What he's saying is If people don't like what is displayed, or have an issue with them, then in personal preferences you can turn them off so they aren't displayed. Many people view this website in the office, whilst most avatars and signatures are fine, some aren't what you would want on display on your PC without warning - hence I have them turned off
OK, I'll try again If I switch the avatars off they are still there. If I move to somewhere where I can't hear the chanting (the equivalent of "switching off") it is still there. Do you see the similarity? I accept that most folk on here do not find any of the images offensive. Most folk on here don't mind the racist chanting either? If siteadmin are happy that young folk can stumble across these images by accident on this board ok. I'm not - that's all. On a personal note. I do not want to stop you looking at whatever you want. Just not on here. And if one more person tells me to "turn them off" I'll begin to think that they don't understand English!
What I find weird Is that your avatar is supposed to represent yourself. So, is dreamboy a lesbian? Is Stevie a blonde woman with big tits? Maybe their avatars represent how they really want to be; how they secretly desire to see themselves. I think we've got a lot of transvestites on this board. And bummers.
At the Watford game I'm going to sing Ave Maria , bounce my breasts and wear a corset . No change there , then .
I'll now try again... .. racist chanting is breaking the law and to me is deeply offensive. The items shown on the avatars are no more explicit than you can see on an episode of Hollyoakes or a daily newspaper. </p> 'Most of the folk on here don't mind racist chanting either ?' phew, that's a very wide reaching statement to make. </p>
I always thought that as well... ... so I'm Danger Mouse. Hmmm a one eyed mouse detective. A shrink would have a field day !!!
RE: I'll now try again... Well, we'll have to disagree about some of the images then. I know what is in daily "newspapers" (not all of course) and have caught the odd bit of Hollyoaks. If you are referring to gay snogging then no problem. There are / have been others on here that would never be seen in either of those. Think that is a matter of factomundo. I didn't make a statement about racist chanting. It was a question.
I think I may know the "under age sexual image" he's talking about Taxi red - I believe had an animated avtar which I've seen on YouTube (so it's not difficult for people to find) of a female sucking a lollypop in a suggestive way. To me she looked young but clearlyover the age of consentfor sex(even though she wasn't actually involved in a sexual act so isn't consenting to much really), but I think the view of some might be that because she was sucking a lollypop, she must be a child, or it was playing on the sexual prefernces of people who interested in underage sex.</p> I thought it was a very clever sexual inuendo, highly suggestive but in no way leud. I'd never even considered the angle of she'd sucking a lollypop therefore it must be child porn ... but I wasn't looking to be offended by it.</p>
This is the girl ... although it's not the same clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvdNZiUHU4A</p> </p>
Dave, I've got 14 trees in my garden..... </p> ...and you've a better chance with all but one. I think it's dead.</p> </p> </p> </p> </p> </p> .</p>
Ok .... yes smutty inuendo, i get it, it's a girl sucking a lolly that could be something else .... err how funny. Kojak had better be carefull then.</p> Now if some young kid tunes into the site... what will they see ? A girl sucking a lolly... if they already know what the other interpretation could be then how can the image corupt them ? </p> </p>