Inappropriate pics - Warning - Page 3 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

BENZ-LGB · #31 05-30-2007, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Post #20 --- You'll find it -- You're smart like that.

I give, I am officially stumped by the obscurantism of your replies.

GottaDiesel · #32 05-30-2007, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

You really can't be this paranoid....are you?

You've been hitting the booze?

BENZ-LGB · #33 05-30-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

You've been hitting the booze?

Sure, whatever, Captain Obtuse....

truckinik · #34 05-30-2007, 11:16 PM

So is this one art.. or porn..?

Medmech · #35 06-01-2007, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

I give, I am officially stumped by the obscurantism of your replies.

Welcome to the club!
I will be sending your personal secret password and decoder ring first thing Monday.

John Doe · #36 06-01-2007, 01:50 PM

So is it inappropriate to repeatedly threaten to post pics of stuff you really don't have?

GottaDiesel · #37 06-01-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

Welcome to the club!
I will be sending your personal secret password and decoder ring first thing Monday.

Looks like the fella with the Ferrari sig. and probably the reason for this sticky has a problem and has decided to test his limits and controls... I gotta figure he can't really think he controls the mods here *that* much, eh? Baiting, Antagonizing, etc.

I don't like to see people banned -- but boy oh boy... if anyone needs it, it would be you.

GottaDiesel · #38 06-01-2007, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Doe

So is it inappropriate to repeatedly threaten to post pics of stuff you really don't have?

Haha

BENZ-LGB · #39 06-01-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Looks like the fella with the Ferrari sig. and probably the reason for this sticky has a problem and has decided to test his limits and controls

Is that against the rules?

BTW, I will be needing that decoder after all. My obtuness-deciphering-thingy is not workking "too good" lately. Maybe I gotta get me a new one.

GottaDiesel · #40 06-01-2007, 03:37 PM

For the folks that seem to not understand the post -- Here it is again... pay attention to the very first part... I'll make it bold for you:

Some members seem to be pushing the limits of good taste with their avatars, sig pics and/or profile pics. This is getting out of control! Rule #5 of the Forum Rules states:

5. No pornographic, sexually offensive, sexually explicit, or objectifying material. Moderator's judgment applies here. We'd like for our readers to be able to read the forum at work and share with friends without fear of retribution.

Please review your avatars, sig pics and/or profile pics and if they are inappropriate they should be removed. Here's a test - Would your Mother be proud of you for posting this picture? If not, delete it!

Violators will be burned, folded, spindled and mutilated.

AustinsCE · #41 06-01-2007, 03:42 PM

Nope, moderator judgment. if they don't like its gone, not if you dont like it.

Medmech · #42 06-01-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Looks like the fella with the Ferrari sig. and probably the reason for this sticky has a problem and has decided to test his limits and controls... I gotta figure he can't really think he controls the mods here *that* much, eh? Baiting, Antagonizing, etc.

I don't like to see people banned -- but boy oh boy... if anyone needs it, it would be you.

Who am I baiting? I have no clue what you are talking about. My communication was interpersonal to Benz-LGB.

Mistress · #43 06-01-2007, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

It is possible to read the Court's opinion in Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476, in a variety of ways. In saying this, I imply no criticism of the Court, which in those cases was faced with the task of trying to define what may be indefinable. I have reached the conclusion, which I think is confirmed at least by negative implication in the Court's decisions since Roth and Alberts, that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

Justice Potter Stewart
In his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio

Mistress, you will know it when you see it.

Yes, Yes I have no doubt I would know it when I saw it and I have seen it however but does the problem arise in trying to define something that is basically undefinable because each culture tries to define it?

Matt L · #44 06-01-2007, 06:11 PM

How about getting rid of the girly images altogether?

Just put in your signature, "I'm really heterosexual, but for some reason I have to overcompensate."

BENZ-LGB · #45 06-01-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt L

How about getting rid of the girly images altogether?

Just put in your signature, "I'm really heterosexual, but for some reason I have to overcompensate."

I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!