NSFW -- A Lovely Young Lady :D (2024)

Laurie is definitely becoming a hottie. :D

http://www.laurie-model.com/gallery.html

http://www.laurie-model.com/series/056.jpg

http://www.laurie-model.com/series/052.jpg

http://www.laurie-model.com/series/039.jpg

{edited by skeptica}

Hot or not, I've banned you, GP. You can't be posting these pictures from this site. These are copyrighted pictures. Posting such is a violation of rule 6. You have to be a member to see more of these pictures. Since this site is NOT a member of such an organization, I am not privy to these pictures.

Thanks, however, for prefacing the thread with the required NFSW category.

I have replaced your pictures with text links.

G6

GP,

These images are copyrighted. You should not hotlink them.

From laurie-model.com:

Copyright © 1996-2004 Webe Web Corp. All Rights Reserved.

Skeptoid wrote:GP,

These images are copyrighted. You should not hotlink them.

From laurie-model.com:

Copyright © 1996-2004 Webe Web Corp. All Rights Reserved.

These are FREE SAMPLES from her website. They don't care. It's free marketing for them. Let's apply some logic here.

Skeptoid wrote:Then post links to her free samples. The images are copyrighted and may not be reproduced.

Those are links to her free samples (ever heard of Hyper Text Markup Language?). I am not hosting the images, I am linking to them. Anyway, the owner of the images couldn't give a f*ck what I did with these samples. In fact, they frequently upload these samples to usenet.

Again, use some logic.

Skeptoid wrote:The copyright owner is free to do as they please with their material. You are not.

The images are FREE SAMPLES. Show me one case in the history of the world where someone has been sued for hotlinking to FREE SAMPLES on a website?

I won't hold my breath that you will be able to do it.

Genghis Pwn wrote:

Skeptoid wrote:GP,

These images are copyrighted. You should not hotlink them.

From laurie-model.com:

Copyright © 1996-2004 Webe Web Corp. All Rights Reserved.

These are FREE SAMPLES from her website. They don't care. It's free marketing for them. Let's apply some logic here.

Marketing? Are you saying that you're distributing advertising for their pay-to-join service?

Pyrrho wrote:

Genghis Pwn wrote:

Skeptoid wrote:GP,

These images are copyrighted. You should not hotlink them.

From laurie-model.com:

Copyright © 1996-2004 Webe Web Corp. All Rights Reserved.

These are FREE SAMPLES from her website. They don't care. It's free marketing for them. Let's apply some logic here.

See Also

mysocialsraka.blogg.se - Webe laurie model setsWebe web laurie model setsWebe Web - only-teens.ccKSU | Faculty Web - Laurie Dias

Marketing? Are you saying that you're distributing advertising for their pay-to-join service?

I am not affiliated with the site and they are not paying me. It's simply the result of posting the pics here. Awareness of Laurie will be raised. If I write a review of a movie here, that is also free marketing and publicity for the film.

Do you really need this explained to you?

Stop child sexual abuse

http://www.stopitnow.org/about.html

Call to Action
Stop It Now!'s vision is to help end the sexual abuse of children within our generation.

Stop It Now! is a nonprofit organization founded on the belief and experience that we as individuals and as a society can challenge and change the way we act.

Stop It Now!'s mission is to call on all abusers and potential abusers to stop and seek help, to educate adults about the ways to stop sexual abuse, and to increase public awareness of the trauma of child sexual abuse.

Child Abuse: A Public Health Epidemic
Is This Really An Epidemic?
Yes! One in five girls and one in seven boys have been sexually abused before the age of eighteen.

Who Are These Abusers?
90% of the victims of child sexual abuse know their abusers--they are the fathers, mothers, siblings, close relatives, friends, or other caretakers of children. They are rarely the monsters we imagine lurking in the corners of our playgrounds and parks.

Can Abusers Change?
Experts say YES! But sending abusers to prison without treatment does not stop further abuse. Those prosecuted for their crimes and assigned to specialized treatment have learned to control their behavior. A study in Vermont showed that without treatment, 38% of abusers returning to the streets abused again. With treatment, this incidence of re-offending dropped to 6%.

Will Abusers Respond To Our Call To STOP?
Before the Stop It Now! helpline, some abusers called authorities and turned themselves in. Abusers in prison tell us that they wish there had been a helpline for them. We know there are abusers who understand what they are doing is wrong; these abusers are the most likely to call for help.

Warning signs:

http://www.stopitnow.org/warnings.html

Do you know someone who:

Talks again and again about the sexual activities of children or teens?
masturbat*s a lot or takes breaks from other activities to go masturbat*?
Talks about sexual fantasies with children and is not clear about what's okay with children?
Was abused as a child and won't deal with it?
Encourages silence and secrets in a child?
Looks at child p*rnography?
Asks adult partners to dress or act like a child or teen during sexual activity?
Often has a "special" child friend, maybe a different one from year to year?
Spends most spare time on activities involving children or teens, not adults?
Makes fun of a child's body parts, calls a child sexual names such as "stud", "whor*", or "slu*t"?
If you do not know how to approach this person or you need other support, please call the Stop It Now! Toll-Free Helpline at 1-888-PREVENT.

Genghis Pwn wrote:

Pyrrho wrote:

Genghis Pwn wrote:

Skeptoid wrote:GP,

These images are copyrighted. You should not hotlink them.

From laurie-model.com:

Copyright © 1996-2004 Webe Web Corp. All Rights Reserved.

These are FREE SAMPLES from her website. They don't care. It's free marketing for them. Let's apply some logic here.

Marketing? Are you saying that you're distributing advertising for their pay-to-join service?

I am not affiliated with the site and they are not paying me. It's simply the result of posting the pics here. Awareness of Laurie will be raised. If I write a review of a movie here, that is also free marketing and publicity for the film.

Do you really need this explained to you?

You don't even know who Laurie is. All you care about is that she's "hot", along with the other kids the owners of those sites are exploiting for financial gain.

So much for our lack of evidence. . . .

--J.D.

GP,

The burden of proof is upon you. You must have the express written consent of the copyright owner to reproduce the images. You must also have the consent of the host to hot link to their images.

Pyrrho wrote:You don't even know who Laurie is. All you care about is that she's "hot", along with the other kids the owners of those sites are exploiting for financial gain.

Lol at you avoiding the facts I have provided and throwing up some random "facts" that are not directly related to my point. You're just like any other irrational woo-woo.

If you have any understanding of evolutionary psychology or human history (which I think you do), you already know that human males have always been attracted to beautiful, nubile, developed young women. To deny this fact would only make you look like more of an irrational fool.

Admit it or dispute it, Pyrrho.

Pyrrho has admited that the Sack of sh*t Pedophile is a pedophile.

Seems a wonderfully obvious exercise in critical thinking.

--J.D.

[Edited because it really was not woderful.--Ed.]

Anybody keeping score here?

Rule 6:

6) No posting that can lead to illegalities or create legal troubles for the provider of the server and the service.

I believe this thread started with a second posting where Genghis violated copyright laws.

He does not care about US laws against pedophilia; he hardly cares about the rules of this board.

--J.D.

Genghis Pwn wrote:

Pyrrho wrote:You don't even know who Laurie is. All you care about is that she's "hot", along with the other kids the owners of those sites are exploiting for financial gain.

Lol at you avoiding the facts I have provided and throwing up some random "facts" that are not directly related to my point. You're just like any other irrational woo-woo.

If you have any understanding of evolutionary psychology or human history (which I think you do), you already know that human males have always been attracted to beautiful, nubile, developed young women. To deny this fact would only make you look like more of an irrational fool.

Admit it or dispute it, Pyrrho.

"Laurie" is young. She is not nubile, and she is not developed. She is not attractive to me, even if she is attractive to you. I don't think you even know what "nubile" means...

Definition of nubile:

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/nubile

Ready for marriage; of a marriageable age or condition. Used of young women.
Sexually mature and attractive. Used of young women.

By the look of her, she's nowhere near marriageable age or condition, and is certainly not sexually mature. Maybe she's attractive to boys her own age, or to adult perverts, but not to me.

Doctor X wrote:So much for our lack of evidence. . . .

--J.D.

So much for Genghis "behaving" for 4 months so he could get a JREF Forum account from Hal...

Pyrrho:

What? Lie tell you! LOL!

Anyways . . . yeah . . . it took, what?, maybe a weekend for him to start masturbating over the forum?

You do underscore that the Sack of sh*t Pedophile does not understand the process of puberty--by posting pre-pubescent children's pictures.

Perhaps I should use "ignore" rather than "understand."

--J.D.

Pyrrho wrote:"Laurie" is young. She is not nubile, and she is not developed.

"Not developed"?? Dude, you are making claims that anyone can SEE are wrong.

http://www.laurie-model.com/series/048s.jpg

I guess you missed these tit* and curves. Her tit* are bigger than many women in their 20s.

You are making a total fool of yourself.

Will someone please ban this f*ckwad and put him out of my misery.

We're gonna cut off our noses to spite our faces, aren't we?

~~ Paul

Given his persistent willful lack of understanding of physiology, Pyrrho, I gather I can recognize another "title:"

Sack of sh*t Foolish Pedophile

I gather we can consider that "progress." Nice aliterative balance, that.

--J.D.

Nor would science.

--J.D.

Paul:

Perhaps a poll is in order.

--J.D.

This is a beautiful, developed woman, for reference:

http://glamournet.com/legends/Rita/bw/rhglam2.jpg

Genghis Pwn wrote:

Pyrrho wrote:"Laurie" is young. She is not nubile, and she is not developed.

"Not developed"?? Dude, you are making claims that anyone can SEE are wrong.

http://www.laurie-model.com/series/048s.jpg

I guess you missed these tit* and curves. Her tit* are bigger than many women in their 20s.

Pyrrho, you said "she is not developed." I provided clear PROOF that she is. Address the point directly.

You gerontophiliac!!

--J.D.

Genghis Pwn wrote:

Genghis Pwn wrote:

Pyrrho wrote:"Laurie" is young. She is not nubile, and she is not developed.

"Not developed"?? Dude, you are making claims that anyone can SEE are wrong.

I guess you missed these tit* and curves. Her tit* are bigger than many women in their 20s.

Pyrrho, you said "she is not developed." I provided clear PROOF that she is. Address the point directly.

She looks under 18 to me. Case closed.

"Pyrrho, you said "she is not developed." I provided clear PROOF that she is. Address the point directly."

Having breasts does not mean sexually developed, you dolt.

Nigel wrote:She looks under 18 to me. Case closed.

This has nothing to do with anything that is being debated here. What does "18" have to do with anything? The average age of consent around the world is about 16.

Why did you dodge the point about her being developed?

If you don't have the intellectual firepower to debate with the big boys, go back to the sandbox. But stop wasting our time.

Apparently the Sack of sh*t Foolish Pedophile expects rules of evidence to apply to everyone other than himself.

Well, he feels the law should apply that way as well.

--J.D.

Genghis Pwn wrote:

Nigel wrote:She looks under 18 to me. Case closed.

This has nothing to do with anything that is being debated here. What does "18" have to do with anything? The average age of consent around the world is about 16.

Why did you dodge the point about her being developed?

If you don't have the intellectual firepower to debate with the big boys, go back to the sandbox. But stop wasting our time.

And was the person in the picture you linked 16? Or 14? What difference does that make? She appears to be not an adult. The consensus of this board has been to not see those pictures. You won't push my buttons, since I won't give you that power. Case closed.

thaiboxerken wrote:"Pyrrho, you said "she is not developed." I provided clear PROOF that she is. Address the point directly."

Having breasts does not mean sexually developed, you dolt.

She can breed. She has larger tit* than many women. If you dispute that she has tit*, pubic hair and can breed, you will lose the argument. Otherwise, you will have to concede that she is "sexually developed."

Is she sexually developed? Answer the question, and don't try to spin.