I had this idea while corresponding with one of the admins. Check boxes could be selected to flag an image for attention by a mod. They would then send a memo (without comment from the viewer, but noting who flagged it) automatically to the mods who could then check out the image. To prevent trolls harassing the mods, once an image has been flagged the option is disabled and a message replaces it stating that the mods have been alerted. You don't have to write an e-mail each time, they don't have to read it, they can just do their job and make a decision. Whaddayathink?

Seems reasonable to me. You got my vote.

The images I view don't bother me much but I understand from MANY messages, it does bother others. I don't really see anything wrong with this approach except possible overwork for the mods who may be "forced" to do extra work for all the prudes who may "wander" through the galleries (and flag everything with nudity/partial nudity). As to the wrong gallery, hadn't noticed that being much of a problem. Does this mean work done half in Poser and half in Photoshop have no home? Or that people will flag Poser gallery submissions because they have 25% (or 75%) 2D work done on them?

It's a good idea, and in theory I support it. But it sounds like a good way to give the mods too much work. I have never asked the admins to remove an image from this, or any other, site. But I have seen images that are in violation of the TOS, and I have seen images I would really prefer not to have to see. Offering a checkbox like that would be too much of a temptation to a lot of people like me: not those who already complain, or those who troll the galleries making harsh comments on nude images, but those who are occasionally offended, but who don't complain, as a rule. I think the option would be over-used. What I would like to see (and I've said this before) is the option to filter out violent images, in the same way as we can filter out nudity. That would solve most of the problem, for me.

It used to be that we could basically post what we wanted. No one bothered the mods unless something was WAY over the top. I think this is just another way to give in to that new crowd of complainers who seem to have overrun this place. If a pic is posted as showing nudity...if you don't like it....DON'T LOOK!!! And, as to something being in the wrong gallery...Posh....that bit over the poser gallery is just a "suggestion", not, written in stone. Geeze, you would put the current "hot 20" right over to the photoshop gallery if you did that. I think some of you guys need to get some sort of life going in the real world, or something. Pop...Pop....Poppi!!!

Crap. I really didn't mean to start a double thread. I hate it when that happens. Please post your comments here. Also please don't make assumptions about what issue this was intended to address. This actually came about as part of my whining about new kids constantly posting pictures of their work in the Members Photo Gallery; mostly by innocent mistake. Not only is it annoying to look at pictures of spaceships when you want to be seeing who your fellow r'osity members are, but it also doesn't give the artist concerned the fair opportunity to have their work appreciated in its proper context. As far as this giving the mods more work, could be, but I doubt it. All this would do is keep them from having to read the idiotic e-mails and IMs. Although the point about over-use because of ease is a good one. This wasn't presented as a solution to a burning need or a way to serve a special interest group, just a simple way to deal with something that is already happening.

And don't get me wrong, Hiram. I don't want my remarks to seem, hmmmmm, overly strong. I am just playing the devil's advocate. As to the "wrong gallery", I reached back to the depths of my memory and all I could recall were some comments made by those who thought Poser renderings shouldn't be tainted by 2D postwork. I've only been to the Member's Gallery once... all I saw there (mostly) were incredibly pretty female members Hehe, I posted in the right area this time.

IMO it isn't going to matter if those check boxes are there or not. People are going to complain. However, if it is going to make things easier on the mods then I'm all for it but I am not the one to decide this. The mods have to decide whether or not this will make their job easier. Personally, I think the owner/s of this site should just tell everyone "this is what I allow to be on this site. If you do not like it then go elsewhere. I don't tell you how to run your site so don't tell me how to run mine" But, hey, that is just my opinion of the whole thing. The rest of us are just guest here whether we post to the forum or image or not. I think people should start learning a bit of tolerance of each other and abide by the TOS. Less headaches that way ;)

My apologies. I didn't mean to get up on my soapbox. Bella blushes with embarrassement

I think I would rather see a violence checkbox than this option, which really will put a gun in the hands of trolls. There's another thing, it's anonymous ratting on someone and that, as far as I know, has never worked where ever it's been imposed. If someone really truly is offended or upset by a picture not being in the appropriate gallery or being too violent or too anti TOS, then, they should at least have the stones to say so with their name attached. I'd be very PO'd to have a mod come to me with a complaint on the order of-- somebody complained, we don't exactly know why or who, we Think this might be wrong with it. Please, don't send us to that corner of hell. I know you mean well, but those boxes would be available to anybody who didn't. Emily

But Hiram said that the moderator would receive the name of the person who made the complaint but seeing from that aspect, that would only work with members and not guests.

I think its a good idea because instead of getting 200 prudes complaining about a work, they get one and can go take a look.

I also think much of the problem is in the TOS itself though.

TOS 1. says depictions of arousal or sexual activities are in violation

Okie, Ill go that but how can anyone look at a females genitals and decide the character is aroused (less excretions). Is pink the color? Is it swollen?

To keep artists safe from Trolls and moderators less busy perhaps TOS 1 should become:

TOS 1: The showing of genitals (male or female) and/or pubic hair is in violation. Cover the crotch.

TOS 2: No sex acts or situations of any kind including traditional and oral or fondling the groin and/or breasts. Cant touch this.

Period, nothing more to add, very clear, no guesses, nobodys offended, nobody gets censored and angry, feelings arent hurt.

This policy should be extended into the stores as well which at this time appears not to be in some instances and give the wrong impression of what is acceptable art and what is not here.

Conversely, if an image is flagged nudity then those offended by such should not look at it and offend themselves. If an image is flagged nudity then anything should be allowed with the exception of traditional illegal activities such as rape and pedophilia.

Just the lowly input from one banned I accidentally showed the pink in a marked nudity work. It was decided that the character on the far left was "aroused" though in an emotionally lamenting piece of work. The correspondence in emails from judgmental Trolls caused the piece to be ripped from my gallery and threat of suspension or banning.

The correspondence was cordial. Unfortunately requesting an account be deleted gets one banned too I have discovered.

The piece is named Piece Treaty and is on display at Thralldom.org under the name of Lakota.

Maybe as PinkLips, we can work together to fix this problem.

Sarah

It's a good idea and I agree completely about the Members Photo Gallery. Would it make more work for the mods? They would know, and I guess it's them that give this idea the go-ahead or not, so that bit is a self-solving problem. Would it get overused because it's easy? Maybe; it's certainly something to be considered. My guess is that most images would be uncontroversial in respect of both the TOS and what gallery they show up in. A small number of images (changing over time, obviously) would attract the box-checkers. If the boxes vanished after the first complaint though, and the mod adjudicated and then added a comment to the effect "I've checked this out and it's fine" (if the image isn't removed), that should get around it. Mind you, if you added a "I'm up to here with chicks in temples" check box, that really would give the mods a whole bunch of work ;)

interesting idea. i have it on our list. we would need to digest all sides of this and see what outcomes might occur. thanks for bringing to our attention. tammy

Excuse me? Now we're talking about banning all nudity below the waist-- oh no, just female nudity below the waist because women's arousal is undetectable. If it's undetectable then it's a moot point. I have always assumed that the "arousal" clause of the TOS referred to nude men, for which such depiction is not only detectable, it also requires significent "addons" to produce in Poser and thus is very deliberate if it occurs. Nudes, male and female, have always been a part of artistic representation-- good, mediocre, any kind of art. That includes below the waist. I'm beginning to take this personally. If my brand of body is so darn offensive, make sure your viewing profile has nudity inaccessible to you. If the vast majority of people want "Nudity" to include any past of the breast including that seen from a scanty bikini, or any part of the buttocks seen from a thong-- then I'm fine with checking the Nudity button for those picts-- I do already for thong pictures. I would like to know it's the vast majority though, not just the usual suspects who emerge every month or so to decry the naked chicks in temples. Don't like em, don't do any. The thumbs usually give one one heck of a clue. Emily

I agree but I also the consequence of female nude image posting. According to some moderators and staff, evidently female arousal based solely on having seen a tiny part of a female's genitals is enough for TOS violation action. That female arousal was undetectable was also the case I presented but oh well. Talking about it? No Emily, it has already happened and all it takes is enough complaints from viewers who choose not to see the artist's vision and expression. If it's pink - its out. I'm sorry, but my body has pink there excited or not. I am a detail artist and if my piece was nude, I always flagged it such AND said so in the title.. Still the Troll's look at it and offend themselves - complain and rip the Spirit out of the artist as if burning on the stake. Writing here to both warn and try to correct for other artists that post work here (I don't anymore). There has to be a solution. Sarah

I personally think it is time to stop listening to the few that complain and start taking a leaf out of the famous artists' books. If it is good enough for them to have their work officially published then why can't we create the same without this backlash from those prudes that troll the place? I still stand by my original statement that the owner should just say "This is my site and this is what I allow. If you don't like it, go elsewhere or don't view it." Example: I come into your home and discover that you have the place plastered with Elvis images everywhere. (for the sake of this argument...) I don't like Elvis and start demanding that you take it down so I won't be offended. What do you do? If it was me, I would say "Tough!! This is my house> You don't like it, you can leave anytime and not come back or tolerate it and enjoy your visit with me." But I do agree with the ruling that if the image has nudity but the nudity flag has not been checked then the image is removed with and email sent to the artist telling them why it was removed but they can put the image back up as long as they check the nudity check box.

The Trolls will love this idea, their work will resume to viewing all the pictures and checking all the boxes, poor Mods.....!!!!!

I know, but then we get into the discussion of "What constitutes 'arousal' on a female body?" In point, if nipples look a bit too erect is the character cold or aroused? Was there a 'wind'? Now we are talking about elements of a picture that are unseen.. yet everyone knows when aroused, nipples become firm as well. Guess that will be the next Troll target area? Honestly, I'm not sure who to be frustrated at, the complaining Trolls who (at least with me) get a double warning about nudity if the piece is a nude or the staff that allow the Trolls such powers. Are we going to look at art pieces and measure nipples now and how long can they be before it is decided a character is aroused?

You know, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that the "arousal" rule was intended to have less to do with the state of arousal itself than merely to prevent the display of male penile erections.

That's what I thought.. but I can attest that's not true. Copy/paste of email: hey sorry for the delay... not only is my isp acting up but today was particularly busy on the email help front sigh just wrapping up getting through my inbasket. okay, well, i rather torn here. i certainly do not want to start ANY conflict with any other website. each has it's specialty and IMO, there is room for everyone -- my preference is to live and let live. that being said, i see that there is a large discussion going on about how bad renderosity is. i take that rather personally, as i work very hard to keep things moving, and as even keeled as possible. we've got a phenominal staff of moderators and admins who work their asses off without so much as a thank you usually (and in fact most times they get attacked for doing their 'job') so i do admit to feeling more than a bit like dog-food after reading what these people said about us and i am not really happy about being the focus of such a discussion in the first place. if you feel you need to post this, please post EVERYTHING... including all the instant messages that Sipapu sent you AND your responses. let folks decide for themselves. i've included them here for your reference. finally, your handle DID ring a bell with me and now i do remember the controversy we dealt with in regards to your post... the one with the guy's finger coming dangeriously close to that woman's privates... here is a note i had to send out after MANY heated and irate correspondances with another member who wanted the image pulled for TOS violation. i think we lost the member after we wouldn't pull your image. ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hello, thanks for taking the time to let us know what you think. we absolutly listen to what members have to say and think your opinion is important! first, if you see images that violate the nudity flag rule, PLEASE tell the moderator of that forum... or, tell ME. i will immediately address that! we have so many images to go through that often, groups of them slip through. this is not intentional. we rely on members to be our eyes and ears. regarding this image. even blown up this close, i still have to agree with the consensus of the staff that while this image treads dangerously close to violation, it stays on the 'legal' side. if only by a hair. the way i see the image, his hand is NOT in contact with her genatalia. his fingers are slipped between her thighs and in fact, in contact with her boots, not even her skin. his finger is well away from her privates, which, albeit a bit 'exposed', is within the 'rules' as they currently exist. my personal opinion on this piece, it's artistic merits, or even it's statement, are completely irrelevant. and i want you to understand that i HAVE to conclude that it does not violate the TOS. i do this in good concience and after quite a bit of deliberation. i hope that you wont take this personally. i also hope this wont keep you from enjoying the rest of what this community has to offer. we work very hard to administer the TOS evenly and judiciously. with membership soaring to 80 thousand recently, we have our hands full. hopefully our explanation will reassure you that we DO take this seriously, although we may not agree in this particular instance. thanks again for your input. audre ~~~~~~~~~~~ begin recent corresponances ~~~~~~~~~~~ Hello, Your image, "Piece Treaty (Nudity/Situational)," has been removed from the gallery because it is in violation of this portion of the TOS: "Posting Unacceptable Images which include; 1. Depictions of physical arousal or sexual acts." This is an official warning. In accordance with the TOS, a second event will result in "Forum Suspension for 1 or 7 days or Temporary Community ban for 3 or 7 days." Please try to take more care with such images. Your work is really very good, and it would be a shame if you were to be suspended or banned because of pictures like this. Feel free to IM me (easier for me than e-mail) if you have any questions about this situation. Sincerely, Sipapu Renderosity Moderator ~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hello Lakota_Sarah, Earlier today I sent you an e-mail to notify you that I had removed an image from your gallery. However, that e-mail was returned to me for the following reason: "----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors ----- (reason: 550 Host unknown) ----- Transcript of session follows ----- 550 5.1.2 ... Host unknown (Name server: fantazone.com: host not found)" Here is the content of my e-mail to you: === Hello, Your image, "Piece Treaty (Nudity/Situational)," has been removed from the gallery because it is in violation of this portion of the TOS: "Posting Unacceptable Images which include; 1. Depictions of physical arousal or sexual acts." This is an official warning. In accordance with the TOS, a second event will result in "Forum Suspension for 1 or 7 days or Temporary Community ban for 3 or 7 days." Please try to take more care with such images. Your work is really very good, and it would be a shame if you were to be suspended or banned because of pictures like this. Feel free to IM me (easier for me than e-mail) if you have any questions about this situation. Sincerely, Sipapu Renderosity Moderator ~~~~~~~~ Instant Message from Lakota_Sarah: Hi I fail to see any "sexual" contact or activity but I'm not going to argue with you, its your board not mine. My email is (email addy here) Please remove my account and all my art posted. Thank you have a wonderful life Sarah Privette Formerly; Lakota_Sarah (Sent 5/18 20:55) ===== Instant Message from Lakota_Sarah: I deleted my things but I don't know how to delete my account. Tell me or would you please do it on your end? Thank you. Sarah (Sent 5/18 21:07) ===== Instant Message from Lakota_Sarah: Sorry, My email is not (email addy) its (correct email addy here) (for your records so everyone can sleep better or something and can catch me if I try to come back - which won't happen anyway) (Sent 5/18 21:20) ~~~~~~~ Hello Sarah, I'm sorry you've made the decision to leave Renderosity and hope that you'll reconsider. Perhaps I should have been clearer in my IM: the issue was not one of sexual contact but of "physical arousal," as clearly evidenced by the genitals on the figure on the left. These are not new standards in the TOS. For your information, the decision to pull your image was not mine alone. Such decisions are made only after the moderators have viewed and discussed any image in question. Should you still want to delete your account, please notify any one of the administrators. Moderators don't have the ability to do that. Sipapu Renderosity Moderator (Sent 5/19 11:45) ~~~~~~ Instant Message from Lakota_Sarah: You guys are freaks.. That is so obsurd. Just because you guys got a hard-on looking at my work, don't blame me for it. Tell your bosses to kiss my ass and delete my account. How's that for Physical arousal? Sarah (Sent 5/19 16:00) ===== Sipapu's response was "Happy to oblige. It'll be just a moment." and she contacted me to handle the profile deletion. ~~~~~ so far as i know that was the exent of the IM transactions. thanks audre editor, renderosity magazine My reply to this email: Lakota: "Thank you for the reply. The IM messages were posted in full at that site (Thralldom) already but I will copy/paste them again with this email in whole. Thank you Sarah PS: You never answered my question how can anyone look at a female's genitals in a picture (especially this one) and decide she is aroused. May I have an answer please?" There you have it. This posted here to solidify my most sincere warning and desire for workable solution.

hello again, just want to clarify a point that seems to be mis-interpreted by most folks... and here i will quote something i posted in a thread recently: an image that violates the TOS in the galleries is in no way tacit approval by the staff or management of Renderosity -- as is often inferred by members when they see such things. the ONLY reason that an image remains in the gallery that violates our TOS is that we are not aware of it at that time. also, we don't judge an image, it's message, or the member posting. we look at the RULES that are in place for this community and that is what we enforce, to the best of our ability. not everyone agrees with the decisions and on occasion, the group of mods may make a decision which the vocal part of the community has a problem with. we review these things on a case-by-case basis and act according to what we feel represents the TOS the best. as we find images that are 'iffy' or an image is brought to our attention, we compare the image to the TOS guidelines. if the group decides it's over the line, it goes. if there is enough of a doubt, we leave it. to address your question about your particular image, we concluded that one of the women in your image had genitalia that was decidedly pinker than the rest of her. and her privates looked rather swollen, so the implication was that she was aroused, (well, either that or she has an extremely painful case of hemorrhoids, which i don't think is the case here). thanks audre editor, renderosity magazine >> so you see.. it is appearence even on a female character. The piece in question, the character on the left is about to walk away (standing) remorsefully. Between her legs is a tiny bit of "pink" where it SHOULD be.. that was the issue. Is the pink swollen or not? Thus I ask are we going to ask ourselves "are the nipples firm or do they just look firm? Is she aroused or was there a wind? Is she cold?"

In reply to both of PinkLips messages: Hard to believe a Woman made that comment about visible arousal. I'm a woman, and I don't look any different aroused than unaroused-- top or bottom. This is getting far too subjective and a bit more gynecological than it should. By the way, who has hemorrhoids in the front? If you have to use a magnifying glass to tell, then some other issue is at the base. Was this a lesbian scene? {shut up, Emily, you're gonna get in trouble} For the record, all Michaels striaght out of the box look semi-aroused.

Attached Link: http://www.thralldom.org/siteware/galview.mv?Member_Kinky_Art+ul6gPEeJs+1021659097

It could have been seen in that light but no contact however this nor the situation was sighted as the reason (as you read above).. defending my case is not why I am posting here. That's gone, over with, history, closed. I write here and copy/paste emails because Audre said I could and as a warning. The idea of a check box to report TOS violations is a good one but now we jave to know what IS a TOS violation and this is one of the things that are being looked at. The link above leads to the art in question as a SAMPLE. No axe to grind, I am not mad. Again, this is WHAT is being looked at and held up to the TOS - You SHOULD know so nobody else gets into trouble like I did. ** Fair warning that if you choose to look at it, you are leaving renderosity, they nor their reps. are not responsible if you become offended ** Warning... NUDITY/SITUATIONAL content in the link above.

I remember this work, I also remember thinking, " Someone's going to get their nipples in a twist over this one." You almost come close to saying something that is almost against the TOS. Personally if I was the mod I would have cited bondage-- which would have meant the elimination of a lots more pictures from the gallery. It's a disturbing picture, I assume, meant to be disturbing. But we are disturbed precisely by what we do not know and cannot see. I don't think it breaks TOS, but it comes close or hints at things that might. Honestly, if I was a mod and got more than one complaint on this pic, I would have said this picture came too close on too many areas to breaking the TOS and adding them all up, it is better to be safe than sorry, let's take it down. I like the picture, the above is me putting on a conservative mask. I do suspect that same-sex intimacy-- combined with the fact that one person is tied up and consent is very ambiguous-- is what the real issue was. But I don't claim to read minds here and this is only my opinion. Emily

Errmmm, excuse me. This is all very fascinating and worthy of pursuing, but could we maybe pursue it in it's own thread? I'd like to return to the topic I posted on, not speculate about why one particular image was removed.

No speculation to it, the reason was plainly stated. "...we concluded that one of the women in your image had genitalia that was decidedly pinker than the rest of her. and her privates looked rather swollen, so the implication was that she was aroused, .." Some (like I did) thought "arousal" was a ref. to a stimulated penis. I was mistaken. If we are going to discuss ways to report TOS violations then we need to know what one is as well.. so members can make proper reports and be informed for artistic purposes. You miss the point of why I post this but then I don't expect the lofty to grasp the purpose. Its not about a particular image, its about what the staff grades as TOS violations. This was a sample. Educated now?

Although, perhaps, a bit deep on this particular piece of art, her reason for posting was just explained above. Just an example of how one determines if a pic is in line or out of line with the TOS and the abstractness of the TOS. It may just depend on which moderators look at it as to whether it is "OK" or not. So, when you put that button up there, it makes it easy (as said above) for thousands of perceptions about what is "legal" or not to manifest themselves in the click of a button (as opposed to being so upset that one writes a big long message). Although not a good analagy, I would say it's like this: Much easier to pull a lever and hang someone who's been prepared than it is to lead them up the gallows, cover the head, string the noose and tighten...etc...you get my meaning. PS: So, Pinky, unless I'm an idiot, your name must have been chosen to, well, sort of make a point...hehe.

Exactly Chuck. Thank you! My new handle is not to make a point, in fact (though based on recent events) it makes me smile and I hope others too. :)

If we are going to discuss ways to report TOS violations then we need to know what one is as well.. True. Start a thread about it. This one is about how to report them. You miss the point of why I post this but then I don't expect the lofty to grasp the purpose. Let's try to keep this polite. Don't put me on a pedestal. I'll just disappoint you. Its not about a particular image, its about what the staff grades as TOS violations. No it's not. It's about feedback on an idea about how to possibly deal with alerting mods. You've given yours. Thank you. Educated now? Wow, it would probably never occur to you that you're making yourself look bad, would it? I bet your getting in touch with your inner amazon, huh? Why are you taking issue with me? Are you assuming I'm a nudie cop or something? You don't have the first clue about how I feel about your image, do you? Did I say? I presented an idea that I thought might help everybody, and because you have a double-bladed axe to grind you come at me with it as if I'm somehow I'm advocating tighter restrictions. Did you even read why I started this, or did you just need to take the first available opportunity to vent your pet rant? All you did was look at the image above and let it trigger your response to your issue without considering that there may be simpler, more beneficent uses for it. But then, why does that not surprise me? I'm abandoning this thread as being all shot to hell. I'm sure you feel better now that you came back to Renderosity and vented your anger on innocent bystanders and de-railed a thread to get lots of attention. You obviously need it.

Unbelievable..

Hiram, dude! Hold on a sec. I know you feel strongly about this stuff and I applaud you trying to do something about it. I know others feel the same as you. Perhaps Pinky got hit on a raw nerve. But, she's one who has had something removed and has a valid point. You make a valid distinction, too. That there are possibly two things here that need to be taken care of. (1) A way to signal a possible violation of the TOS and (2) A better definition of what is allowed and what is not allowed. I suspect number 2 is hard to define as well as hard to get the owners to adjust. I think all some of us are saying is, perhaps (because NO one elected me spokesperson), clear up the ambiguity in the TOS. Then, even though Mother Teressa may walk the galleries and flag everything as unfit for human eyes, the poster/artist should have a pretty darn good idea that they are within the limits of the TOS and not have a reason to worry that the moderators have to mull it over and inspect every tiny swollen (sorry) part. I don't think your thread needs to be abandoned.

To put it even clearer than above ramblings, there have been pictures posted that even hippie free-thinkin me, would have punched that button if I had one. But I wouldn't have written a letter complaining about it. This is not a good idea. You can click a button without fully engaging one's mind in whether or not this is really what you want to do. Since it has a lasting effect of a black mark on one's record, I'd rather have a complaint slightly more difficult to make. Emily

That should be My above ramblings. Not anyone else's. Emily

the only place that I'm getting involved is that I love Pink Lips' name! lol, that handle is second only to GROINGRINDER on Rosity, heh heh.

All the problems are due the existense of censure and the try to preserve the "moral" of the kingdom. As in any kind of censorship, it's allways arbitrary and depends on the eyes of the Inquisitor. So if anyone wants the censure to protect their children (allways the same excuse), he must assume the existance of arbritrary acts like this and live with this fact.

Well said, Kawecki.

"I know you feel strongly about this stuff" No, Chuck, that's my point, I don't feel strongly about it. That's why I'm giving up the thread. What I felt strongly about was someone coming in here and hijacking the thread to deal with her own concerns and resisting my polite request that she address them elswhere. I'm painfullly aware that the TOS needs careful re-wording, but this wasn't about that. It was just a spur of the moment idea not a carefully planned out scheme. I thank those of you who have made actual contributions here. I realize that my little idea has its flaws and might not be successfully implemented as it stands, but it's at least a constructive suggestion instead of whining about the presence of the slightest rule everytime it effects me. Okay, I'm done. You guys can go back to talking about PinkLips pretty bondage pictures. Bye now.

A button invented To shoot at art, The topic is as he set But without good aim More of the same, An example of which I meant He's got it in his head That I stole his thread, Despite my words explaining Aimless button for attacks To 'whiz' on our backs, Then try to tell us its raining I didn't mean to offend you Hiram. Not at all. :(