I have these giant filthy stains on a nice pair of slacks I bought last week. Anybody have any tips on how to free these slacks of these giant filthy stains?
He should know that posting a SFW link that has a link that leads to NSFW material would be clicked on by someone who apparently doesn't know when they're reading an article about a vag would lead to a picture of a vag.. then email Eric about it..
Like most vags it took some steps and extra effort to get to it and once you get there, it wasn't all that good to look at.
Go figure.
It wasn't even a good looking plane.
Don't usually participate in these type of threads
But how do you get banned for linking to a perfectly safe page? The picture wasn't even directly on the page linked to.
In order to see the picture you had to intentionally disregard the warnings, both here and on the link stating the picture was NSFW.
That's like me running into the Interstate at rush hour, and then suing the poor soul who hit me with his car.... Who's fault is it really? Free the filth!
and while stupid, the only people who should have been banned were the dumbasses who actually clicked on the link. To his credit, Filthy made it perfectly clear what they would find and that it was NSFW.
This offense doesn't deserve a time out - give a time out to the idiots who clicked on the link.
then what was the reason for posting in the first place? You wanted to read about a woman who had a back and forth with customer service of an airline?
I mean, I was surprised because the picture was posted on the thread but, not really offended. Pretty fuckin weak that someone complained and now he's been banned.
Is it a full on ban with no coming back. Or can he pull a Nelson Mandela here?
But didn't really understand what had gotten him banned. But come to think of it, I do remember the post in question, and if I'm right, then it's ridiculous that he got banned for the post I have in mind.
It was something going on in the news, and he posted the Safe-For-Work version and noted that clicking the Safe-For-Work version contained a link for the NFSW version in case anyone wanted to see.
All the information was there for the posted to make an informed decision. And this wasn't some nonsense link. This is a pretty big deal in the news.
Terrible job by BBI in this case... especially for a long-timer who's always been a good contributor.
As I said earlier, I am a Filthy supporter but when I clicked the thread I immediately saw the picture of a downed Boeing 777 in a huge gash. It wasn't anywhere near a safe for work version. I mean, it was right there, staring at me.
As I said earlier, I am a Filthy supporter but when I clicked the thread I immediately saw the picture of a downed Boeing 777 in a huge gash. It wasn't anywhere near a safe for work version. I mean, it was right there, staring at me.
If I'm thinking of the right post, all I saw was a heavily pixelated blob of nothingness. I was able to deduct what was going on based on the headline, but there was no visual to be seen.
As I said earlier, I am a Filthy supporter but when I clicked the thread I immediately saw the picture of a downed Boeing 777 in a huge gash. It wasn't anywhere near a safe for work version. I mean, it was right there, staring at me.
No, the link was to an article.
You had to click a link in the article to get to the picture.
And, there were several warnings in the article stating that the picture was NSFW.
I'm pretty sure the only thing he MAY have posted was the pixelated photo which you can not see a thing in, but my memory is faulty on this one and that might have even just been in the link he linked (which THEN linked to the dirty photos).
Either way, he definitely did not post the photo directly in the thread.
It was a separate link within the page Filthy posted. Filthy gave plenty of warning in his OP, anyone who saw the NSFW pic has nobody to blame but themselves. To complain to Eric about it makes them a bigger gash than, well... you know.
I'm pretty sure the only thing he MAY have posted was the pixelated photo which you can not see a thing in, but my memory is faulty on this one and that might have even just been in the link he linked (which THEN linked to the dirty photos).
Either way, he definitely did not post the photo directly in the thread.
When I clicked the thread, the picture was in the OP. I didnt have to click any link.
Filthy posted a picture of a Cockpit and got banned for it.
He should know that posting a SFW link that has a link that leads to NSFW material would be clicked on by someone who apparently doesn't know when they're reading an article about a vag would lead to a picture of a vag.. then email Eric about it..
Like most vags it took some steps and extra effort to get to it and once you get there, it wasn't all that good to look at.
Go figure.
It wasn't even a good looking plane.
In order to see the picture you had to intentionally disregard the warnings, both here and on the link stating the picture was NSFW.
That's like me running into the Interstate at rush hour, and then suing the poor soul who hit me with his car.... Who's fault is it really? Free the filth!
This offense doesn't deserve a time out - give a time out to the idiots who clicked on the link.
There was nothing wrong with what was posted in the OP.
Major milf's?
wallnuts
beez
blame the sick fucks who put the fucking airline tragedies on on of the fucking telly all day every day
'do no click on any link if you are easily offended'
thus a legalistic loophole of sorts to any said 'policies' that may or may not be in place
id really like to see it clearly stated.
I'm still amazed at the stomach butt..
BAN 78!
Is it a full on ban with no coming back. Or can he pull a Nelson Mandela here?
It was something going on in the news, and he posted the Safe-For-Work version and noted that clicking the Safe-For-Work version contained a link for the NFSW version in case anyone wanted to see.
All the information was there for the posted to make an informed decision. And this wasn't some nonsense link. This is a pretty big deal in the news.
Terrible job by BBI in this case... especially for a long-timer who's always been a good contributor.
If I'm thinking of the right post, all I saw was a heavily pixelated blob of nothingness. I was able to deduct what was going on based on the headline, but there was no visual to be seen.
No, the link was to an article.
You had to click a link in the article to get to the picture.
And, there were several warnings in the article stating that the picture was NSFW.
You learn every day, you never stop learning.
I'm pretty sure the only thing he MAY have posted was the pixelated photo which you can not see a thing in, but my memory is faulty on this one and that might have even just been in the link he linked (which THEN linked to the dirty photos).
Either way, he definitely did not post the photo directly in the thread.
Quote:
directly in the thread or not?
I'm pretty sure the only thing he MAY have posted was the pixelated photo which you can not see a thing in, but my memory is faulty on this one and that might have even just been in the link he linked (which THEN linked to the dirty photos).
Either way, he definitely did not post the photo directly in the thread.
When I clicked the thread, the picture was in the OP. I didnt have to click any link.
Brought back terrible memories.
It was all clearly marked.
It was all clearly marked.
Quit defending your internet friend. This isn't Facebook. It's BBI.
Man the Fuck up and stop being a coward.
Pussy.
Quote:
It was inappropriate.
Pussy.
I'm sorry that I have ethical values and don't want that filth on this message board.