QUOTE(matt56la @ Jun 25 2005, 11:13 AM)
QUOTE(vasser_- @ Jun 24 2005, 06:42 PM)
you say all that .. but look @ your signature ...
[right][snapback]78776[/snapback][/right]
Yep, my signature doesn't show any nudity. It follows the flexbeta standards and exposes just enough clevage to make you drool and cream your pants

edit: If I would have uploaded the original picture I made my signature from then you would understand that at first it wasen't suitable for the site. So i cropped the image and added a few elements. There is nothing wrong with my signature at this moment, and if you look at others like BlueScreenOfDeath's you can see that as long as the women in your sig is wearing clothes and no private parts are exposed then you can use risquy images and get away with it.
[right][snapback]78797[/snapback][/right]
I am going to post one more picture of my sexiest woman alive but, first I want to address the issue of nudity and how Matt56la is breaking the exact rule and making fun of users for pointing this issue out, instead of following the rules and removing his picture.
nudity-defined as the absence of clothing or exposing any or all parts of the human genitalia, breasts, or buttocks.
We all know that as time has progressed, man kind went from showing nude statues as art. Now, we have girls on the beach wearing T-backs and topless beaches. Men can show topless pictures but, women cannot? This is all based on sexual arousal. I do not want to cause an uproar I just want Matt to realize that what he is laughing at us about is not correct. It is fine to ban the links but, then to turn around and make fun of other users in the forum, I can do it but, you cannot, is wrong. I am putting this in just for everyone to think about. I hope we all become better people because of this.
Here is my new choice for Sexiest woman alive, here name is Carmella DeCesare.[attachmentid=2807]