Inappropriate pics - Warning - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

truckinik · #16 05-29-2007, 03:45 PM

I think he's referring to my former, recently removed sig pic. SORRY..

Matt L · #17 05-29-2007, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by truckinik

I think he's referring to my former, recently removed sig pic. SORRY..

While I didn't see yours, I highly doubt that it's the only occurance.

Dee8go · #18 05-30-2007, 01:45 PM

Where are the inappropriate pictures? I looked and looked. Somebody help me.

Perhaps we could just start an "Inappropriate Pictures" Section. That would save some of us a lot of time looking . . .

GottaDiesel · #19 05-30-2007, 03:07 PM

I have to guess that this new rule will only be enforced selectively, I can't imagine it will apply to all members.

BENZ-LGB · #20 05-30-2007, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

I have to guess that this new rule will only be enforced selectively, I can't imagine it will apply to all members.

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

Jim B. · #21 05-30-2007, 03:23 PM

NO CUPABLE!!!!!!

GottaDiesel · #22 05-30-2007, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

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

Not at all... I don't have any "questionable" images in my profile. :-)

BENZ-LGB · #23 05-30-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Not at all... I don't have any "questionable" images in my profile. :-)

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to your comment about the rules being enforced against you but not being enforced against others--selective enforcement.

You really don't believe that nice, easy-going guys like the two Chris would do that, now would you?

GottaDiesel · #24 05-30-2007, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BENZ-LGB

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to your comment about the rules being enforced against you but not being enforced against others--selective enforcement.

You really don't believe that nice, easy-going guys like the two Chris would do that, now would you?

Uhhhh... and who's calling WHO paranoid?

BENZ-LGB · #25 05-30-2007, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GottaDiesel

Uhhhh... and who's calling WHO paranoid?

Que dices????

GottaDiesel · #26 05-30-2007, 04:56 PM

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

TheDon · #27 05-30-2007, 04:59 PM

somone didnt like my german eagle and mercedes emblem.. so I had to remove it...

Mistress · #28 05-30-2007, 05:01 PM

I think we should start a thread on the definition of pornography...what is the difference between nude and naked? What is pornographic to one person is considered art to another ,then we can re-examine this on a cultural, moral and ethical level...

300EVIL · #29 05-30-2007, 05:14 PM

Mine is engine porn!

BENZ-LGB · #30 05-30-2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mistress

I think we should start a thread on the definition of pornography...what is the difference between nude and naked? What is pornographic to one person is considered art to another ,then we can re-examine this on a cultural, moral and ethical level...

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.