
would you be likely to think it was porn?
( ,
Mon 7 May 2007, 19:24,
archived)

How much more like wank material can it get?
( ,
Mon 7 May 2007, 19:27,
archived)

on other news: what's all the fuss about it? Why is US state protocol so special for the queen (i.e. why isn't she treated just like the head of any other state like Guinea-Bissau?) Shouldn't, if anything, be the other way around?
( ,
Mon 7 May 2007, 19:25,
archived)

I just thought she was over there having a look around and that was that
( ,
Mon 7 May 2007, 19:27,
archived)

i'm all for manners and showing respect for guests, elders etc. But *slightly* OTT perhaps?
( ,
Mon 7 May 2007, 19:58,
archived)

Just ask yourself, "Could this be mistaken for porn?" A suggestive picture of
a lady in her underwear is probably NSFW even though there is no nudity,
but a badly drawn picture of a spunking cock isn't NSFW (unless there is a
fetish site for badly drawn, spunking cocks that nobody told us about). Unquote
( ,
Mon 7 May 2007, 20:15,
archived)
a lady in her underwear is probably NSFW even though there is no nudity,
but a badly drawn picture of a spunking cock isn't NSFW (unless there is a
fetish site for badly drawn, spunking cocks that nobody told us about). Unquote

Women in music videos or on the beach wear less than this woman and they aren't NSFW.
While I'm not saying Google is entirely reliable, this was an image found with safe search on.
But then you've flatly called me a cunt before, so you clearly don't like me for some reason. Why not just put me on ignore and save us both the hassle.
( ,
Mon 7 May 2007, 20:20,
archived)
While I'm not saying Google is entirely reliable, this was an image found with safe search on.
But then you've flatly called me a cunt before, so you clearly don't like me for some reason. Why not just put me on ignore and save us both the hassle.