Evil Avatar  



Go Back   Evil Avatar > Geek Love > Totally Off Topic

» Sponsored Links


» Recent Threads
A Plague Tale:...
Last post by Misanthropist
Today 05:00 PM
2 Replies, 289 Views
It's Sunday: What NFL...
Last post by vallor
Today 04:56 PM
6 Replies, 169 Views
Liberals gone wild
Last post by vallor
Today 04:32 PM
5,784 Replies, 1,283,625 Views
Weekend Gamer: What are...
Last post by Chimpbot
Today 04:00 PM
9 Replies, 423 Views
Kingpin: Reloaded...
Last post by koorb
Today 03:38 PM
11 Replies, 470 Views
HBO's Controversial...
Last post by brandonjclark
Today 03:20 PM
19 Replies, 825 Views
Picts - Waiting to...
Last post by vallor
Today 02:28 PM
19,082 Replies, 3,970,843 Views
Weekend Headbanger -...
Last post by MusicToEat
Today 01:41 PM
13 Replies, 427 Views
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-06-2019, 05:33 PM   #4681
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
It just isn't fair use.
Stupid dumb fuck.

Still available on YouTube. Fair use!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post


__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
"...boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman?...I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I certainly went to frat parties where girls were getting roofied
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-2019, 05:53 PM   #4682
SacredWeasel
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
This fails multiple prongs of the fair use test for parody.
Which prongs has it failed from which fair use test for parody?
SacredWeasel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 03:10 AM   #4683
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel View Post
Which prongs has it failed from which fair use test for parody?
I am not going to do a full write up but, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

This gives the appearance that the band supports/endorses a specific political viewpoint. It uses their likeness, music, and video. For that reason alone it could have an adverse economic effect on their work. This is essentially a political advertisement which also wouldn't be fair use.

It is not even a parody of their work. This political message has nothing at all to do with the band. Weird al songs are transformative parodies. This is just stealing an artists work to spread a political message.

If I stole a bunch of pictures of iron man and had him saying a bunch of pro Bernie Sanders stuff, that isn't a parody of anything. It is just IP theft.

Many states provide protections for famous artists in regards to their image and false endorsement. In fact, it is possible for a politician to legally possess the minimum permissions to use a song and still face a lawsuit from the artist.

Here is a write up on a similar issue
https://www.lawstreetmedia.com/issue...usic-fair-use/
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 03:13 AM   #4684
Eats
Developer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
Stupid dumb fuck.

Still available on YouTube. Fair use!
Do you think YouTube is a court of law or something? Do you even understand how civil laws are enforced?
Eats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 03:43 AM   #4685
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: I-90 Homeless Camp, Seattle, WA
Posts: 9,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I am not going to do a full write up but, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
I'd argue this was a transformative enough effort, with such a small snippet of the song that, just like any meme, there is a serious case to be made for the purposes of fair use.

The message of the meme is the crux of the fair use, as well as the likelihood someone would mistake the use of those seconds of the Nickelback's video as the as the band endorsing the message.

In the USA use is protected when the
Quote:
Originally Posted by US Copyright Law
criticism, parody, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship.
Generally Fair Use is used to criticize the vehicle itself, for example a YouTuber reviewing the Nickelback song "Photograph" and it's video could show cuts from the video for reference.

Still, technically this does pass several of the pillars. It passes the "Purpose and Nature of Use" balancing test.

The first is it was done with non-profit use. The RNC and Trump may get some additional donations, but nothing in the revised video itself asks or begs for any compensation.

Second Pillar is up in the air since the the initial Nickelback video isn't really a piece of art with a large amount of public interest which could negate the copyright claim right out (if it were in the public's interest that everyone be able to infringe and use the video there might be a case that it is culturally relevant to claim fair use. Raise of hands for who believes a Nickelback song is so important to the public good it should be stripped of copyright protection.

The third balancing test is "amount". I am not sure anyone would argue the video showing about 10 seconds of singing, on repeat, to be egregious. Especially, considering the actual point of the meme was to put focus on Biden's... errr, less than forthcoming nature when he says he didn't know or talk to his son about his foregin business dealings.

The last test is the one I think has the most teeth which is through this use can the copyright holder be damaged in a their market. Well clearly the answer is Yes. Anyone who has any ties to Trump in today's world will be targeted for whatever retaliation the Twitterati, MSM, and Antifa can dish out.

Plus, if the song becomes co-opted by Trump supporters beyond this it will surely damage the long term sales potential.

As an aside, since the video isn't making fun of Nickelback, rather it is making fun of Biden, it doesn't fall under parody protection. A parody would be to make fun of Nickelback with that video as the vehicle. If you are using a work to "lampoon" someone unrelated to the copyright then you are not protected by the parody clause.

Think of Weird Al making fun of Madonna's songs. If he used Madonna's songs to make fun of a completely unrelated 3rd party, as this Trump/Nickelback song, then he would not have been granted the necessary parody status required to use content without the copyright holder's permission.

Unfortunately for the team who put the video out there it needs to pass all 4 tests to be true fair use, at least without a court determination... and who wants to go to court for something like this?

All that said, enough people saw it before it went down that the damage is done; just like when the NYT or Washington Post print a story full of inaccuracies then retract some or all of it but on page A18.

That's how Ukrainegate got so out of hand for the democrats to begin with. They jumped on speculation and innuendo to launch Impeachment investigations now that the truth has come out they don't have a good way to walk it back except now to manufacture more Whistleblowers.

This Whistleblowers have it on "Good Authority" Trump did something bad and now, thanks to the recent change in the rules, they don't have to have any facts for their charge! Which is good because the Left hate facts.
vallor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 05:42 AM   #4686
Chief Smash
Subscriber
 
Chief Smash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 4,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
Think of Weird Al making fun of Madonna's songs. If he used Madonna's songs to make fun of a completely unrelated 3rd party, as this Trump/Nickelback song, then he would not have been granted the necessary parody status required to use content without the copyright holder's permission.
Hmmmm... I don't think this is right. Maybe the law should have applied in a different way than it did but Weird Al had plenty of songs that took from some famous track and made fun of some other event. In fact I would say most of his bigger songs were parodies of famous tunes that made fun of some other concept. A parody does not need to be poking fun at the source itself to be considered parody.

Anyway, I can only assume that good ol Eats shakes his head in disgust when he sees memes that make use of songs and images that are still under copyright.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 10:50 AM   #4687
SacredWeasel
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 783
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I am not going to do a full write up but, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

This gives the appearance that the band supports/endorses a specific political viewpoint. It uses their likeness, music, and video. For that reason alone it could have an adverse economic effect on their work. This is essentially a political advertisement which also wouldn't be fair use.
Having adverse economic effect isn't enough, especially when it comes to parody. A bad review could devastate potential income, yet using snippets in a review is absolutely fair use.


Again, parody is given a slightly different fair use analysis with regard to the impact on the market. It’s possible that a parody may diminish or even destroy the market value of the original work. That is, the parody may be so good that the public can never take the original work seriously again. Although this may cause a loss of income, it’s not the same type of loss as when an infringer merely appropriates the work. As one judge explained, “The economic effect of a parody with which we are concerned is not its potential to destroy or diminish the market for the original—any bad review can have that effect—but whether it fulfills the demand for the original.” (Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986).)


This video might diminish the market for the original, but in no way fulfills the demand for the original.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
It is not even a parody of their work. This political message has nothing at all to do with the band. Weird al songs are transformative parodies. This is just stealing an artists work to spread a political message.

If I stole a bunch of pictures of iron man and had him saying a bunch of pro Bernie Sanders stuff, that isn't a parody of anything. It is just IP theft.
Perhaps, but as Chief pointed out "A parody does not need to be poking fun at the source itself to be considered parody."

As for your example, I'd probably agree that isn't parody. On the other hand, using iron man to make fun of a gun dealer or war monger probably would be parody. There's an obvious connection as to why the Nickleback song was used for this video, that imo most likely qualifies it as parody.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Many states provide protections for famous artists in regards to their image and false endorsement. In fact, it is possible for a politician to legally possess the minimum permissions to use a song and still face a lawsuit from the artist.

Here is a write up on a similar issue
https://www.lawstreetmedia.com/issue...usic-fair-use/
The conclusion of your article:

Quote:
Musicians’ recent outcry against the use of their work for political campaigns is nothing new. However, the number of complaints issued by artists has grown significantly over the past election cycles. These issues may have arisen over the evolution of the fair use and its interpretation in the courts, particularly for music and film. However, it is important to note that political campaigns often do not meet the transformative requirements to constitute fair use when playing music at events or in advertisements. Even if the proper licenses are granted by publishers and record labels, the performing groups themselves may be entitled to protections under the right of publicity and the Lanham Act, meaning their permission is essentially required as well.

In short: if you want to use a song to promote your campaign, talk to the song’s artist, and his or her record label first.
This article mostly deals with playing songs at events or in advertisements, where the transformative requirement for fair use is very hard to achieve. That's not the case with this video. The video wasn't even used to promote Trump, but discredit Biden, something that parody is absolutely intended for.

From your source on fair use:
Quote:
The second category of fair use is parody, in which large sections of an original work may be copied and used in a satirical manner. When fair use claims make it to court, judges employ a four-point test to evaluate how the material was used and what the consequences were. Fair use claims are particularly strong when the use was for educational or informative purposes, or when the original work has been significantly modified to create something new.

When used to set a mood or accompany a politician’s platform, the use of music on a political campaign is generally not protected under fair use. The parody of a popular song for a campaign may constitute fair use, but otherwise artists would still be entitled to the protections established above.
Given the length of the video and what it deals with, it is both for informative purposes and has been significantly modified from the original three minute whatever long song about a guy looking back at happier, younger times.

Vallor's post deals with the four criteria. The first and third from his post this video easily passes. I've already dealt with the fourth at the start of this post. That just leaves the second up in the air. Not a particularly strong case.
SacredWeasel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 03:01 PM   #4688
PacerDawn
Choadwanger
 
PacerDawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 3,295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Terran View Post
Where is "Nationalism" up there? That's pretty much synonymous with Nazi-ism to the Left.
__________________
Why isn't the word "gullible" in the dictionary?
PacerDawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 03:19 PM   #4689
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
Do you think YouTube is a court of law or something? Do you even understand how civil laws are enforced?
Moron. Liberal techies pull anything triggering to the left off their sites (Twathead, Youboob, Fakebrick) with a speed only outdone by the pace at which proggies abort their babies, or the consistency with which they ignore assaults on women.

Also, see several prior posts for having shot your shit down, lol.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
"...boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman?...I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I certainly went to frat parties where girls were getting roofied
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 03:51 PM   #4690
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by SacredWeasel View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats
This fails multiple prongs of the fair use test for parody.
Which prongs has it failed from which fair use test for parody?
Two prongs it obviously fails:
Orange Man bad and anything he touches can't be fair.
Republicans aren't allowed to take shots at Democrats.

The law is clear on the above, at least in Eats' head.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-07-2019, 04:32 PM   #4691
Terran
Evil Dead
 
Terran's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 14,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
...it could have an adverse economic effect on their work.
Dumb fuck is...dumb as all fuck. LOL.


Best responses? "So 6 people. Cool."
"Damn, Trump even made Nickelback great again...wow!"
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
"...boys lining up outside a room to take a turn gang raping a woman?...I went to frat parties where shit like this was going down
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eats View Post
I certainly went to frat parties where girls were getting roofied
Terran is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 11:37 AM   #4692
blackzc
Evil Dead
 
blackzc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: I am boot, hear me win!
Posts: 7,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacerDawn View Post
Where is "Nationalism" up there? That's pretty much synonymous with Nazi-ism to the Left.
Hitler: Cried about by the left as being a far right psychopath for 50 years.

In the past 3 years has been memed into being a leftist. Im confused. What changed?

Boomer neo cons and the alt lite, thats what happened.

Look, im perfectly ok with giving Germany the civilization destroying tribe label. It could be true, but calling fascist leftist, is silly.

Oh, this might explain where it came from. LOL @ the author.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism
__________________
Nintendo: A guiding light in a sea of video game degeneracy
blackzc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 11:53 AM   #4693
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: I-90 Homeless Camp, Seattle, WA
Posts: 9,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
A parody does not need to be poking fun at the source itself to be considered parody.
It's a wavy line. I think it depends on how the victims (of the copyright violation) see the parody or how malicious it is.

Articles on parody will mention multiple cases where the copyright was used to damage a target that was outside of the source and therefore the copyright holder's complaints were upheld as the product not being a legitimate Fair Use as parody.

The fact that Weird Al goes out of his way to get permission and make sure his songs by the artists he borrows from goes a long way.
vallor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 12:45 PM   #4694
Chief Smash
Subscriber
 
Chief Smash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: CT - USA
Posts: 4,428
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackzc View Post
It could be true, but calling fascist leftist, is silly.
It is leftist in that it calls for strong central control of production and culture via the government.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vallor View Post
The fact that Weird Al goes out of his way to get permission and make sure his songs by the artists he borrows from goes a long way.
From what I understand, he does this out of respect, not out of obligation.
Chief Smash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 02:15 PM   #4695
BorisCal
Reaper
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Santo André, Portugal
Posts: 155
Check out this liberal gone wild: GREAT AND UNMATCHED WISDOM

You just can't make that stuff up! Thanks for voting for him, he's so much more fun than Obama.

By the way, if one were to be technical about american politics, Republicans are on the far-right and Democrats are on the right. Then you have Bernie which is centerish. Making it obvious that if you're on the far-right everyone is a leftist!

And one more for the road!


I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey
BorisCal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 02:25 PM   #4696
brandonjclark
Evil Dead
 
brandonjclark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 11,082
Hill-dawg caught?

https://www.theblaze.com/glenn-radio...llusion-sytnyk
__________________
~B$
Gamertag: legisilverback | Steam Nickname: brandonjclark
...playing Rebel Galaxy
brandonjclark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 03:26 PM   #4697
VenomUSMC
Evil Dead
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 8,809
Quote:
Originally Posted by brandonjclark View Post
This isn't proof of HRC doing something wrong. It does seem to support Politico's previous reporting alleging Ukraine offered support to the DNC, ostensibly to HRC's campaign directly. Now if that can be proven or not, I don't know.

As we've somewhat recently seen, objective physical proof of her wrongdoing still isn't enough -- so I doubt much will come of this, especially since the media seems ever incurious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BorisCal View Post
By the way, if one were to be technical about american politics, Republicans are on the far-right and Democrats are on the right. Then you have Bernie which is centerish. Making it obvious that if you're on the far-right everyone is a leftist!
I guess you wanted to drive home the fact you don't understand American politics or Bernie's political positions. Bravo.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anenome View Post
Many cultures of the world marry girls off after their first menses, around 13 years old. I can't say that's inherently immoral, no.
VenomUSMC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2019, 04:19 PM   #4698
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: I-90 Homeless Camp, Seattle, WA
Posts: 9,082
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Smash View Post
From what I understand, he does this out of respect, not out of obligation.
Yes, my point was there is legal precident that a parody defense must be proven to be addressed to the copyrighted object being parodied.

So Weird Al, by going to the copyright holder and/or artist to get their permission to use their song to parody SOMETHING prevents him from being sued by the copyright owner even if their work is the vehicle to parodying an unrelated entity. As long as the copyright holder doesn't complain it's good.

If Trump's team used the Nickelback song to parody Nickelback's "Photograph" track then Nickelback could object as much as they want to no avail.

However, they used the song to parody Biden's statement he knew nothing about his son's Ukraine business when the evidence shows he almost certainly does. The problem is it used Nickelback's track, without their permission, to parody an unrelated party. That's got legal precedent in revoking parody protections and possible lawsuit if the copyright holder objects.

I would bet dollars to donuts if a popular progressive figure was using the song to make a point about Trump Nickelback would have been fine with it because it is social OK to make fun of Trump.

Last edited by vallor; 10-09-2019 at 02:01 AM..
vallor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2019, 01:53 AM   #4699
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: I-90 Homeless Camp, Seattle, WA
Posts: 9,082
The Daily Mail had a TREASURE TROVE of articles today where the facts of the world leave the SJW and postmodernist LGBT and feminist movements in the dust.

The DM is a left wing rag and, among other things, is reporting leaks of presentation slides intended to brief the Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Army regarding the results to date of the testing for the new Army Combat Fitness Test. This new test normalizes the event regardless dropping any changes to the results based on age or gender

It is being failed by 30 percent of the men.

And failed by 84% of the women.



Quote:
The slides purport to document the testing conducted by 11 battalions, equaling more than 3,200 soldiers, of which 2,849 were men and 357 were women.

The overall pass rate was allegedly 64 percent. Men passed the test at a rate of roughly 70 percent and women failed the test at a rate of 84 percent, according to the slides.

Many of the failures were attributed to the leg tuck event, the slides show. That echoes some advice from Army leaders that soldiers need to focus on core and upper body strength for the new test.
This is a test designed to measure a soldier's ability to perform certain activities which may be required in a combat zone:

Quote:
The ACFT will become the official Army physical test of record in October 2020

The ACFT consists of six events:

Strength Deadlift. This is a three-repetition maximum deadlift to test muscular strength; it mimics movement to safety and effectively lifting and carrying heavy loads.

Standing Power Throw. This event involves throwing a 10-pound medicine ball as far as possible over the head and to the rear. It measures upper and lower muscular power, balance and whole body flexibility.

Hand-Raised Push-ups. This event forces the soldier to go all the way to the floor and raise his hands before coming back up again, measuring upper-body muscular endurance.

A 250-Meter Sprint, Drag and Carry. This is five different events within one event -- a 50-meter sprint; a backward 50-meter drag of a 90-pound sled; a 50-meter movement; a 50-meter carry of two 40-pound kettle bells; and a final 50-meter sprint. It measures muscular strength, power, speed and reaction time.

Leg Tuck. A soldier hangs perpendicular to the pull-up bar and brings his knees up to his elbows and back down again for one repetition. It measures muscular strength, endurance and grip.

Two-Mile Run. The ACFT retains the two-mile run portion of the APFT, which is designed to measure aerobic and muscular endurance.
As mentioned, the tests that carry over from the previous versions of this test, like the run, are now flat values rather than adjusted for gender or age.

There are rumors the gender adjustments were dropped during a time when Trans folks were still going to be admitted into the Armed Forces. Because of this, to prevent male recruits from claiming a female gender identity and reaping the rewards of lower physical fitness standards, the Army decided not to continue with gender specific measurements for this particular battery of tests.

Once upon a time there was a Evil Avatar member who's wife was a doctor who, IIRC, helped certify females for combat on the old test. He/she was adament the females were just as capable as the males and argued long and hard most females were being successful without any problems.

That shows the new test, with apparently more realistic activities, is either too hard or the old test was too easy or the extra latitude given to females via the gender score adjustment in other tests was too generous.

84% failure. I'm not sayin, I'm just sayin!

How long before we hear the test is being changed to make it easier to pass... for females. Fuck dudes.

EDIT: Note the original DM story was based on a story released in the Army Times. The original article in the Army Times is a little cleaner since they don't editorialize as much through the course of the story. You know, journalism.

Right now the documents are not "results" and the REAL results won't be ready till the test comes online in 12 months.

Last edited by vallor; 10-09-2019 at 02:05 AM..
vallor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2019, 02:17 AM   #4700
vallor
Michael Bay Fanboi
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: I-90 Homeless Camp, Seattle, WA
Posts: 9,082
More news on how the 0.3% are dick-tating (haha!) policy on bathrooms for the 99.7%, to the great harm of a good portion of that 97.3%.

Girls in the UK are skipping school to avoid sharing gender neutral toilets with boys after being left to feel unsafe and ashamed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Daily Mail
Parents and teaching staff have told The Mail on Sunday that female pupils feel deeply uncomfortable or even unsafe sharing toilets with male students.

The trend for single-sex toilets is driven by the wish to be more inclusive of children who identify as transgender and wish to use the same facilities as the opposite sex.

But last night, doctors and politicians called on schools to halt the move towards unisex toilets to prevent any further harm to female pupils.
Say it ain't so! Girls don't want to share the same bathroom with Boys or "Girls*" or "Boys*"

Why are we allowed to have safe spaces on college and university campuses to protect someone from accidentally hearing mean words but no safe space for girls as early as Elementary school?

What did non-* girls do to deserve this?

It also goes along with another story about how urinals will be removed from Portland's "Portland Building" during their remodel.

Fortunately, Snopes is here to help us out with this one. We can be absolutely sure there's no bias here even though despite their "mostly false" label the City Administrator xymself admits:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snopes
In his email to employees in February 2019, Portland’s Chief Administrative officer Tom Rinehart explained that all of the bathrooms had also been designed to be identical to one another, meaning that if officials later chose to convert some gender-specific bathrooms to gender-neutral status, that switch could more easily be made.
The Chief Administrator also let us know:
Quote:
“It is possible that, in future remodels of other city buildings, urinals may not be installed if restrooms are renovated.
Also fortunately:

Quote:
"There are no plans to remove urinals as a separate project.”
Since this is Portland the end result is a foregone conclusion:

1) When they finally decide to go free-for-all with all 57 genders using any and all bathrooms, the groundwork is already set so they just have to replace the gender specific bathroom signs with "Restroom".

2) ALL future remodels of city buildings will be anti-urinal so the trans... ition (HAHA!) to gender free bathrooms will be easy!

Keep it weird, Portland, and stay in your own state. Don't come any closer to me. Free-attle is already bad enough, I need to be able to know when I use the Starbucks bathroom (without buying anything of course; as if I have money for Starbucks!) it only has the infected and filthy debris from MEN! It's all I have left here, living under the underpass.
vallor is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:04 PM.