i don't disagreewith the policy, but the zealous application to the point of daily mail conservatism, is more unpleasant than most images that are accused of overstepping the mark.
despite the hand wringing to the contrary, my employer would be as likely to find a page full of dancing magenta cocks as pornographic as pixel tits.
having fallen foul of the pious porn police over an image (that was ultimately decided by the mods (as also stated in the terms) to be safe for work, it rankles.
(despite the hand wringing to the contrary, my employer would be as likely to find a page full of dancing magenta cocks as pornographic as pixel tits.
having fallen foul of the pious porn police over an image (that was ultimately decided by the mods (as also stated in the terms) to be safe for work, it rankles.
moke a man, a plan, a canal, panama!,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:32,
archived)
just don't post naked women or women in bikinisand you are safe with anything less controversial than that. It says so, in the faq. Quite clear.
(
Pasanonic 's been known to cause insanity in laboratory mice,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:34,
archived)
in that casewhy do you take a line of 'if one person doesnt like it, then link it'? that isn't the policy.
just for the chew that is.
(just for the chew that is.
moke a man, a plan, a canal, panama!,
Sun 12 Apr 2009, 13:48,
archived)