ST Alpha - "I assume the "purpose" is to show that [you] aren't protected online even when you think you are. -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 156

In response to "Screwing with YouTube is one thing. Teasing that it's Hannah Montana or Jonah Bros content and to intentionally expose it to children is crap. -- nm" by Mop (236 lbs)

I assume the "purpose" is to show that [you] aren't protected online even when you think you are. -- nm

Posted by Qale (aka Qale) May 21 '09, 11:36

(No message)

Responses:

still, uncool -- nm - ty97 May 21, 12:00
but, but, think of all the 8 year old childrens surfing the youtube, and what their little eyes are seeing! -- nm - Beryllium May 21, 11:37 5
- The internet is for all practical purposes no where an 8 year old should be unattended. It really can't be censored, blacklisted, or Net Nanny'd clean -- nm - Qale May 21, 11:39 4
  - Hmm, I had hoped that the inappropriately pluralized childrens would have given away the tongue in cheek tone ... - Beryllium May 21, 11:41 3
    - So you're saying the childrens shouldn't be on the internets? -- nm - Qale May 21, 11:44 2
      - I don't have an opinion in the matter for other people's children, and I haven't decided what the future holds for my potential offsprings -- nm - Beryllium May 21, 11:46 1
        
        I don't think I'll ever have children adopted or otherwise myself. - Qale May 21, 11:55

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.