The post that was quoted here has been removedI said nothing of the sort. I did say:
Pornography requires sexually explicit depictions according to my dictionary not the mere showing of the female (or male) form.
No one has refuted that point, but you and others continue to make the untruthful claim that I linked to "pornography".
I notice that you and the others ignored my point about the TOS having an explicit provision regarding that users have to be of legal age to make a contract (unlike, ironically, Playboy.com) to wit:
In consideration of your use of the Service, you represent that you are of legal age to form a binding contract.
This is predictable intellectual dishonesty. BTW, where on the site does it say that this site is for a "13+" audience (of course to you that means everything has to be at a 13 year old's level)?
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pornography
I said nothing of the sort. I did say:
Pornography requires sexually explicit depictions according to my dictionary not the mere showing of the female (or male) form.
No one has refuted that point, but you and others continue to make the untruthful claim that I linked to "pornography".
I notice that you and ...[text shortened]... 13+" audience (of course to you that means everything has to be at a 13 year old's level)?
...i was black in a prior life...now i am white...next time i think i will be dutch...which of the three will be the best in hindsight...( oh, excuse ME..i think dutch is equal to hindsight )...guess that settles the issue ( see, see, ethnic or nationality issues can be just as obstructive as a racial one )...
Originally posted by PhlabibitThanks for validating what I was trying to say 🙂
Read through this thread, somewhere along the line No1 debated playboy vs. porn for some reason.
P-
Personally, I think Kirksey is just trying to be confrontative and difficult. Obviously pornography was thrown into the mix, so it isn't that hard to figure out why I was talking about it.