have both slipped back into our dissertation-length messages again, and Kari to some extent as well. I am working to try to pare my messages down again. stu, are you with me? Kari?

          Bob S.

          Comment


          • quote:
            Originally posted by Bob S.:
            I think we have both slipped back into our dissertation-length messages again, and Kari to some extent as well. I am working to try to pare my messages down again. stu, are you with me? Kari?

            Yes, I have done it already. I don't take every minor point to comment on, and I try to find something to say that hasn't been said earlier. As I did when I referred to nudity in visual arts. I'm sorry that I couldn't see Stu's answer. Maybe he can recapitulate it some time.

            Stu, if you feel that I should apologize for something - something that I don't actually know what it is - then I do it. I haven't blamed you on lying; I have just meant that you have told some funny stories (could I call them fairy-tales?) that I and probably many of the readers cannot believe. And you did it in a way that someone took as trolling the forum. Be more careful!

            Should we start a new thread? This discussion is not under the proper title.

            Kari P

            Comment


            • I for one enjoy Stu's posts, I certainly do not always agree with them, but I enjoy reading them.

              Stu: I wish I was able to debate as well as you!!

              I do not understand what the problem with his posts were, but maybe I missed them.

              ercNY

              Comment


              • quote:
                Originally posted by Bob S.:
                [qb]
                "Because of their length, frequency and content, Stu's posts are nothing more than discussion forum spam."

                And basically, the difference between stu's messages and mine is that mine you agree with while stu's you disagree with. This is a topic that has come up before when stu and I promised to shorten our posts.
                Bob S. [/qb]
                With Stu, it's not that I disagree with him. It's that his views about nudity, which include descriptions like "revolting", "vile" and "disgusting" are incompatible with the general purpose of these forums, which is to support nudism rather than to denigrate it.

                In addition, he persistently hijacks topics. As an example, take this topic "The latest on Steve Gough" which I started. Stu has redirected it for his own purposes.

                Also, he regularly provides sentence-by-sentence rebuttals, which are very long and, I suspect, very boring for all but a small minority. I must say that you are another offender in this regard.

                I'd be satisfied if the administrators would set up a section called "Endless debates with Stu" and if Stu confined his contributions to that section.

                Gary

                Comment


                • What he said!

                  Comment


                  • Hey! I started a thread a couple of months ago just for Stu, yet he avoided it like the plague.

                    It is on the Misc. section.

                    I felt back then that Stu needed his own corner and those who like to debate would do it there.

                    Comment


                    • "I started a thread a couple of months ago just for Stu, yet he avoided it like the plague."

                      I didn't see it, that's why.

                      Anyway, aren't we supposed to be discussing Steve Gough rather than griping on about me?

                      Stu

                      Comment


                      • "It's that his views about nudity, which include descriptions like "revolting", "vile" and "disgusting" are incompatible with the general purpose of these forums, which is to support nudism rather than to denigrate it."

                        I agree that his descriptions of nudity are extreme. But I don't see those descriptions as a negative to this board as long as stu words it in a way that makes it his own opinion and not as fact.

                        "he persistently hijacks topics."

                        He puts in his own opinions that are usually on topic. As happens on message boards, topic threads do sometimes stray. And in this case, it seems that the point that it strayed from the Steve Gough/legalities of public nudity topic is when Rik posted the picture of the naked family.

                        "I'd be satisfied if the administrators would set up a section called "Endless debates with Stu" and if Stu confined his contributions to that section."

                        Add "and Bob" to that and I'll be happy. But really, we would need a topic. Are you going to act as "Linda Richman (?)" from Mike Myers' Saturday Night Live "Coffee Talk? "I'm feeling perclempt. Please talk amongst yourselves...I'll give you a topic. The Cold War: it was neither cold nor a war; discuss."

                        Bob S.

                        Comment


                        • quote:
                          Originally posted by Rufus2:
                          [qb] I just wonder how much prison time Gough is going to get:

                          1 year, 2 years

                          Hope it's good a long!!! [/qb]
                          Steve Gough was sentenced to 3 months but as he's been held in custody since the 6th October he was released today.

                          Tonight he continues his nude walk. http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2236988

                          Rik

                          Comment


                          • "Steve Gough was sentenced to 3 months but as he's been held in custody since the 6th October he was released today."

                            I think that's a fair sentence. That should act as a deterrent to the vast majority of people who might otherwise be tempted to ape his idiotic and antisocial behaviour.

                            "Tonight he continues his nude walk. http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2236988"

                            Unless and until someone else complains. Then he can expect to enjoy Christmas as a guest of Her Majesty. If he gets arrested again the courts may see fit to impose an antisocial behaviour order (ASBO) on him requiring him not to enter the north of Scotland. If he breaches an ASBO he can then expect to go down for considerably longer!

                            It doesn't particularly matter now whether he finishes the walk or not. The message is clear that inappropriate public nudity can result in a prison sentence. I for one am content with that as it's a victory for decency and common sense.

                            Stu

                            Comment


                            • His conviction proves nothing more than he may have violated some laws in the eyes of the judge or jury. It does not prove whether the laws are correct or if they were correctly applied. A short time ago in America many people served time in jail fighting segregation too but that didn't make the Jim Crows laws correct.

                              Comment


                              • Good for Steve! He has principles and beliefs for which he's willing to stand and even to be arrested. While I wouldn't do what he's doing because I don't care to be arrested, I'm in favor of those with the courage to stand up for their belief that nude isn't lewd doing so. No one has been harmed by his nudity, offended yes, but not harmed. He's the only one who has been harmed, by the idiot who beat on him. He's been arrested and released repeatedly, and yet he continues his walk. However, it's got to awful cold now for walking nude!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X