Peter Foldes wrote:
> "Jenn" <nope@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
> news:hsp8i6$ph3$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>> uh huh .. I still want someone to explain how the image BD posted
>> was any of that, and if they can explain at what point an image
>> becomes the above, the least of which is "sexually-oriented" ...
>> tell me how the cartoon image I saw in that sigtag does not also
>> qualify at least as being "sexually-oriented" too. If an image is
>> removed because it's sexually oriented... then the cartoon image
>> should also be removed because it also qualifies as being sexaully
>> oriented.
>>> There is NO QUESTION as to the picture he
>>> posted as being "sexually-oriented". Your "good guy" thinks he can
>>> do whatever he wants when he wants without scrutiny or conseqences.
>>
>> Then, answer my query above. You won't, though, I'm sure of it
>> because then the conclusion will mean something you won't want to
>> admit to.


> Jenn
> You keep on showing exactly what you are and you do desrve everything
> that comes your way.

Prey tell what that might be? Let's see.. I'm a human being .. a woman .. a
mother.. wife... friend .. aquaintance... gardener... teacher ... webmaster
.... graphic artist ... web designer ... grandmother ...

What could my posting possibly show what I am if you don't know me by
anything else but someone who posts on a newsgroup comments that you don't
agree with?

And what do you think I deserve exactly?? Have you become omnicient ...
all-knowing.. and now you are God who is able to pass judgement on someone
you know little about? You should be careful how you judge people you don't
know.

--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)