TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
ur assuming that by not mentioning them i am not blaming them. that is an incorrect assumption...The_KFD_Case wrote...
TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
ur first para i concur with and will rightly apologize for it...
can u direct me to said pages...not in a snide manner.. but peple usually will recall events in their own perception so it would be better for u to give me them to drag them up(also, he posted somehting elselewd which i did not argue against and even praised him for doing so...)
and lastly,i am dissatisfied with the warning...a warning was provided...i do not dispute that... i merely stated, or it was my intention to do so, that the warning could have been clearer than it was so the less informed , like myself, would not have too see it... i do not think it unreasonable to have changed the word pron to porn...
Jake's initial link post took place on page 2972. You then commented that not everyone might know the meaning of "pron" which raises the question as to whether you actually were one of those people or not? If not then it runs contrary to one of your latter arguments.
Things steadily pick up from there.
On page 2975 you state the following:
"he didnt give sufficient warning...sufficient warning would have been
something to the effect of: picture cntaining pornographic
material.click at own risk... his obscure warning is horrible
considering not everyone is bothered by the same material. my warning
would have a better chance at not leading someone to be offended by the
material depicted"
Page 2975 of this thread.
Thus you placed the blame squarely on him and tried to assert your own wants/desires for what would be considered sufficient warning. Regardless, an explicit warning was provided.
and i didnt know wat pron meant
you guys are still argueing about this? Wow thats dedication, even by my standards. And I like to debate.




Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut






