The only thing I can do is love! And pump blood.

How very vulgar.

It's not that bad. I guess. Sort of.

I'm not going to support someone who doesn't deserve such an award in place of someone who really deserves it.

Looks like she didn't have a very good immune system.

Why are you so hateful? Have you no heart?

What lane were you in? You could have pulled to the side or gone to the opposite side of the road or something.

That's pretty neat!

I'm going to be running through the summer. Gotta work on my cardio.

Light and Fab are really close.

Gah double post.

From second page:

NG Office,
Glenside, Pennsylvania

Timmy,
Springfield, Pennsylvania

Radioactive24,
West Grove, Pennsylvania

Homosecksual,
Queens, New York

NeverHundred,
Topsham, Maine

Dropkicked,
Smithfield, Rhode Island

Brumak,
Lanoka Harbor, New Jersey

Halvgoeden,
Silver Spring, Maryland

DELUCA2400
Manassas, Virginia

Sumidiotdude,
Charlotte, North Carolina

TheOriginalReference,
Wildwood, Georgia

ForNoReason,
Covington, Georgia

EyeLovePoozy,
Miami, Florida

firemaker60,
Tallahassee, Florida

Yamor,
Coaling, Alabama

igott,
Dickson, Tennessee

Igotaname13,
Fairdale, Kentucky

Cyprus,
Toledo, Ohio

Toukeman,
Marietta, Ohio

Xinxinix,
Gibraltar, Michigan

Five-Iron,
Shelbyville, Indiana

Gooch
Oquawka, Illinois

Sensationalism,
Belleville, Wisconsin

ReNaeNae,
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Sialys,
St. Peters, Missouri

TheRipper00,
Kansas City, Missouri

MissingNYC,
Denver, Colorado

Joshylikes2smash,
Las Vegas, Nevada

MonkeyV,
Las Vegas, Nevada

Zappawadda,
Santa Monica, California

BloodySabbath
Port Angeles, Washington

Rozner
Ewa Beach, Hawaii

At 6/26/09 12:30 PM, ForNoReason wrote: OK! Here is what we need to do! This is the orignal list as far as I can find:

NG Office,
Glenside, Pennsylvania

Timmy,
Springfield, Pennsylvania

Radioactive24,
West Grove, Pennsylvania

Homosecksual,
Queens, New York

NeverHundred,
Topsham, Maine

Dropkicked,
Smithfield, Rhode Island

Brumak,
Lanoka Harbor, New Jersey

Halvgoeden,
Silver Spring, Maryland

DELUCA2400
Manassas, Virginia

Sumidiotdude,
Charlotte, North Carolina

TheOriginalReference,
Wildwood, Georgia

ForNoReason,
Covington, Georgia

EyeLovePoozy,
Miami, Florida

firemaker60,
Tallahassee, Florida

Yamor,
Coaling, Alabama

igott,
Dickson, Tennessee

Igotaname13,
Fairdale, Kentucky

Cyprus,
Toledo, Ohio

Toukeman,
Marietta, Ohio

Xinxinix,
Gibraltar, Michigan

Five-Iron,
Shelbyville, Indiana

Gooch
Oquawka, Illinois

Sensationalism,
Belleville, Wisconsin

ReNaeNae,
Minneapolis, Minnesota

Sialys,
St. Peters, Missouri

TheRipper00,
Kansas City, Missouri

MissingNYC,
Denver, Colorado

Joshylikes2smash,
Las Vegas, Nevada

MonkeyV,
Las Vegas, Nevada

Zappawadda,
Santa Monica, California

I believe you missed a couple of people, from what I saw from the second page.

BloodySabbath
Port Angeles, Washington

Rozner
Ewa Beach, Hawaii

Don't want to end up missing those people, now do we?

Sounds like fun!

At 6/30/09 02:18 PM, TheAmateurAnimator wrote: Based on other sources, it seems that TPB is just decentalizing its operations, although it may start using ad revenue to compensate copyright holders (or so I've heard). Don't worry, if this is true, all you pirates out there won't be inconvenienced or (gasp) forced to buy things.

So in other words, ads and donations go to the copyright holders? I don't think that would go much to keeping the site alive.

I'm fine, as long as the shift knob doesn't do anything funny.

They say that it helps to find the mysterious "G" spot.

At 7/1/09 07:22 AM, mongoid wrote: Your initial question was about painting a nude picture of a child.

Oh, no no no no no no, my initial question was about any child depicted in a drawing. A drawn portrait can be defined as a sketch, painting, even digital media. Since animations are repeated static drawings represented in a way to simulate movement, it's just a whole lot of portraits.

The paragraph you're citing is about the legality of simulated intercourse with a child.

And as the paragraph cited, "A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children...

If they say it depicts actual children, it's illegal.

"Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography."

And if it is presented as real, non-simulated child pornography, it's illegal.

It's probably wise to stop looking for loopholes for subject matter like this.

It's no loophole, it states the legality of drawn cartoon child pornography.

At 7/1/09 06:47 AM, mongoid wrote: The law states that drawing children in the nude is just fine as long as it isn't obscene, or can be construed as pornographic. Read this for more info.

You do mean the following, right?

The law enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value.
If it depicts a minor, a person who is underage, in an obscene or non-serious in value, it's illegal. Alright I understand that part, but may I bring this paragraph to your attention?

In 2008 in United States v. Williams, the Supreme Court upheld a challenge to the constitutionality of section 2252A(a)(3). While the court dealt primarily with the issue of offering images of real children, the court nevertheless stated that "an offer to provide or request to receive virtual child pornography is not prohibited by the statute. A crime is committed only when the speaker believes or intends the listener to believe that the subject of the proposed transaction depicts real children... Simulated child pornography will be as available as ever, so long as it is offered and sought as such, and not as real child pornography."

So if the character depicted isn't real, and if the work is not presented as child pornography it's legal.

None of the characters were real-life children and the cartoon was presented as a parody.

I believe my point still stands.

If I remember correctly, if it's drawn, it's only considered child pornography if, and only if it depicts an actual child.

If you did a nudist portrait of an existing, real life, non-fictional child, it is child pornography.

I have no idea if someone already brought this up, but it's still a valid point.

Huh. I never expected this.

At 6/28/09 06:35 PM, platypuspwn wrote: He is also a tank.

Really :o

He took around 7 blows to the head, and didn't pass out.

What do you mean? A snake hit him in the head 7 times, you hit him in the head 7 times?

He's pretty cute and seems tough.

Any smoothie with fruit contains sugar, it's just natural sugar from within the fruit. Sounds delicious though.

I LOVE SMOOTHIES

It looks like it'll pertain mostly to the original storyline, just abridged and possibly more violent.

Just ride one. It may make your heart race out of fear, but you'll feel good after.

The lack of children growing on good cartoons just breaks me.

Only time will tell. Just keep living until your heart stops.

Well, that's when you stop living anyway.

I loved it. Especially the parts where Megan Fox was running in slow motion.

I love this idea.

This was a tragic month of June, wasn't it?

People of ancient civilizations have eaten certain plants or foods to induce stillborn births. Abortion is nothing new and nothing to fret over.

I believe that all life, even a life to be, is precious. I also believe that every human has the freedom to choose.