The PokéCommunity Forums  

Go Back   The PokéCommunity Forums > Off-Topic Discussions > Discussions & Debates
Sign Up Rules/FAQ Live Battle Blogs Mark Forums Read

Notices

Discussions & Debates The place to go for slightly more intellectual topics. Discussions and debates about the world, current events, ideas, news, and more.


Reply
Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.  
Thread Tools
  #1    
Old July 21st, 2013, 07:06 PM
Patchisou Yutohru
Guest
 
Quote:
Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography, David Cameron will announce on Monday.

In the most dramatic step by the government to crack down on the "corroding" influence of pornography on childhood, the prime minister will say that all internet users will be contacted by their service providers and given an "unavoidable choice" on whether to use filters.

The changes will be introduced by the end of next year. As a first step, customers who set up new broadband accounts or switch providers would have to actively disable the filters by the end of this year.

The moves will be announced by the prime minister in a speech to the NSPCC in which he will unveil a series of measures to reduce access to pornography with a particular focus on illegal child pornography. He will say:

• The possession of "extreme pornography", which includes scenes of simulated rape, is to be outlawed.

• The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) is to draw up a blacklist of "abhorrent" internet search terms to identify and prevent paedophiles searching for illegal material.

• All police forces will work with a single secure database of illegal images of children to help "close the net on paedophiles".

In a separate move, Twitter is to introduce a tagging system to prevent such images being posted on its service. There are now millions of pictures posted among the 2bn tweets every five days. The intention is to introduce the system, which uses a Microsoft-developed industry standard called PhotoDNA, this year if possible.

The prime minister's speech is designed to answer critics who accuse him of talking tough but failing to take action. In the most significant step he will outline detailed plans to limit access to pornography.

The Daily Mail, which has been running a campaign to crack down on child pornography, reported that the prime minister will say: "By the end of this year, when someone sets up a new broadband account the settings to install family-friendly filters will be automatically selected. If you just click 'next' or 'enter', then the filters are automatically on.

"And, in a really big step forward, all the ISPs have rewired their technology so that once your filters are installed, they will cover any device connected to your home internet account. No more hassle of downloading filters for every device, just one-click protection. One click to protect your whole home and keep your children safe.

"Once those filters are installed, it should not be the case that technically literate children can just flick the filters off at the click of a mouse without anyone knowing. So we have agreed with industry that those filters can only be changed by the account holder, who has to be an adult. So an adult has to be engaged in the decisions."

The prime minister will also announce that possession of "extreme pornography", which includes scenes of simulated rape, will be outlawed by the government. It is illegal to publish such pornography and illegal to possess it in Scotland but not in England and Wales.

Cameron will say: "There are certain types of pornography that can only be described as 'extreme' … that is violent, and that depicts simulated rape. These images normalise sexual violence against women – and they are quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them."

The Rape Crisis group welcomed the announcement by the prime minister, who will also say that the government is to legislate to ensure that videos streamed online are subject to the same rules as those sold in shops. Fiona Elvines, of Rape Crisis South London, said: "We are heartened by the government's announcement that it will close the loophole in existing extreme pornography legislation.

"The government today has made a significant step forward in preventing rapists using rape pornography to legitimise and strategise their crimes and, more broadly, in challenging the eroticisation of violence against women and girls."

In some of his toughest language against the world's largest internet providers, the prime minister will warn them they face a duty to block "sick" people searching for illegal sites online. "I have a very clear message for Google, Bing, Yahoo and the rest. You have a duty to act on this – and it is a moral duty. If there are technical obstacles to acting on [search engines], don't just stand by and say nothing can be done; use your great brains to help overcome them.

"You're the people who have worked out how to map almost every inch of the Earth from space; who have developed algorithms that make sense of vast quantities of information. Set your greatest brains to work on this. You are not separate from our society, you are part of our society, and you must play a responsible role in it."

The move by Twitter to introduce a new tagging system, revealed exclusively to the Guardian, has come independently of UK pressure.
Source





Reply With Quote
  #2    
Old July 21st, 2013, 07:55 PM
Nil Nuane's Avatar
Nil Nuane
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Florida
Age: 19
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
You're kidding. Thought this was an onion article or something.

I guess the USA ain't so bad?
Reply With Quote
  #3    
Old July 21st, 2013, 08:25 PM
Belldandy's Avatar
Belldandy
ღ Cammybear ღ
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Timid
Quote:
Cameron will say: "There are certain types of pornography that can only be described as 'extreme' … that is violent, and that depicts simulated rape. These images normalise sexual violence against women – and they are quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them."
Let's make this a D&D and say that I agree with this point lol No doubt that just like some people use GTA and CSI-like shows to elaborate and construct their crimes, so do paedophiles and rapists use violent media / pornography as gateways to "ideas" for real-life assaults. It might not reduce the amount of rape, but it may lead to people being less desensitized about violence against women / rape victims (women and men alike) because of it being normalized by media, esp. pornography.

__________________
FC: 4699-7283-5972
My Bloggy
My Trade Reviews
Friend Safari: Munna, Gothorita, Espurr
VM Me for Homework Assistance (French/English)
Reply With Quote
  #4    
Old July 21st, 2013, 08:45 PM
dʒɹʌmpfʼt̚'s Avatar
dʒɹʌmpfʼt̚
alors on danse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: bar'jách
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Nature: Impish
I…don't watch pornography?

Idk I've never been interested in lady bits (and I have the other one so……) so I don't really mind.

But for those who do, I think this is kinda rude, though "extreme pornography" should be reduced somewhat.

Though I think they should be done by other means rather than "no internet for you mister pædophile"
__________________

could you ····ing not
·
Reply With Quote
  #5    
Old July 21st, 2013, 10:08 PM
PervertedPikachu's Avatar
PervertedPikachu
Drink my tears, or something
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Quiet
At least I don't live in Britain :D Imagine all the middle aged men stuck in miserable marriages with wives they are no longer physically attracted who will now be unable to access porn because their wife insisted on the 'safe' mode. Or the family dads or teen boy, lol guess it's back to sneaking in a hustler magazine and hiding it under your bed.

I support filtering child porn and making hardcore rape stuff illegal but sick people will always find a way to continue their sick hobbies. They wouldn't flick internet safety on in the first place. I guess it's protecting innocent people from seeing something scarring, but eh regular porn shouldn't be restricted :D (or at least still openly available if you're an adult, which it is)
Reply With Quote
  #6    
Old July 21st, 2013, 10:13 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ 82.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
I think torrenting websites will still host the material. Unless this is a perfect excuse to shut down Piratebay and such.
__________________
Minerva.
Reply With Quote
  #7    
Old July 21st, 2013, 10:38 PM
PJBottomz's Avatar
PJBottomz
just a little human
 
Join Date: May 2012
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Nature: Sassy
I highly doubt this is gonna be carried out correctly. I mean, I understand that the motives are to prevent child porn/rape idolization, which I support the blocking of because that stuff is disgusting and terrible, but there's no way this is gonna work if they block everything. There's an old saying that if something changes, people will evolve to get around it. Everyone's gonna find some way to get around this, one way or another. The sick, twisted people of the internet have their ways.

Everything would be easier if people just used their imagination and mentally did it with whoever they found attractive instead of posting their fantasies all over the internet. There are some screwed-up individuals in this world *shakes head*
__________________

Last edited by PJBottomz; July 21st, 2013 at 10:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8    
Old July 21st, 2013, 10:38 PM
Melody's Avatar
Melody
✿Singing Nature's Melody✿
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Cuddling those close to me
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Nature: Gentle
Send a message via Skype™ to Melody
This won't stop a technically literate kid from getting to porn. Porn will just move underground, and people will just VPN/TOR/Proxy around it.
__________________
Seedrian Dreams ♥
~~~Pairs~~~
YamiNoBlade Twihiki_Amias
Zorua
Avant Garde
~~~+~~~


Reply With Quote
  #9    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 02:50 AM
Magic's Avatar
Magic
vulpesvulpesvulpesvulpes
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Gender: Female
Our government tend to declare things rashly, or in some cases the media blow things out of proportion and exaggerate claims.

I doubt this will actually happen, or would be an 'opt in' idea rather than opt out. Saying that, my phone-network provider actively blocks anything it sees as rude (including some PC threads ). So maybe we're not that far away from a pornless world.
__________________


Moderator of The RPC

PokéLINK





Reply With Quote
  #10    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 03:01 AM
Razor Leaf's Avatar
Razor Leaf
how unfortunate
 
Join Date: Dawn of the First Day
I'd put money on this never happening. Like, quite a bit. I think it's been in the news three times already and never happened?

Our government is super lazy about doing things it actually says it's gonna do. If something happens, they sure as hell didn't warn you about it beforehand. The most I can imagine happening is there just being some anti-porn parental control setting on routers or something. If you guys all lived in Britain, you'd just roll your eyes at this story and move on pretty quickly. d:
Reply With Quote
  #11    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 07:08 AM
New Eden's Avatar
New Eden
Master Spork
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: My empire of dirt
Gender: Female
Nature: Modest
Eh, affected people will probably find a loophole that allows them to keep on going pretty quick. No matter how bad it is/what it may take.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 08:17 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Surely it's a better idea to do this the other way around and ask people if they want to voluntarily opt-in for a program that censors what they can access instead of censoring all except those who say they don't want to be censored.

And, really, what will happen if you've got the censoring in place and you want to read up on breast cancer? Oops, can't do that since you can't look at breasts.

I'm all for stopping rapists, but I think time and money would be better spent doing that by giving it to police and other law enforcement types.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #13    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 08:41 AM
Captain Fabio's Avatar
Captain Fabio
The Shadow Pokémon
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: London, UK
Age: 24
Nature: Lax


David Cameron everyone! Let's give it up for him. WOOOOO! *CLAP CLAP*

I am joking, this guy is such a douche. He has helped further ruin our country. This is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard in my entire life. I heard it this morning on the radio and I just shook my head. We have millions out of work, house prices plummeting, petrol and oil prices sky rocketing and he is cracking down on porn. Just wonderful.

It is a smoke screen for everything else that is going on that they can't control; it is pretty obvious it is. They say that the reasoning behind it is 'it is ruining children'... well, their lives are going to be ruined by the mess your government has created for them, so you aren't exactly making their world a better place to live in, just because they can't see no more boobies on the internet.

I am done with this government.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #14    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 09:23 AM
François's Avatar
François
Earth! Wind! Fire! Water!
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scarf View Post
Surely it's a better idea to do this the other way around and ask people if they want to voluntarily opt-in for a program that censors what they can access instead of censoring all except those who say they don't want to be censored.
Yes and no. While opt-in seems like a better (not to mention less awkward) plan at first glance, if this has been proposed primarily to restrict the access kids have to pornography, then opt-out is better, solely because it means parents have to actively do something to allow their children to get adult content (unless that child is clever with the internet). The proposal seems to me to largely exist because parents can't be trusted to actively censor what their kids see, so while calling up to say you don't want censorship is a bother, I still think this is more effective than allowing parents to choose censorship (which you know, they can kinda do already anyway). It's debatable as to whether or not children accessing pornography is a bad thing, but the government obviously think so, and if you're of that belief then this plan is fairly solid.

It may seem like a move that cuts down on freedom of media and so on, but at the end of the day opting out is all you have to do (unless you want to access extreme stuff), so I'm not going to start yelling "ALL HAIL AMERICA" (much as the Lana gif is appreciated) just yet.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #15    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 10:09 AM
Overlord Drakow's Avatar
Overlord Drakow
-CONQUERER
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hell
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Fabio View Post


David Cameron everyone! Let's give it up for him. WOOOOO! *CLAP CLAP*

I am joking, this guy is such a douche. He has helped further ruin our country. This is one of the most stupid things I have ever heard in my entire life. I heard it this morning on the radio and I just shook my head. We have millions out of work, house prices plummeting, petrol and oil prices sky rocketing and he is cracking down on porn. Just wonderful.

It is a smoke screen for everything else that is going on that they can't control; it is pretty obvious it is. They say that the reasoning behind it is 'it is ruining children'... well, their lives are going to be ruined by the mess your government has created for them, so you aren't exactly making their world a better place to live in, just because they can't see no more boobies on the internet.

I am done with this government.
I think it's time I take over the United Kingdom y/y?

Attempting to eliminate pornography could very well cause more harm than help. I'm sure most guys will understand that sometimes when you're feeling really frustrated and angry, it just REALLY helps to whip out le penis and give it a good thrashing. If pornography is removed then a lot of males may be unable to fulfil their innate desires and therefore succumb to the torrent of rage within and end up destroying everything. Furthermore there may very well be people out there who crave 'violent' sex scenes but by watching it they receive fulfillment and may have less of a desire to actually go out and rape someone instead.
__________________
"I consider myself a necessary evil." - Overlord Drakow
Forum Set // Pair
Reply With Quote
  #16    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 10:37 AM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Quote:
Originally Posted by François View Post
Yes and no. While opt-in seems like a better (not to mention less awkward) plan at first glance, if this has been proposed primarily to restrict the access kids have to pornography, then opt-out is better, solely because it means parents have to actively do something to allow their children to get adult content (unless that child is clever with the internet). The proposal seems to me to largely exist because parents can't be trusted to actively censor what their kids see, so while calling up to say you don't want censorship is a bother, I still think this is more effective than allowing parents to choose censorship (which you know, they can kinda do already anyway). It's debatable as to whether or not children accessing pornography is a bad thing, but the government obviously think so, and if you're of that belief then this plan is fairly solid.

It may seem like a move that cuts down on freedom of media and so on, but at the end of the day opting out is all you have to do (unless you want to access extreme stuff), so I'm not going to start yelling "ALL HAIL AMERICA" (much as the Lana gif is appreciated) just yet.
Personally, I'm not of the opinion that porn necessarily harms children (any more than, say, television or whatever - the devil is in the details) but either an opt-in or an opt-out plan has problems even if you feel porn is bad. If you don't like it you'll want it censored except for the people who will want it, but those people may accidentally get censored against their desires. And if you do want it, you might accidentally get things you don't consider porn or harmful censored along with the stuff you don't want.

Wouldn't it be better to say "Hey, here is this thing, this censoring thing we can do for you. It's not perfect, but if you're okay with that then here you go." If something isn't to your liking then you can at least say that you went in knowing it wasn't perfect. That seems better than forcing it on people, problems and all.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
  #17    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 02:17 PM
dʒɹʌmpfʼt̚'s Avatar
dʒɹʌmpfʼt̚
alors on danse
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: bar'jách
Age: 17
Gender: Male
Nature: Impish
let's all just move to Sweden and enjoy something of a government that actually half-functions above the details.

because trust me, USA isn't much better on that than UK or pretty much any country except for maybe Somalia and the Congo and the ones without a government.

In fact, I think we should go back to the mafia-feudal days - sure, bad things happen, and they're pretty crazy, but at least they do something good and visible. Besides, it would actually give use to the "protection money" they so often "charge" now that "stable government" is in charge…


idk I just think this is stupid and the "war against porn" in general is kinda stupid, especially when we could spend that money and effort on education and stuff.
__________________

could you ····ing not
·
Reply With Quote
  #18    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 05:12 PM
Gyardosamped's Avatar
Gyardosamped
midnight memories ♥
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Florida
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Lax
This is a bit too extreme if you ask me. I understand banning pornographic material that portrays rape and or encourages sexual violence, but banning pornography as a whole? I don't even think that's possible. It'd probably be a better idea, like others have mentioned, to have people voluntarily opt in or out if they'd like to, but the British government is creating a sort of false dichotomy here, forcing people to have to choose between the two options with no exceptions. I don't understand the government's argument stating that pornography has an influence on childhood. I hope they know pornography isn't just found on porn sites, but rather all over the Internet (ads, random websites, etc.).. and, like Scarf reiterated, I don't see how pornography has more of an effect on people than say television, their friends, school, relationships, etc.. Just to think that an entire government wants to censor porn from millions of people.. Seems almost impossible, especially with all of this bypassing technology people are free to use. Let's just say there are more important issues in the world that need some discussing. This issue of porn is irrelevant at this point, and given how it is so widely available online, this matter really has no remedy anyways.

Doesn't seem like this is gonna happen, but we'll have to wait and see.
__________________

Last edited by Gyardosamped; July 22nd, 2013 at 05:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 06:45 PM
Belldandy's Avatar
Belldandy
ღ Cammybear ღ
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 21
Gender: Female
Nature: Timid
Quote:
I'm sure most guys will understand that sometimes when you're feeling really frustrated and angry, it just REALLY helps to whip out le penis and give it a good thrashing. If pornography is removed then a lot of males may be unable to fulfil their innate desires and therefore succumb to the torrent of rage within and end up destroying everything.
Yeah, but you can still do it without it being violent porn. It also doesn't say that nudey mags are outlawed or erotic shops are banned, so you could still in theory pick up some spreads at the corner store or pleasure store in your neighbourhood.

And you make men sound like natural monsters lol If you really wanna beat off, you'll just do it, magazine or nothing. It's almost as sick and demented as this guy on POF telling me that, "He's a man" so one-night stands are "acceptable." It's a different sex, not a different species, and women like sex as much as any guy and you won't see 'em out killing people because they come home, stressed from work and kids or whatever, and instead of there being their favourite pseudo-Twilight porn on TV there's an infomercial. If you go all psycho because you refuse to beat off to anything but a video or image of a woman (or man) being chained up and raped by one or many dudes, then perhaps a psychologist is in order.

Noting that "you" doesn't mean "you" as in Drakow. It means "you" as in "the audience" or a general term for whoever it may apply to.

Just so that's clear.
__________________
FC: 4699-7283-5972
My Bloggy
My Trade Reviews
Friend Safari: Munna, Gothorita, Espurr
VM Me for Homework Assistance (French/English)
Reply With Quote
  #20    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 06:57 PM
gimmepie's Avatar
gimmepie
The Seeker of Pies
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Mild
So... to reduce sex crimes they are going to crack down on porn?
I'm pretty sure I saw that given as a reason.
What?

How is creating more sexually frustrated men and women going to act as a preventative, if anything it is just going to make these things more common.



Bad for children? I couldn't disagree more. If a young person is actively seeking out pornography because they enjoy it I think it quite healthy to be honest. Exploring your sexuality is a huge part of growing up.

I'm all for cracking down on kiddie porn but I can't help but think even the (staged) more violent and extreme stuff should be left uncensored. Better people who are into that sort of thing watch it than try it out themselves and hurt people.

The money that would be spent on this would be far better being spent on something like education - hell how about improving sex ed, since pretty much every country everywhere does terribly in that subject area. Honestly, as has been said, not only is this an inherently stupid idea anyway it's also just a smokescreen to hide the real problems facing the country.
__________________
Roleplay Corner|Forum Games|Pairs|Sig|Arch Nemesis|Pie
"I don't need a quote, I need pie" - Gimmepie
Reply With Quote
  #21    
Old July 22nd, 2013, 08:24 PM
Kanzler
スペースディスコ 82.
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Toronto
Age: 20
Gender: Male
Nature: Relaxed
I can agree very much with Drakow's perspective. Society often needs safety valve institutions to channel its rage and discontent, and removing easily accessible pornography can add a chilling effect to that. Of course, somebody should do the research or propose a model estimating how many more riots or crimes would occur should pornography be banned <- off-topic, but I have a bit of an academic interest in this.
__________________
Minerva.
Reply With Quote
  #22    
Old July 23rd, 2013, 09:02 AM
Overlord Drakow's Avatar
Overlord Drakow
-CONQUERER
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hell
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belldandy View Post
Yeah, but you can still do it without it being violent porn. It also doesn't say that nudey mags are outlawed or erotic shops are banned, so you could still in theory pick up some spreads at the corner store or pleasure store in your neighbourhood.

Some people may not receive enough stimulation unless the pornography is violent. People have fetishes you know.

Yes I did consider that point when constructing my previous post - Not everyone can get 'into it' from just viewing a magazine or whatever.


And you make men sound like natural monsters lol If you really wanna beat off, you'll just do it, magazine or nothing. It's almost as sick and demented as this guy on POF telling me that, "He's a man" so one-night stands are "acceptable." It's a different sex, not a different species, and women like sex as much as any guy and you won't see 'em out killing people because they come home, stressed from work and kids or whatever, and instead of there being their favourite pseudo-Twilight porn on TV there's an infomercial. If you go all psycho because you refuse to beat off to anything but a video or image of a woman (or man) being chained up and raped by one or many dudes, then perhaps a psychologist is in order.

Perhaps but as I said earlier, people get fulfilment in different ways.

Women are wired in different ways than men to the point that you could never truly understand the emotional agony and rage men struggle against. People deal with things in different ways and as long as they aren't doing any real harm to anybody else then what's wrong with someone maintaining self control by whacking one out to some violent sex scene or whatever?


Noting that "you" doesn't mean "you" as in Drakow. It means "you" as in "the audience" or a general term for whoever it may apply to.

Just so that's clear.
Responded to your argument in red.
__________________
"I consider myself a necessary evil." - Overlord Drakow
Forum Set // Pair
Reply With Quote
  #23    
Old July 23rd, 2013, 09:35 AM
Pära's Avatar
Pära
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Nature: Serious
Why is the government doing the parenting for us? Because apparently, nanny Britain need this badly.

IF you want to block pornographic content from young people, just do it yourself as there are many apps that let you do that. This really says something about the government's trust in it's residents.
__________________
| TuMbLr [X] | NoWpLaYiNg [X] | PoKéSpHeRe [X] |
Reply With Quote
  #24    
Old July 23rd, 2013, 11:32 AM
François's Avatar
François
Earth! Wind! Fire! Water!
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Nature: Serious
Quote:
Originally Posted by Para-Dox View Post
Why is the government doing the parenting for us? Because apparently, nanny Britain need this badly.

IF you want to block pornographic content from young people, just do it yourself as there are many apps that let you do that. This really says something about the government's trust in it's residents.
Why is a government necessarily wrong for not trusting its parents?
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #25    
Old July 23rd, 2013, 01:15 PM
Esper's Avatar
Esper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
I wonder how these proposals (if they go through) would affect the BDSM community.

Quote:
Originally Posted by François View Post
Why is a government necessarily wrong for not trusting its parents?
I guess you have to ask whether or not parents are trustworthy. If they're not, and have shown that they're not, then it does make sense that someone steps in and does something. Whether that someone is the government, and whether the answers are this kind of censoring, are different questions entirely.
__________________

deviantart blog pair
Reply With Quote
Reply
Quick Reply

Sponsored Links


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Minimum Characters Per Post: 25



All times are UTC -8. The time now is 04:04 AM.


Style by Nymphadora, artwork by Sa-Dui.
Like our Facebook Page Follow us on Twitter © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2014 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.