# Shall we bring back the Lurverly Ladies Thread???



## lesofprimus (May 12, 2006)

There seems to be alot of intrest in re-kindleing the Luverly Ladies Thread, and I opened this thread in response.... 

Things to keep in mind...

1. The reason we stopped the last thread.... (Porn instead of bikinis)
2. The new rules that would have to be implemented...
3. The penalties for breaking said rules would involve banning.... Is it worth it???

Post ur thoughts....

(My opinion? Bring it back, but with very specific allowances...)


----------



## Henk (May 12, 2006)

Yes, I agree with you on the rules les. NO PORN. I am game for opening it again.

Banning people who does not apply with this is the best way of dealing with them. 

I think it is worth opening if the members know what is the rules and that they would be banned if they do not apply.

Henk


----------



## syscom3 (May 12, 2006)

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only "lovely ladies" I would consider are the ones that were painted on the side of a warbird. If it isnt that, leave this site for airplanes!!!!!!


----------



## Tiger (May 13, 2006)

Loads of other stuff is discussed here, music, cars, politics etc. So there should be no reason not to have a "lovely ladies" thread. I'm for it! You should also put down a definition of what is acceptable and what is not e.g what bit of the ladies can't be exposed.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 13, 2006)

> You should also put down a definition of what is acceptable and what is not


Of course we will.... After we find out public opinion, we will put it to the Moderators and decide if its worth it, and then determine what is and what is not acceptable....


----------



## Pisis (May 13, 2006)

I'm for, with all the rules up there.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (May 13, 2006)

DO-IT!


----------



## Clave (May 13, 2006)

Agreed, keep to the rules and bring it back..8)


----------



## Gnomey (May 13, 2006)

Also agreed it the rules are abided by, it should come back...


----------



## lesofprimus (May 13, 2006)

Hmmm....

7 : 1 in favor so far......


----------



## Henk (May 13, 2006)

Come on guys there is not just 7 members for it, where are the other members?   

Henk


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2006)

mmm i dunno, the last one did cause a lot of problems... i'll think on it a bit.........


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 13, 2006)

Im not too bothered but personally im against it - some goons will always break the rules and it will end up the same as the other ones. More trouble than its worth.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 13, 2006)

an interesting stance for the two adolesant males


----------



## Henk (May 13, 2006)

The thing is that I am at a other Forum where they have one such topic and it doesnot have such kind of problems. It runs smoothly.

Henk


----------



## Pisis (May 13, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> Im not too bothered but personally im against it - some goons will always break the rules and it will end up the same as the other ones. More trouble than its worth.


With all the respect I have for you and the other mods, amongst other, your job is to keep those goons/meatballs in no chance of doing this. A n00b breaks the LL rules, he's dismissed. Fair enough.


----------



## Henk (May 13, 2006)

Amen.

Henk


----------



## Bullockracing (May 13, 2006)

I'm for it, but it will be up to site admins to police it. If you get porn on it, I won't be able to get here from work (uhhh, not that I'm surfing the web at work...)


----------



## lesofprimus (May 13, 2006)

8 : 2


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 13, 2006)

9 to 2 with me. Is funny how easy the word "porn" arrive everytime that some body talk about the woman body, it seems that some members have unsolved issues.

Off course I agree that no "sunning" ( and you know what I mean) should be allowed


----------



## Bullockracing (May 13, 2006)

OK, I'm dumb. What's sunning?


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2006)

I am against. My concern here is that there are interpretations for what is considered decent/indecent. I would hate for websense, netnanny or cybersitter to classify us an adult site. Then we would be filtered from many places because someone considered a hooters girl to be obscene. The key is that people are able to access the historical and factual info on this site. There are many other places to go to look at pinup girls. This WW2aircraft.net, not bikinibimbobabes.net.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 13, 2006)

I agree with evanglider to an extent. There are other threads on this site that are not historical or factual, but it will be up to the site admins to ensure that this site isn't slammed by websense, netnanny or cybersitter, effectively killing my ability to get here from work...


----------



## Tiger (May 13, 2006)

If you don't post the pictures only link to them would the site still count as pornographic by netgranny or whatever its called?


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2006)

Yep. They are content filters and depending on who is looking at any given time, it can get tagged to be filtered. Once your site gets put on a content filter, others follow and it is next to impossible to get back off that list. 

I want to make sure that we can be accessed by everyone, of all ages. This is a site about history and technology and I want to stay classified as such.


----------



## Bullockracing (May 13, 2006)

Ok, that being said, evanglider, to err on the side of caution might not be a bad idea...


----------



## Henk (May 13, 2006)

Well if the rules are set out so that it is set out specifically what is decent and what not then they would know. So I think if you firstly put out what is decent and what is not then there wont be trouble and they would know what is expected of them. 

The dope who does not know the difference between Porn and Pictures of woman in swimwear is a idiot.

Henk


----------



## Bullockracing (May 13, 2006)

I do recall seeing a recent post from a junior member getting to this site from high school, and if the ladies' thread is questionable, the end result could be the same. I would be content with a nose art thread, to include fantasy nose art (not actually on a plane, but in the same style).


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2006)

Henk said:


> Well if the rules are set out so that it is set out specifically what is decent and what not then they would know. So I think if you firstly put out what is decent and what is not then there wont be trouble and they would know what is expected of them.
> 
> The dope who does not know the difference between Porn and Pictures of woman in swimwear is a idiot.
> 
> Henk



It's not about what WE think is objectionable, it is what someone else _might_. Personally, I have no problem with nudity, when done tastefully, but that would never fly with the web filters, obviously. But our definition of what is and not decent would only be our definition. And because that is a very broad interpretation, content filter screeners could tag this site as adult oriented. Then you can forget ever having this site accessible from schools. Like I said, once it gets in the crosshairs of the filters, you are stuck. Getting removed from those lists is not something that I have seen *any *site get back off of. 

Again, this is a site about airplanes and aviation. There are very very few like it and I would hate to see school access cut from it because someone wants to see some chick in a swimsuit. 'nuff said


----------



## Henk (May 13, 2006)

evangilder said:


> It's not about what WE think is objectionable, it is what someone else _might_. Personally, I have no problem with nudity, when done tastefully, but that would never fly with the web filters, obviously. But our definition of what is and not decent would only be our definition. And because that is a very broad interpretation, content filter screeners could tag this site as adult oriented. Then you can forget ever having this site accessible from schools. Like I said, once it gets in the crosshairs of the filters, you are stuck. Getting removed from those lists is not something that I have seen *any *site get back off of.
> 
> Again, this is a site about airplanes and aviation. There are very very few like it and I would hate to see school access cut from it because someone wants to see some chick in a swimsuit. 'nuff said



I understand what you are saying mate and the last say still lies with you mods and with horse if he has a say in this.

Henk


----------



## Tiger (May 13, 2006)

Is this site already on some "obscene" list? Because the only way I can get access at college is going via a proxy server. Would this site have been listed when the previous ladies thread was alive, or is it just my college censoring certain forums that may be view as "chat" forums?


----------



## Nonskimmer (May 13, 2006)

cheddar cheese said:


> Im not too bothered but personally im against it - some goons will always break the rules and it will end up the same as the other ones. More trouble than its worth.


I agree.



evangilder said:


> I am against. My concern here is that there are interpretations for what is considered decent/indecent. I would hate for websense, netnanny or cybersitter to classify us an adult site. Then we would be filtered from many places because someone considered a hooters girl to be obscene. The key is that people are able to access the historical and factual info on this site. There are many other places to go to look at pinup girls. This WW2aircraft.net, not bikinibimbobabes.net.


Well said.

Count one more against.


----------



## evangilder (May 13, 2006)

Tiger said:


> Is this site already on some "obscene" list? Because the only way I can get access at college is going via a proxy server. Would this site have been listed when the previous ladies thread was alive, or is it just my college censoring certain forums that may be view as "chat" forums?



There is no way to know what your school's policy is on their content filters. As far as I know, we dodged a bullet last time with it.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2006)

our school filtered the pages where CC posted all them pics of himself and the unfortunate cream incident


----------



## Maestro (May 14, 2006)

Okay... Looks like a senior member should play the Devil's lawyer... And looks like it fell on me. 

I agree with Les. We should bring it back, *but* with very clear rules. If you break the rules, you get banned.

Personnally (and may be it's only because of my 12% of French origins), I think that there is not really a big difference between the picture of a "real" girl in bikini and the picture of a bomber's nose art. Does enyone here ever saw the nose art of the B-25 called the "Apache Princess" ? That nose art could be judged more "offensive" than 10 pictures of girls in bikinis.

If I had a little more guts, I would post a picture of a girl in bikini I have here and one of the "Apache Princess" and ask you which one you think is more offensive.

If I remember well, the reason why the last thread was closed down was because some members who didn't understand English very well like Sunny (he said it himself) posted some pictures that were more... nude. But if we have clear rules (no pubic hairs, no camel toes, no boobs) written in bold in the first post, I think there won't be any problem.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 14, 2006)

_if_ it is bought back the warnings about what you can/can't post and punishments should either be made the first post on each page, or somewhere at the top of the page.......


----------



## lesofprimus (May 14, 2006)

10 : 5 in favor of bringing it back..........

I think the Lanc has a great idea as far as posting at the top of each page the rules and repercussions for posting lady pics....

I would accept the responsibility of editing/policing/Moderating this thread, if we so decide to bring it back.......

That being said, I do share the same feelings as evan and NS on this concerning the content filters, and feel that this thread would/could cause some problems in that department, if it is not diligently overseen....


----------



## plan_D (May 14, 2006)

I don't care. But I see Eric's point more than anyone elses.


----------



## syscom3 (May 14, 2006)

And what happens when one of those idiots does post an obscene picture and before a moderator can remove it?

Just by having a "girl" section could get this site banned on more lists.

And pictures of "noseart" hardly ever falls under a porn catagory, any more than Michaelangelo's artwork.


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 14, 2006)

Well said Eric.


----------



## R988 (May 14, 2006)

TBH if you want to stare at porn or even scantily clad women there really is no shortage of other places on the net in where that sort of thing is readily available. Google search, with safe search turned off and you'll find more than you ever wanted.

Personally I don't really see much reason or need for it, but then I have no particular problem with it, I have no real filter at work and browse with images turned off (all the sig pics and avatars kinda give the game away that I'm not doing work related stuff ) and as long as the thread is clearly labelled so I can avoid it while at work that is fine by me.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 14, 2006)

As it stands now, anyone can post any image, including a porn mpg or avi, and this pron freak right here has posted titty shots in our Moderator forum....

If someone were to post a pic of some chick showin beav, it would get quickly deleted, by either myself, or another mod, not that anyone would do that anyways, cause they havent done it in over a year in the first place....

I think more is being made out of this than is really called for.... Its just chicks in bikinis and thongs, and once its put into effect, it will be watched closely....


----------



## evangilder (May 14, 2006)

I have raised my concern about it. If it is brought back, do not expect me to moderate it. I can, and do, look here from work and for me to be seen looking at even bikini clad women could be grounds for dismissal. They are very careful about that. Also know that if this site does get added to content filters, there will be no recourse for us and there we will likely remain, even if the content deemed inappropriate is removed. It is important that the risk is truly understood.


----------



## GermansRGeniuses (May 15, 2006)

Do it. Can see why people wouldn't want to bring it back, but I'm for it.

11:5?


----------



## Tiger (May 15, 2006)

I believe the board rules say do not post pr0n so if some *** is stupid enough to want to post pictures of some beaver he's going to start his own thread or spam somebody Else's. If people start not doing things because some stupid *** may or may not do certain things we would get no where. Its like not building buildings bigger than one story because somebody *may* jump off. If they are going to jump they'll just jump off a cliff instead.


----------



## evangilder (May 15, 2006)

We did have problems with it before, which is why it was removed.


----------



## Maestro (May 15, 2006)

Yeah, but as I stated, it cames either from newbies or from peoples that couldn't understand English properly.

If it is correctly moderated, by banning any jackass posting porn stuff and by setting clear rules, I think we would not have any problem.

And Evan, your boss seems to be less strict than mine... If I'm caught going on _any_ forum/chat room at work, I would get fired.


----------



## evangilder (May 15, 2006)

They do have a fairly liberal policy with net usage, mainly because we sometimes monitor tests that we are trying to reproduce a problem that can take a long time. So they are cool with net surfing. BUT, they are very strict with sexual harassment and anything that can even remotely resemble that, including looking at girls in swimsuits is grounds for immediate dismissal. We are not on a content filter, but we also know that we are not in private offices and what we look at can easily be seen by others.


----------



## Erich (May 16, 2006)

yes I will agree with Eric on this, we really got detracted with all the honeis last time and it went beyond the limits of this fine site. Lets not encourage rabble rousers popping in from time to time placing porno and then logging off quickly to do it again at some other convenient time for them, plus once started we might get raided by the porno sites with sub-links / bombarded with trash . . . no thanks !


----------



## Concorde247 (May 16, 2006)

evangilder said:


> I am against. My concern here is that there are interpretations for what is considered decent/indecent. I would hate for websense, netnanny or cybersitter to classify us an adult site. Then we would be filtered from many places because someone considered a hooters girl to be obscene. The key is that people are able to access the historical and factual info on this site. There are many other places to go to look at pinup girls. This WW2aircraft.net, not bikinibimbobabes.net.




I have to agree with this.so put me as against too


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 17, 2006)

Are nipple rings allowed?


----------



## Maestro (May 17, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> Are nipple rings allowed?



As a "veteran" of the Lurvely Ladies Thread, I can tell you that it is a big "NO"!

The mods deleted pictures that were showing a little of pubic hair, so I don't think nipple rings are allowed.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 18, 2006)

What about flat chests with big nipple rings?


----------



## Maestro (May 18, 2006)

102first_hussars said:


> What about flat chests with big nipple rings?



Well Hussars, if you're gay, that's _your_ problem... 

Nah, just kidding, man.


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 19, 2006)

uh yah hehehehhehehhe


----------



## MichaelHenley (May 19, 2006)

11:8 with me included...

I'm completly against it. I agree with R998's comment.
Looking for chicks? Not here thanks!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

While I like women as much as anybody here and I love porn just as much as well I dont think this should be brought back because 90% of the people here can not handle the rules laid out by us admins and they ruin it. This is not a porn site. If people could handle the rules and obey them, then that would be cool, but until people prove to be responsible about it, it does not need to be brought back.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 20, 2006)

I could honestly care less one way or the other, but, with proper moderation, and a clear explaination of the rules, I dont see the problem... Edit out what doesnt belong, and ban the IP of the responsible member.... No warnings, no BS.....

Bikinis only, thongs OK, no topless hands over the boobs, no see though outfits, no bush no nips...

Maybe its possible for horse to make a section that requires an 18 and over disclaimer??? 

I think we are making this out to be bigger than what it is, but, with the current score of 11 : 8, it looks to be in favor of, but too close to call..... Here is a list of the members/Mods that are for/against....

FOR:
Les
henk
Tiger
Pisis
FBJ
Clave
Gnomey
Bullock
Bronson
Maestro
GrG

AGAINST:
syscom
CC
evangilder
NonSkimmer
Erich
derAdler
Concorde
Henley

As u can tell, there are quite a few mods who are against, which will probably kill this thread..... Speak up now or forever hold ur peace..........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

I just dont want this site to lose track of what it is there for.

If you want to see chicks I say go to:

www.newbienudes.com
www.chickforums.com


----------



## lesofprimus (May 20, 2006)

> I just dont want this site to lose track of what it is there for.


Nah, it didnt before, so I dont see it happening now....

As most of us know, Sunny was the reason we killed the other thread.... I think if one of our French speakers explained it to Sunny, we can get this organized and flowing correctly, with no BS or bannings or anything....

I think this is more about posting a pic of a chick u personally think is a hottie...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

Well aslong as people can follow the rules I have no problem with it.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 20, 2006)

OK so now its 12 : 7 in favor of.....

The three members who are undecided:

The Lanc
planD
R988


----------



## syscom3 (May 20, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> I just dont want this site to lose track of what it is there for.
> 
> If you want to see chicks I say go to:
> 
> ...



I thought Deradler was joking about these two sites untill i clicked on them


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 20, 2006)

Being deployed in the desert gives you plenty of time to look up the ladies in your free time.


----------



## plan_D (May 21, 2006)

I'm against it, for all the reasons Eric has stated.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

12 : 8 in favor.......


----------



## 102first_hussars (May 21, 2006)

As long as detailed and specific rules are put in place and are available to the thread veiwers, there should be no problem, if someone breaks the rules block them from the thread or whatever you guys do- either way this forum is kind of a sausage feast and could use a little bit (PG rated) scandley clad to it, im for it.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 21, 2006)

13 : 8 in favor...


----------



## Royzee617 (May 22, 2006)

I am in favour up to a point... but how come the discussion about being risks of being censored only concerns dodgy pix?

Shouldn't these netnannies also be concerned about the ugly hairy (and not so hairy) grunts who wander this site? Never mind the porn, kids who come here for serious homework help etc might be permanently mentally scarred seeing what grown men get up to in their spare time.

Seriously, a few pix of scantily clad ladies is no big deal compared to pictures or videos containing violent scenes. This site is, however, about warfare so it inevitably will feature violence.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2006)

14 : 8


----------



## pbfoot (May 22, 2006)

I would say Ok provided they were approved by the moderators prior to publishing so the the kids here wouldn't be more corrupted then they are


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2006)

15 : 8 and the gap is widening.......


----------



## Henk (May 22, 2006)

I think like Les said, horse should make a 18 or over disclaimer and put it there so that the site does not get in trouble.

Henk


----------



## lesofprimus (May 22, 2006)

I dont think it will eliminate the problem, but it could help...

Remember guys, this little thread does not decide whether or not we bring it back, but gives us Mods and Horse a better idea how the general population feels about it, so we can make the best decision about this for our membership, and the well being of this site....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2006)

will there be a warning on every page/a warning at the top of the page?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 23, 2006)

If we (Mods) decide to bring it back, yes there will, and it was a great idea that u had.... Im sure horse can arrange it, otherwise I can do it manually for each page....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 23, 2006)

high praise indeed  i'll think on my vote a bit more........


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 23, 2006)

I not really for it, but with certain controls I would agree to it. As I said if I want to see scantly clad women there are other websites to go to. I come here for WW2 aviation and other stuff.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 23, 2006)

And chicks in bikinis fall under other stuff..........


----------



## evangilder (May 23, 2006)

A word of warning on labelling the thread over 18. That is a red flag for the content watchers. Plus, with no mechanism to control that, it won't stop those that are under 18 from going in there.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 23, 2006)

Hmmm, good point evan.... Maybe not such a good idea after all, the disclaimer I mean....


----------



## Hunter368 (May 23, 2006)

I have stayed away from this thread until now b/c I have read all your comments. For the most part I agree with Eric. I would hate to see our site taken away from kids b/c of some nanny control or something. But I would be ok with it IF it was watched and severe punishment handed down for those who abuse it. It would have to be watched closely b/c some newbie bone head posts porn and is banned .... well like he cares but if that results in us being on a nanny watch.... well we are the ones losing out. 

Not sure if this is possable or not but what about this. If you wanted to post pics of a girl you post it but it is not shown until it is approved by a mod first or a site administrator. Not sure if that is possable or not. I am comparing it to a friend who has a web page (he is a fiction writer), he has looked into having a feedback or a guest book on it. What happens is when someone posts a comment he gets to see it first and has to approve it before it is posted on the site. Now he has not gotten the guest book b/c he thinks it would be to much a problem always keeping up with the comments. That might be a problem also if a mod decided to do it. Too much staring at nearly naked girls........ what the heck I am a saying...... can I control it??? Bring on the girls!!!! lol Just kidding

I would be ok with it if controlled carefully. But if it was not here I would not care either. I know where to look if I want to see that.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 23, 2006)

17 : 8

Guys, anyone coming here could post porn at anytime they felt like it, and one of the Mods would catch it within minutes.... It just doesnt happen, which is why I feel it would be ok to bring it back with strict guidelines and punishment for violators.... I am willing to be the responsible moderator for the thread, with some slight help during the daytime hours....

I will reiterate my stance on this.... One screw up and ur gone, its as simple as that.....


----------



## Hunter368 (May 23, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> 17 : 8
> 
> Guys, anyone coming here could post porn at anytime they felt like it, and one of the Mods would catch it within minutes.... It just doesnt happen, which is why I feel it would be ok to bring it back with strict guidelines and punishment for violators.... I am willing to be the responsible moderator for the thread, with some slight help during the daytime hours....
> 
> I will reiterate my stance on this.... One screw up and ur gone, its as simple as that.....



Good point, would you guys be looking for more Mods then to help patrol during daytime hours or would the current mods handle it all?


----------



## lesofprimus (May 23, 2006)

i dont think so hunter, we have about as many Mods as we can handle lol.....


----------



## CharlesBronson (May 24, 2006)

Over 18...¡¡¡¡¡

Quiet histeric isnt??, do you need to be over 18 when you go to the beach??, do you need to be over 18 in a Victoria Secrets Fashion show??


give me a break.


----------



## Tiger (May 24, 2006)

CharlesBronson said:


> Over 18...¡¡¡¡¡
> 
> Quiet histeric isnt??, do you need to be over 18 when you go to the beach??, do you need to be over 18 in a Victoria Secrets Fashion show??
> 
> ...



In Britain you can watch movies with topless women in at 15 and women can model topless at 16, so I agree with Panzerknacker, I think 18 is too high for a thread with no topless ladies in.


----------



## Maestro (May 24, 2006)

Tiger said:


> In Britain you can watch movies with topless women in at 15 and women can model topless at 16, so I agree with Panzerknacker, I think 18 is too high for a thread with no topless ladies in.



I agree with that...

In France, there is topless beaches all over the place... And no one needs to be 18 to go there. So why would we put a "over 18" disclaimer for non-nude women ?


----------



## Delusional (May 24, 2006)

Well, because America is prudish compared to European counties, and that's how we do it here, haha.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 24, 2006)

I agree guys, I think the whole problem is not the bikini clad women, but the concern that someone will post a naked pic and it gets spotted by the censors.... Then this site doesnt show up on google search and we lose many people and possible members whose search gets filtered for content....


----------



## Henk (May 24, 2006)

Well like les said, the whole thing about the 18 thing is because the censors guys might think it is not for people younger than 18, people can be @* $ up. 

I must say if this will mean that the site will get into trouble because of this I will not be for it, but I do not see that someone of the censors will look at this type of thread as porn or only 18, dam TV has a lot of girls in minimum cloths in ads for anyone to seeand kids see woman in them everywhere.

To see a woman in a bikini and naked is two different things and to see it as adult content is bullsh*t. Just look at ww2incolor where there is such a thread and it is not censored, the pics is links, but still there has never been any porn on there. I found that site on a Google search    

     

Henk


----------



## MichaelHenley (May 25, 2006)

Possibly it could be a "filtered entry" thread:
You could only access it if you were a member (threfore not open to general public), and we make it mandatory to enter the date in the submission form, and from this, no-one can enter if they are under a preset age?
maybe...


----------



## Tiger (May 25, 2006)

MichaelHenley said:


> Possibly it could be a "filtered entry" thread:
> You could only access it if you were a member (threfore not open to general public), and we make it mandatory to enter the date in the submission form, and from this, no-one can enter if they are under a preset age?
> maybe...



Or a user group? though that may make it seem more like some dodge strip joint! "Members only, no touching!"


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2006)

> If you wanted to post pics of a girl you post it but it is not shown until it is approved by a mod first or a site administrator





> You could only access it if you were a member (threfore not open to general public)



these both seem like good ideas to me, although i think having to give your age takes it a bit far......


----------



## Maestro (May 25, 2006)

You say that because you would be too young to access the thread...


----------



## cheddar cheese (May 25, 2006)

And also because of how easy it is to lie.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (May 25, 2006)

and it would turn this site into too much of a ***** nanny state, one of the best things about the internet is that people need know nothing about you, i don't wanna start handing out details..............


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (May 26, 2006)

I like the making it a member only site and Les if it is brought back you know that at most of the times of the day atleast one of us is online to monitor it.

I however do agree with everything that Erich has said so I dont think I am for it or against it. It is something that we moderators need to discuss.


----------



## lesofprimus (May 26, 2006)

Yup...


----------



## Crippen (Jul 8, 2006)

Hey I have the perfect answer Les.... bring it back and I get vito to delete anything OTT or under age.

LOL couldn't resist that.

Though I find it a bit sad, boys will be boys,so why not bring it back...... but with firm rules.

cant believe I just said that....must be mellowing in my old age....bless me!

(Can I ban Sunny boy if he kicks off again though.... please,please, lol  )


----------



## mosquitoman (Jul 8, 2006)

Ahh, the original Lurverly Lady herself returns!
(that's my bit of a**e kissing for today )


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 8, 2006)

Lady and Gentlemen, the Moderators have discussed the issue of returning the thread, and we've come to the conclusion that its not necessary to do it...

Thanks for ur time and consideration in this matter....

Now go fu*k off.....

And hello Cripps......


----------



## peterbruce2002 (Jul 8, 2006)

okay fair enough, maybe it can be called the flirty females thread then?

just joking, sounds fair, think its silly we had one in the first place.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 8, 2006)

I dont look at porn on the internet, so it kinda made sense to me somewhat, but I was the minority and rolled over....

Bottom line is that its not worth the hassle...


----------



## Tiger (Jul 8, 2006)

So what you're saying is; all the other mods look at hardcore else where on the web so modding a "Lurverly Ladies Thread" would take time away from browsing hardcore stuff?  

Never mind!


----------



## Henk (Jul 8, 2006)

Ok, cool.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 11, 2006)

Tiger said:


> So what you're saying is; all the other mods look at hardcore else where on the web so modding a "Lurverly Ladies Thread" would take time away from browsing hardcore stuff?
> 
> Never mind!



No we determined that it was not worth it because the so many people on here could not handle the rules and not post porn. This is not a porn site, there are people that are as young as 12 on here and then we also dont need P-38 Pilots mom walking in on him whacking his pud at a scantly clad women on this site...


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 11, 2006)

Damn....


----------



## Henk (Jul 11, 2006)

, that was well said Adler.


----------



## Tiger (Jul 12, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> No we determined that it was not worth it because the so many people on here could not handle the rules and not post porn. This is not a porn site, there are people that are as young as 12 on here and then we also dont need P-38 Pilots mom walking in on him whacking his pud at a scantly clad women on this site...



P-38 wouldn't be wacking off over porn, he'd be too busy changing his sig for the 4,000,000th time.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 12, 2006)

Uve been here for 3 months Tiger.... His siggy has changed as many times as ur has in that time...


----------



## Tiger (Jul 12, 2006)

While that may be true, this (link below) thread seems to suggest a rather different overall trend. I think my estimate of 4,000,000 changes of sig may have been a slight exaggeration.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/si...load/p38-pilots-sig-testing-site-1869-22.html


----------



## trackend (Jul 12, 2006)

Lets forget the lurverly ladies and have revolting slappers instead


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)

It is not that P38 changes his so much, but rather that is all he comes on here to do. 

Oh well I guess that is better than having him talk about being a soldier and how he is going to win wars all by himself.


----------



## trackend (Jul 12, 2006)

Look on the bright side Adler in a punch up he's going to be terrific cannon fodder you can follow him in a bit later


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 12, 2006)




----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 12, 2006)

Tiger, we arent talking about the past, but P-38's recent posting... Back in the day, he would change it every other day.... He has gotten alot better....

For the record, I change mine back and forth between several I made up, only cause I like all of them and decided that one wasnt enough... And it depends on my mood as well....

God, I sound like some bi*ch on the rag...


----------



## Henk (Jul 12, 2006)

LOL


----------



## Tiger (Jul 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> It is not that P38 changes his so much, but rather that is all he comes on here to do.
> 
> Oh well I guess that is better than having him talk about being a soldier and how he is going to win wars all by himself.



 

I have read a couple of threads where he is claiming to know what it is like to fight in a war and how he wants to "kick Iraqi ***".


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

lesofprimus said:


> God, I sound like some bi*ch on the rag...


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 13, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> This is not a porn site, there are people that are as young as 12 on here and then we also dont need P-38 Pilots mom walking in on him whacking his pud at a scantly clad women on this site...



I didnt appreciate a single bit that was said there Alder.



DerAlderIstGelandet said:


> It is not that P38 changes his so much, but rather that is all he comes on here to do.
> Oh well I guess that is better than having him talk about being a soldier and how he is going to win wars all by himself.



Again, I dont find this funny. I dont talk about you Alder. We may argue at times and you like calling me "naive", but I dont talk bad behind your back and I respect you even though it doesent seem like it.



Tiger said:


> I have read a couple of threads where he is claiming to know what it is like to fight in a war and how he wants to "kick Iraqi ***".



Tiger, for someone who hasnt been here long, you do like to **** with people who have been here longer than you. Oh, I do not know what it is like to see combat. I respect the guys who have. Im just saying I seem to understand what the *Veterans* went through.

Les, Alder, Evanglider, etc. senior members. I apoligize for being annoying in the past.


----------



## trackend (Jul 13, 2006)

You've never annoyed me P38 you obviously need more practice, in fact there has only ever been a couple of Nano Knackers that have succeeded but as they no longer frequent the site everyone here is very very nice
(if you believe that you'll believe anything)


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 13, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> I didnt appreciate a single bit that was said there Alder.



Chill out P38 it was a joke. If you cant hang with the big boys done come out and play...





P38 Pilot said:


> Again, I dont find this funny. I dont talk about you Alder. We may argue at times and you like calling me "naive", but I dont talk bad behind your back and I respect you even though it doesent seem like it.



Would you like me to give you a stress card you can pull out when you can not handle it anymore and then you get 15 min of you time?

Jesus Christ P38 calm the **** down, besides I was not talking behind your back, I put it out in the open. 





P38 Pilot said:


> Im just saying I seem to understand what the *Veterans* went through.



How?



P38 Pilot said:


> Les, Alder, Evanglider, etc. senior members. I apoligize for being annoying in the past.



Your getting a lot better kid, I just like to give you **** because you make it so easy! 

It really is not fun though, becuase you dont make a sport out of it.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 13, 2006)

Damn, P-38 makin a solid attempt at opening a can on Tiger..... Guess its time to crack one open....






As for the other crap, Adlers right, u need to lighten up some and remember, its all fun till someone gets hurt, so, unless ur bleeding from the anal orifice from the mini-slamming, make fun of Adler or something....

And for the record, that first post,


> there are people that are as young as 12 on here and then we also dont need P-38 Pilots mom walking in on him whacking his pud at a scantly clad women on this site...


was freakin funny as hell....


----------



## Henk (Jul 13, 2006)

I agree Les that one was really funny.


----------



## Maestro (Jul 13, 2006)

I agree too.


----------



## evangilder (Jul 13, 2006)

I admit that I damn near spilled another drink on my keyboard on that first one, Adler. You have to admit that was funny, -38.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 14, 2006)

wait a minute so all i'd have to do is actually take offence when you next make a sheep joke and you'll stop


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 14, 2006)

evangilder said:


> I admit that I damn near spilled another drink on my keyboard on that first one, Adler. You have to admit that was funny, -38.



Its only funny when its not you.... Alder and others just do it *too* much. 

Now, I can take a joke, but when someone does it all the damn time, enough is enough.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)

the lancaster kicks *** said:


> wait a minute so all i'd have to do is actually take offence when you next make a sheep joke and you'll stop



No because you actually put up a fight, P38 does this:


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Its only funny when its not you.... Alder and others just do it *too* much.
> 
> Now, I can take a joke, but when someone does it all the damn time, enough is enough.



You need to grow some thicker skin man. Laugh it off and come back with a snappy comment right back. Thats the way it goes man...

I dont get pissed off if Les makes fun of me, syscom makes fun of me, Even makes fun of me, or as a matter of fact anyone. It is all fun and games. 

Heres what I think about it, BOO HOO!

Below that is a new siggy for you too, goes with the ostridge sticking its head in the ground.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)

Oh and besides if I do it too much, then dont make it so easy for me to pick on you. You bring it a lot on by the things you say.


----------



## Tiger (Jul 14, 2006)

> Tiger, for someone who hasnt been here long, you do like to **** with people who have been here longer than you. Oh, I do not know what it is like to see combat. I respect the guys who have. Im just saying I seem to understand what the Veterans went through.



I like the way you contradict yourself. You say you don't know what it's like to see combat, then you say you know what people who have seen combat went through. With your statement you only have confirmed what I said in my post (the one which you quoted). 

P.S. P-38 check your supplier of whoopass, your batch seems to be flat.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 14, 2006)




----------



## Maestro (Jul 14, 2006)

Tiger said:


> I like the way you contradict yourself. You say you don't know what it's like to see combat, then you say you know what people who have seen combat went through. With your statement you only have confirmed what I said in my post (the one which you quoted).



Hey, I haven't noticed that. I thought only girls could say one thing and it's opposite in the same sentence. Looks like I was wrong... 

Okay, may be not in the same sentence, but in the same paragraph...


----------



## evangilder (Jul 14, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Its only funny when its not you.... Alder and others just do it *too* much.
> 
> Now, I can take a joke, but when someone does it all the damn time, enough is enough.



You know, if he had said that about me, I still would have laughed. If I didn;t have a snappy comeback, I would have laughed and admitted he got me good. No biggie. If things like this bug you, you're going to have one hell of a tough time in basic training.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 14, 2006)

That kind of stuff doesent bug me. I wish you guys knew me in real life because I love to joke around even when the jokes are about me.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 14, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> You need to grow some thicker skin man. Laugh it off and come back with a snappy comment right back. Thats the way it goes man...
> 
> I dont get pissed off if Les makes fun of me, syscom makes fun of me, Even makes fun of me, or as a matter of fact anyone. It is all fun and games.
> 
> ...



You know what, that was a great comeback. Though usually I dont stick my head in the ground.

By the way heres your new sig!


----------



## Hunter368 (Jul 14, 2006)

Thats it kid way to go fight back. lol You told to fight back Chris now he is, good for him. Chris maybe you are creating the next "Minister of Whoop azz" for when Dan retires or steps down from the title.

Its funny to see people learn to stick up for themselves and fun for all.

  

P38, Chris (and Dan) is teaching you something here make sure you learn well. At times in life P38 you have to learn to just laugh it off and there are times where you fight back, learning WHEN to do both is the hard thing.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 15, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> That kind of stuff doesent bug me. I wish you guys knew me in real life because I love to joke around even when the jokes are about me.



You sure have not shown that on this site. You allways get butt hurt.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 15, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> You know what, that was a great comeback. Though usually I dont stick my head in the ground.
> 
> By the way heres your new sig!



Getting better....


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 15, 2006)

When life throws you lemons, make lemonade!


----------



## Henk (Jul 15, 2006)

Hope you can P38!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 15, 2006)

Hell, I hope I can make gallons of lemonade...


----------



## Henk (Jul 15, 2006)

How much for a glass mate?


----------



## trackend (Jul 16, 2006)

Hunter368 said:


> Chris maybe you are creating the next "Minister of Whoop azz" for when Dan retires or steps down from the title.



I don't think Dan will ever step down (maybe he'll get carried away and whoop his own arse sort of self inflicted meatballicide), no forget that the old git will only come back and whoop us from beyond the grave.
Could be interesting Ive never been whooped by a poltergeist,
Damion The Arse Whooper (great title for a film)


----------



## SpitfireKing (Jul 16, 2006)

I'm all for it. If too many people put porn on here delete the thread or somthing.


----------



## Henk (Jul 16, 2006)

The mods have already decided that it wont happen.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 16, 2006)

Although I love women just or even more than WWII stuff, I actually feel we not put any ladies on the site. The Mods made their decision and im glad. This should strictly be a WWII website.


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 16, 2006)

Guys, heads up. Im changing my sig but im going to keep the one im about to put for a very long time!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 16, 2006)

Never mind. For some reason imageshack isnt working right. Do you guys know any others?


----------



## evangilder (Jul 16, 2006)

try photobucket.com


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

Try making your own....


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Jul 17, 2006)

> Guys, heads up. Im changing my sig



did we really need a warning i mean come on who would've been supprised?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 17, 2006)

Ok.


----------



## Tiger (Jul 17, 2006)

P38 Pilot said:


> Guys, heads up. Im changing my sig but im going to keep the one im about to put for a very long time!



Who is "Im" and why are they changing your sig?

Good one Lanc!


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 17, 2006)

Alright im not changing the sig for a very long time!


----------



## Tiger (Jul 17, 2006)

Tell "im" good choice of picture! Though the text is a little plain.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)

I wont believe it until he proves it.

A long time for him is 36 hours. 

So if you actually go for a long time like a couple of months or what not, does that mean you are not coming on to the forum during that time, because you only come on when you change your siggy?


----------



## Gnomey (Jul 17, 2006)

Nice one P-38. Come Adler, just over 24 and he will be sweating for a new one...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 17, 2006)




----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 18, 2006)

Dont worry. Im going to come on as soon as possible during the next months. I just have to put up with chores, school, etc.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

Do you really think any of us were worrying?


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 20, 2006)

Ok....


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 20, 2006)

AWWWWWWW You did didn't you?


----------



## Henk (Jul 20, 2006)

LOL


----------



## Pisis (Jul 21, 2006)

Where's the babes? I clicked this link cause I thought there would be some......


----------



## P38 Pilot (Jul 21, 2006)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> AWWWWWWW You did didn't you?



Yeah, how did you know?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 3, 2006)

So...after that many chit chat no girls allowed ?


----------



## Henk (Aug 3, 2006)

Yup, the mods decided it is for the best. Welcome back CB.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 4, 2006)

CharlesBronson said:


> So...after that many chit chat no girls allowed ?



Did you read any of the posts at all? If you had, you would have seen that we mods decided against it.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 4, 2006)

No Adler honestly I did not read the entire topic, some of the post are tiring and histeric.


----------



## Crippen (Aug 4, 2006)

Well I am surprised, I expected a healthy 20 page thread to be up and running when i came back on here. I miss judged you 

Lancs maybe you should e mail um what i sent ya tonight just to keep um ticking over.

Ok then, how are your own lovely ladies doing lads (hows the missus)? and new arrivals.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 5, 2006)

no no, i'll keep that to myself hun, each one reminds me of you


----------



## evangilder (Aug 6, 2006)

Here are my lurverly ladies; wife and daughter.


----------



## the lancaster kicks ass (Aug 7, 2006)

you copywrited your family  cute


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 7, 2006)

In todays world you have to.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 7, 2006)

Actually I copy_right_ed my family.  Always a good idea to put the info on the photo, for many reasons.


----------



## Crippen (Aug 7, 2006)

aww nice pics, cute family you have there, enjoy them lots hun (though I think you do).


(Lancs you are as mad as a hatter hun.... and you need glasses hun, shes half my age and blonde, but it made me smile neverthelass lol)


----------



## Pisis (Aug 11, 2006)

> Always a good idea to put the info on the photo, for many reasons.


Yes, at least it's a good reference for possible business...


----------



## evangilder (Aug 12, 2006)

Yep, that too.


----------



## Pisis (Aug 12, 2006)

Well I got credited with money just because I copyrighted that Klezmatics photo - they obtained it ion the local newspapers and gave me moooooooney.


----------



## evangilder (Aug 12, 2006)

Very cool. I love when that happens.


----------



## Pisis (Aug 13, 2006)

Hehe


----------



## P38 Pilot (Aug 13, 2006)

Awesome! How much did they give you!


----------



## Pisis (Aug 13, 2006)

Not much, like $10. But still pleasant.


----------

