28 Apr 08
Why do you continue to indulge this idiot?
He knows the rules, the official interpretation of said rules was explained to him and yet he persists. If he eventually gets a ban, it's his problem (and his cronies).
I don't see why you have to explain him 100 times. He understands the rules, he just doesn't agree with them.
28 Apr 08
The post that was quoted here has been removedYou can rewrite the English language if you insist, but Playboy.com ain't pornography as it does not contain sexually explicit material (most of the photos don't show any more skin than a Victoria Secret's commercial). Repeating a falsehood over and over and over again doesn't magically transform it into the truth.
It shows the intellectual dishonesty you are willing to stoop to to "win" this argument. You continue to ignore the points I raised regarding classical depictions of partial female nudity and their suitability for viewing by a 13 year old. Obviously you have no answer, so it's right to attack mode with plenty of obfuscation thrown in.
Contrary to your prudish beliefs, a 13 year old is mature enough to see a female breast. You've made a complete mountain out of a tiny molehill regarding a link during a discussion on whether Babs was the "hottest" babe in Animal House. Thank God moderators are soooooooooooooo willing to save the world from such "pornography".
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by CrowleyI answered your question. There is no restriction on viewing SNL.
Again, you masterfully dodge a question while going on the attack. Seriously, it's getting old, gramps.
Now, answer the question: Does SNL have an age restriction? If so, why do you think?
Now, you may allow your 6 year old to watch SNL, but I don't want mine to. What do we do?
We use age restrictions placed on programs as a guide, with a generous ...[text shortened]... etc. I don't want some old white guy pretending to be black on the net decide this for me.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by PalynkaI think this is the thread you intended to post in. Glad to help.
Why do you continue to indulge this idiot?
He knows the rules, the official interpretation of said rules was explained to him and yet he persists. If he eventually gets a ban, it's his problem (and his cronies).
I don't see why you have to explain him 100 times. He understands the rules, he just doesn't agree with them.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=92693&page=1
28 Apr 08
The post that was quoted here has been removedYOU: but common sense should help you avoid posting anything someone could find offensive.
I didn't realize that the new rule is that nothing can be posted that someone might conceivably be offended by. Thanks for the heads up, though it makes the part of the TOS I previously quoted rather useless. It also is hardly a standard that encourages free discourse.
I agreed not to post anything "obscene". Merriam-Webster says obscene is:
1: disgusting to the senses : repulsive
2 a: abhorrent to morality or virtue; specifically : designed to incite to lust or depravity b: containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage c: repulsive by reason of crass disregard of moral or ethical principles d: so excessive as to be offensive
None of those definitions apply to what I posted that was moderated. The TOS obviously needs to be changed to accommodate your "nothing that anybody might possibly be offended by" standard.
The post got modded; I complained (uselessly as almost always). So be it. But I take offense at your constant untruthful claim that I posted a link to "pornography".
28 Apr 08
Christians find anything remotely questioning God offensive.
You think an erection is offensive.
Others think various forms of the word faeces is offensive.
What FFing subject is going to be left to write about?
I'll tell you what: bland threads on what your favourite FFing food is. Oh joy! And the angels and the morons celebrated.
28 Apr 08
The post that was quoted here has been removedYour spouting rhetoric with your silly little list, which avoids all of the issues I've pointed out:
1. The law is not always right.
2. It's unhealthy to blindly accept legislation.
3. There is nothing being wriiten or shown here which 13 year olds don't see or hear anyways.
4. There's nothing unhealthy about subjects such as porn and racism, in so far that they could be unhealthier than violence and moon landings.
5. It's healthier for children to face issues such as sexuality, racism and politics in an environment with adults and various perspectives on the issues at hand.
6. There are hard figures backing points 2, 3 and 5.
7. Language can't be offensive.
All you do is repeat your little TOS based dogma and say that everyone who disagrees with you is spouting rhetoric.
It's an easy defense, but ultimately non-constructive in nature.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by no1marauderRHP is not the place for nudity. Does this help?
You can rewrite the English language if you insist, but Playboy.com ain't pornography as it does not contain sexually explicit material (most of the photos don't show any more skin than a Victoria Secret's commercial). Repeating a falsehood over and over and over again doesn't magically transform it into the truth.
It shows the intellectual di ...[text shortened]... od moderators are soooooooooooooo willing to save the world from such "pornography".
P-
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by shavixmirThe law is not always right?! Who decided?
Your spouting rhetoric with your silly little list, which avoids all of the issues I've pointed out:
1. The law is not always right.
2. It's unhealthy to blindly accept legislation.
3. There is nothing being wriiten or shown here which 13 year olds don't see or hear anyways.
4. There's nothing unhealthy about subjects such as porn and racism, in so f ...[text shortened]... u is spouting rhetoric.
It's an easy defense, but ultimately non-constructive in nature.
Thanx.
P-
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by PalynkaJust bumping this, please take note, one and all.
Why do you continue to indulge this idiot?
He knows the rules, the official interpretation of said rules was explained to him and yet he persists. If he eventually gets a ban, it's his problem (and his cronies).
I don't see why you have to explain him 100 times. He understands the rules, he just doesn't agree with them.