Prev: Google admits wi-fi data collection blunder
Next: SpywareBlaster Def Update
From: Bullwinkle on 15 May 2010 06:59
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(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9D799D61B5D1HHI2948AJD832(a)69.16.185.250...
"Jenn" <me(a)nowhere.whocareswhatthisemailisanyway> wrote in

I hope you realize, your getting noplace.



From: Jenn on 16 May 2010 00:18
Dustin Cook wrote:
> "Jenn" <me(a)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)


From: Jenn on 16 May 2010 00:20
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)


From: Peter Foldes on 16 May 2010 01:48
Bullshit. He was given the warning and he knew.When that picture and his post was
removed ,he knew it immediately. He had this happen before on another server. He is
just crying foul so as he can get sympathy. He is a Troll

--
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(a)noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
news:hsnrls$vfl$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> Dustin Cook wrote:
>> "Jenn" <me(a)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)
>

From: Nomen Nescio on 16 May 2010 02:30

"Peter Foldes" <maci252211(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hso0v9$14g$1(a)speranza.aioe.org...
> Bullshit. He was given the warning and he knew.When that picture and his post was
> removed ,he knew it immediately. He had this happen before on another server. He is
> just crying foul so as he can get sympathy. He is a Trollop.

Right!

Ans so is his GF Jenn!

And his BF/GF PCButts1!

Trollops one and all!



 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Google admits wi-fi data collection blunder
Next: SpywareBlaster Def Update