Post Your Desktop "Background screenshot"

screenshoteb2.png
 
WHOA THERE subdee, dont know if thats allowed! cool bar on top, but you are gettin a bit racy with your background.
Edit: has anyone noticed!? holy wow!
 
Last edited:
Whats wrong with the res, its just fine I think, any smaller and it just looks weird! Nortans good, bit pricey but it keeps the viruses away!
 
Kornowski said:
Whats wrong with the res, its just fine I think, any smaller and it just looks weird! Nortans good, bit pricey but it keeps the viruses away!
Click to expand...
Well I guess so, but higher res is much better for some editing/professional apps. Norton is not good, despite common notion. Norton, for one, is a resource hog. For two, it failed the latest detection tests, and often times misses things. Just google around, you'll see people moving to Avast and AVG all the time over the stuff Norton and McAfee miss. They're worried too much on eye candy features, and less on real detection.
 
jp198780 said:
i like ;) , but i know that isnt allowed....
Click to expand...
Come on, it's accepted in art. The female body is very attractive, like a work of art. (I think we can agree on that one) It's not really pornographic in that pic, and i think it should be allowed to stay. Hell, that'd be my background if only my parents didnt have to use the PC. (HOT BACKGROUND)
 
jp198780 said:
yeahh, i would have the same thing, maybe hotter lol, but my bro uses my pc occasinally.
Click to expand...
Oh yea, she's got a really nice body, and chest, just the face is Ok, but i'd still take it. :cool:
 
No doubt we all probably love a good looking chick...but there is such a thing as modesty too.

We've got kids on here who aren't even teenagers yet, they don't need to be exposed to this kind of "art" just quite yet, IMHO.
 
4W4K3 said:
No doubt we all probably love a good looking chick...but there is such a thing as modesty too.

We've got kids on here who aren't even teenagers yet, they don't need to be exposed to this kind of "art" just quite yet, IMHO.
Click to expand...
I'm only 15, and see nothing wrong with it. As I said, it's not pornographic, just a little bit of exposure to an nice looking woman. There's nothing wrong with a little bit of a woman's chest. Also, anyone who isn't a teenager, shouldn't be on here, as the agreement is you must be 13+.
 
SC7 said:
I'm only 15, and see nothing wrong with it. As I said, it's not pornographic, just a little bit of exposure to an nice looking woman. There's nothing wrong with a little bit of a woman's chest. Also, anyone who isn't a teenager, shouldn't be on here, as the agreement is you must be 13+.
Click to expand...

Again, it's just an opinion. I'm not seeing "a little bit of a woman's chest"...I'm seeing 2 completely un-covered breasts.

If we can break the site rules and post pictures of half nake women in there underwear, then the age requirement should be bumped to 18+.
 
I'd have to say basically everyone my age looks at stuff of probably of more "pornographicness" regularly anyways, and this forum is pretty mature so I'd said whatever.
 
4W4K3 said:
Again, it's just an opinion. I'm not seeing "a little bit of a woman's chest"...I'm seeing 2 completely un-covered breasts.

If we can break the site rules and post pictures of half nake women in there underwear, then the age requirement should be bumped to 18+.
Click to expand...
Meh, again, two uncovered breasts is not an 18+ subject. Uncovered breasts are not considered pornographic, therefore allowing them in PG-13 movies. I will respect your opinion however. I really don't think what is so bad, no one is really hurt, and again, it's just a body, in the way it was meant to be on this earth. It's how god put us here, why the hell must it be so shied away from that 18- can't view it.

As for one post up, it's illegal for people under 18 in the united states to view full blown pornography. Its actually a crime, and you could get prosecuted for it, you the juvinile viewing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top