"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