-
mitre, even with the NSFW label (which you should've been using earlier) it's simply not acceptable to be linking to porn. Don't do it again.
Where do you draw the line between 'pornographic' and non-pornographic ? Where do you get your censors pen out and say what should be on display/seen/shown and what should not, who decides ? - you know you are opening a big old can of philosophical worms here, and yet your tools seem so plainly crude.
.
-
the same as saying a girl would "get it" shows a lack of respect.
You constantly refer, in your PC scare quotes, to the notion of a girl who may or may not "get it", but you're the only one here who is obsessed with the notion. While some of us might think to ourselves whether a particular girl crosses our personal threshold for further sexual interest, and some of us even go so far as to rank images according to such a scale, with varying degrees of satirical or ironic intent, nobody has, so far as I recall, been as crude as the "get it" meme which you constantly invoke. I would go so far as to say that I have no recollection of the phrase ever being used in my earshot, despite hanging out with some pretty unreconstructed male company, and at other times with some female erotic entertainers whose job it is to provoke the thought in their audience, yet rarely is the thought given voice in such crude terms.
Since you have a professional, and therefore material, interest in convincing the world that various unsavoury -isms are prevalent, is it possible that the majority of the so-called problem exists only in your febrile imagination, while the rest of us are for the greater part getting on with one another without giving wilful offence to others, accepting that occasionally even well meaning folk can be inadvertantly tactless and having the grace to see past their faux pas without drawing attention to them?
-
horace wimp.
a great forum name. -
bring on the dancing girls.............on bikes.
I would, but I still don't know what pornography is. Is it the content, or the domain, which gave offence? The content seemed no more graphic than other stuff which has been linked, and some of my attachments have been deleted despite my first checking the thread to guage an appropriate cut off point between 'attach' and 'link'
-
I am guessing from your collection of cryptic posts that you are the naked man on the Specialized ?
No, I'm the naked man on the Specialized. Perhaps you missed the context
http://www.londonfgss.com/post615841-1825.html -
No, I'm the naked man on the Specialized. Perhaps you missed the context
http://www.londonfgss.com/post615841-1825.htmlYou disgust me, showing your body like that, you racist pig, report to your local council's re-education centre.
rik
deleted
tynan
gbj_tester
31trum
mgalex
About
Glossy photos of girls on bikes!
Posted by
@fasteddy
mooks, you are hilarious ! :) It's as if you have sequestered your epistemology/morality from the real world with some success.
Where do you draw the line between 'pornographic' and non-pornographic ? Where do you get your censors pen out and say what should be on display/seen/shown and what should not, who decides ? - you know you are opening a big old can of philosophical worms here, and yet your tools seem so plainly crude.
Again, how would you feel if there were two threads, one with pictures of girls on bikes and one with pictures of blokes on bikes ?