Tooks some pics at the gym today!

[DanB]

Anyone get my joke with the picture of the stoned horse btw?


It was a high horse!!!111

[manker]

Anyone get my joke with the picture of the stoned horse btw?


It was a high horse!!!111

Meh, aim lower. Also it looked a bit fresian to me as I didn't look too close.

No-one got me Arthur Andersen joke last night, either

[Cheese]

Meh, aim lower. Also it looked a bit fresian to me as I didn't look too close.

No-one got me Arthur Andersen joke last night, either

I still don't get it.

I don't get the joke either.

[manker]

You saying I'm meek?




Actually, I am a bit of a chicken. And this lil chicken had best get off to bed as the games here will commence again in not too many hours


Night all and play semi-nice will ya's?

No I wasn't, you have the excuse of finding it all a bit tiresome cause it's emulating your kiddies.

Also you did post

Nighty, night

[manker]

I still don't get it.

I don't get the joke either.

I think Dan got it cause he said it was shit

I'm not sure if he got the joke tho'

[*goddess*]

Yeah, but I usually don't post.


You have got a point tonight tho.

You're dead right on the rugrats, I come in here to get away from that stuff


Really gone now.

[scribblec]

porn

[NikkiD]

Manker, I totally agree, that if you have a child that has access to a computer, that computer should be locked down with a safeguard. In most cases, these are foolproof. However, Net Nanny only works with IE and with Netscape. Sometimes it works with Firefox. I do know this from experience, as my friend's son has recently started browsing porn and I installed this software for him, and the son, who is 12, has easily gotten around it by installing different browsers which are not compliant with Net Nanny. This is also only a safeguard when the kids are in their own house, for example, when my son leaves the safety of our computer and goes to one of his friends houses, I can't be sure what's on there and what's not.

I don't agree with the moderators having to be a babysitting service - parents "should" have more control over what their kids are doing on the net. However, as a board that allows membership to anyone aged 13 and up, the rules were put in place because many of the members are younger. There is also the fact that guests are allowed to view posts and click links - and guests can be any age. The point is, topless pics and links are allowed, full frontal is not. I'm getting sick of seeing it as well - and have reported it when I have seen it left for so long. It's not only the pictures on this most recent site (which this guy had posted several links to) that concerned me, but the links on those sites and the advertisements. It goes from full frontal to full penetration among other things.

As far as Jonno posting his pic - I was a mod at the time, and when he did it, he received warnings from both myself and Lamsey even after he removed the pic himself. He is right in saying that it was only up for 4 minutes. He learned his lesson, and hasn't posted it again. I don't find it at all hypocritical that he gets upset when other people get away with something he got in shit for. I would too.

[manker]

Nikki, If you don't give them administrator access they wouldn't be able to install FF. Net Nanny works just fine. I do take your point about while in other people's houses tho' - that is a more difficult issue.

My points were far from it being fine to post porn here, I do not want to see it while at fst. However it is inevitable that porn will be posted here because of the moderate approach of the team, the availability of interweb porn and the abundance of folk who think posting it is cool.

Therefore it is inevitable that kids will see full frontal nudity if they browse this forum or others like it. It is only the parents who can stop their child from seeing porn at fst. As you say, it is not the mods responsibility -- neither is it your's or Jonno's.

Lastly if Jonno is pissed because he got into trouble for doing something and he sees others are getting away with it then that is understandable. Personally it wouldn't bother me but I can see that it would irk some folk, but that wasn't the point.

The hypocritical element occurs when a moral stance is taken.

[NikkiD]

True, without administrator access, kids can't install other software - but not everyone runs XP/2000. Setting policies and profiles in 98 is a little more difficult, and there are still a lot of people using it unfortunately.

I don't pretend to be taking a moral stance on it - as someone who's had their own pics posted here time and time again, albeit not by me. As someone who knows Jonno well though, and has for a long time, I suppose I see it more as a change of heart than a moral high horse. Speaking from my knowledge of him, if this had been a year and a half ago, he probably would have laughed at the links and not said another word.