TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
The_KFD_Case wrote...
TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
The_KFD_Case wrote...
TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
The_KFD_Case wrote...
TGFKAMAdmaX wrote...
malkiah13 wrote...
My two sense for the whole "oh jake didn't warn me enough" crap. Its what jake does. He posts stuff like that. It doesn't matter if his warning was vague; if you've been here for like, a freaking day, then that should be all you need to decide if you wanna look or not. Besides, its just a picture. You'll live
i have been here for a day and that was the first time he put said link...aslo, his past actions are not an exscuse for his current ones.lastly, this could all end if kfd will admit that she is wrong
1) I'm a "he" not a she. There you go assuming things again. Funny how that works since you appear so eager to accuse others of the same thing.
2) As for ending this for being "wrong", right back at ya. I've backed up my arguments based on the facts. You have tried to back yours up based on hyperbole. Since you seem incapable of persuading me that leaves you with one other option: Empirically prove I'm wrong. That is unlikely given the circumstances since the facts are that a clear warning was provided. That you didn't think it was sufficient warning is a matter of personal taste which there is no accounting for.
1. the s in she is a typo...go back and look in other posts and you will see evidence that i know u are of the male gender...nice ASSUMPTION however...good to see u using the ol noodle
2. if neither of us can provide sufficient evidence then this will never be more than a draw... and the fact that u think that it was a proper enough warning and i think the opposite is a matter of opinion... so neither of us is "wrong"
I see. So what you are saying is that I should have known what you were referring to because it has been established as common knowledge previously. That is the exact same logic that others have used when explaining the "pron" part of the warning in Jake's link. Isn't it wonderful when we are in agreement? 
This isn't a draw, but if it makes you feel better in the morning feel free to pretend thus. If you want to avoid embarrassment such as this in the future I recommend sticking to the clear facts and carefully choosing your words once you have clearly thought through the argument you wish to pursue. Then stick with it. Flip flopping all over the place doesn't help.
not flip flopping and the point of one was to show you that u assue also when u have been so keen on saying you dont
And in doing so you shoot yourself in the foot. Unfortunate. Besides, I've stuck to the empirical facts.
no u havent stuck to them...read my simplified version so you can understand
comes down to :
1.there was a warning
2.people saw it who didnt want to
3.which means either they didnt read carefully or it wasnt properly labeled...
4.label said pron not porn...doesnt seem properly labeled...and the warning sign could lend credence o opposng arguments...
5. site rules: No Topics of an illicit or illegal nature. Warez, software piracy, illegal activites, pornography, posting copyrighted material or scans of such material, etc. are not welcome here and will be removed without warning. Posters of such material will be dealt with on a case by case basis. A person or persons found to discuss such matters may be banned from these forums at the discretion of the staff
6. site rules can lead one to assume that it is something else other than porn because porns not allowed...
7.it was porn
8. if properly labeled this could have been adverted
1) Yes there was a warning and thus Jake's post lived up to reasonable responsibility.
2) People were not forced to see what the link led to. If they saw it they either clicked on the link by accident or intentionally. In the former case it is no one's fault per se. In the latter case responsibility rests with the individual carrying out the action of his/her own free will.
3) If they didn't read the warning carefully then that too is their responsibility otherwise any form of labeled warning would be meaningless. A full warning label was provided. That you don't like it doesn't change that
fact.
4) Your arguments have done nothing to remove the individual responsibility of each person who has freely chosen to click on that link.
5) I didn't see anything violate those rules. I saw a link with a clear warning label on it. Please explain how that violates the ToS.
6) Whatever a person assumes is not the responsibility of another unless it can be established that intentional deceit and misleading information was provided. That is not the case in this instance. Also note that thinking for oneself is allowed.
7) It was a link or do you consider the words "Blasphemous Tali Pron - Click at your own risk" to be porno as understood by the visual media that it is?
8) It was properly labelled as a potentially dangerous sign. If you were unsure about what it might link to you had the option of inquiring further.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
