what do you think ?
It is not up to me.....Texas 3D said:what do you think ?
Wow, thats incredible! I only saw 3 the first time I saw it.4-way lesbian 69 avatar
ChuckAuger said:While you may not show any pubic areas, a 4-way lesbian 69 avatar probably does not meet the intent of the no porn directive. quote]
You Think?
I'm getting hungry.
Well, mainly because we don't have an age disclaimer to enter the site. To enter a proper porn site, you have to claim that you are over 18. Seeing as how porn is not (for most of us) the primary reason we come to this site, the age discliamer is just more stuff we don't need. Why would we care?? Because Marc at RCU hinted that he would would bring heat on Billy for having a porn site without the age disclaimer, and he banned links to this site from RCU. SInce the porn pics are (for the most part) gone, links to this site are once again allowed.RJohnson said:Well that brings me to one question.....
Why after the RCU bullshit are things changing?
There may be some threads out there that explain it, but I was under the impression that Bros tear shit up and do not give a .....well?????
Is this implying me? I had no idea that it was asked for us to not do this. So therefore, I was not pressing an issue!ChuckAuger said:Now, as a favor to Billy, most of us have seen our way clear to leave the questionable pictures off this site since Billy asked us to.RJohnson said:Well that brings me to one question.....
Why after the RCU bullshit are things changing?
There may be some threads out there that explain it, but I was under the impression that Bros tear shit up and do not give a .....well?????
That is all the reason most of us need.
Some seem to want to press the issue, despite Billy asking them to not post this sort of pic.
As for tearing shit up, we tore up quite a bit of shit in Texarkana last weekend, and did it without any porn.
Yeah, with all the prissy do-gooders out there who believe we must be protected from ourselves, having any porn on a website runs the risk that it'll be pot on some puritanical ISP's block-list and then some of us would have even more trouble getting through to it.ChuckAuger said:I think it was the intent, not the definition of "porn", that Billy wanted to keep the site clean from "girly pics". While you may not show any pubic areas, a 4-way lesbian 69 avatar probably does not meet the intent of the no porn directive. It's more of a common sense/common courtesy call than a hair splitting over "what is porn".