"Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
news:hsnrls$vfl$1@news.eternal-september.org:

> 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.

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.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

>> 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.




--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior