REAL OR NOT SO REAL THAT IS THE ?

[grateful1]

Please don't post that kind of stuff in random threads. Some of us browse the board while at work and need the NSFW warning.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you shouldn't be browsing the board while you're supposed to be working? ???

If someone's post does not violate board policy then I really don't care if it gets you in trouble at work.

I am free to browse while at work although a picture of a naked girl shooting fire out of her ass may be an issue if someone came by. Besides as far as I know it is a common courtesy to post "NSFW" if your post is of questionable content. Thanks for the input CC, always appreciated.

Well, we really need to have that picture posted again. I'm not sure that the fire was coming out of her ass.
I looked like someone was roasting his marshmellow at a camp fire!

 

[NullSmurf]

Please don't post that kind of stuff in random threads. Some of us browse the board while at work and need the NSFW warning.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you shouldn't be browsing the board while you're supposed to be working? ???

If someone's post does not violate board policy then I really don't care if it gets you in trouble at work.

I am free to browse while at work although a picture of a naked girl shooting fire out of her ass may be an issue if someone came by. Besides as far as I know it is a common courtesy to post "NSFW" if your post is of questionable content. Thanks for the input CC, always appreciated.

Well, we really need to have that picture posted again. I'm not sure that the fire was coming out of her ass.
I looked like someone was roasting his marshmellow at a camp fire!

Gary! Way too much information!

 

[CoventryCat86]

Please don't post that kind of stuff in random threads. Some of us browse the board while at work and need the NSFW warning.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you shouldn't be browsing the board while you're supposed to be working? ???

If someone's post does not violate board policy then I really don't care if it gets you in trouble at work.

I am free to browse while at work although a picture of a naked girl shooting fire out of her ass may be an issue if someone came by. Besides as far as I know it is a common courtesy to post "NSFW" if your post is of questionable content. Thanks for the input CC, always appreciated.

"Common courtesy" according to who? Is it in the rules here somewhere? Is the next thing you're going to ask for is that people not have risqué things or "questionable content" in their sig tags or avatars so you won't get in trouble at work? By the way, WTF is "questionable content" anyway?

Once again, maybe you shouldn't "browse the board while at work."

 

[Smoking Mex]

So did you get the box code pic yet? ???

 

[denverdog]

Please don't post that kind of stuff in random threads. Some of us browse the board while at work and need the NSFW warning.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you shouldn't be browsing the board while you're supposed to be working? ???

If someone's post does not violate board policy then I really don't care if it gets you in trouble at work.

I am free to browse while at work although a picture of a naked girl shooting fire out of her ass may be an issue if someone came by. Besides as far as I know it is a common courtesy to post "NSFW" if your post is of questionable content. Thanks for the input CC, always appreciated.

"Common courtesy" according to who? Is it in the rules here somewhere? Is the next thing you're going to ask for is that people not have risqué things or "questionable content" in their sig tags or avatars so you won't get in trouble at work? By the way, WTF is "questionable content" anyway?

Once again, maybe you shouldn't "browse the board while at work."

The fact that it is called a "Common Courtesy" implies that it is not in the "RULES" yet brothers here choose to abide by it simply out of respect for eachother. The fact that you are even trying to argue the point is amazing to me, simply look through the lobby and you will find plenty of instances where a BOTL is posting something "Questionable" and marks it as not safe for work. You will also find plenty of instances where someone posts something that others may find "questionable" and fails to mark it as NSFW and others politely ask that next time he does so. What is "Questionable" content? I think it can be defined as a naked chick blowing fire out of her ass while some dude stands behind her and roasts a marshmallow. As others have mentioned, it is not just a courtesy to those of us allowed to browse the forum while at work, but those of us browsing at home who have kids. BTW - not trying to police anyone and I love to look at the ladies as much as anyone here, but knowing what I am about to look at is helpful.

 

[enerjay]

OK guys, I took the pic off, and sent an apology. I can understand his point, but hay lets not beat the old dog to long after a while they will bite. LOL

 

[smellysell]

The fact that it is called a "Common Courtesy" implies that it is not in the "RULES" yet brothers here choose to abide by it simply out of respect for eachother. The fact that you are even trying to argue the point is amazing to me, simply look through the lobby and you will find plenty of instances where a BOTL is posting something "Questionable" and marks it as not safe for work. You will also find plenty of instances where someone posts something that others may find "questionable" and fails to mark it as NSFW and others politely ask that next time he does so. What is "Questionable" content? I think it can be defined as a naked chick blowing fire out of her ass while some dude stands behind her and roasts a marshmallow. As others have mentioned, it is not just a courtesy to those of us allowed to browse the forum while at work, but those of us browsing at home who have kids. BTW - not trying to police anyone and I love to look at the ladies as much as anyone here, but knowing what I am about to look at is helpful.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[CoventryCat86]

Please don't post that kind of stuff in random threads. Some of us browse the board while at work and need the NSFW warning.

Did you ever stop to think that maybe you shouldn't be browsing the board while you're supposed to be working? ???

If someone's post does not violate board policy then I really don't care if it gets you in trouble at work.

I am free to browse while at work although a picture of a naked girl shooting fire out of her ass may be an issue if someone came by. Besides as far as I know it is a common courtesy to post "NSFW" if your post is of questionable content. Thanks for the input CC, always appreciated.

"Common courtesy" according to who? Is it in the rules here somewhere? Is the next thing you're going to ask for is that people not have risqué things or "questionable content" in their sig tags or avatars so you won't get in trouble at work? By the way, WTF is "questionable content" anyway?

Once again, maybe you shouldn't "browse the board while at work."

The fact that it is called a "Common Courtesy" implies that it is not in the "RULES" yet brothers here choose to abide by it simply out of respect for eachother. The fact that you are even trying to argue the point is amazing to me, simply look through the lobby and you will find plenty of instances where a BOTL is posting something "Questionable" and marks it as not safe for work. You will also find plenty of instances where someone posts something that others may find "questionable" and fails to mark it as NSFW and others politely ask that next time he does so. What is "Questionable" content? I think it can be defined as a naked chick blowing fire out of her ass while some dude stands behind her and roasts a marshmallow. As others have mentioned, it is not just a courtesy to those of us allowed to browse the forum while at work, but those of us browsing at home who have kids. BTW - not trying to police anyone and I love to look at the ladies as much as anyone here, but knowing what I am about to look at is helpful.

You're STILL completely missing the point which is that if you're going to get in trouble while looking at the content of this board while at work then maybe you shouldn't be looking at this board at work. The fact that you refuse to understand this point is amazing to me.

I see that you pretty much completely avoided my question which was "WTF is 'questionable content' anyway?" You gave one example of what YOU believe to be something of "questionable content" which is only something that YOU find "questionable" yet others may not. The point of that question is that "questionable content" is pretty much impossible to define as you clearly demonstrated for me.

Since you completely avoided another point I made I'll rephrase it and ask it again:

What about member's sig tags and avatars that could be considered "questionable content?" ??? Who knows what kind of "content" my offend your co-workers, don't you agree?

You will also find plenty of instances where someone posts something that others may find "questionable" and fails to mark it as NSFW and others politely ask that next time he does so.

Can you give examples of these "plenty of instances" because I don't remember seeing any of these. If I did, I'd be making the same point I'm making here with you, if something doesn't violate board policy then I don't see a problem once again other than that YOU shouldn't be "browsing the board" while at work and the same logic applies for those of you who are all concerned about hiding things from your kids. If you don't want your kids to know what you're looking at on the computer then DON'T LOOK AT IT when they're around.

I really don't see the need for warnings and other such nonsense just because some of the content of what's posted on this board may put you in an uncomfortable situation with your employer or your wife or kids.

 

[stevehawk]

<snip>

Can you give examples of these "plenty of instances" because I don't remember seeing any of these. If I did, I'd be making the same point I'm making here with you, if something doesn't violate board policy then I don't see a problem once again other than that YOU shouldn't be "browsing the board" while at work and the same logic applies for those of you who are all concerned about hiding things from your kids. If you don't want your kids to know what you're looking at on the computer then DON'T LOOK AT IT when they're around.

<snip>

That's exactly the point, CC! How is anyone supposed to know it's there if it's not labeled?

This is a common practice here on CP, as well as a common courtesy. It's about respecting and having consideration for others. I can't believe that you don't get it.

 

[NullSmurf]

He isn't missing your point, Bill, he disagrees with it and failed to call you on it. I browse the board from work as to many others. Did they have computers at work the last time you had a job? There are very few written rules here, Bill, I was about to say that there are a bunch of unwritten ones, but I can only think of a few of those. Then, there are common courtesy items like NSFW - yes, its there.

It is common courtesy to hold the door for the next person heading into or out of it. It tells me volumes about a person who doesn't hold the door. It is a common courtesy to post NSFW in your message title when you post a graphic with explicit content. I no longer have impressionable youth to worry about, but I do like browse the board from work. In any venue, I would prefer to avoid getting a dick in my face. If you are arguing that NSFW isn't an established courtesy here, you're wrong. If you're arguing that it shouldn't be, I disagree. So there.

 

[NullSmurf]

OK guys, I took the pic off, and sent an apology. I can understand his point, but hay lets not beat the old dog to long after a while they will bite. LOL

We know. This is no longer about what you posted. Again, thanks for removing it.

 

[CoventryCat86]

<snip>

Can you give examples of these "plenty of instances" because I don't remember seeing any of these. If I did, I'd be making the same point I'm making here with you, if something doesn't violate board policy then I don't see a problem once again other than that YOU shouldn't be "browsing the board" while at work and the same logic applies for those of you who are all concerned about hiding things from your kids. If you don't want your kids to know what you're looking at on the computer then DON'T LOOK AT IT when they're around.

<snip>

That's exactly the point, CC! How is anyone supposed to know it's there if it's not labeled?

This is a common practice here on CP, as well as a common courtesy. It's about respecting and having consideration for others. I can't believe that you don't get it.

Labeled according to WHAT standards shawk? No one should have to guess what yours or anyone else's standards are. It has absolutely nothing to do with respect and consideration for others.

 

[CoventryCat86]

He isn't missing your point, Bill, he disagrees with it and failed to call you on it. I browse the board from work as to many others. Did they have computers at work the last time you had a job? There are very few written rules here, Bill, I was about to say that there are a bunch of unwritten ones, but I can only think of a few of those. Then, there are common courtesy items like NSFW - yes, its there.

It is common courtesy to hold the door for the next person heading into or out of it. It tells me volumes about a person who doesn't hold the door. It is a common courtesy to post NSFW in your message title when you post a graphic with explicit content. I no longer have impressionable youth to worry about, but I do like browse the board from work. In any venue, I would prefer to many othavoid getting a dick in my face. If you are arguing that NSFW isn't an established courtesy here, you're wrong. If you're arguing that it shouldn't be, I disagree. So there.

There is absolutely no need for you to once again be an asshole smurf.

First off there are plenty of "written rules" here and this whole "NSFW" that you new guys keep harping on isn't one of them.

As I mentioned in my reply to shawk, your definition of "graphic with explicit content" is going to differ from individual to individual and if someone posts something here that doesn't violate board rules there is no need for qualifiers.

 

[NullSmurf]

He isn't missing your point, Bill, he disagrees with it and failed to call you on it. I browse the board from work as to many others. Did they have computers at work the last time you had a job? There are very few written rules here, Bill, I was about to say that there are a bunch of unwritten ones, but I can only think of a few of those. Then, there are common courtesy items like NSFW - yes, its there.

It is common courtesy to hold the door for the next person heading into or out of it. It tells me volumes about a person who doesn't hold the door. It is a common courtesy to post NSFW in your message title when you post a graphic with explicit content. I no longer have impressionable youth to worry about, but I do like browse the board from work. In any venue, I would prefer to many othavoid getting a dick in my face. If you are arguing that NSFW isn't an established courtesy here, you're wrong. If you're arguing that it shouldn't be, I disagree. So there.

There is absolutely no need for you to once again be an asshole smurf.

First off there are plenty of "written rules" here and this whole "NSFW" that you new guys keep harping on isn't one of them.

As I mentioned in my reply to shawk, your definition of "graphic with explicit content" is going to differ from individual to individual and if someone posts something here that doesn't violate board rules there is no need for qualifiers.

Quite right, Bill, I am an asshole. I should look into rehab. I took a shot at you and I apologize. My only point is that unless I'm mistaken, you do not work, nor do you have children in your household. You may not relate to our arguments. I agree that the definition of "graphic" is vague. I do in fact block imageshack at work and that takes care of most problems. However, I will maintain that NSFW is a reasonable expectation that most already hold to.

 

[CoventryCat86]

He isn't missing your point, Bill, he disagrees with it and failed to call you on it. I browse the board from work as to many others. Did they have computers at work the last time you had a job? There are very few written rules here, Bill, I was about to say that there are a bunch of unwritten ones, but I can only think of a few of those. Then, there are common courtesy items like NSFW - yes, its there.

It is common courtesy to hold the door for the next person heading into or out of it. It tells me volumes about a person who doesn't hold the door. It is a common courtesy to post NSFW in your message title when you post a graphic with explicit content. I no longer have impressionable youth to worry about, but I do like browse the board from work. In any venue, I would prefer to many othavoid getting a dick in my face. If you are arguing that NSFW isn't an established courtesy here, you're wrong. If you're arguing that it shouldn't be, I disagree. So there.

There is absolutely no need for you to once again be an asshole smurf.

First off there are plenty of "written rules" here and this whole "NSFW" that you new guys keep harping on isn't one of them.

As I mentioned in my reply to shawk, your definition of "graphic with explicit content" is going to differ from individual to individual and if someone posts something here that doesn't violate board rules there is no need for qualifiers.

Quite right, Bill, I am an asshole. I should look into rehab. I took a shot at you and I apologize. My only point is that unless I'm mistaken, you do not work, nor do you have children in your household. You may not relate to our arguments. I agree that the definition of "graphic" is vague. I do in fact block imageshack at work and that takes care of most problems. However, I will maintain that NSFW is a reasonable expectation that most already hold to.

You are indeed mistaken on both counts neither of which are any of your business in the first place and completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I can "relate" to your arguments and disagree with you. For you to wrongly assume things is completely irresponsible on your part and to make matters even worse for yourself you start in with personal attacks.

Not good nully, not good......

 

[NullSmurf]

You reproduced??!! Bill, you devil!

Personal attacks? C'mon Bill! Grow some skin! From my point of view, I was stating fact. Show me a post where you describe your job and/or your children.

 

[CoventryCat86]

You reproduced??!! Bill, you devil!

Personal attacks? C'mon Bill! Grow some skin! From my point of view, I was stating fact. Show me a post where you describe your job and/or your children.

Yes nully, your post was an outright personal attack which is a clear violation of board policy and if I had posted that I can guarantee you that Rod would receive more than one report or PM whining about it so cut the crap, you know what you did so don't try and squirm your way out of it.

Your arrogance and smugness are coming through loud and clear.

"From (your) point of view (you were) stating fact" OMG, I can't believe what I'm reading here. :0 This is a problem with you nully, you ASSUME things and you sure seem to think you're so damned smart when time and time again you provide evidence to the contrary as you did here with this statement.

I'm not showing you a post where I describe my job or the possibility that I may or may not have children (or stepchildren) because once again, it's NONE of your business. On the contrary, the burden is on YOU to provide a post of mine where I stated that I haven't had a job since the 1970's or that I have no children, grandchildren, stepchildren, stepgrandchildren, nieces, newphews, foster children..........

 

[NullSmurf]

You reproduced??!! Bill, you devil!

Personal attacks? C'mon Bill! Grow some skin! From my point of view, I was stating fact. Show me a post where you describe your job and/or your children.

Yes nully, your post was an outright personal attack and if I had posted that I can guarantee you that Rod would receive more than one report or PM whining about it so cut the crap, you know what you did so don't try and squirm your way out of it.

"From (you) point of view (you were) stating fact" OMG, I can't believe what I'm reading here. :0 This is a problem with you nully, you ASSUME things and you sure seem to think you're so damned smart when time and time again you provide evidence to the contrary as you did here with this statement.

I'm not showing you a post where I describe my job or my children because it's NONE of your business. On the contrary, the burden is on YOU to provide a post of mine where I stated that I haven't had a job since the 1970's or that I have no children or grandchildren.

Quite right, Bill, none of my business, and outside of my argument, none of my interest. You think I attacked you, I don't, or I'd take the opportunity now to correct your spelling. I don't need to attack you to make my point - I attack your arguments. As to the burden of proof, perhaps it is mine. Perhaps I only have to raise the question. Its clear that you disagree with us on NSFW. Okey doke.

 

[CoventryCat86]

You reproduced??!! Bill, you devil!

Personal attacks? C'mon Bill! Grow some skin! From my point of view, I was stating fact. Show me a post where you describe your job and/or your children.

Yes nully, your post was an outright personal attack and if I had posted that I can guarantee you that Rod would receive more than one report or PM whining about it so cut the crap, you know what you did so don't try and squirm your way out of it.

"From (you) point of view (you were) stating fact" OMG, I can't believe what I'm reading here. :0 This is a problem with you nully, you ASSUME things and you sure seem to think you're so damned smart when time and time again you provide evidence to the contrary as you did here with this statement.

I'm not showing you a post where I describe my job or my children because it's NONE of your business. On the contrary, the burden is on YOU to provide a post of mine where I stated that I haven't had a job since the 1970's or that I have no children or grandchildren.

Quite right, Bill, none of my business, and outside of my argument, none of my interest. You think I attacked you, I don't, or I'd take the opportunity now to correct your spelling. I don't need to attack you to make my point - I attack your arguments. As to the burden of proof, perhaps it is mine. Perhaps I only have to raise the question. Its clear that you disagree with us on NSFW. Okey doke.

You are absolutely incredible.

Correcting spelling is not an "attack" yet you attacked me with your direct insult and flaming comment and you continue to try and worm your way out of it. I don't see any spelling errors in the part of my post that you quoted so if you can find any, I sure would appreciate it because I don't think there are any. If I made any spelling errors anywhere else then by all means, please let me know as I strive to be the best writer and speller that I can be. Pointing out spelling and grammar errors is constructive in the same manner that a golf coach's comments are to a student of the sport. Comparing your cheap shots to constructive criticism is like comparing apples and oranges.

You say you "don't need to attack (me) to make (your) point" yet that's EXACTLY what you did.

Now I see you're admitting that you're resorting to typical "Scotty" debating tactics which is to "raise" irrelevant points (my employment and family) that are not germane to the matter at hand.

Once again, your arrogance, smugness and smart assed attitude is coming through loud and clear. Here's a friendly suggestion to ya nully, just quit while you're behind and resist the temptation to continue to make a fool out of yourself.

 

[bubbaco]

Can't you just feel the love? :love: