INFO FORUM ISSUES (Cont'd)

O:
https://forum.phun.org/threads/marg...terview-posted-2023-07-09-on-youtube.5017435/
R:
https://forum.phun.org/threads/k2s-rg-margot-robbie-–-the-puppy-interview-2023.5041105/

 

Trashed/Warned

 

O: https://forum.phun.org/threads/elizabeth-hurley-in-red-bikini-8-10-23.5046190/
R: https://forum.phun.org/threads/elizabeth-hurley-red-bikini-9-10-2023.5046195/

Posted the same minute

 

Trashed

 

https://forum.phun.org/threads/leven-rambin.5049020/
Per the rules,wrong forum.

 

Moved

 

Just for clarification, do you want all OnlyFans content from now on to go into the Social Media Celebrity Forum, even if the celebrity is super famous?

 

What do you guys think about posts like these:

That is some wayward unpersonal attack that might only yield more fighting, if anything.

But... it is not really an attack, they rather clearly are on a trolling mission imho. What actual sense could there be to belittle and talk down to people who bring forward some skepticism, but in a pretentious trolling way ... because they get off on it... ? What?

And then it is framed like a blanket "decent portion of members" on here. So let's think about that for a second.
Are they insinuating that a) a decent portion of all members are active in very thread or b) that they see the skepticism "like all the time" in the threads?
Scenario a) does not make sense. So it must be b), right?
So they remember all the questioning members or... did they, like, perform a statistical analysis of a decent enough sample size??And then they remembered that the posters with the skepticism are either always posting the same stuff or that is always new posters?

Next point, the whole underlying theme is like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Like a "future" trolling move. Because nobody really gives a shit about that opinion on their own, but they also bank on the consensus that it happens quite often! In fact so often that it must be rather easy to remember... right? Or do they imply that at any given point, people might or might not remember that others are fed up about other skeptics voicing their opinion about some CGI work?
Or they don't really care, but they pretend-ridicule others because "reason". And we should care about other that for the same "reason". Doesn't really matter imho, but the post definitely stirs up toxicity by attacking unspecified members.

I must say, imho that was one clever and sinister post, especially in the context of nudity of an "A-list" actress.

 

ridiculous, thread closed and posts removed.

 

https://forum.phun.org/threads/madisyn-shipman-nip-slip-covered.4969050/

Per the rules,wrong forum.

 

A note to clarify: I know many old OF threads in Celebrity Extra might be "ok" by regarding the policy as a cut, i.e. the old threads receive grandfathered* ignorance, if that were a term.
The thread in #13973 received a new post.

*About grandfathering:

 

Not a repost. 2 different forums because they each offer different resolutions

 

https://forum.phun.org/threads/top-4-sexiest-mission-impossible-actresses.5056325/
Not a photoset, a poll.

 

https://forum.phun.org/threads/donn...piano-5-28-23-non-nude.4926965/#post-17682470
Per the rules,wrong forum.

 

Moved, warned