Originally posted by pawnhandlerSomething about this argument just doesn't seem right. Do you really
...but porn on the side is still porn and not innocence.
believe that the innocent eyes you're trying to protect can go anywhere on
the web without being exposed to such things? Use a family filter for crying
out loud. So a site that is not at all about porn, but makes a few bucks
serving up ads, can't be linked too because you don't know how to block ads
on your children's computers? What!? Are we supposed to consider every
link path too? Like, ok, this site I'm now linking to doesn't have any nudity
in it. Good. Now, let's see what happens if I click ALL the links in the page.
Nope. No porn there. Wait! This third level click sent me to a site posing a
questionable image. Hmm, what to do?..
Originally posted by leisurelyslothOh my GOD! 😲 Dirty bums dot com exists now!
Even that doesn't seem like an entirely sound practice. Just because a website doesn't exist today, doesn't mean it won't tomorrow.
Yes, but not much happening there. I think, still, as it suggests something
different, we should not be able to link to it. If we do, and your kids has
family filters on, they'll be able to imaaagine the content, which is also
pretty bad, really. 😕
Originally posted by PhlabibitGreat so with the five bucks you just earned on the bet, you can appologize and buy Zadadka a free weeks subscription. Since you can't prove the link existed before he posted the web page. The burden of proof is up to the accuser not the accused.
WHOA! This is true!
P-
Zadadka needs to withdraw his guilty verdict.
Originally posted by cashthetrashDon't be stupid. Ooops, forgot who I'm talking to.
Great so with the five bucks you just earned on the bet, you can appologize and buy Zadadka a free weeks subscription. Since you can't prove the link existed before he posted the web page. The burden of proof is up to the accuser not the accused.
Zadadka needs to withdraw his guilty verdict.
P-
