Eleven Warriors

1) Steen: There seems to be a misnomer going around that there is no control over ads when using Google AdSense. You actually have much more control over what ads appear in Google's AdSense then you do when trying to control what a user can/will post before they post it.  Now ads you might not want still may slip through at times, but just like when a user posts something you don't approve of, you can remove them.  If you want to know more check it out here: Allowing and blocking ad controls guide.  It also isn't purely based on your website history or keywords on the page as the Kate Upton SISE ad came up on first on two 11W pages that didn't mention Kate Upton or SI and it came up on my phone, which I have never searched for, or been on a page other then 11W that have Kate Upton or SI on my phone.

2) Are those t-shirt ads you mentioned (side note: which have never shown up for me) NSFW?

If you shrink your browser to avoid the ads on the side and don't scroll over to the side, why do you scroll down, and expand your view, into the area that has these Kate Upton photos?  As far as I'm aware, there hasn't been a single Kate Upton photo that hasn't first had her name come up before it.  There might not have been a NSFW warning, but it wasn't like there was a thread on a recruit, a post about said recruit, a reply about said recruit and then just bam: Kate Upton picture.  When you see that someone asked who she was or requested to see her or brought her up, why would you continue to scroll down and not avoid it like you do with the ads to the side?  If you want to see the rest of the thread, that you now know is most likely NSF(your)W, why don't you scroll slowly until you see the top of the pic and then scroll quickly over it so as not to offend anyone else in your office?

There are a few things you've consistently done in this thread when you've responded to me that I can't respond to you after this unless they are no longer done.  Don't get me wrong, I like a lot of the things you bring to the site, I upvoted your pic of the kid eating hamburgers in the other thread (and in fact I have never downvoted you), but when you respond to me you use some methods that are normally frowned upon when debating so it makes it very difficult to communicate with you so I will have to stop if you continue to use these methods. The first is that you misinterpret and/or misrepresent a lot of my points.  This last point in your last post is a perfect example (now it isn't nearly as offensive as the last reply you had to me that made me not respond to this thread for days and almost stop posting on 11W all together, but) it is not the point I made.  (My GF wanted me to make this next point and she has even tried to join 11W and express her points of view[not just on this topic/thread], but I think since we use the same computer they didn't approve her:)  It is not equivalent logic to your daughter whining due to others.  I did not say one could justify posting something because someone else does. Equivalent logic would be if your daughter got on a sports website forum and there was a thread about Mia Hamm.  Someone brings up David Beckham and someone else posts a picture of him from one of his underwear ads/shoots.  You don't think that those photos are suitable for your daughter, you don't want her to view them and tell her not to look at them.  Would she be in any more trouble if a random poster that she has no control over, and the website didn't endorse, posted a photo you didn't think was appropriate for her to view, as opposed to if an actual ad for the underwear with Beckham wearing just that underwear appeared on the site?  Would the poster's picture get your daughter in more trouble then the ad even though the ad has a very similar, if not arguably more reveling, photo?  This is actual "equivalent logic" and not the misinterpretation example you gave. The closest thing you can say I've said (which I didn't even do in the post you replied to) is that when one says that photos of nearly naked men is fine and SFW, but then says nearly naked pictures of women are not fine and are NSFW would fit Merriam-Webster's definition of the word Sexism(or sexist): 1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women 2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex.

This is just one example of misinterpretation/misrepresentation that you have done and just one of the methods you have done in some of your posts that make it so I can't really properly communicate with you.  A few others is that you just leave out, or ignore, major points in my posts.  If you ignore major points, you really aren't acknowledging the overall thesis of the post, and therefore not getting at the root of my post.  Another thing you have done is just dismissed points that I've made, and backed up with examples and facts, and stated the way you feel, with little to no facts backing you up, as absolute fact or the way things are. The last one I'll mention (not that it's the last one, but the last one I'll mention now) is calling my points "stupid and idiotic", "delusional" or similarly demeaning adjectives just because you don't agree with them.  These are all things that are generally frowned upon when having a civil, polite and proper debate.  I know a lot of people think this conversation has been way too long, beating a dead horse, useless, or something else similar, but I've really enjoyed this stimulating conversation for the most part.  However, if you keep using any, or all, of these methods, I will choose not to respond to those posts.  

post scriptum: Almost all browsers have the ability to turn the pictures off so you won't see any of these pictures while at work or anywhere that you don't want to.  That way you don't have to avoid this, or any site, while at work and don't have to fear the repercussions.   Although most of these won't disable the ads and those type of pics.