From: "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway>

| Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>> Jenn wrote:
>>> Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
>>>> Jenn wrote:
>>>>> James Morrow wrote:


>>>>>> 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.

>>>> The image is vulgar, and you're a moron.

>>> By who's definition? No one can say, or is willing to say what
>>> makes the image either vulgar or sexually oriented. We don't
>>> live in Victorian times, so what used to be vulgar is not
>>> anymore. It would seem that some people have become prudes,
>>> which is quite surprising in this day we live in.
>>> Now.. define when an image becomes vulgar or sexually oriented. As
>>> adults, is this such a difficult thing to do?

>> **** off and die.

| Interesting response.. are you a teen ager? I'm guessing 14 yrs old?

She's an adult and you are acting like a teenager.

The content of the picture is unquestionably sexually oriented by US standards.

Test: Can you see that picture unobfuscated on a US television broadcast channel ?
Answer: no

/* Now stop trolling ! */



--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp