Most likely you are bored and drunk.

Answer enough of your questions?

MSG Tripps wrote:

Most likely you are bored and drunk.

Answer enough of your questions?

Most likely you post before you think.

Say what?  The book, the movie, your pompous attitude....   ?

MSG Tripps wrote:

Most likely you are bored and drunk.

Answer enough of your questions?

[DahlAdence]Most likely you are distracted and stoned.

Question enough of your answers?[/DahlAdence]

Last edited by Decadence (2007-11-23 03:47:31)

MSG Tripps wrote:

Right with you

further

[DhalAdence]Standing directly behind you, and using you as a shield

Not quite as far[/DhalAdence]

Post-Script:  Yeah, screw it.  Apparently, this particular thread won't allow forced tags.  They seem to be working fine every-where else; So, I'm just going to assume that it's a mystery akin to the Bermuda Triangle.  I wonder if Leonard Nimoy might eventually do a special about this thread?

Last edited by Decadence (2007-11-23 04:09:04)

felch wrote:

You don't wanna start . . .

And, so the dance begins.

                                 Yo mama.

Felch

Felch

ew.

kim wrote:

ew.

Are we in high school? Mewling expressions of disgust demean us all. Spit out some words or show us your tits again.

Ew.

Kim, it was actually rather lovingly done... you can't even see a lot of pixellation between the pussylips.

My whole thing is, your profile allows you to block the images while you're at work.  Just do that, then look at them when you're home.  Our whole culture is built on making people look at things that they shouldn't.

Decadence wrote:

http://i234.photobucket.com/albums/ee22 … ynORly.jpg

I'll let Dusty take over in the morning.  This really isn't my field.

Just throwing this in for Dec....

<img src="http://sex.web.net/files/sex.web.net/images/Bordello001%20copy.JPG">

feisty wrote:

tsk tsk tsk....

DMT, we use bbbbbleh code here.

http://sex.web.net/files/sex.web.net/im … 20copy.JPG

Sorry..... I miss the reference fair Feisty.

I'm not sure why but I'll try addressing the original topic of the thread...

Personally I'd rather have a way to avoid the Ogrish/Gore images.  I come here mostly for laughs, not to be repulsed.  The porn doesn't bother me but mutilation and tragic death doesn't appeal.

The above having been said the thread will now no doubt be flooded with the stuff.

Bottom line though: This is the heir of Cruel.com.  There's stuff posted here I don't like to look at and would like to have a way to avoid while still seeing other posts I like (or at least that don't make my eyes bleed).  But adding training wheels and safety goggles to the site just wouldn't be in the spirit of the place.  The "NSFW" in the thread subject is the one compromise that is already made just so people at work can come here without getting fired.  Beyond that it's enter at your own risk.

Dmtdust wrote:

I don't do gore (well once or twice)  Nor do I do true cruelty/brutality.  I have seen enough gore, cruelty and brutality to last a lifetime.   Porn, I can deal with, and frankly, I feel most of it is pretty damn healthy to look at.

Thoughts Zook?

You about summed it up for me though I don't really know what health benefits there are to viewing porn other than increased circulation.

Zookeeper wrote:

Personally I'd rather have a way to avoid the Ogrish/Gore images.

A compelling argument indeed . . .   Or, rather, it would be were it not for the fact that you can disable displayed images through your profile.

Just for you, Zookie:

The Silent Editor wrote:

http://www.b0g.org/wsnm/uploads/vomit9.jpg

Oh, come on . . .  So, now we can't even hot-link images of two loving lesbians indulging in a roman shower?  They were obviously sharing a rather tender moment there - Nothing wrong with that.

I have to agree with what I think sofaking might be saying.  The issue is not about corraling threads that aren't safe for work.  And as Little Willy said, any thread can become NFSW at any time.

The issue is whether we can corral ACTUAL EYEBLEACH into a particular thread or tag, so that we may experience them only when we are psychically ready to do so.  I have to admit that it sucks to be happily perusing the perversion of the picture thread, and then find an image of a horribly impaled body.

In order to agree or disagree, we have to determine a decent consensus on what constitutes eyebleach.  I would say anything involving death or dismemberment.  Nipple clamps, vag clamps, testicle pumps would all be okay.  But, give me a chance to say no before I see the half-rotted body.

And while we're at it, can we also come up with a tag for annoying flash movies that autoplay every time you load the page?

Yes to Sofie & 1971's ideas.  I'm not yorked by much, unless it's a rare confluence of flab, red hair, body hair, & nudity, but I understand that to most of you that's just "ha-ha" funny unless there's clown makeup involved. 

But what is the taxonomic system of eyebleach to apply here?  Violent death, maulings, roundworms erupting from assholes, and infected wounds tend to break the stride of many porn-perusers.   However, a lot of what we consider porn also has puke, skat, blood, & non-human animals in it.  Do those make the image EB?  Maybe a poll would be useful, if the admins & mods don't want to decide.

sofaking wrote:

ALL threads are NSFW. An eyebleach thread would be helpful.

So...a helpful eyebleach thread, given that "ALL threads are NSFW" would be the ONLY place for eyebleach by royal mandate? Or merely the SUGGESTED place for eyebleach? People who posted eyebleach in regular threads would be:
Banned?
Decapitated?
Scorned?
Pantsed?
All of the above?

Jesus Cadenhead, this is starting to make my brain hurt.

If you're complaining because you're afraid of getting caught surfing at work, too fucking bad.  Disable the images and fap or diddle away once you get home.

If you're speaking of eyebleach, well, then it's going to be tough.  One person's eyebleach is another person's "eh, I've seen worse."

We'd effectively be deciding what does and does not constitute obscenity for the board.  No way in hell I'll stand by and let H.S. become a bastard hybrid of Cadenhead, Ed Meese, and Tipper Gore.

If we start to define what is and isn't okay, then we're in trouble.  For example, is this okay:

Because it's fictionalized, albeit very realistically fictionalized? 

How is it drastically different from what Wilber posted:

Is this unacceptable:

Because it shows the body of a main tortured to death by the CIA (for real, I've got the unclassified docs to prove it) and because it's very unsettling (especially if you're an American) even though it isn't graphic?

Or how about this.... not graphic, but highly unsettling because it depicts a real event:


Choosing what is and isn't acceptable based on specific criteria isn't as clear cut as it seems to be.


I say we just decide as a group to use eyebleach sparingly, like Tabasco sauce.  Only when necessary, and if possible with warnings.





On a side note, I found a bunch of hilarious pics looking for a good crucifiction!

Dirckman wrote:

I know you all are a bunch of fucking liberal cocksuckers, probably the same group of fucking liberal cocksuckers who came up with the theory of political correctness.....  Dirckman says post anything, anywhere, for any reason......

Yes, I am a liberal cocksucker.  And I'm good at it.  But I'm also a liberal cocksucker who is highly concerned with individual freedom.  Fuck political correctness.

Dirckman wrote:

Dirckman appreciates feisty and apologizes for grouping all liberals into a single group....  Dirckman should apologize, he's dating a liberal!!!!

What, your new blow up doll is a liberal?