Conquer Club

clapper011 wrote:keep the pictures appropriate hmm? and follow the guidelines..

...says the moderator with an avatar of a woman chest.

Saxitoxin:



Army of GOD:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

clapper011 wrote:keep the pictures appropriate hmm? and follow the guidelines..

...says the moderator with an avatar of a woman chest.

A picture of an anus is just a little more inappropriate than a picture of clothed breasts, don't you think?

thegreekdog wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

clapper011 wrote:keep the pictures appropriate hmm? and follow the guidelines..

...says the moderator with an avatar of a woman chest.

A picture of an anus is just a little more inappropriate than a picture of clothed breasts, don't you think?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You chose the bust of a classic ancient civilization as your avatar, yet, you didn't chose the breast nor the balls and shaft which are also prominent in those ancient sculptures. To choose to post a picture which demonstrates artistic license by placing an anus in the place of Rush Limbaugh's mouth demostrates wit (miniscule though it may be.) To choose an avatar of "clothed breasts" is far from unique, certainly isn't witty, and serves to continue to denigrate women. Now, I'm no member of NOW and I do not think highly of Gloria Steinam, but you did posit the comparison, so I believe by saying that it "serves to denigrate women" is a fair representation of a moderator's avatar when the moderator himself is declaring pictures posted by others to be "inappropriate."

Queen_Herpes wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

clapper011 wrote:keep the pictures appropriate hmm? and follow the guidelines..

...says the moderator with an avatar of a woman chest.

A picture of an anus is just a little more inappropriate than a picture of clothed breasts, don't you think?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You chose the bust of a classic ancient civilization as your avatar, yet, you didn't chose the breast nor the balls and shaft which are also prominent in those ancient sculptures. To choose to post a picture which demonstrates artistic license by placing an anus in the place of Rush Limbaugh's mouth demostrates wit (miniscule though it may be.) To choose an avatar of "clothed breasts" is far from unique, certainly isn't witty, and serves to continue to denigrate women. Now, I'm no member of NOW and I do not think highly of Gloria Steinam, but you did posit the comparison, so I believe by saying that it "serves to denigrate women" is a fair representation of a moderator's avatar when the moderator himself is declaring pictures posted by others to be "inappropriate."

When I say "inappropriate" I mean in light of the forum rules. The comparison lies within the rules of this particular site. I did not intend to make a societal comparison between the appropriateness of a woman's clothed breasts and an anus. I can certainly appreciate your comments above and I can appreciate the wit of picture Rush Limbaugh with an anus instead of a mouth. However, it is inappropriate, based on the forum rules to post a picture of an anus (and unclothed genitalia and/or female breasts). It is not inappropriate, based on the forum rules, to post pictures of clothed breasts. In fact, we have an entire thread dedicated to hot, sexy women.

In sum, anuses = against the rules; pictures of clothed breasts = not against the rules.

thegreekdog wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

clapper011 wrote:keep the pictures appropriate hmm? and follow the guidelines..

...says the moderator with an avatar of a woman chest.

A picture of an anus is just a little more inappropriate than a picture of clothed breasts, don't you think?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You chose the bust of a classic ancient civilization as your avatar, yet, you didn't chose the breast nor the balls and shaft which are also prominent in those ancient sculptures. To choose to post a picture which demonstrates artistic license by placing an anus in the place of Rush Limbaugh's mouth demostrates wit (miniscule though it may be.) To choose an avatar of "clothed breasts" is far from unique, certainly isn't witty, and serves to continue to denigrate women. Now, I'm no member of NOW and I do not think highly of Gloria Steinam, but you did posit the comparison, so I believe by saying that it "serves to denigrate women" is a fair representation of a moderator's avatar when the moderator himself is declaring pictures posted by others to be "inappropriate."

When I say "inappropriate" I mean in light of the forum rules. The comparison lies within the rules of this particular site. I did not intend to make a societal comparison between the appropriateness of a woman's clothed breasts and an anus. I can certainly appreciate your comments above and I can appreciate the wit of picture Rush Limbaugh with an anus instead of a mouth. However, it is inappropriate, based on the forum rules to post a picture of an anus (and unclothed genitalia and/or female breasts). It is not inappropriate, based on the forum rules, to post pictures of clothed breasts. In fact, we have an entire thread dedicated to hot, sexy women.

In sum, anuses = against the rules; pictures of clothed breasts = not against the rules.

I was hoping for a funnier response. With all the thought I put into entertaining you in my post, I didn't expect your response to be so dry.

Your post was equally dry. I didn't get beyond the second sentence the first time.

More of a tl;dr thing, once I knew the direction it was heading in.

the.killing.44:

thegreekdog wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

clapper011 wrote:keep the pictures appropriate hmm? and follow the guidelines..

...says the moderator with an avatar of a woman chest.

A picture of an anus is just a little more inappropriate than a picture of clothed breasts, don't you think?

Now boys and girls! Stop it! Let's all calm down and put the gun down.

It's all my fault and only mine. I just didn't know that Greekdog was a big fan of Rush Limbaugh....go figure. Greekdog, I'm so sorry your feeling got hurt when I posted an image of your likeness. I know, I know, I know, you have my life in your hands. You'll probably stalk me to Hell and back, just so you can get revenge and have me vanish without a trace. Never to be heard from ever again in these forums.

Please forgive me, next time I'll post a picture of some muscle guy for your likeness, ok? Forgive me?

NOW! Back on topic!

CLAPPER

Queen_Herpes wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

clapper011 wrote:keep the pictures appropriate hmm? and follow the guidelines..

...says the moderator with an avatar of a woman chest.

A picture of an anus is just a little more inappropriate than a picture of clothed breasts, don't you think?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You chose the bust of a classic ancient civilization as your avatar, yet, you didn't chose the breast nor the balls and shaft which are also prominent in those ancient sculptures. To choose to post a picture which demonstrates artistic license by placing an anus in the place of Rush Limbaugh's mouth demostrates wit (miniscule though it may be.) To choose an avatar of "clothed breasts" is far from unique, certainly isn't witty, and serves to continue to denigrate women. Now, I'm no member of NOW and I do not think highly of Gloria Steinam, but you did posit the comparison, so I believe by saying that it "serves to denigrate women" is a fair representation of a moderator's avatar when the moderator himself is declaring pictures posted by others to be "inappropriate."

HERself , the breasts in my avatar are fully clothed.. so does this mean that your avatar which is of Medusa... mean that you hate all men? I doubt that. point being that picture showed an anus.. which is classified in the GUIDELINES as inappropriate. along the same lines as nudity. please read the guidelines before commenting about a general warning I gave. thanks!

clappy!

Queen_Herpes wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

thegreekdog wrote: ...says the moderator with an avatar of a woman chest.

A picture of an anus is just a little more inappropriate than a picture of clothed breasts, don't you think?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You chose the bust of a classic ancient civilization as your avatar, yet, you didn't chose the breast nor the balls and shaft which are also prominent in those ancient sculptures. To choose to post a picture which demonstrates artistic license by placing an anus in the place of Rush Limbaugh's mouth demostrates wit (miniscule though it may be.) To choose an avatar of "clothed breasts" is far from unique, certainly isn't witty, and serves to continue to denigrate women. Now, I'm no member of NOW and I do not think highly of Gloria Steinam, but you did posit the comparison, so I believe by saying that it "serves to denigrate women" is a fair representation of a moderator's avatar when the moderator himself is declaring pictures posted by others to be "inappropriate."

When I say "inappropriate" I mean in light of the forum rules. The comparison lies within the rules of this particular site. I did not intend to make a societal comparison between the appropriateness of a woman's clothed breasts and an anus. I can certainly appreciate your comments above and I can appreciate the wit of picture Rush Limbaugh with an anus instead of a mouth. However, it is inappropriate, based on the forum rules to post a picture of an anus (and unclothed genitalia and/or female breasts). It is not inappropriate, based on the forum rules, to post pictures of clothed breasts. In fact, we have an entire thread dedicated to hot, sexy women.

In sum, anuses = against the rules; pictures of clothed breasts = not against the rules.

I was hoping for a funnier response. With all the thought I put into entertaining you in my post, I didn't expect your response to be so dry.[/quote]
oh.. and... my avatar is more on the humour of the men and women that enjoy staring at breasts.... so there for I have a avatar that says to stop looking! and well.. there is plenty of humour in that...

Debater wrote:
CLAPPER

wrong! I do not smoke

InkL0sed wrote:Your post was equally dry. I didn't get beyond the second sentence the first time.

Darn it! InkL0sed ran too fast for me to take his picture. He was caught leaving this truck.

None of that is quite a bad as posting in dead threads...

Debater wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

clapper011 wrote:keep the pictures appropriate hmm? and follow the guidelines..

...says the moderator with an avatar of a woman chest.

A picture of an anus is just a little more inappropriate than a picture of clothed breasts, don't you think?

Now boys and girls! Stop it! Let's all calm down and put the gun down.

It's all my fault and only mine. I just didn't know that Greekdog was a big fan of Rush Limbaugh....go figure.

Click image to enlarge.

Greekdog, I'm so sorry your feeling got hurt when I posted an image of your likeness. I know, I know, I know, you have my life in your hands. You'll probably stalk me to Hell and back, just so you can get revenge and have me vanish without a trace. Never to be heard from ever again in these forums.

Please forgive me, next time I'll post a picture of some muscle guy for your likeness, ok? Forgive me?

NOW! Back on topic!

See? Was that so hard? No pictures of anuses there. No need to remove the picture. Good work, I'm proud of you.

I have had an epiphany. jefjef has had an accelerated puberty. His evolved form is Debater.

Queen_Herpes wrote: I was hoping for a funnier response. With all the thought I put into entertaining you in my post, I didn't expect your response to be so dry.

If it's any consolation, I contemplated changing my avatar to a picture of a sculpture of Pericles' genitalia, but I thought that would get me banned (plus it's hard to find a sculpture of Pericles' genitalia when I can't google those types of things at work).

See! thegreekdog has a sense of humor when he deigns it appropriate. I think it is Queen Herpes who is lacking in that department.

AoG:

Nah, he's 5'7"—way too tall to be AoG.

Same face though.

Queen_Herpes wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote: ...says the moderator with an avatar of a woman chest.

A picture of an anus is just a little more inappropriate than a picture of clothed breasts, don't you think?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You chose the bust of a classic ancient civilization as your avatar, yet, you didn't chose the breast nor the balls and shaft which are also prominent in those ancient sculptures. To choose to post a picture which demonstrates artistic license by placing an anus in the place of Rush Limbaugh's mouth demostrates wit (miniscule though it may be.) To choose an avatar of "clothed breasts" is far from unique, certainly isn't witty, and serves to continue to denigrate women. Now, I'm no member of NOW and I do not think highly of Gloria Steinam, but you did posit the comparison, so I believe by saying that it "serves to denigrate women" is a fair representation of a moderator's avatar when the moderator himself is declaring pictures posted by others to be "inappropriate."

When I say "inappropriate" I mean in light of the forum rules. The comparison lies within the rules of this particular site. I did not intend to make a societal comparison between the appropriateness of a woman's clothed breasts and an anus. I can certainly appreciate your comments above and I can appreciate the wit of picture Rush Limbaugh with an anus instead of a mouth. However, it is inappropriate, based on the forum rules to post a picture of an anus (and unclothed genitalia and/or female breasts). It is not inappropriate, based on the forum rules, to post pictures of clothed breasts. In fact, we have an entire thread dedicated to hot, sexy women.

In sum, anuses = against the rules; pictures of clothed breasts = not against the rules.

I was hoping for a funnier response. With all the thought I put into entertaining you in my post, I didn't expect your response to be so dry.

Certainly, attacking moderators should always result in responses by them that aren't serious and "dry".

thegreekdog wrote:

Queen_Herpes wrote: I was hoping for a funnier response. With all the thought I put into entertaining you in my post, I didn't expect your response to be so dry.

If it's any consolation, I contemplated changing my avatar to a picture of a sculpture of Pericles' genitalia, but I thought that would get me banned (plus it's hard to find a sculpture of Pericles' genitalia when I can't google those types of things at work).

You try to google male genitalia at work?

Well you are Greek.

the.killing.44 wrote:Nah, he's 5'7"—way too tall to be AoG.

f*ck you. I AM 5'7''!

Also, I think I'm more like Steven Colbert.