Get 'em again…I up and changed it again 
it’ll take a while…dang hard to find 'em when they’re still on the nose. 
so…it’s all in the avatar, eh?
odd bit, that, eh?
I can see the point of wanting not to offend people, even though you think their offense is based on a mistake. What I can’t figure out is a line of reasoning, however loopy, that would get someone to the conclusion that the photo of a horse that happens to be owned by an Amish person would be violating a rule against graven images. Actually, the same goes for photos of Amish people themselves. There just doesn’t seem to be a third meaning in play here for the objection to be based on. Realistically, the injunction makes perfect sense if it is an objection to idolatory, but not otherwise. (Surely God didn’t have it in for engraving, as such.) And surely nobody is proposing to worship the image of an Amish person or their horse.
Does anybody have any idea how this blew out into an objection to likenesses in general?
Now I may be offending against the rules about mentioning deleted threads, but there’s no other way to say this.
I posted some images a while back, which I thought were of general interest, and they got objected to and the thread deleted.
Now I am just, only just, prepared to accept that there MIGHT be a shred of a reasonable objection there. But I don’t accept it here.
In English Jurisprudence there is a concept of a “vexatious litigant”. I think that concept may apply in this instance.
People, I’m dying here…
gooda place as any, innit! 
Death be not proud…
Maybe it’s those blasted pipes you’ve been playing. Or maybe it’s because you need a vacation. Or maybe it’s because you just need some chocolate…that’s usually what my problem is
But if it’s my avatar, you’re out of luck. I’m not changing it 
Seems appropriate.
I like the term at the very least…Vexatious sounds so Jane Austen-esque
Hmmm…I tend to think it’s a perversion of the actual meaning of the commandment to a certain extent. In other words, taking the meaning too far, and applying it to things that were never intended. Obviously, having a picture of a loved one hanging upon your wall does not constitute idolatry. Nor does taking a picture of a person. Or perhaps it has to do with vanity on their part (something the Amish try to avoid if at all possible…which is why they wear darker colors, don’t use buttons, and have rules about even the width of the brim of the mens’ hats, just as a few examples).
Hmmm. I missed your photo. Was the horse really good looking? Did it have a big hat?
Only if “hat” is a euphemism.
Well…I suppose good looking has to do with the person beholding. I didn’t particularly think it was too good looking, but I’m sure the man driving the buggy could have, or you might even be partial to said horse, Wombly. The horse’s outward appearances could be a factor here, indeed. But he wasn’t wearing a hat. Sorry.
I would hope that whoever made that decision (and after only one complaint!) finds themselves unemployed after the next election.
To me, ‘bunny’ is something like ‘boy’. Honestly, I’d be a lot more comfortable with ‘Spring Oryctolagus Cuniculus’, but the animal rights groups I know don’t have that kind of clout.
No, it could never be the pipes, I refuse to admit that.
We all could use a good vacation.
No, the Audrey avatar is the tops!
Must be the lack of chocolate!
No, it could never be the pipes, I refuse to admit that.
We all could use a good vacation.
No, the Audrey avatar is the tops!
Must be the lack of chocolate!
Oh, I see. So it’s alright to use the term “bunny” amongst yourselves, but God forbid someone outside the Oryctolagus family uses it, then you make a big stink over it.
Well I’ve had it up to here with all of this PC nonsense!
But it may be uncomfortable.