Is MBAM is a 100% safe application?

[Jenn]

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?


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

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.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

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

[Jenn]

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?

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

[Bullwinkle]

Coming from a fat assed pig nosed *****
who goes to the UK to almost get ****ed
means nada.(Even the Transgendered BD would not **** you)

When your ole man is out late do you think he thinks,
"wish I was home ****ing the cow"?

He does not!


"Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in message
news:hsjs7d$a7l$1@news.eternal-september.org...
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?

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/

[David H. Lipman]

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

[Jenn]

David H. Lipman wrote:
> 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.

No it's not ...

> Test: Can you see that picture unobfuscated on a US television
> broadcast channel ? Answer: no
>
> /* Now stop trolling ! */

The web is not US television. People keep saying the image is 1. sexually
oriented, and 2. vulgar.
........ define, if you can, at what point does any image become *sexually
oriented*.

You won't do it, nor will anyone else do it because it's a subjective
conclusion.


--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)

[Max Wachtel]

The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and his
opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that the pic was
unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of story.
--
This post was created using Opera: http://www.opera.com
Virus Removal Instructions
http://sites.google.com/site/keepingwindowsclean/home
Max's Favorite Freeware
http://sites.google.com/site/keeping...clean/freeware
I am Max Wachtel and I approve this message.

[Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries]

Max Wachtel wrote:
> The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and
> his opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that
> the pic was unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of
> story.

This is an exceptionally complex concept--one too involved for her tiny
little brain to comprehend.

And she's a lousy troll, to boot.

--
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries

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

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Max Wachtel" <maxpro4u@hotmail.com>

| The point is that the mod thought the image was in violation and his
| opinion is all that matters. BD was warned by the mod that the pic was
| unacceptable and that is that. He was banned. End of story.


No, he received no warning. After the 1st post with the attached graphic, the post was
removed. After the 2cnd post, he was subsequently banned.

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

[Bullwinkle]

Go read some court decisions.

This has beed defined and answered several times.


"Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
news:hsiijg$n63$1@news.eternal-september.org...
By who's definition? No one can say,


Now.. define when an image becomes vulgar or sexually oriented.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)