# What is your definition of NSFW?



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 18, 2011)

Well? What do you think it is? Let me explain:

I had a steamprofile sig like I do now, but only the avatar I had was of Eva Mendes. You know her, that chick with the mole who was in Hitch, 2 Fast 2 Furious, The Other Guys. Or if you still don't know her, she's an American movie actress. Here's a picture.



Spoiler












While may not be for all, for some, she is a beautiful women. She did a modelling shoot, and I decided "hey, I find this picture attractive of her, I'll put that on steamprofile avatar ". Couple days went by and I get a PM, "your sig has been removed". I won't say who for obvious reasons (not trying to start something with you here buddy, I'm just curious of peoples opinions on NSFW in general). I contacted the moderator and was told because some people found it offensive. I was confused as to why or what would make someone think it's offensive. It's a photoshoot picture. It's no different than kids seeing Britney Spears Toxic video on MTV, or Christina Aguilera's "Dirty" video.

If you are curious as to what the picture was, here you go. Now remember, for some, this is somehow NSFW and offensive. But remember, she is a movie actress, and tons of actresses do shoots like this all the time.



Spoiler: Possibly NSFW image











So? What is your definition of NSFW and offensive?


----------



## emigre (Oct 18, 2011)

I'd say that's NSFW. It's not offensive unless you're a insanely sensitive but I wouldn't appreciate that type of signature if I'm browsing at work.


----------



## Hells Malice (Oct 18, 2011)

/was hoping for more nudity.
That's not NSFW at all. She's got her back to the camera and you see more ass at the beach from most girls there.

NSFW to me is more or less nudity. Or very close to it. But that picture isn't even borderline, far from it.

I'd also call my loli/cuteness library NSFW simply because my boss or any coworker would be like "...the hell" if they saw a 19 year old guy browsing it.
Though that's pretty gender-specific as to being NSFW. Unlike nudity, if a girl was looking at a library of loli pics...it'd be fine.


EDIT: Though, I can't turn back time 7 years to see how i'd react if I was 12.
This site has a LOT of incredibly young members. Hell i'm surprised this place isn't moderated like a disney forum.


----------



## prowler (Oct 18, 2011)

Hells Malice said:


> That's not NSFW at all. She's got her back to the camera and you see more ass at the beach from most girls there.


It's NSFW because if a boss/supervisor walks past, they would question it and question your job.

That pretty much sums up NSFW.

Edit: and there is other types of NSFW, like gore or something but that's more NSFL.


----------



## Depravo (Oct 18, 2011)

Ask your boss. Theirs is the only definition that matters.


----------



## bowser (Oct 18, 2011)

I'll probably get a lot of facepalms for this but.....what's NSFW?


----------



## Hells Malice (Oct 18, 2011)

prowler_ said:


> Hells Malice said:
> 
> 
> > That's not NSFW at all. She's got her back to the camera and you see more ass at the beach from most girls there.
> ...



My boss wouldn't care.
My friends boss would probably give him a promotion or something >_>;;

I'm aware of what NSFW is, and that's not NSFW.

Hell if that's NSFW, stay off the internet during work...because that picture is about .01/10 in terms of what the internet can deliver for NSFW.
Pretty sure there's a few hentai-pose sigs and avatars still floating around the temp that I see. Aren't those NSFW too?
There's some pretty creepy pics floatin' around. Wouldn't want my boss seein' those.
Furry pics? Can't say I want my boss seein' those.
I could go on and on with crap that's essentially on par with that picture that doesn't get censored for being "NSFW".


EDIT:





bowser said:


> I'll probably get a lot of facepalms for this but.....what's NSFW?




Not Safe For Wong

Wong is an overly sensitive chinese dude that patrols the internet.




Actually, it's not safe for work.


----------



## raulpica (Oct 18, 2011)

Hells Malice said:


> Not Safe For Wong
> 
> Wong is an overly sensitive chinese dude that patrols the internet.


I lol'd IRL. Well played, good sir, well played.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Oct 18, 2011)

bowser said:


> I'll probably get a lot of facepalms for this but.....what's NSFW?



I've seen this question asked no less than three times this week.
Have people really forgotten what Google is for?


----------



## Skelletonike (Oct 18, 2011)

Well, I don't see anything wrong with it, I guess it depends on the people... I guess you could say my sig isn't very 'decent' either but I've had it for around one year on this forum (for longer maybe on other forums) and in my case, I think anything besides nudity would be fine... Really dunno. *Saves the pic nonetheless* >3

Edit: I find the wiki example of what's sfw and nstw funny. xP

"The opposite, *SFW* (*safe for work*) is sometimes used when the context or the URL itself would otherwise indicate that something is NSFW; for example:
http://www.example.com/pussy.jpg (*SFW*)
might link to a picture of a cat (SFW), for example, rather than female genitalia (NSFW)."


----------



## amptor (Oct 18, 2011)

well I'm at work and I viewed it, second image definitely NSFW but oh well 

fuckin hot.


----------



## Densetsu (Oct 18, 2011)

It takes a lot to offend me.

Things I'm offended by include, but are not limited to:
2 girls 1 cup
2 girls 1 finger
1 guy 1 horse
_Final Fantasy XIII_
1 guy 1 cup
child pornography
authentic execution videos
puppies being set on fire

But if I were a boss in an office, I wouldn't be in the least bit offended by a pic of Eva Mendes' crack on someone's desktop wallpaper.  But if a female employee came to me and told me that she found it offensive, I would have no choice but to tell the person to change it.


----------



## Sheimi (Oct 18, 2011)

I always thought NSFW dealt with pron. But it stands for Not Safe For Work


----------



## Hop2089 (Oct 18, 2011)

NSFW

Fully nude women and topless females without nips covered (it's moderate if covered and is rendered safe but borderline)

Nude lolis (even covered with a modesty towel, snake, etc. on) and ones doing intercourse (including masterbation, lolis that are fully clothed are completely safe, ones in non-see though lingerie are borderline, even then I don't recommend viewing them at work at all)

Gore for any purpose other than the news or other aspect of informational value that and murder except for historical, informational (for investigations) or educational value.

Intercourse of any kind even masturbation

Suicide videos (not offensive because it's the persons choice but never safe for work at all)

Yosuga no Sora

Aki-Sora

OVAs of Kodomo no Jikan (especially the last OVA of Natsu), the TV version is borderline

Most VN unless they are all ages versions initially (Clannad, Sister Princess, Ever 17) or is the all ages version of it (Mashiroiro Symphony Mutsu no Hana, Shukufuku no Campanella Portable) is NSFW and most aren't offensive save for Rapelay (If I was a boss I would allow some all ages VNs to be played but no 18+ ones)

Most of everything by Tony Taka is NSFW except for a select few things (EX Shining Hearts) with nothing offensive.

Most doujin games except Touhou (the games, art is heavily NSFW) and several others are NSFW or borderline, Mugen is NSFW.

Queen's Gate is slightly NSFW how it got a D rating is anyones guess, To Heart 2 Dungeon Travellers is very close to being NSFW.

Offensive

Racial, ethnic, or other slurs and content including symbolism used outside of historical or cultural value (Ex Swastika isn't offensive in a certain cultural context in Asia).  Things like Wolfenstein also fall into historical value due to the story, pretty much anything WWII using swastikas isn't offensive even if it's fiction but can be considered heavily NSFW.

Child Porn

Execution videos especially by terrorists and kidnappers, the only exception is if it has historical value (hanging of Saddam)

Videos of people getting run over that isn't a Jackass stunt (voluntary) or for informational value, worse if no bystanders help.

Rapelay

Mai Chan's Daily Life

Guro in general


----------



## Xuphor (Oct 19, 2011)

NSFW is.... Not Safe for Work.

It's anything (*ANYTHING*) that can get you into trouble at work for viewing, that is ALL that it means.
That picture does NOT offend me, but it DOES qualify as NSFW. If I looked up that picture while at work and a boss came in and saw it, I'd be in big trouble.

Seriously, how is that confusing at all? If what you are viewing can get you into ANY trouble at work, it's NSFW or "Not Safe For Work".
This also means NSFW =/= what you find offensive, they are very different topics.


----------



## Sicklyboy (Oct 19, 2011)

Hop2089 said:


> Mai Chan's Daily Life



Made me lol.


----------



## Chikaku-chan (Oct 19, 2011)

I guess anything explicit....


----------



## Nathan Drake (Oct 19, 2011)

Densetsu said:


> It takes a lot to offend me.
> 
> Things I'm offended by include, but are not limited to:
> 2 girls 1 cup
> ...



Well played, sir.

I consider NSFW anything that falls within these parameters:
-Nudity
-Gore
-Offensive content (ie: 2 Girls 1 Cup and beyond)
-Scantily clad women (underwear shoots, for example)
-Anything that could be interpreted as an erotic image by either sex

That covers all of your general bases of NSFW land.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 19, 2011)

Xuphor said:


> NSFW is.... Not Safe for Work.
> 
> It's anything (*ANYTHING*) that can get you into trouble at work for viewing, that is ALL that it means.
> That picture does NOT offend me, but it DOES qualify as NSFW. If I looked up that picture while at work and a boss came in and saw it, I'd be in big trouble.
> ...



Because not all bosses and work sites are the same. Read next time? :/


----------



## Xuphor (Oct 19, 2011)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Xuphor said:
> 
> 
> > NSFW is.... Not Safe for Work.
> ...



The term is used on websites for the strictest bosses that exist, because people do have them. It's a precautionary thing, to make sure that absolutely no one will get in trouble for viewing something marked NSFW.


----------



## kevan (Oct 19, 2011)

My definition is Xuphor's pic of that pig in the EoF.
I mean of course that was safe for work


----------



## JoostinOnline (Oct 19, 2011)

NSFW = Me.


----------



## xshinox (Oct 19, 2011)

as long as the picture(s) you're looking at or what you're reading doesn't involve nudity, violence, or anything bad, it's safe for work. you shouldn't be browsing NSFW stuff at work.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (Oct 19, 2011)

xshinox said:


> as long as the picture(s) you're looking at or what you're reading doesn't involve nudity, violence, or anything bad, it's safe for work. you shouldn't be browsing NSFW stuff at work.



See, that's the problem. If people start posting NSFW stuff here, then others won't be able to browse GBAtemp while at work. 
Which is part of why we try to keep it to a minimum, and tag most anything that is NSFW.


----------



## Hells Malice (Oct 19, 2011)

Xuphor said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > Xuphor said:
> ...



I assume THAT isn't the case. If I had a strict boss i'm pretty damn sure doing anything but work would piss them off.
If not the internet doesn't exist to cater to people slacking at work anyways. You go on the internet, you accept the risk.


----------



## Xuphor (Oct 19, 2011)

Hells Malice said:


> Xuphor said:
> 
> 
> > ShadowSoldier said:
> ...



I never said I agree with that, I think it's a idiotic rule personally (hence why I always have edgy avatars/signatures), I'm just saying  *HOW. IT. IS.*


----------



## Skelletonike (Oct 19, 2011)

Well, I guess my sig was also removed even tho when I asked if it was ok to have put that sig on this forum and was told it was ok (it was around last year), guess the rules changed.


----------



## TheDarkSeed (Oct 19, 2011)

I don't think it offended anyone. It's probably because your boss man/lady thinks that the company might be looked at differently if people saw you with that  that sig and saw that you worked for the company... :/


----------



## ShadowNeko003 (Oct 23, 2011)

I would say NSFW = anything over PG 13.  Keep work professional


----------



## FireGrey (Oct 23, 2011)

That picture...is just great...
But yeah I would say NSFW


----------



## Nimbus (Oct 23, 2011)

NSFW is a variable term in my honest oppinion.

However, generally most of 4chans boards are NSFW. Even /vp/ and /v/, hell any of the safe one's are even NSFW at times.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 23, 2011)

ShadowSoldier said:


> snip



I reported your sig.  I didn't report it because I found it personally offensive.  I reported it because it involved nudity/see-through-panties.  I've reported many sigs/avatars that involve questionable images just as everyone else _should_ be doing (that is why there is a "report" button).  People here think they need to push every rule to the limit...  This is supposed to be a "friendly" community.  It is supposed to be "SFW".  Saying, "Well kids can see worse things in other places!" isn't a valid argument here.  This isn't about other places, it is about THIS place.  It's sad when it gets to the point that you have to block everyone's sigs/avatars when visiting a forum...

I'd have posted much sooner in this topic but seeing the title "What is your definition of NSFW" led me to believe it was either a troll thread or that tagzard started it...


----------



## s4mid4re (Oct 23, 2011)

It can vary per person. He found it disturbing and NSFW. You didn't. You have to deal with it.

To be blunt here, you're not even supposed to be searching for stuff like that while working anyways. I don't even get why there's an acronym "Not Safe For Work" when it's more accurate as "Not For Work." If you're on a porn site, it's both NSFW and NFW. But if you're viewing images of hot actresses with their hot panties, then that's NFW. People may argue it as SFW, but they really can't argue whether it's NFW or FW. It's NFW; you're not supposed to be viewing those kinds of stuff while working (unless your job has something to do with it  ).


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 24, 2011)

s4mid4re said:


> It can vary per person. He found it disturbing and NSFW. You didn't. You have to deal with it.
> 
> To be blunt here, you're not even supposed to be searching for stuff like that while working anyways. I don't even get why there's an acronym "Not Safe For Work" when it's more accurate as "Not For Work." If you're on a porn site, it's both NSFW and NFW. But if you're viewing images of hot actresses with their hot panties, then that's NFW. People may argue it as SFW, but they really can't argue whether it's NFW or FW. It's NFW; you're not supposed to be viewing those kinds of stuff while working (unless your job has something to do with it  ).



I have not idea what you just said there with all the NFW SFW NSFW FW NW SW stuff but just to clarify:


			
				Forum Rules said:
			
		

> This public forum is intended for users of all ages


----------



## Hells Malice (Oct 24, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > snip
> ...




You were staring at her panties for way too long if you found some see-through effect to 'em.
I just stared at her ass and still see nothing NSFW about it, really.


----------



## Schizoanalysis (Oct 24, 2011)

New South F*%^$ Wales *





* joke for Australians.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Oct 24, 2011)

A nuclear explosion.


----------



## Zerousen (Oct 24, 2011)

Everyone has their own opinion whether they think it's "NSFW". I would consider something overly gory, or something a little bit over partial nudity. What I find ironic is, it's OK for someone to go to the beach, and find chicks with bikinis on, than to maybe see one on a magazine or an image.


----------



## Infinite Zero (Oct 24, 2011)

Something sexually enticing visually that may seem questionable when seen by your boss?
Lol


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 24, 2011)

Hikaru said:


> Everyone has their own opinion whether they think it's "NSFW". I would consider something overly gory, or something a little bit over partial nudity. What I find ironic is, it's OK for someone to go to the beach, and find chicks with bikinis on, than to maybe see one on a magazine or an image.



see:
"'Well kids can see worse thing in other places!' isn't a valid argument here.  This isn't about other places.  It is about THIS place..."


----------



## 4-leaf-clover (Oct 24, 2011)

NSFW : Not safe for woman.


----------



## BoxmanWTF (Oct 24, 2011)

click when horny 
or Click when no one is around


----------



## DeathStrudel (Oct 24, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> ShadowSoldier said:
> 
> 
> > snip
> ...


That is actually NOT why the report button is there. It is NOT there so that you can judge what other people might possibly find offensive, it's so you can report stuff that YOU find offensive. Basically it seems that nobody actually had a problem with it, but you took it upon yourself to decide what others could find offensive. Why don't you just let people speak for themselves?
Reminds me of South Park:
"I like to think we speak for the children." - Stephen Spielberg
"But *we're* the children!" - Children


----------



## HugeCock (Oct 24, 2011)

NSFW = If someone peeks over your cubicle while looking at this thread you may get in trouble.
It is a courtesy tag designed to help people not get themselves into the above situation but the reality of it is that almost all employers would frown, reprimand, and prohibit their employees going to any site that would even consider having to use a NSFW tag.
I'd say a large percentage of members here are kids so the idea of "work" is still a very Terabithian concept but the real shock will be when they become members of the work force they will be shocked to find that going to Facebook from a work terminal is enough to get you fired.
The question I as an employer ask my employees is "Do I pay you to go to facebook, how does GBATemp help you do your job, and for that matter what job out there could you obtain that would view GBATemp as a valid work source?" 
So what then is NSFW? The picture in question... well Facebook, Myspace, whatever you kids are on today has more....promiscuous pics then the one in question, I view NSFW as things I would not want my kids to see if they are in my office while I am on the computer. Pretty much that means no porn or extremely violent graphic content. The image in question is a butt, now thank god.....*let's NSFW this post now as I have brought religion into the topic which your colleague poking their head over your cubicle may find offensive* 
PS tell that co-worker to stop being nosy and get back to work before you both get wrote up
...anyway, thank god I am not a moderator or on the censorship committee as one would have to ask....if we outlaw a butt....do we outlaw
Vitruvian Man
Dream Caused by the Flight of a Bumblebee
Michelangelo's David
Ect
We are a global forum which is very hard to grasp....there are people outside your state, outside your country, on the other side of the world even that are viewing your words... it is like magic. Ironic that a picture of Mendes is NSFW as Pete sits in his office off a nude beach in Greece watching a commercial for Dove soap with the actress’s breast exposed. Saying it is a nude beach may be a little redundant since all the beaches are nude...or at least they were when I was last there but for an American where violence is more acceptable then the naked human body maybe we should come up with a region based tag?
NSFUW = Not safe for American work
NSFEW = Not safe for European work
NSFJW = Not safe for Japanese work
**Fun fact** I pulled the codes from the GBA region coding 

Rather then censor my friends and future leaders of the world I just chose to disable sigs


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 24, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:


> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> > ShadowSoldier said:
> ...





			
				Forum Rules said:
			
		

> *Use the report function! If you see someone breaking a rule*, *report it.* Don't reply to a post you've just reported and don't write an essay for the report reason but DO make it clear why it should be removed.



This was not an ass for the sake of education.  It was an ass for the sake of an ass.  I like Eva Mendes.  I like her ass.  But I can also recognize that questionable images have no place out in the open for all to see.  There is no problem with OPs first post since it is marked NSFW and put in a spoiler.  In a sig/avatar though, it's out there for all to see and forces other members to take extra steps if they don't want to see it.

P.S.  I'm not speaking for anyone else.  I'm speaking for myself.  I'm not personally offended by the image but the fact remains that it does not belong here.

P.P.S.  You spelled Steven Spielberg's name wrong...


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 24, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> see:
> "'Well kids can see worse thing in other places!' isn't a valid argument here.  This isn't about other places.  It is about THIS place..."





> I reported your sig.  I didn't report it because I found it personally offensive.  I reported it because it involved nudity/see-through-panties.  I've reported many sigs/avatars that involve questionable images just as everyone else _should_ be doing (that is why there is a "report" button).  People here think they need to push every rule to the limit...  This is supposed to be a "friendly" community.  It is supposed to be "SFW".  Saying, "Well kids can see worse things in other places!" isn't a valid argument here.  This isn't about other places, it is about THIS place.  It's sad when it gets to the point that you have to block everyone's sigs/avatars when visiting a forum...
> 
> I'd have posted much sooner in this topic but seeing the title "What is your definition of NSFW" led me to believe it was either a troll thread or that tagzard started it...



Really, whether the picture was there or not (Even though it was small as all hell), SHOULD you be viewing THIS site at work at all? And if you were allowed, chances are that the boss won't care if some person on the internet has a small avatar of a beautiful actress. Yes, "kids see worse" is a stupid argument, but it's true. Chances are if you're seeing this, then you're either at home, or at a friends place. In which case you see much worse just turning on Family Channel. If it was a big signature or something, then sure, it'd be understandable, but the avatars dimensions were small.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 24, 2011)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> > see:
> ...



and if it was an acceptable image for a signature the moderator would have left it alone, correct?


----------



## iFish (Oct 24, 2011)

If we're talking about this forum being suitable for all ages and such, why are we allowed to swear? I mean, I understand the rule against NSFW material and such, since that is different. But when you say "suitable for all ages"(Or something of the sort), it doesn't make sense since we're still allowed to swear and we probably do swear here.

Just pointing that out.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 24, 2011)

iFish said:


> If we're talking about this forum being suitable for all ages and such, why are we allowed to swear? I mean, I understand the rule against NSFW material and such, since that is different. But when *THE RULES* say "suitable for all ages"(Or something of the sort), it doesn't make sense since we're still allowed to swear and we probably do swear here.
> 
> Just pointing that out.



Fixed that post for you.

As far as I've noticed, any posts where people swear in a derogatory way are edited/snipped/deleted by moderators.  If they are not and you feel they should be then maybe you should report them.


----------



## Rayder (Oct 24, 2011)

I would define NSFW as anything that might be considered inappropriate or upsetting or embarrassing to anyone in a work environment if they saw it.

While personally, I don't find a woman standing there in her panties and showing some buttcrack to be particularly offensive to me, some women (and frankly, some uptight guys)  may find it demeaning for someone to display a pic such as that on a public website and would request for it to be removed. 

A large part of moderation is dealing with things that offend members.  Rather than argue the validity, it's sometimes easier to just eliminate the issue causing the offense than to deliberate over whether or not it was actually offensive.  Basically, if someone complains about it, then it is usually dealt with and ultimately considered NSFW.


----------



## weiff (Oct 24, 2011)

As much as this thread has stayed on topic and provided valid points... I have to post this:

On another forum site, that was definitely NSFW, they had a thread jokingly called SFW porn. It was all the typical nude female/male images, however the nipples and other parts had been shopped blank (think real life barbie and ken here). It was rather humorous to look at, but still clearly should have been NSFW.


----------



## Deleted User (Oct 24, 2011)

{{}}


----------



## DeathStrudel (Oct 24, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> DeathStrudel said:
> 
> 
> > Old8oy said:
> ...


First of all I don't see how a rule was broken. Secondly once again YOU are defining what is "questionable." Nobody else seemed to think it was questionable or else they would have reported it themselves. People walk around in public with hardly any clothes on but no one makes laws banning that just because some people have to "take extra steps if they don't want to see it." There is no "fact" that it doesn't belong here, there is your personal opinion that it doesn't belong here.

And why does it matter if I spelled his name wrong? To point that out is just childish as it was a very simple mistake.


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 24, 2011)

DeathStrudel said:


> snip



Where in the rules are the levels of inappropriate defined?  The ambiguity of the rules and the existence of the report button leave it on the members to decide what's appropriate and what is not.  That is what a "community" does.  And for the third time, the "people can see worse in other places" argument doesn't work here.  This isn't the street or the bar.  This is an internet forum, and believe it or not, a controlled setting.  I am defining what is "questionable" as much as you are attempting to define what is not "questionable".  It goes both ways there bud.

I've yet to see you (DeathStrudel) make a post that hasn't left me wondering, "Is that guy constipated?"   As you can see, the OP doesn't appear to be nearly as butthert about the situation as you do and he's the one who was actually affected by it.  Of all the pictures of Eva Mendes floating around on the interwebs, why did he pick that one?  Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that her ass was hanging out?   It must feel good to be fighting for a cause...

My report said: Member's signature has a woman in see through panties.
Nowhere did I suggest to the mod how to handle it.  Nowhere did I say that I was particularly offended.  I simply made the mods aware of an image that was walking a fine line along the rules.  The OP didn't complain about the mod's decision.  He started the thread asking for opinions.  When I noticed the thread I made him aware of events he may not have been aware of.  He now knows why it was reported.  He may not agree with it but at least he's no longer left wondering...

P.S.  I find it funny that the person who mentioned South Park is calling me childish.  I was merely saving you from repeating your mistake.  Should I have PM'd you with the correction?


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 24, 2011)

Old8oy said:


> Of all the pictures of Eva Mendes floating around on the interwebs, why did he pick that one?  Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that her ass was hanging out?


 I know you'd like to think that, but that actually wasn't it at all. I could explain, but no matter what I say, you'd just think I was lying, so it'd be a waste of my time, and yours.



> Should I have PM'd you with the correction?



Should have just left it alone. One mistake on the internet. If it was someone constantly:

typing like this because they think
it's easier to read or some stupid shit

Then yeah..


----------



## wrettcaughn (Oct 24, 2011)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Old8oy said:
> 
> 
> > Of all the pictures of Eva Mendes floating around on the interwebs, why did he pick that one?  Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that her ass was hanging out?
> ...



I've never called someone a liar on the internet.  I'm kind of curious now 
And I wouldn't "like to think" anything.  As I've said before, were that pic to have been in a spoiler I wouldn't have reported it.  In fact, it might soon be my wallpaper on my iPod.  My comments towards DeathStrudel were written in a tone that fit his over-reaction.  You've said nothing ignorant here so I have nothing ignorant to respond to


----------



## Etheboss (Oct 24, 2011)

I think GBAtemp is too strict in their policy, and i know for sure my boss does not mind the sig. from the person in the first post (as do prolly most ppl. in my country), on the other hand, what might be acceptable in one country, might not be acceptable in the other, so i do understand their policy...


----------

