"Beastiality"

Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess you dont understand what clarifying the rules means..... and free speech.

The rules clearly says.... members. I was not aware a fictional character was a member....therefor...NOT covered under the new rule.

It's not a issue of speech. It's that you're an arrogant and pompous indivual. Wanna be sexy woman. You're ugly though.

Junky personality

It is an issue of speech for everyone who doesn't worship pig sucking pedophiles.

I'm sure Jesus taught you that. Aww poor guy.
 
Would be nice if you guys just made it clear that no member should infer another member participates in any obscene activities.

Illegal or not.

Issues should be debated. Not posters.

What is obscene? What if we want to debate about posters?




Yeah, like we could always debate whether or not a Quantum is a big enough word for your windbaggery... :eusa_angel:

If we did I would easily prove I am more than a quantum sized windbag, just look at how annoyed BecauseIKnow is right now.
 
Is saying that someone wants to have Sex with Candy Crowley the same as Referencing Beastiality?...

crowley.jpg


:dunno:

:)

peace...

No. Carry On.
 
What about the accusation of having sexual relations with the bearer of children?
Is that less offensive?
 
No more kissing frogs to find my prince...

You can still do it...just don't brag about it on this forum.

hang on...

the rule says we may not infer about what beasts any other member may be fucking.... not about if they say it, own it... and claim it boldly for themselves.....

and if once outed by said self... is it fair game to comment on... you know... like the keeping it all in the family rule.....


yep....i like clarity!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top