"Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:
>
> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented".
Show us your tits!
"Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:
>
> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented".
Show us your tits!
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:
>>
>> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented".
>
> Show us your tits!
Have you watched the Jerry Springer show recently? It seems to be some sort
of a badge of honor for some females to do that very thing these days, so
I'm guessing alot of people don't consider that to be "vulgar".
Now.. explain at what point something becomes vulgar or sexually oriented.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
"Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
news:hsiej8$pf6$1@news.eternal-september.org:
> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:
>>>
>>> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented".
>>
>> Show us your tits!
>
> Have you watched the Jerry Springer show recently? It seems to be
> some sort of a badge of honor for some females to do that very thing
> these days, so I'm guessing alot of people don't consider that to be
> "vulgar".
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but when they do the titty flashes; it's
blurred so you can't see it. Why do you suppose that might be?
Granted, if you watch on a premium channel you can see the uncensored
version; but the fact it's censored to begin with sort of nullifies your
moronic point here.
> Now.. explain at what point something becomes vulgar or sexually
> oriented.
When it's titties, vagina, or dick. How's that?
--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
Dustin Cook wrote:
> "Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
> news:hsiej8$pf6$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>> "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented".
>>>
>>> Show us your tits!
>>
>> Have you watched the Jerry Springer show recently? It seems to be
>> some sort of a badge of honor for some females to do that very thing
>> these days, so I'm guessing alot of people don't consider that to be
>> "vulgar".
>
> Perhaps you haven't noticed, but when they do the titty flashes; it's
> blurred so you can't see it. Why do you suppose that might be?
>
> Granted, if you watch on a premium channel you can see the uncensored
> version; but the fact it's censored to begin with sort of nullifies
> your moronic point here.
>
>> Now.. explain at what point something becomes vulgar or sexually
>> oriented.
>
> When it's titties, vagina, or dick. How's that?
When is any of those consider art, or simply funny? I'm guessing you
believe the language you're using to describe something is what makes
something vulgar. I'm asking about the image that was breasts decorated to
look like bunnies. Why is that sexually oriented? Because it shows the
breasts? How much of a breast has to be revealed before it's considered to
fall into the above categories? I am asking because that sigtag image that
other fellow on your group is using shows nearly the same amount of breast.
I just think ya'll call something vulgar or secually oriented
indescriminately and don't include images like the sigtag image which could
also fall into the sexuall oriented category, too.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
http://pqlr.org/bbs/
"Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in
news:hsjrrq$96o$1@news.eternal-september.org:
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> "Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>> news:hsiej8$pf6$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>> "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented".
>>>>
>>>> Show us your tits!
>>>
>>> Have you watched the Jerry Springer show recently? It seems to be
>>> some sort of a badge of honor for some females to do that very thing
>>> these days, so I'm guessing alot of people don't consider that to be
>>> "vulgar".
>>
>> Perhaps you haven't noticed, but when they do the titty flashes; it's
>> blurred so you can't see it. Why do you suppose that might be?
>>
>> Granted, if you watch on a premium channel you can see the uncensored
>> version; but the fact it's censored to begin with sort of nullifies
>> your moronic point here.
>>
>>> Now.. explain at what point something becomes vulgar or sexually
>>> oriented.
>>
>> When it's titties, vagina, or dick. How's that?
>
> When is any of those consider art, or simply funny? I'm guessing you
> believe the language you're using to describe something is what makes
> something vulgar. I'm asking about the image that was breasts
The image was in good humour, but was clearly a titty shot; and thus
would be subject to censorship due to sexually oriented material. Your
the one who used Jerry Springer as an example. It's a very poor one for
your defense..
Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is banned,
nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to ask for
outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with everyone who doesn't
see it your way is, utterly stupid.
> Because it shows the breasts? How much of a breast has to be revealed
> before it's considered to fall into the above categories? I am asking
> because that sigtag image that other fellow on your group is using
malwarebytes is *not* my group. As I said, it's not a little hole in the
wall hobbyist site like yours and isn't subject to the same codes of
conduct as you are. IE: they have to tow a line that you don't. The
sigtag image you keep bringing up is a cartoon; and various opinions have
already been expressed that it's not sexually oriented and doesn't
violate any rules. You didn't like any of them tho, which is why you keep
bringing it up.
Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is banned,
nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to ask for
outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with everyone who doesn't
see it your way is, utterly stupid.
> shows nearly the same amount of breast. I just think ya'll call
> something vulgar or secually oriented indescriminately and don't
> include images like the sigtag image which could also fall into the
> sexuall oriented category, too.
Well, again,
Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is banned,
nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to ask for
outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with everyone who doesn't
see it your way is, utterly stupid.
I hope you realize, your getting noplace.
--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
Nor are you.
Neither of your too can let the other have the last word.
No difference in the two of you.
Reply as you must.
"Dustin Cook" <bughunter.dustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D799D61B5D1HHI2948AJD832@69.16.185.250...
"Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in
I hope you realize, your getting noplace.
Dustin Cook wrote:
> "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in
>> When is any of those consider art, or simply funny? I'm guessing you
>> believe the language you're using to describe something is what makes
>> something vulgar. I'm asking about the image that was breasts
>
> The image was in good humour, but was clearly a titty shot; and thus
> would be subject to censorship due to sexually oriented material. Your
> the one who used Jerry Springer as an example. It's a very poor one
> for your defense..
On the contrary ... it shows how such images are no longer considered to be
sexually oriented, but rather they are considered to be humorous, instead,
just like what happens on that TV show.
> Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is
> banned, nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to
> ask for outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with everyone
> who doesn't see it your way is, utterly stupid.
Actually, it hasn't been pointless. You've finally admitted that Dave
wasn't given any warning about the image, and you've argued many a time that
he WAS given a warning. It has proven that Dave is telling the truth... he
usually says ... "the truth will out" .... it finally did.
>> Because it shows the breasts? How much of a breast has to be
>> revealed before it's considered to fall into the above categories?
>> I am asking because that sigtag image that other fellow on your
>> group is using
>
> malwarebytes is *not* my group. As I said, it's not a little hole in
> the wall hobbyist site like yours and isn't subject to the same codes
> of conduct as you are. IE: they have to tow a line that you don't. The
> sigtag image you keep bringing up is a cartoon; and various opinions
> have already been expressed that it's not sexually oriented and
> doesn't violate any rules. You didn't like any of them tho, which is
> why you keep bringing it up.
The sigtag image is just as offensive as the image Dave posted. How many
people would see that cartoon image and think.. "hmmmmmmm... that's sexually
oriented .. I'm not joining that group.. it's supposed to be family
oriented"... The cartoon image should also be removed because it's sexually
oriented. Pass the word along.
> Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is
> banned, nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to
> ask for outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with everyone
> who doesn't see it your way is, utterly stupid.
You just never know if a discussion like this will change anything or not..
do you? Hey.. you even finally dropped the argument that Dave was warned
and admitted he wasn't warned. That's progress!
>> shows nearly the same amount of breast. I just think ya'll call
>> something vulgar or secually oriented indescriminately and don't
>> include images like the sigtag image which could also fall into the
>> sexuall oriented category, too.
>
> Well, again,
>
> Come to think of it, this entire discussion is pointless. BD is
> banned, nothing you or I do is going to change that. Continuing to
> ask for outside opinions on the matter and then arguing with everyone
> who doesn't see it your way is, utterly stupid.
>
> I hope you realize, your getting noplace.
I have no destination. LOL haaaaaaahhahah funny..
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
You are beating a dead horse and aside from you having the last word as you always
do. let this subject go already. Sheeeesh
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect
"Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in message
news:hsjrrq$96o$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> "Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>> news:hsiej8$pf6$1@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>> "Jenn" <me@nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Define what you mean by "vulgar" or even "sexually oriented".
>>>>
>>>> Show us your tits!
>>>
>>> Have you watched the Jerry Springer show recently? It seems to be
>>> some sort of a badge of honor for some females to do that very thing
>>> these days, so I'm guessing alot of people don't consider that to be
>>> "vulgar".
>>
>> Perhaps you haven't noticed, but when they do the titty flashes; it's
>> blurred so you can't see it. Why do you suppose that might be?
>>
>> Granted, if you watch on a premium channel you can see the uncensored
>> version; but the fact it's censored to begin with sort of nullifies
>> your moronic point here.
>>
>>> Now.. explain at what point something becomes vulgar or sexually
>>> oriented.
>>
>> When it's titties, vagina, or dick. How's that?
>
> When is any of those consider art, or simply funny? I'm guessing you believe the
> language you're using to describe something is what makes something vulgar. I'm
> asking about the image that was breasts decorated to look like bunnies. Why is
> that sexually oriented? Because it shows the breasts? How much of a breast has
> to be revealed before it's considered to fall into the above categories? I am
> asking because that sigtag image that other fellow on your group is using shows
> nearly the same amount of breast. I just think ya'll call something vulgar or
> secually oriented indescriminately and don't include images like the sigtag image
> which could also fall into the sexuall oriented category, too.
>
> --
> Jenn (from Oklahoma)
> http://pqlr.org/bbs/
>
Peter Foldes wrote:
> Jenn
>
> You are beating a dead horse and aside from you having the last word
> as you always do. let this subject go already. Sheeeesh
>
Hey Peter ... Dave isn't a liar ... he told the truth that he didn't get a
warning. Some people just want others to shut up because they don't want
the truth come out. Dave is a good guy.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn said:
> Have you watched the Jerry Springer show recently? It seems to be some sort
> of a badge of honor for some females to do that very thing these days, so
> I'm guessing alot of people don't consider that to be "vulgar".
Show us YOUR Tits!!!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote