Does this make any sense to you?

[Albin]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:43pm

A picture of a shirtless Hugh Jackman is deleted within 15 minutes of its posting, yet my icon of a naked man complete with frontal nudity has lasted for two days so far...

[Liam]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:44pm

THATS FAVRITISUM!



QUICK POST BEFOR ITS DELITED!

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:48pm

yours is "art". Photography showing too much skin is "porn."

[etoile]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:49pm

I know some find Hugh Jackman a work of art, but not in the same league.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:51pm

Can you send us that link of Hugh Jackman please?

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:51pm

please notice the quotation marks. Picture fingers making the gesture as the words are spoken. Thank you.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:55pm

I have a whole book of "porn". It's called something like "Abercrombie and Fitch" catologue.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 6:56pm

Well, right now the middle one is straight up in the air. Picture your own fingers then. i'm sure they have been in much more interesting places.

[TxTwoStep]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 7:04pm

so was mine, sorry. i forgot to put *wink* after it.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 7:05pm

cat fight.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 7:06pm

Tex doesn't take perceived criticism well. Or "well."

[Unknown User]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 7:15pm

"Obviously"

[Elphaba]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 9:33pm

ranks right up there with you can't show Janets "breast on TV, but you CAN show violence, hatred, etc.......

[Joshua488]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 10:10pm

So, a simple shirtless photo is PORNOGRAPHY?

Since when has this board been controlled by the American Family Association?

[kangaroo]

Posted: 3/7/05 at 11:55pm

rightly said Joshua488,
What is the big deal with a shirtless Hugh Jackman [which is pretty fine... by the way], when there are worse pictures on here anyway... is really big racks of cleavage pornography? I find that much more disturbing to look at than Hugh Jackman without a shirt on.