Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 1:48 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:40 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 I see. You make an accusation and then it's on me to show that you're wrong? Good thinking. I guess that means I can say you're good at assumptions and generalizations and not have to come up with any specifics. Mud slinging at its finest. I love it. Nothing is on you at all. I feel that you have demonstrated obstinate stupidity in the M2M forum in every topic you have chosen to speak out on regarding this and related issues. It isn't a topic of debate, it is a personal opinion. You shouldn't feel the need to argue against it.Ah, why didn't you say so in the first place? The way you stated that sounded to me like you meant it as if it were fact, not just an opinion. Sorry if I misunderstood your unique way of voicing your opinions. Henceforth, I shall ignore comments that could be taken that way. I appreciate that clarification.
Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:40 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 I see. You make an accusation and then it's on me to show that you're wrong? Good thinking. I guess that means I can say you're good at assumptions and generalizations and not have to come up with any specifics. Mud slinging at its finest. I love it. Nothing is on you at all. I feel that you have demonstrated obstinate stupidity in the M2M forum in every topic you have chosen to speak out on regarding this and related issues. It isn't a topic of debate, it is a personal opinion. You shouldn't feel the need to argue against it.
I see. You make an accusation and then it's on me to show that you're wrong? Good thinking. I guess that means I can say you're good at assumptions and generalizations and not have to come up with any specifics. Mud slinging at its finest. I love it.
Nothing is on you at all. I feel that you have demonstrated obstinate stupidity in the M2M forum in every topic you have chosen to speak out on regarding this and related issues. It isn't a topic of debate, it is a personal opinion. You shouldn't feel the need to argue against it.
If the guy in the images pants were buttoned, at the same place which they are currently would the image be approved?
If the answer is yes then I don't see why the image wouldn't be approved as is. The hand would still be there either way and the message the same I would think.
If no, which is what I hope and am expecting of you lot then I think we can safely remove underwear from the argument. While there is nothing inappropriate about covering onesself with their hand the objective of the image is to imply something inappropriate and that I would hope would be the bassies for rejection. Not to mention the fact that the image is utterly tasteless.
Quote: from Forever Angel at 2:12 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:59 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:50 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:21 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Trying to pass off an extension of your own assumptions to "us all" as fact.Not an assumption. I suppose, though, there may be some not so intelligent members who didn't get it, so "all" may have been a bit of an exaggeration. Unintelligent members not getting things seems to be a recurring theme whenever you post.Really? Show me that theme. I'm sure you are perfectly capable of reading every post you've made here without me digging up links.
Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:59 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:50 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:21 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Trying to pass off an extension of your own assumptions to "us all" as fact.Not an assumption. I suppose, though, there may be some not so intelligent members who didn't get it, so "all" may have been a bit of an exaggeration. Unintelligent members not getting things seems to be a recurring theme whenever you post.Really? Show me that theme.
Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:50 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:21 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Trying to pass off an extension of your own assumptions to "us all" as fact.Not an assumption. I suppose, though, there may be some not so intelligent members who didn't get it, so "all" may have been a bit of an exaggeration. Unintelligent members not getting things seems to be a recurring theme whenever you post.
Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:21 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Trying to pass off an extension of your own assumptions to "us all" as fact.Not an assumption. I suppose, though, there may be some not so intelligent members who didn't get it, so "all" may have been a bit of an exaggeration.
Trying to pass off an extension of your own assumptions to "us all" as fact.
Unintelligent members not getting things seems to be a recurring theme whenever you post.
I'm sure you are perfectly capable of reading every post you've made here without me digging up links.
Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:17 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:09 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, bitch and *all* nudity in art shall be banned. Thine blessed consistency has been blissfully found.Are you somehow under the impression that I care if nudity is or isn't allowed? Art or otherwise? As someone who wants consistency, one would imagine that you would applaud a removal of the disconnect between allowing a bare-breasted fairy on a tree and disallowing a girl in a bikini in her room. It would be awfully inconsistent with your desire for consistency if you did not.
Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:09 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, bitch and *all* nudity in art shall be banned. Thine blessed consistency has been blissfully found.Are you somehow under the impression that I care if nudity is or isn't allowed? Art or otherwise?
Ask and ye shall receive, seek and ye shall find, bitch and *all* nudity in art shall be banned. Thine blessed consistency has been blissfully found.
As someone who wants consistency, one would imagine that you would applaud a removal of the disconnect between allowing a bare-breasted fairy on a tree and disallowing a girl in a bikini in her room.
It would be awfully inconsistent with your desire for consistency if you did not.
But, believe it or not, the image guidelines are not a serious concern of mine. It's the guidelines that are generally ignored completely, by most mods, that got me into the 'moderator consistency' discussion in the first place.
Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:13 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:12 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:08 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:04 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 But we all know the real purpose of those posts. Use of the royal "we" is presumptuous, Angel.How observant of you to notice. However I included the 'all' just for the purpose of removing that quality from the 'we'. So, -1. Lies are also unbecoming.What lies would those be?
Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:12 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:08 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:04 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 But we all know the real purpose of those posts. Use of the royal "we" is presumptuous, Angel.How observant of you to notice. However I included the 'all' just for the purpose of removing that quality from the 'we'. So, -1. Lies are also unbecoming.
Quote: from TheOtherHorseman at 12:08 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:04 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 But we all know the real purpose of those posts. Use of the royal "we" is presumptuous, Angel.How observant of you to notice. However I included the 'all' just for the purpose of removing that quality from the 'we'. So, -1.
Quote: from Forever Angel at 1:04 pm on Sep. 7, 2008 But we all know the real purpose of those posts. Use of the royal "we" is presumptuous, Angel.
But we all know the real purpose of those posts.
Use of the royal "we" is presumptuous, Angel.
Lies are also unbecoming.