Thank you.

I think the main issue here is that Ram is just upset cause he sees things that are just as bad if not worse then what is on this gallery. I tend to agree with him. You guys have brought up some valid points though. It is the Hun's site and if he feels that these are not appropriate then so be it. I would not put Beasty shit or GAG BJs on my site. SO we all have our limits. It is just what is each individuals. But Ram... I am on your side!

My you do lead a very sheltered life. I've known women who would almost pay to be shagged by a dog. Hmmmm...not quite sure what they says about me :)

Boy, this got settled rather quickly and simply, once The Hun stopped by and read/responded to this thread.

RAM, don't you think this could have been handled by just e-mailing HIM, and asking HIM for his reasons? Why come to the baords when the answer lies in one man? I understand your frustration, and I was wondering why you'd be rejected when the examples you posted here were approved, but I still theink you should have just contacted the one guy who could give you the answers.

I wanted ANSWERS now......Try and e-mail the HUN and see how long it takes for him to get back to you. Now I'm not saying that is bad...but you know he gets a SICK amount of e-mail.

This way it's done and things are fair again. The only real drag is when posting on a Board is all the extra BS that goes with it.

damn that is some wild stuff, hanging girls?

serial killer fetish?

fucking wild shit

i learned a long time ago that it normally takes more time to post grievances about a denied submission than it takes to just fix the problem and move on.

btw, i looked at those two images... didn't see anything wrong with them at all.

Urgent matters take a MAXIMUM of 24 hours to be replied too. But that doesn't matter. I don't mind something like this being taken publicly... no namecalling was done, and the discussion never got ugly. It also could make things clear for other people. Kind of like a FAQ ;-)

RAM brought up a valid point. And looking from his side I could clearly see why he was upset. I would have reacted the same probably. But aside from RAM others could have seen the same thing, if they read this it might explain things for 'em...

if she was hogtied and getting fucked by a dog while looking alive, you'd be good to go.

I couldn't see what RAM was bitching about until I actually clicked on the sponsor link from the gallery AS HE SAID IN HIS POST. If people took the time to do that they'd know why he was pissed and why Patrick has now dropped the gallery.

Looking at that page RAM had a very valid point.

:)

Agreed. By comparing the links, I felt as confused as he did, at first. Until Fletch pointed out the last 2 pics RAM used had the guy simulating strangling. That was the major differnce in the galleries.
Anyway, I'm glad that RAM got the answer he needed, and also that it gave us all some pointers to be aware of. So everybody wins :thumbsup

Thanks

Gawd.... just fix the damn thing and resubmit it. dont bitch. holy shit, rotflmfao

Nice...that could be a new niche

He just was wondering what he had to fix. You saw no reason for his confusion?

Like I said all the BS that goes with posting on a Board.

There's BS on this board? Hmmm...that's probably where I keep going wrong then. :)

This he told you? What about the animalsex banner on his page?

It's always so much easier to post in a thread if you have half an idea of the stuff posted before.

I'm curious if there's any HUN bookmarkers that see that dog gallery and close the browser in disgust and never go back?
Yep, she's obviously willing (with one very happy dog!) but man oh man... yuk. Takes all kinds... but all species, too?

Cause I'm just telling you how US Attorney's work Rambo. Take advice or ignore it, it doesn't matter a bit to me and I could care less if you get your ass nailed. I'm just telling you straight up cause for example we ran full page ads in Hustler and were highly visible, and one day we got a knock on our door from a State Attorney General on obscenity bs and our content was mild compared to what's out now. We worked out a deal and settled with them and had to shut down that operation as part of the agreement and the prosecution they were threatening us with was thrown out, but we we're looking at $75,000 per day fines for every day we we're operating and other serious obscene distribution crap. The legal bill alone to handle it was more than most people here make in a year.

So have a good day and just think about what you're peddling.

are you paying? if not i think you should know the answer to your question.

The key words in your reply are:
We worked out a deal and settled with them and had to shut down that operation as part of the agreement and the prosecution they were threatening us with was thrown out,


THROWN out...I like that part.

Anyway thanks for pointing all this out. I'm not the owner just work here.

Read the Post.....or better yet let me put it like this.

No Ass Monkey I'm not paying I just thought I would come here to see if you would ask me a question like that.

Well luckily it was the Pennsylvania AG's office and we had a politically connected law firm that handled it for us. I know the pricks picked us cause we were buying the "you can't miss it" inside cover spots and I knew in my gut that was sticking our necks too high up in the water and we'd be targeted. And sure enough we got the knock knock. But luckily it pays to have good attorneys that make all the right political contributions to the right people to get bullshit like this handled and I was just a partner / investor in that operation, so it wasn't all on my shoulders. When I saw the $75,000 fines per day part I said you got to be kidding me, who made up that obscene amount.

But how many movies have scenes of strangling, or murder, or extreme violence. No one seems to bother to raise even an eyebrow at it, but if you post digital stills of a fantasy scene acted-out like that, then everyone starts talking like it's so horrible.


Something is wrong when we do that.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh
:thumbsup

Let me explain something.

Main Entry: <b>1act·ing </b>
Pronunciation: 'ak-ti[ng]
Function: noun
Date: 1664
: <i>the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras </i>


How it works is, models and actors are paid, they sign release forms, and they VOLUNTARILY pose and act out scenes of nudity, fantasy, sexuality, and sometimes horror and horrific violence.

It is make-believe. Acted-out. Play-acted....... NOT REAL. Hello?

If it is advertised as fantasy, there should be nothing wrong with it at all. If everyone held your standards, then there would be no action movies, no "Terminator" movies where Sara Connor is brutalized and her female roomates killed, there would be no "Friday the 13th part 217", there would be no movie or TV violence allowed. If someone appears as though they're about to sneeze on somone the screen would go black.


Why is this type of acting okay for TV and movies but NOT okay for a website?


Just think about it a bit more. Your standard is admirable, but it is slightly out of whack. Why not filter out the REAL violence and allow anything that is clearly promoted as fantasy-only?