Max Wachtel wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 2010 12:08:27 -0400, Jenn
> <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:
>
>> Max Wachtel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 21:55:33 -0400, Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
>>
>>>>
>>>> Apparently Jenn does not understand the meaning of the word
>>>> "vulgar." http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=vulgar
>>>>
>>>
>>> one would think that living in the "bible belt" would cause one's
>>> morals to be a little higher than those living in,let's say,Vegas?
>>
>> I'm also a Christian... what's that have to do with this image you
>> are discussing?
>>
>> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented". Do you
>> mean
>> an image that turns people on? What do you mean because there are
>> many images that could fall into either category but are not removed
>> from groups
>> that consider themselves to be family oriented.
>
> BD got himself banned for the image in question. Most of the forums I
> frequent would not have allowed it either.

I'm aware of all that... no one can tell me what about that image makes it
sexually oriented. At what point does any image qualify as being sexually
oriented? Is it at the point it gets someone aroused? If that is true,
other images should be disallowed, too. Also, what about the image was
"vulgar"?? Do tell? I'd like an explanation.

Thus far, you and others have labeled the image as both vulgar and sexually
oriented so it was unsuitable for malwarebytes forum, yet NO ONE will
explain at what point an image becomes, either. It sounds like some
ambiguous determination based on a conclusion written on the wind.

So .. answer my questions above. If no one can answer then, the only
conclusions is that the image can't be either vulgar or sexually oriented.


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)