Dear SPOnG, would it not be possible to publish a picture of Pocket nude, but with two strategically positioned games boxes preserving her mystery? Just a thought
Dear Anonymous,
No.
How about you try to write better than Pocket, and not post 'anon', then we'll take you seriously.
How about you try to write better than Pocket, and not post 'anon', then we'll take you seriously.
Why would I want to write better than anyone? I'm a reader. If everyone aspired to be a writer, you'd be out of a job.
If you don't want to have people posting anonymously, why do you enable it on your website?
And if you are going to refuse to take one of your readers seriously because they dare to to say what many of them are thinking, maybe you are in the wrong job.
Why would I want to write better than anyone? I'm a reader. If everyone aspired to be a writer, you'd be out of a job.
No, I wouldn't. It would just be more competitive.
Raul Paymonde wrote:
If you don't want to have people posting anonymously, why do you enable it on your website?
Good point. I retract.
Raul Paymonde wrote:
And if you are going to refuse to take one of your readers seriously because they dare to to say what many of them are thinking, maybe you are in the wrong job.
If I hadn't taken it a bit seriously, I wouldn't have responded. I did both - and I am responding again.
I was responding to someone posting under the aegis of an old school pornographer asking for nude shots. So, as far as (and here, I paraphrase) "daring to say what many are thinking", goes - are you possibly taking yourself a little too seriously?
So, as far as (and here, I paraphrase) "daring to say what many are thinking", goes - are you possibly taking yourself a little too seriously?
Our readers are predominantly male. It therefore stands to reason that more than most of them would like to see Pocket in the buff. Seems to me that he (or she!?) IS saying what many are thinking. Look inside your own heart and say it isn't true.
And if you DO insist it in pretending it isn't, see if you can say "I am not Gay" with a straight face.
Our readers are predominantly male. It therefore stands to reason that more than most of them would like to see Pocket in the buff. Seems to me that he (or she!?) IS saying what many are thinking. Look inside your own heart and say it isn't true.
It was the 'daring to say' I was referring to. "Daring"? I mean, what am I? Mr Dead Evil The Bastard or something - what was I going to do?
DoctorDee wrote:
And if you DO insist it in pretending it isn't, see if you can say "I am not Gay" with a straight face.
Plus, I mean aren't you Brits supposed to be all casual about that kind of stuff...I mean on an American site, it would be "daring" and terribly "un-PC", and would probably be sexual harrassment if a co-worker appeared to echo such a sentiment, by admitting that he had a penis...here?...bring on the SPOnG page 2 grrlz (or whichever page it is you lot use for teh cheesecake)
Truth be told, I recall considering making such a comment myself, for some reason I feel some shame for this, can't possibly understand why, but rejected the idea as too boorish for my own self-image...bugger that, arr, bring on the nekkid pitchers uv grrlz, ye poncy bastids...RAmen. Pastafarian doctrine should guide us in this, nekkid pitchers are beloved of the FSM, indeed, insofar as they recall the stripper factories in Heaven they are Holy. Reflect also upon their synergystic relationship with Beer, which also Art in Heaven, erupting from the Great Sacred Volcanoes. Indeed they are the very stuff of Heaven on this poor Earth. RAmen.
...bring on the SPOnG page 2 grrlz (or whichever page it is you lot use for teh cheesecake)
Traditionally, it's Page 3 - well, that's in The Sun 'newspaper'. I can't remember where The Star put its Starbirds. But ancient tradition has topless ladies on Page 3. Fully-naked ladies are still frowned upon. Remember this is a nation that covered up table legs lest their lewdness should spark ruddity.
Also, most Brits are bloody heathen Protestants anyway and go to Hell immediately they think of nakedness.
PreciousRoi wrote:
Truth be told, I recall considering making such a comment myself, for some reason I feel some shame for this, can't possibly understand why, but rejected the idea as too boorish for my own self-image...bugger that, arr, bring on the nekkid pitchers uv grrlz, ye poncy bastids...
First off, is "bugger that" really a good choice of words?
Second off, you said 'boorish'... eheheh...
Sure let's make this easy to start with - please can everybody send in naked pics of their female relatives at your earliest convenience.
Hmmm...one of you (not you Tim, obviously) damn American kids could always infiltrate Spring Break with a camera, I'm too old for that s**t, someone would confuse me with a producer from "Girls Gone Wild" or a porno recruiter or something...
Hmmm...one of you (not you Tim, obviously) damn American kids could always infiltrate Spring Break with a camera, I'm too old for that s**t, someone would confuse me with a producer from "Girls Gone Wild" or a porno recruiter or something...
I've been planning a Spring Break vacation for years now. I have a camera with a very long lens. Can you perchance suggest some good dates and locations? I've also heard of some mythical "Party Cove" where apparently it's spring break every weekend in summer. But I don't know where it is.
But let's be clear about this... female nudity is good, but we're a gaming site. Unless these girls play games (and Tim might suggest all girls do!) we don't want their stinking pictures.
[EDIT]Google is your friend. Party Cove is on the Lake of the Ozarks.
But let's be clear about this... female nudity is good, but we're a gaming site. Unless these girls play games (and Tim might suggest all girls do!) we don't want their stinking pictures.
Of course all girls don't play games, only the ones I come across.
Just a thought.