The topic about 'The topic about "The topic ideas topic"'
-
-
Wow this place is surely a humor goldmine now. HEY YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD BE FUNNY IF WE MADE A TOPIC ABOUT THE TOPIC IDEAS TOPIC ABOUT THE TOPIC ABOUT THE *gunshot*
There's an app for that!
-
Google is known to change user-based results based on that user's past searches - I got images similar to the above when I typed it in...
Google will censor the search for you (even if you have safe-search off) unless you put words that let it know you have an obvious for porn. Like 8" nude floppy. You can search a pornstar name and get (mostly) plain safe-for-work pics unless you tack in what body part you were hoping to see nude.
-
I searched "8 inch floppy" with safesearch off and this was among the results:
-
8 inch floppy
Interestingly, 8 inch floppy nude in google image search results in more breasts than dicks.
And this is the first image:
wtf?
-
8 inch floppy nude in google image search results in more breasts than dicks.
I suppose it makes sense, because you're more likely to hear about big floppy titties than big floppy cocks (which I really do not suggest searching!).
-
-
Google will censor the search for you (even if you have safe-search off) unless you put words that let it know you have an obvious for porn.
As previously pointed out, it demonstrably does not. Unless you consider a character in a children's book 'obvious for porn'? ;)
-
Arantor said:
since I'm the kind of guy who could keep on programming rather than have sex.
In PHP? Good grief, we're losing him people!
Without knowing his ex... you get my meaning.
-
As previously pointed out, it demonstrably does not. Unless you consider a character in a children's book 'obvious for porn'?
get (mostly) plain safe-for-work pics unless you tack in what body part you were hoping to see nude.
Since the post you linked had a search that gave mostly safe pics but an unsafe alternate suggested search that included the word "willy" which is also slang for a body part which is something I pointed out will result in NSFW pics, I can only assume that you're agreeing with my statement while using negative phrasing?
-
@darkmatter said:
get (mostly) plain safe-for-work pics unless you tack in what body part you were hoping to see nude.
Since the post you linked had a search that gave mostly safe pics but an unsafe alternate suggested search that included the word "willy" which is also slang for a body part which is something I pointed out will result in NSFW pics, I can only assume that you're agreeing with my statement while using negative phrasing?
Then of course there are 1980s computer games you'd have to be careful of too.
-
Then of course there are 1980s computer games you'd have to be careful of too.
That game has the best cover artwork ever.
-
Then of course there are 1980s computer games you'd have to be careful of too.
And as people have pointed out, searching for birds of the tit variety at work is a bad plan too.
-
I had it for C-64. I recall it being not very good.
-
-
I had it for C-64. I recall it being not very good.
It was a terrible game. Also, I believe several versions contained a bug that made it literally impossible to complete.
-
It was a terrible game. Also, I believe several versions contained a bug that made it literally impossible to complete.
Including the original version on the ZX Spectrum. Details on the linked Wikipedia page.
-
Has anyone seen the goalposts? They seem to have moved.
I directly quoted my original post, nothing changed in there.
-
I directly quoted my original post,
Which I wasn't addressing. The post I was answering was quoted in my post.
-
Which I wasn't addressing. The post I was answering was quoted in my post.
???? Now I'm really confused. Your first post quoted a different sentence out of the exact same post I then quoted in response to you. Your goalposts post quoted my response in which I quoted the same post you quoted to argue about, and all I did was basically repeated the same thing I said in the post you quoted originally.
So hopefully you're as confused as me now that I've referenced and dereferenced about 5 post pointers.
-
Clearly the lack of nested quotes is a barrier to this argument. I don't even know what the argument is.
-
Has anyone seen the goalposts? They seem to have moved.
You gotta watch out for those badgers…
-
One for the
* ideas
threads - unsure which one however...