I like how you choose not to answer the considerate and respectful replies. It's so cute.

I'm not making shit up. I genuinely believed you either wanted that or wanted us to disallow male breasts.

If I am honestly mistaken that doesn't mean I am making shit up.

I'm not biased. I am against pornographic content being displayed outside A-69 for both sexes . I'm just not petty or pointless enough to expect a rule to be made to stop male breasts being allowed on AF even though they'e completely harmlessly non-pornographic on an open forum, unlike female breasts.

(June 30, 2016 at 12:57 am)SteelCurtain Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 12:33 am)Heatheness Wrote: I guess it's just easier to make shit up out of thin air than to address something foriegn to your group think. I never said I wanted the forum to do anything illegal but you go ahead and put words in my posts that aren't there if it makes you feel better. lol

Oh the irony! Did you take off your tin foil hat to post that?

Oh darn guyze! We failed at our own 'scheme' to shut down her thread...

No. It worked. You did good . Lets see, you removed the offending pics then shut the thrad downI for overnight even though you removed the pics..

Man the butthurt in here is deep. Enjoy. I'm off to bed.

(June 30, 2016 at 1:17 am)Heatheness Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 12:57 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: Oh the irony! Did you take off your tin foil hat to post that?

Oh darn guyze! We failed at our own 'scheme' to shut down her thread...

No. It worked. You did good . Lets see, you removed the offending pics then shut the thrad downI for overnight even though you removed the pics..

Man the butthurt in here is deep. Enjoy. I'm off to bed.

You need to get a grip. He suspended the post and closed down the thread until we could remove the pictures. As soon as all staff matters were handled (you know because we have to do this as a team, no one staff member can just handle it without consulting the others) we reopened the thread. The thread was actually opened right before I removed the pictures and then restored the suspended post.

But do carry on about how there's a conspiracy and staff is out to get you.

(June 30, 2016 at 1:06 am)Losty Wrote: I like how you choose not to answer the considerate and respectful replies. It's so cute.

I don't know who you mean. I'm on my phone if I missed a repectful reply I'll have to get it tomorrow. I can't always reply to post if my phone won't expand the reply box on long post or pics. It's not intentional.

Also, please continue to ignore this post, I'd hate for you to respond to it when it doesn't fit well with your victim complex.

(June 30, 2016 at 12:40 am)Losty Wrote: That's true, you didn't. I think some people were legitimately confused by what you were requesting.

I understand that your request was for us to create a new rule banning men's breasts. I must admit that I am oblivious to the purpose of creating a new rule with no benefits. I don't think we should have a new rule if it's completely unnecessary and benefits no one. To be clear, we did have a real discussion about the topic in the staff area. We didn't blow off your request completely.

(June 30, 2016 at 1:04 am)Losty Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 1:02 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: I haven't actually seen a law which would prohibit the hosting of adult nudity, only child pornography.  For what it's worth...

We would have to require people to be 18 to join the forum though. And we would lose our ad income.

What law are you citing? It sounds like you're quoting the Communications Decency Act of 1996. That's been struck down.

Quote:The first attempt to regulate pornography on the Internet was the federal Communications Decency Act of 1996, which prohibited the "knowing" transmission of "indecent" messages to minors and the publication of materials which depict, in a manner "patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs", unless those materials were protected from access by minors, for example by the use of credit card systems. Immediately challenged by a group of organizations spearheaded by the ACLU, both of these provisions were struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union (1997).[11] The "indecent transmission" and "patently offensive display" provisions were ruled to limit the freedom of speech guarantee of the First Amendment.

Wikipedia: Legal status of Internet pornography

I'm assuming that DigitalOcean is hosting the site from it's California datacenter. If not, where is it being hosted? The whois info lists it as Cloudflare with a U.S. address.

(June 30, 2016 at 1:24 am)Heatheness Wrote: It's not intentional.

But our intentions are a conspiracy against anything that goes against the "groupthink"

Oh and I'm biased apparently.

(June 30, 2016 at 1:23 am)Losty Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 1:17 am)Heatheness Wrote: No. It worked. You did good . Lets see, you removed the offending pics then shut the thrad downI for overnight even though you removed the pics..

Man the butthurt in here is deep. Enjoy. I'm off to bed.

You need to get a grip. He suspended the post and closed down the thread until we could remove the pictures. As soon as all staff matters were handled (you know because we have to do this as a team, no one staff member can just handle it without consulting the others) we reopened the thread. The thread was actually opened right before I removed the pictures and then restored the suspended post.

But do carry on about how there's a conspiracy and staff is out to get you.

No one is out to get me. But that doesn't mean you were in any great hurry to see a thread you dislike be put back. Why bother. You deny as expected. Doesn't make any difference I have no faith your animosty wasn't in play. If wasn't I apologise but you don't belive me so why should accept your word.

Sigh.