Max Wachtel wrote:
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 19:25:53 -0400, Jenn
> <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
>> news:hrks1d0a7j@news5.newsguy.com...
>>> From: "~BD~" <BoaterDave@hot.mail.co.uk>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I genuinely felt (still feel) that the picture I posted was in
>>>> no way pornographic and *was* meant simply in fun - *not*
>>>> intended to be offensive.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?act=boardrules
>>>
>>> Terms of Use:
>>>
>>> "You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous,
>>> hateful,
>>> threatening,
>>> sexually-oriented or any other material that may violate any
>>> applicable laws. In addition
>>> you will not engage in any sort of spamming, whether it is
>>> comment spam (injecting a
>>> comment into a thread for the purpose of placing a link back to
>>> a website
>>> offering the
>>> same services offered here; or services totally unrelated to
>>> this website), the use of
>>> signature links deemed to be for the sole purpose of increasing
>>> web traffic to a site of
>>> interest by the member, or any combination of those two
>>> examples. This includes the
>>> Personal Message feature."
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> so whats your point? The image is not any of that.
>
> I asked my wife what she thought of the image and she said that
> she "was offended, it was vulgar and should not be on a public
> forum".

Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word "vulgar."

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to
be taken seriously. Hubert H. Humphrey