Women Flash Breasts at Putin

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Justice Charles just legislated from the bench.

"areola or more"

I told you TOS was a living document.

I wonder if in the great scheme of things here at Vj if More than Areloa is butt checks or butt cheeks is less than Areloa. I wonder if Male butt checks are more than female butt checks.

Edited April 10, 2013 by The Nature Boy

[mota bhai 2,675]

Oh dear god we saw Areola we are going to hell

But you'll be one of the few people in hell who know what an areola is.

Being one of the most knowledgeable means you'll be up for the best jobs in hell.

This could work out for the best.

[Ban Hammer 13,575]

If I do that, you will slam the ban hammer on me. Or is it within the TOS if I provide a link to a VJ post that contains a link to a site that contains a nude picture? Or would be within TOS anyways since the link is to a non-German news source containing nudity? Just need some clarity on those items...

you can send it to me in pm.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

you can send it to me in pm.

So posting links to other VJ posts is now also offending the TOS? Really? Wow.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

So posting links to other VJ posts is now also offending the TOS? Really? Wow.

Yes. I've also learned that bringing up past conversations from old threads is considered baiting.

[mota bhai 2,675]

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Yes. I've also learned that bringing up past conversations from old threads is considered baiting.

If I had a big hammer I would drop hard and fast. You are all out of control

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

If I had a big hammer I would drop hard and fast. You are all out of control

Dreaming of having a big hammer again?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

If I had a big hammer I would drop hard and fast. You are all out of control

I am sorry that you do not possess a big hammer.

Hammer envy.

[Darnell 8,479]

I saw the pic; there was indeed "areola" (seen from about a 3/4 view from behind) but nothing more - the person was not sufficiently "endowed" to even create "side #######." In fact, the person's figure did not even appear to be definitively female from that particular angle - the body was slender but not curvacious. One might have easily confused the person for a shirtless male youth, if they didn't read the article.

I agree that no nudity should be posted on this site. But a mere link to a well-known and respected newspaper like Der Spiegel should be banned ? That seems a bit "off."

At any rate, anyone can easily Google for more pics if that's what they really crave.

It was a collection of 6 photos, the first one was harmless - 2 through 5 were some really nice #######-a-lage, and of course, pic 6 was Putin shaking hands with Merk-a-wots-her-name, both fully clothed and smiling.

O Charles - Judging by pic 1, IMO, solely, should be specious, as 'not so much' was viewable. The poster already mentioned it wasn't safe for work, so there was a disclaimer (of sorts) ... But - it wasn't a photo with an IMG tag - it was a LINK to a news article in a news magazine. I can understand killing it if it was an image within an img tag - but it wasn't - it was an html link to a news article in a non-porn publication. It's on the reader to click the thing - no one forced his/her hand .

Come on Charles - you can do it - reinstate the linkage without a threadban ! Purty Please? Purty please with curry laksa on it?

Edited April 10, 2013 by Darnell

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Dreaming of having a big hammer again?

Once again every comment you make to me is a ####### reference. It's never fails. Go back and look thru our posts. I have commented on it before. I am pro gay rights, but dude I am not gay.

[Ban Hammer 13,575]

So posting links to other VJ posts is now also offending the TOS? Really? Wow.

no one said that but you. my comment about using the pm system was based on your apparent apprehension to replying in open forum.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

It was a collection of 6 photos, the first one was harmless - 2 through 5 were some really nice #######-a-lage, and of course, pic 6 was Putin shaking hands with Merk-a-wots-her-name, both fully clothed and smiling.

O Charles - Judging by pic 1, IMO, solely, should be specious, as 'not so much' was viewable. The poster already mentioned it wasn't safe for work, so there was a disclaimer (of sorts) ... But - it wasn't a photo with an IMG tag - it was a LINK to a news article in a news magazine. I can understand killing it if it was an image within an img tag - but it wasn't - it was an html link to a news article in a non-porn publication. It's on the reader to click the thing - no one forced his/her hand .

Come on Charles - you can do it - reinstate the linkage without a threadban ! Purty Please? Purty please with curry laksa on it?

Hmmm... when I clicked the link, only the one photo that I described was displayed on the page (and it was absolutely an iconic photo - Merkel and Putin's reactions were too funny.) It was at the very top of the page, followed by the article. Maybe there was a gallery that you have to click to ? I didn't proceed any further than that one page.

[SMOKE 1,426]

can someone explain the new policy on posting news articles please?

if it has nips on the front page its a no-no?

[Penny Lane 8,159]

Areola or more, PROCEED WITH CAUTION.