My Opinion

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

As moderator, I do agree non-worksafe material should be <lj-cut>. However, I do not believe this post is non-worksafe. All the "inappropriate" bits are covered up. I've seen nudity (barring certain specific areas of the body) in magazines in waiting rooms in offices so many times, that I don't see a problem with dykeprincess's post.

Comments

[hauntmeister.livejournal.com]

I have said that some picture that are clearly not worksafe are not okay.

The issue is that the words "clearly" and "worksafe" are individually defined. Some people have different notions of what "clearly" means, and some workplaces are different from others. I work from home, for example, and very seldom have anybody looking over my shoulder. Some of the projects I work on ("worksafe", by definition) would not be suitable for this community. In a community, we need to have a shared notion of what's acceptable.

pictures greater than 500 pixels wide need to be cut.

Unless your screen is much smaller than mine, I think that was a typo. Make it "500 pixels high" and I'd be happy with it.

[neitherday.livejournal.com]

As far as I'm concerned worksafe = something that isn't highly offensive (i.e. racist, etc.) and doesn't expose the bits of the body that American culture teaches us are "naughty". Any vague areas will be clarified by me as the need arises.

And 500 pixels wide wasn't a typo. A lot of people operate on a screen that's 640 pixels wide or less. The idea is to prevent horizontal scrolling.