James Morrow wrote:
> In article <hsd863$bai$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
>> James Morrow wrote:
>>> In article <hsaiis$t42$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> nope@noway.atnohow.anyday says...
>>>>
>>>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
>>>> news:hsagh70t4j@news6.newsguy.com...
>>>>> From: "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleakirk@earthling.net>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word
>>>>>> "vulgar."
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar
>>>>>
>>>>> Everyone's caught up on the content. Is it vulgar ? Is it
>>>>> pornographic ? They are moot
>>>>> points and they don't matter.
>>>>> All that does matter is the Malwarebytes' AUP/ToS and BD violating
>>>>> the clause; "You agree
>>>>> not to post ... sexually-oriented..."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index...act=boardrules
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by sexually-oriented?


>>> We are not discussing milk cows. Yes, this is sexually orientated.
>>> Any other conclusion is utterly unsupportable.

>> Why is the image considered to be sexually oriented?
>> Also, why is the sigtag image the other poster on malwarebytes not
>> considered to be sexually oriented. They are very similar.


> That would a subjective judgement by myself only. But that is my
> judgement. Your opinion my be different. The phrase "utterly
> unsupportable' was intended to be in jest.

The entire scenario is subjective ... sooo.. since some people believe one
particular image is sexually oriented and it was justified to be removed...
I'd like to know what about the image qualified it to be sexually oriented.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)