Jenn
All I can do is laugh at your stupid ignorant reply. You must walk around with
closed eyes. My G*d ,I have not seen anybody as ignoorant than you. Unfriickin
unbelievable
--
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" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
news:hsp97c$a8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> "Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>
>>>> 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.
>
>> What happens on that show is person a tries to beatup person b, they
>> both get caught and wrestled around. At no time do you see any
>> titties, ass or anything else on public cable. Instead, it's blurred
>> out. So really, Jerry Springer wasn't a good example.
>
> It shows that real people in real audiences have a more loose view of what is
> considered to be vulgar these days, Dustin. It has nothing to do with TV blurring
> anything out.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
>
>> Hmm, Depends on your point of view. Dave was not telling the truth
>> about me, and the fact that both of you put together don't have enough
>> functional brain matter to light a match is also, irrelevent.
>
> Insults only show that your frustrated....
>
>
>> The fact his picture was deleted is warning enough to most of us;
>> aside from you and BD that is. But your not going to twist anything
>> to make it sound like I set him up or anything else of the sort. I'll
>> call you on it each time you try, like you did here.
>
> To most people .. a warning on a ng would consist of TEXT written that contains
> words that when put together they mean "don't do that.. we don't like it"... You
> can't make assumptions people understand what you want when no words are
> exchanged. All you have is an image disappearing with no explanation... many
> people would think it was an error and repost it.
>
>
>>> 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.
>
>
>> They would just laugh as they have when you came to Dave's poor
>> defense. They don't find it sexually oriented, many others do not
>> either. You have no leg to stand on.
>
>
> Really? Tell me at what point any image becomes sexually oriented? I"ll be
> waiting for a long time because you and no one else are willing to give that sort
> of an explanation because you will lose this argument the moment you try.
>
>
>>> 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!
>
>
>> As I said, your attempted to twist things aside, He was warned, when
>> his picture was deleted the first time. I'm sorry that Dave is the
>> type of person who needs it spelled out and sent via certified mail
>> before it makes sense.
>
> A missing image is NOT a warning. Most everyone considers a warning on a ng to
> come in TEXT format that says something like "Don't do that .. we don't like it".
>
>
>>>> 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..
>>
>> My point above stands, regardless of your responses.
>
> As do my points stand... and I'll be waiting for a definitive response as to when
> an image becomes sexually-oriented. (tick tick tick tick....)
>
> --
> Jenn (from Oklahoma)
>
Reply With Quote