
than the fact that the wobbly girl pic is now too small...
Two wrongs don't make a right you know.
( ,
Fri 1 May 2009, 3:10,
archived)
Two wrongs don't make a right you know.

People always seem to get upset when I post this, even though the meaty bit is just a model's pouty mouth and not, in fact, the inside of a lunatic's rectum.
If you look at the actual picture, there is nothing explicitly there. You're just implying it yourself.
It's people's own sordid, experienced minds that make them scream when they see this.
( ,
Fri 1 May 2009, 3:19,
archived)
If you look at the actual picture, there is nothing explicitly there. You're just implying it yourself.
It's people's own sordid, experienced minds that make them scream when they see this.

And he even beat me to it when I was offering to self-censor.
Despite there being nothing remotely pornographic in the image, apart from nudges to the imagination of the viewer.
( ,
Fri 1 May 2009, 3:22,
archived)
Despite there being nothing remotely pornographic in the image, apart from nudges to the imagination of the viewer.

Simulated nastiness I can take, but I have to know that it's simulated for the effect to work. I'm not going to spend enough time looking at a goatse image to figure out that it's faked, and even then there is the question of why...
( ,
Fri 1 May 2009, 3:23,
archived)

All you saw was a pair of familiar, glistening hands making a gripping motion (totally innocuous in themselves) grafted on to a couple of other entirely innocuous images.
The pic itself is entirely implicit, and not at all explicit.
I wouldn't've posted it if I thought it was, cos I don't want to cause anyone trouble at work.
I am sorry if it's caused any bother, but... ffs!
( ,
Fri 1 May 2009, 3:30,
archived)
The pic itself is entirely implicit, and not at all explicit.
I wouldn't've posted it if I thought it was, cos I don't want to cause anyone trouble at work.
I am sorry if it's caused any bother, but... ffs!

but this idea of "hey I put something innocent in the picture so it's ok" really doesn't work - if I was in an office and someone ten feet away saw what looked like a picture of goatse on my screen, the HR manager really wouldn't be interested in my "no, it's actually a model's lips made to look like a stretched anus" argument.
NSFW means that if someone walked past your desk they would assume you're looking at porn/nastyness.
( ,
Fri 1 May 2009, 3:45,
archived)
NSFW means that if someone walked past your desk they would assume you're looking at porn/nastyness.

I AM SURE YOU HAVE GOT WAHT IT TAKES TO BECOME A SUCCESSFUL INTERNET BUISNESS

so that view of a stack of cds must be a bit of a disappointment.
( ,
Fri 1 May 2009, 4:45,
archived)

I PROMISE I WILL CLEAN THEM BEFORE I GIVE THEM BACK

are people who've already seen goatse.
So the damage was already done.
I must've posted that pic 3 or 4 times on the dayshift in the last 3 years or so, to a 'mixed' response - but never censorship.
Are we gonna have our b3tapics pulled because we're IMPLYING stuff?
What's happening?
( ,
Fri 1 May 2009, 3:53,
archived)
So the damage was already done.
I must've posted that pic 3 or 4 times on the dayshift in the last 3 years or so, to a 'mixed' response - but never censorship.
Are we gonna have our b3tapics pulled because we're IMPLYING stuff?
What's happening?

Let's just say that if I set that picture as my desktop on my work pc, I'd get called into some kind of HR meeting to discuss appropriate behaviour in the workplace.
( ,
Fri 1 May 2009, 4:09,
archived)