[zappfra]

My last contribution for a few days, off for a big weekend away.


(Image removed.)

[zappfra]

Gee I was 2 minutes under the 24 hour rule, does that constitute a public **73**


No, it constituted a really minor rule break that we could have overlooked if you hadn't stated that you did it knowingly.  

[wabbitslayer]

That looks like Jerry Falwell!!!

[lactose_tolerant]

Quote:
wabbitslayer said:
That looks like Jerry Falwell!!!

i was going w/ the mayor of carter country

lactose 'big victor french fan' tolerant

[Palomine]

Quote:
zappfra said:
Gee I was 2 minutes under the 24 hour rule, does that constitute a public **73**


No, it constituted a really minor rule break that we could have overlooked if you hadn't stated that you did it knowingly.  

How were you flogged? You broke the rule (perhaps knowingly, which is hardly admirable) and then your violation was removed. That would have been the end of it had you not complained about being moderated.

And don't bother with the 'two minute' thing... the rule is enforced as the Owner put it. For us to 'let some violations slide' because they're ALMOST ok per rules would be inviting a pointless debate with rule violators asking why THEY were moderated while others (also just over the line/limit) were not. You can feel free to moderate arbitrarily and to invite unrewarding debates at forums where YOUR time is being spent. Here, we'll thank you to abide by your contract with the BEA Owner.  

[zappfra]

Quote:
Palomine said:

Quote:
zappfra said:
Gee I was 2 minutes under the 24 hour rule, does that constitute a public **73**


No, it constituted a really minor rule break that we could have overlooked if you hadn't stated that you did it knowingly.  

How were you flogged? You broke the rule (perhaps knowingly, which is hardly admirable) and then your violation was removed. That would have been the end of it had you not complained about being moderated.

And don't bother with the 'two minute' thing... the rule is enforced as the Owner put it. For us to 'let some violations slide' because they're ALMOST ok per rules would be inviting a pointless debate with rule violators asking why THEY were moderated while others (also just over the line/limit) were not. You can feel free to moderate arbitrarily and to invite unrewarding debates at forums where YOUR time is being spent. Here, we'll thank you to abide by your contract with the BEA Owner.  

If you go back and check the "time stamps" you would see I posted that straight after when I realised i was 120 seconds early, an honest mistake so I take offence that you accuse me of a deliberate action.

I also wonder why you had to weigh in when Gonzo had already actioned it under the rules and explained in a "civil" and courteous manner.

And as the picture was my "Copyright" under the Rules below it looks as though I could have posted whenever as it is my Copyrighted picture from my Yahoo club, with (C)information recorded on the photo.

   

BOARD RULES

If you own the legal copyrights to your images, you may post as many as you like at any time.
You must include a "(c) ImageOwnerName" message with each image.
Do not misrepresent copyright ownership.

[Tesseract]

DJ, wasn't this one from the airport in Barbados?

I can't believe it's been 11 years already.

Quote:
DJPFC said:
I got one...

She was always one of my faves.

[Rad]

I was fortunate enough to meet her in person on a Boob Cruise. What a sweet, sexy woman she was. She was one of the nicest models I met on the trip. She was dating a man, but was very "real" to the passengers. She was a big star, but was down to earth and very nice. She remembered the passengers and their names, and was always willing to talk to her "fans".

[Emery]

Quote:
Palomine said:

Quote:
zappfra said:
Gee I was 2 minutes under the 24 hour rule, does that constitute a public **73**


No, it constituted a really minor rule break that we could have overlooked if you hadn't stated that you did it knowingly.  

How were you flogged? You broke the rule (perhaps knowingly, which is hardly admirable) and then your violation was removed. That would have been the end of it had you not complained about being moderated.

And don't bother with the 'two minute' thing... the rule is enforced as the Owner put it. For us to 'let some violations slide' because they're ALMOST ok per rules would be inviting a pointless debate with rule violators asking why THEY were moderated while others (also just over the line/limit) were not. You can feel free to moderate arbitrarily and to invite unrewarding debates at forums where YOUR time is being spent. Here, we'll thank you to abide by your contract with the BEA Owner.  

lol...

[gonZo]

Quote:
zappfra said:
And as the picture was my "Copyright" under the Rules below it looks as though I could have posted whenever as it is my Copyrighted picture from my Yahoo club, with (C)information recorded on the photo.

BOARD RULES

If you own the legal copyrights to your images, you may post as many as you like at any time.
You must include a "(c) ImageOwnerName" message with each image.
Do not misrepresent copyright ownership.

When you knowingly leave a rule violation in one of your posts -- even if you happen to think the violation is inconsequential for some reason -- it tends to antagonize the mods, who spend a lot of time trying to get people to take the rules seriously.  The rules only exist to protect the forum from legal consequences that might arise from users' posts, and your promise to follow them is a condition of your continued use of the forum.
 
My memory of the photo isn't that great...  I remember that "zappfra" was stamped over some happy-looking guy's face, but I don't recall seeing a (c) symbol.  If it was there and I failed to honor it, I apologize.

[Palomine]

Quote:
I also wonder why you had to weigh in when Gonzo had already actioned it under the rules and explained in a "civil" and courteous manner.

It is my responsibility to 'weigh in' when I think clarification is in order, or when your posted comments warrant a reply. You can feel free to 'weigh in' as you personally prefer at forums where you moderate.

If, as you claim, your post was visibly copyrighted by you and accidentally removed, we apologize... we're human, not bots.  

[RB]

And another cracker - this time with the one and only Rachel Rocketts...


Image removed.
The Forum Rules prohibit the posting of Score content, and this photograph had Score's logo and copyright statement stamped on it.  This was your last "second chance" for prohibited content violations, so please be more careful in the future. Thanks.

[RB]

Quote:
roobarb said:
And another cracker - this time with the one and only Rachel Rocketts...


Image removed.
The Forum Rules prohibit the posting of Score content, and this photograph had Score's logo and copyright statement stamped on it.  This was your last "second chance" for prohibited content violations, so please be more careful in the future. Thanks.

I've just looked again at the image of Rachel and Traci that I posted, and it doesn't have the Score logo or copyright stamped on it, like you say.

However, it has the Score logo on Traci's t-shirt and her wallet (ie. merchandise she is wearing in the photo).

Does people wearing merchandise with the Score logo constitute a violation of the forum rules?

[gonZo]

No, but images with Score logos and copyright info on them do.  Here's a clip of the upper-left corner of the image you posted.  It's dark, but if you look carefully, you'll see a Score logo and the text...

        Copyright (c) 1998
        The SCORE Group
        www.scoreland.com
        JB

 

[elic]

Goddamn!   We are all losing site of what this thread should be.  Traci was my favorite, or tied with Deena Duo (Deena in the 90's, not today).  I personally would LOVE to see more Traci Topps pics.