ToastyMallows

33 ms·

1. 331.▲
   by ToastyMallows 13y ago

   I'll agree with that, usually the pictures are a little more discrete though, but I guess the larger issue is, should they have be more discrete? I think it all depends on context.
2. 332.▲
   by ToastyMallows 13y ago

   Yesterday on The Guardian I saw in the sidebar a man & woman on a bed, woman topless with just enough hair to cover her chest. I would consider this NSFW. What do you consider as NSFW?
3. 333.▲
   by ToastyMallows 13y ago

   I usually consider any nudity in a picture NSFW. Not sure why this is strange. Living in the US. Downvoters: Rebutal?
4. 334.▲
   by ToastyMallows 13y ago

   What, you don't want free animated smilies?
5. 335.▲
   by ToastyMallows 13y ago

   What is with The Guardian and their NSFW article pictures on the sidebar?
6. 336.▲
   by ToastyMallows 13y ago

   I feel like this every day of my life.
7. 337.▲
   by ToastyMallows 13y ago

   How much does a premium membership of Google Analytics or AdCenter cost? For a small company, under 10k transactions for free is pretty much unbeatable.
8. 338.▲
   by ToastyMallows 13y ago

   Doesn't a user that has Ghostery/NoScript render this completely useless?
9. 339.▲
   by ToastyMallows 13y ago

   http://www.isup.me/nytimes.com Looks fine to me.
10. 340.▲
    by ToastyMallows 13y ago

    Comic Sans :(