StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Sea Skimmer wrote:It is cumulative and takes hours to absorb. The amount of salt in such massive burgers is a lot more likely to cause a death sitting at the table then the cholesterol. In people with bad circulatory systems a sudden massive blast of salt can actually kill you several different ways and it soaks right into your bloodstream everywhere it touches flesh.

It usually jacks up your blood pressure a good 10 points, which in turn can throw a clot, or send you into cardiac arrest.

Mr. Coffee wrote:

Darth Fanboy wrote:That would be one of those sports where the women's version may be more interesting than the men's.

Man, think of how much free publicity we could get for the sport by advertising Bulimics as athletes though. Imagine the headlines we'd get for advertising events like the "Women's 1.5km Binge, Zip, and Purge"? As long as it still involves ziplines, preferably that run over the top of the spectators it'll be totally worth it too.

Make a killing on souvenir ponchos and sponsorship for the chunder-cam. And not only do the girls get to throw up their food, but they get excercise too, so we can get some player development in by advertising it as a weight loss program first.

They had more clothes on than girls have on at the local pool so I no idea whatthe person is complaing about. Maybe he's one of those conservatives that think displaying the ankles is indecent. As safe for work I asked the IA's that work with us aas it's their reponsibility to monitor that stuff for over 10,000 goverment employes and by goverment standards of excepitable standards it fine.

Considering some of the pics of women of various dress have appeared here in the past in the form of sexy women thrads and other and some were posted by moderators and even our fearless leader and they were not declared NSFW.

dragon wrote: Considering some of the pics of women of various dress have appeared here in the past in the form of sexy women thrads and other and some were posted by moderators and even our fearless leader and they were not declared NSFW.

Are you mentally retarded? Do you not see the difference between a dedicated sexy women thread, and full-screen half-naked pics appearing in a regular thread? Would you want your boss to walk in with that pic open? Go on, show it to him right now. Let's find out what he says.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:

dragon wrote: Considering some of the pics of women of various dress have appeared here in the past in the form of sexy women thrads and other and some were posted by moderators and even our fearless leader and they were not declared NSFW.

Are you mentally retarded? Do you not see the difference between a dedicated sexy women thread, and full-screen half-naked pics appearing in a regular thread? Would you want your boss to walk in with that pic open? Go on, show it to him right now. Let's find out what he says.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Um let see nope and part of my job is enforcing standards here and Ft.Sill, really boring. And I did show her the pic and now it's her background . As she said a women wearing a bathing suit or a lingerie that covers the same amount constitute the same. Despite the fact both are against the terms of agreement.

Oh if thats the case dont go to alot of the german news sites as they deffinitily show nsfw, but thats germans for you.

Fglakin, I've seen more skin then that on billboards for Hooters. You're being a Prudy Judy,man.

It's great that your boss doesn't care, good for you. Most workplaces, however, frown on employees having large pictures of women wearing lingerie either on the screen or in the history. Exercise some common courtesy and consider that other people here might not enjoy the same privileges as yourself.

Oh she cares at long as it does violate the set standards she's fine with it. Beside it kind of hard to tell soliders and civilian not to facebook when we let the generals and base commander do it.

dragon wrote:Oh she cares at long as it does violate the set standards she's fine with it. Beside it kind of hard to tell soliders and civilian not to facebook when we let the generals and base commander do it.

Well, that's your problem right there. Don't go assuming that every place has you lax attitude towards enforcing standards. But then again, since you've pretty much admitted that you are in fact, retarded (and the difference, by the way, is that you don't go into sexy women threads in places where this may be an issue), I shouldn't be expecting for you to exercise good judgement.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:

dragon wrote:Oh she cares at long as it does not violate the set standards she's fine with it. Beside it kind of hard to tell soliders and civilian not to facebook when we let the generals and base commander do it.

Well, that's your problem right there. Don't go assuming that every place has you lax attitude towards enforcing standards. But then again, since you've pretty much admitted that you are in fact, retarded (and the difference, by the way, is that you don't go into sexy women threads in places where this may be an issue), I shouldn't be expecting for you to exercise good judgement.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Mr. Coffee wrote:Fglakin, I've seen more skin then that on billboards for Hooters. You're being a Prudy Judy,man.

Like he says. And why is it that anytime someone disagree certain people they automatically call them retarded or some other name. At least have some creativity to your insults. Retard sounds so childish.

I am not calling you retarded because I disagree with you. I am calling you retarded because you fail at basic reasoning and reading comprehension, as well as the ability to spell a word without errors or form a coherent sentence. It's not an insult, it's a diagnosis.

Just because Hooters ads show more skin (do they? The girls in that pic are wearing less than the standard Hooters uniform) doesn't mean it's ok to show. NSFW doesn't mean "nudity." NSFW means Not Safe For Work. It's anything you wouldn't want your boss to see. And since you're, by all indications, an imbecile, I have to clarify that no, I don't actually mean your specific boss but rather "boss" in a generalized sense. You may choose to replace "boss" with "grandmother" if it makes it any easier for you to understand.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

fgalkin wrote:I am not calling you retarded because I disagree with you. I am calling you retarded because you fail at basic reasoning and reading comprehension, as well as the ability to spell a word without errors or form a coherent sentence. It's not an insult, it's a diagnosis.

Just because Hooters ads show more skin (do they? The girls in that pic are wearing less than the standard Hooters uniform) doesn't mean it's ok to show. NSFW doesn't mean "nudity." NSFW means Not Safe For Work. It's anything you wouldn't want your boss to see. And since you're, by all indications, an imbecile, I have to clarify that no, I don't actually mean your specific boss but rather "boss" in a generalized sense. You may choose to replace "boss" with "grandmother" if it makes it any easier for you to understand.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

By those standards facebook, youtube is NSFW as many company ban them on system resources.

As for bosses she sent the picture out to several of the unit commanders and they had no issue with that.
So far we've heard back from 8 Col, 3 Majors and 4 civilian supervisors and none had issue.

Following example is extreme but by your reasoning if I own a company and I hate dogs and you my employee has a pic of a dog on your screen thats NSFW.

As for retard and imbecile since you resort to name calling instead of a civilized debate. I to will resort to childish name calling. I know you are but what am I


However since I care not for your opinion when you act childish I shall leave you with this retards and imbecile don't earn a Masters of Science and make 6 figures a year. So if thats your diffenation of a retard and imbecile guilty am I.

edit And yes I have horrible gramer but then I only care about that on important subjects and people.

dragon wrote:
By those standards facebook, youtube is NSFW as many company ban them on system resources.

Apparently, you're too stupid to realize the difference between websites and pictures. But yes, those sites are definitely NSFW in many places.

As for bosses she sent the picture out to several of the unit commanders and they had no issue with that.
So far we've heard back from 8 Col, 3 Majors and 4 civilian supervisors and none had issue.

And I sent it to the Army Chief of Staff and the President, and Jesus Christ himself and they were all offended. Two can play that game, you know.

Following example is extreme but by your reasoning if I own a company and I hate dogs and you my employee has a pic of a dog on your screen thats NSFW.

Yes, but since pictures of dogs are not generally considered offensive, one cannot expect them to be labeled as such. This is not the case with pictures of scantily clad women

As for retard and imbecile since you resort to name calling instead of a civilized debate. I to will resort to childish name calling. I know you are but what am I

If you're offended by rude language, what are you still doing on SDN? Moreover, what debate? This is only a debate in your mind.

However since I care not for your opinion when you act childish I shall leave you with this retards and imbecile don't earn a Masters of Science and make 6 figures a year. So if thats your diffenation of a retard and imbecile guilty am I.

No, but they do make all sorts of bullshit claims on the internet.

edit And yes I have horrible gramer but then I only care about that on important subjects and people.

Yes, because you're an imbecile. We've already established that.

Seriously, what the fuck am I doing still talking to you? The mods made their decision, you can whine about it all you want. Why am I trying to explain things to you? Gah, idiocy must be contagious.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

People, you're arguing about nothing. dragon, the NSFW tag was added for good reason, because in a generic work environment it might be frowned upon. It would be stupid for someone to be disciplined (or worse) at their workplace for want of a tag, and it's always better to err on the side of caution.

Please, don't make me do some actual work here and split out this worthless discussion about how permissive dragon's workplace is, etc.

Attention assholes: Don't inline pics that some workplaces may consider offensive. I don't care how acceptable they may be wherever you are. Think beyond your own monkeysphere.

I can't believe I actually have to remind people. Yeah I get it, OMG puritans, but get the fuck over yourself.

If this issue comes up again, someone will lose their image-posting privileges.

SCRawl wrote:People, you're arguing about nothing. dragon, the NSFW tag was added for good reason, because in a generic work environment it might be frowned upon. It would be stupid for someone to be disciplined (or worse) at their workplace for want of a tag, and it's always better to err on the side of caution.

Please, don't make me do some actual work here and split out this worthless discussion about how permissive dragon's workplace is, etc.

Oh I know and I was perfectly fine by the mods opinion even fgalkins. I was just in a mood to argue about nothing and knew someone would go along. Every so often I get that way now thats out of my system I'll be fine for a few months.

dragon wrote:Oh I know and I was perfectly fine by the mods opinion even fgalkins. I was just in a mood to argue about nothing and knew someone would go along. Every so often I get that way now thats out of my system I'll be fine for a few months.

So you were trolling.

dragon wrote:

SCRawl wrote:People, you're arguing about nothing. dragon, the NSFW tag was added for good reason, because in a generic work environment it might be frowned upon. It would be stupid for someone to be disciplined (or worse) at their workplace for want of a tag, and it's always better to err on the side of caution.

Please, don't make me do some actual work here and split out this worthless discussion about how permissive dragon's workplace is, etc.

Oh I know and I was perfectly fine by the mods opinion even fgalkins. I was just in a mood to argue about nothing and knew someone would go along. Every so often I get that way now thats out of my system I'll be fine for a few months.

Screw you, asshole.

You get a warning for trolling. Next time, (temp?) ban.

Dalton wrote:

dragon wrote:Oh I know and I was perfectly fine by the mods opinion even fgalkins. I was just in a mood to argue about nothing and knew someone would go along. Every so often I get that way now thats out of my system I'll be fine for a few months.

So you were trolling.

If thats the case fgalkin would be guilty of feeding the troll as he should have known calling someone an asshole would most likely generate a response. As to the charge of trolling having a debate or argument thats stayies for the most part on topix is not trolling by the deffinition. But the mods have spoken so no more.

But ok I'll behave.

And for that unnecessary nachtreten, you'll get another warning. That is strike two.

Dragon gets a 2 week temp ban for trolling, tu quoque horseshit and being a mod-baiting asshat.

So what was the topic again? idiots eating themselves to death?

dragon wrote:At least have some creativity to your insults. Retard sounds so childish.

Massachusetts would like a word with you in the parking lot.

How is that picture NSFW if Wong has a picture of his wife more revealing in his fucking sig?

That was the red panty ass shot, right? But yeah, Fgalkin, stop being a prudy judy, dude.