I agree with everything you said dude... read my post more carefully.
Err.. I did read your posts. Here. I'll simply quote you:Nothing to do with the girl admitting it or not. Read the quote from the pinned thread. Iryna's thread has plenty of topless pics where it's clear she has implants.
Actually it isn't clear, like I just said in my other response just now. For all any of us know for sure, it could just be growth, and by your opinion of this rule, her thread deleted.
Here is you saying: Iryna's boobs could all be just growth....
Are you Grand Inquisitor now? XD
I hope the mods can explain the spirit of this rule because I think you're misinterpreting it. There have been plenty of posts here lately where it's very obvious the subject doesn't have implants.
If that's not the case, then there are plenty of threasd that should be deleted, example Irina Ivanova, who I don't think has ever said she had implants. Maybe she just grew naturally, and by this standard her thread deleted.
Err.... Axis. If you mean Iryna Ivanova, She definitely has implants. https://www.boobieblog.com/?p=54137
That was probably just a poor example choice for a questionable "implants" or not girl.
Not a mistake Theo...
This is exactly my point. I agree, it's obvious to most people that she is enhanced, which I think she is. However, there is not any proof besides her change in look that this is the case.
It seems that there is some sense of reason that needs to be used when applying this rule. I understand why they mods set it, it was because there was post after post after post of girls that were obviously natural (think Score Voluptuous).
Then here you are replying to me, first agreeing with me by saying she's obviously enhanced, then disagreeing by saying "there is not any proof besides her change in look that this is the case."
If you needed video proof, here's a gif of snap that was in Iryna's thread.
If you are going to pull the "I don't think they are fake card", please at least pick a girl in which her implants are questionable or to be determined. Not one that has a ton of content clearly showing they're fake.
Agreeing with someone, then disagreeing with them usually means you are trying to play both sides of the argument. Which would only work if the example of Iryna's boobs was questionable. But you choose poorly. Iryna's boobs are definitely fake.
Dude, either you don't understand my argument, or you didn't read carefully enough, or you didn't notice start of this debate. Let me rehash:
- I posted a photo of a girl who, while dressed, looked to have a figure that is enhanced.
- Another poster implied that thread should be deleted because of the question of her enhanced figure.
- I responded saying I remember the post on IG stating the subject was enhanced.
- The other poster proceeded to ask me for detailed proof.
- I responded saying that the way that person was interpreting this rule seemed incorrect. If their interpretation was correct, it could probably cause threads of models we like and strongly believe to be enhancde to be deleted.
I used Iryna as an example because, like you, I and others here, can look at her figure and say she is very likely enhanced. However there is no "proof" of her enhancement (that I know of) besides her look that you, me and others think looks fake.
You don't seem to recognize this, but when people take a double-sided, its proof by contradiction. The point here is the rule like its written and Iryna's thread can't both be here.
Since you seem most offended at my suggestion that Iryna isn't fake, let me clarify that for you too. I think she's awesome and I'm a big fan of hers. I also think she IS enhanced, but there is no definite proof. It's an opinion. You, me or anyone else can't go force someone to think she's enhanced without proof.