Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries wrote:
> David H. Lipman wrote:
>> 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
>
> They seem to have made a debate of whether or not breasts are
> "sexually-oriented," given that breasts exist for the purpose of feeding
> babies. That context matters is lost on them.
>
> "Vulgar," on the other hand, covers a lot of territory.
>
> The bottom line, however, is that the owner of a private forum is the net
> equivalent to God: whatever he or she decides is unacceptable is...well,
> unacceptable. I expect that if a forum owner does not like the way one
> spells (for example), said owner is entitled to throw one the hell off,
> without explanation.
>
> Free speech does have limits, and those limits begin with private ownership.
>

Hey I've got a dead horse. Lets beat it to death and then go out and see
if we can beat it back to life so we can beat it some more. You can't
beat a dead horse unless you're in newsgroups. Then it's not like a sore
peter, which you can't beat.

And lets add another newsgroup to the post.

--
JD..