Jenn whips another horse to death!
RonNNN
Jenn
"RonNNN" <nr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:hgEAn.97839$Ht4....@newsfe20.iad...
> 'Nuff said.
In case you haven't noticed ... there are many people whipping the same
horse in an attempt to counter various points I've made.
A debate consists of multiple people participating in the argument of their
individual points of view.
Have you forgotten that I love debate? :D
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
RonNNN
news:hqv73a$958$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
In this case you are sorely outnumbered. It's Jenn against EVERYONE else.
Problem is, you can't accept defeat.
Eagle
Be careful with that brush you're using, Ronn....I consider Jenn a
friend of mine.
We all have our own ways of debate, and Jenn's method opens the whole
book, not just a couple of chapters. The good thing about newsgroups is
that you can debate, argue, discuss an issue till the cows give milk,
or just move on. There is no need to get nasty with folks unless that
is what you be looking to do.
Just my two dollars worth....
RonNNN
news:hqv8v0$ldr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In this case you are sorely outnumbered. It's Jenn against EVERYONE else.
>> Problem is, you can't accept defeat.
>
> Be careful with that brush you're using, Ronn....I consider Jenn a friend
> of mine.
> We all have our own ways of debate, and Jenn's method opens the whole
> book, not just a couple of chapters. The good thing about newsgroups is
> that you can debate, argue, discuss an issue till the cows give milk, or
> just move on. There is no need to get nasty with folks unless that is what
> you be looking to do.
> Just my two dollars worth....
Has nothing to do with who is friends with who, it has to do with how many
ways someone can express themselves before becoming redundant.
Jenn
It is not just me against everyone else... I have an entire state that has
laws that define what I'm talking about here. I am also providing proof as
to my points that back up what I'm saying. Where and on what point have I
been defeated?
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
I am proving every point I am making with verifiable information.
Additionally, the subject has brought to life more participation in this
group and interesting dialog than it's had in months. I'm having fun, and
I'm not bored as with the usually political non-debates that go on where
people simply cuss and fuss and diss the other side.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"Eagle" <mi...@notyours.ever> wrote in message
news:hqv8v0$ldr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
thanks big bird! :D you're a million dollar eagle in my book.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
RonNNN
> It is not just me against everyone else... I have an entire state that has
> laws that define what I'm talking about here. I am also providing proof
> as to my points that back up what I'm saying.
> Where and on what point have I been defeated?
Mainly the fact that nobody agrees with you that *BOTH* images are in the
same category, and the fact that Linda's comment surrounding the words "BOTH
are not family oriented" was correct. Not to mention the fact that even BD,
who is the basis of this discussion, agrees that Linda's comment was
grammatically correct. Only *ONE* image, in everyone else's opinion, is not
suitable for a family oriented newsgroup.
So now, I've done my part on beating that dead horse. Happy now? [g]
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>> In this case you are sorely outnumbered. It's Jenn against EVERYONE else.
>> Problem is, you can't accept defeat.
>
> It is not just me against everyone else... I have an entire state that has
> laws that define what I'm talking about here. I am also providing proof
> as to my points that back up what I'm saying. Where and on what point have
> I been defeated?
You have not provided a single piece of information that proves the cartoon
in question is either obscene or pornographic.
> --
> Jenn (from Oklahoma)
>
Jenn
Well... I am entitled to even disagree with BD .. LOL FWIW, the
misunderstanding is in how the sentences were put together...when said "BOTH
are NOT" ... it means "neither are" The responses I got from my comment made
no sense.
> So now, I've done my part on beating that dead horse. Happy now? [g]
hey ... participation is a good thing. :D I STILL like you even if we
don't agree on something.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in message
news:hqvesa$sip$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
I've provided plenty of information that proves the image is NOT *family
oriented*.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
W Mitty
debate on the original issue. What is amazing is that so many choose to
follow her down that path.
"Eagle" <mi...@notyours.ever> wrote in message
news:hqv8v0$ldr$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
RonNNN
> FWIW, the misunderstanding is in how the sentences were put
> together...when said "BOTH are NOT" ... it means "neither are"
Wrong.
>The responses I got from my comment made no sense.
Wrong again.
Being a computer expert like you are, do the terms "and/or" & "nand/nor"
mean anything to you?
Hint: The word "NOT" has a big bearing on it.
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
No, you haven't. You have provided information that talks about voluntary
movie ratings (not applicable), information that talks about anime directed
towards adults (not applicable), information about violence in movies (not
applicable) and information concerning laws regarding children and
pornography (not applicable and not related to the graphic in question).
Want to try again? Wait...please don't, because frankly, you can't.
> --
> Jenn (from Oklahoma)
>
Aardvark
> FWIW, the
> misunderstanding is in how the sentences were put together...when said
> "BOTH are NOT" ... it means "neither are"
That's only one of a possible three interpretations.
--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
<http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq08-topp.html>
Jenn
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
> news:hqvf5f$upj$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> FWIW, the misunderstanding is in how the sentences were put
>> together...when said "BOTH are NOT" ... it means "neither are"
>
> Wrong.
I don't know why you think they are different.. they mean the same thing.
>>The responses I got from my comment made no sense.
>
> Wrong again.
>
> Being a computer expert like you are, do the terms "and/or" & "nand/nor"
> mean anything to you?
I've never hears of "nand" anything.
> Hint: The word "NOT" has a big bearing on it.
*BOTH Are Not* is the negative.. as opposed to .. Both ARE which is the
affirmative
*Neither are* is also the negative..
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:hqvh6u$t8u$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 14:01:08 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>
>> FWIW, the
>> misunderstanding is in how the sentences were put together...when said
>> "BOTH are NOT" ... it means "neither are"
>
> That's only one of a possible three interpretations.
>
>
NOT as far as I'm concerned. I've never heard any other interpretation of
those two phrases to mean anything except how I explained already.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
I've provided plenty of information thus far to show that the image in
question is NOT *family oriented*.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
W Mitty
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
news:hqvmjr$h7v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
RonNNN
> I've never hears of "nand" anything.
>
>> Hint: The word "NOT" has a big bearing on it.
>
> *BOTH Are Not* is the negative.. as opposed to .. Both ARE which is the
> affirmative
> *Neither are* is also the negative..
Educational link:
RonNNN
news:hqvn8g$kq5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAND_logic
Good timing! [g]
RonNNN
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
> news:hqvmjr$h7v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> I've never hears of "nand" anything.
An excerpt:
A NAND gate can have two or more inputs, its output is true if NOT all
inputs are true.
Aardvark
> I've provided plenty of information thus far to show that the image in
> question is NOT *family oriented*.
I haven't seen any.
SeaNymph
"W Mitty" <f...@dfe.com> wrote in message
news:hqvn8g$kq5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
SeaNymph
Priceless...love it. It's good to learn new things <g>
>
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
something that means it's wrong <g>
SeaNymph
"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:11:10 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>
>> I've provided plenty of information thus far to show that the image in
>> question is NOT *family oriented*.
>
> I haven't seen any.
I haven't either. The issue of pornography, for instance, covers very
specifc things. Everything else seems to be speculation or up for
interpretation.
RonNNN
>> A NAND gate can have two or more inputs, its output is true if NOT all
>> inputs are true.
>
> Priceless...love it. It's good to learn new things <g>
LOL! You knew it before you knew you knew it!
Jenn
Electronics? never studied electonics... I've studied some javascript and
some vb.net... if/and statements and similar statements.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
RonNNN
> Electronics? never studied electonics... I've studied some javascript
> and some vb.net... if/and statements and similar statements.
Actually, it's more about "logic" than electronics, something you seem to be
lacking in.
Jenn
ahh I'm talking about simple phrases in English, and you compare that to
electronics logic?
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
RonNNN
>
>
> ahh I'm talking about simple phrases in English, and you compare that to
> electronics logic?
No, just *simple* logic.
Aardvark
The gates as described are merely a hardware form of conditional
statements. They all operate using rules of logic.
'Both are not' can mean either that one is, or the other is, or neither
are. You can't argue against that. It's irrefutable logic.
Aardvark
Logic is logic no matter to what it's applied.
Jenn
"RonNNN" <nr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ijKAn.142566$gF5....@newsfe13.iad...
well ... sorry... but I post sentences that mean what I want to say based on
sentence structure that I was taught....
...see posts where I posted the definitions of the word *both*. It's not
difficult to understand, and it shouldn't need a complicated logic chart to
explain what I said, either.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Dustin Cook
@newsfe08.iad:
Er wait.. hold up, what gives you the impression she is a computer expert?
Please do cite references. ...
> Hint: The word "NOT" has a big bearing on it.
I don't think she'll understand..
--
"Hrrngh! Someday I'm going to hurl this...er...roll this...hrrngh.. nudge
this boulder right down a cliff." - Goblin Warrior
Dustin Cook
news:hqvq8o$6pj$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Uh huh. Ron, this is not a computer expert you have here. She has no
understanding of the "electronics" inside.
Dustin Cook
@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 17:10:37 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>
>> "RonNNN" <nr...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:zvJAn.142559$gF5....@newsfe13.iad...
>>> "RonNNN" <nr...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> news:mfJAn.142557$gF5.1...@newsfe13.iad...
>>>
>>>> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>>>> news:hqvmjr$h7v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>>> I've never hears of "nand" anything.
>>>
>>> An excerpt:
>>>
>>> A NAND gate can have two or more inputs, its output is true if NOT
all
>>> inputs are true.
>>
>>
>> Electronics? never studied electonics... I've studied some
javascript
>> and some vb.net... if/and statements and similar statements.
>
> The gates as described are merely a hardware form of conditional
> statements. They all operate using rules of logic.
>
> 'Both are not' can mean either that one is, or the other is, or neither
> are. You can't argue against that. It's irrefutable logic.
Simple logic. to boot. no pun intended.
Dustin Cook
news:hqvmri$il2$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> I've provided plenty of information thus far to show that the image in
> question is NOT *family oriented*.
I haven't seen any. Have you made a post that just hasn't shown up yet?
RonNNN
> Er wait.. hold up, what gives you the impression she is a computer expert?
> Please do cite references. ...
My bad. An expert Webpage Designer is what I should have said. At any rate,
I would have thought that would entail at least a small amount of "logic"
knowledge.
Dustin Cook
news:MzKAn.142568$gF5....@newsfe13.iad:
Artistic skill, sure. the software writes the html for her. ;p
Aardvark
> "RonNNN" <nr...@charter.net> wrote in
> news:MzKAn.142568$gF5....@newsfe13.iad:
>
>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>>> Er wait.. hold up, what gives you the impression she is a computer
>>> expert? Please do cite references. ...
>>
>> My bad. An expert Webpage Designer is what I should have said. At any
>> rate, I would have thought that would entail at least a small amount of
>> "logic" knowledge.
>
> Artistic skill, sure. the software writes the html for her. ;p
Script kiddie?
Dustin Cook
@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:52:08 +0000, Dustin Cook wrote:
>
>> "RonNNN" <nr...@charter.net> wrote in
>> news:MzKAn.142568$gF5....@newsfe13.iad:
>>
>>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Er wait.. hold up, what gives you the impression she is a computer
>>>> expert? Please do cite references. ...
>>>
>>> My bad. An expert Webpage Designer is what I should have said. At any
>>> rate, I would have thought that would entail at least a small amount of
>>> "logic" knowledge.
>>
>> Artistic skill, sure. the software writes the html for her. ;p
>
> Script kiddie?
Based on what she herself posted, I'd go with Script Kiddie, yes.
Leo
rest of us know.
--
LEO
Don't confuse having a career with having a life. They're not the same
"RonNNN" <nr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:MzKAn.142568$gF5....@newsfe13.iad...
SeaNymph
Thanks.
"Leo" <nom...@for.me> wrote in message
news:hqvtvi$ttk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Oldus Fartus
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
> news:hqvmri$il2$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> I've provided plenty of information thus far to show that the image in
>> question is NOT *family oriented*.
>
> I haven't seen any. Have you made a post that just hasn't shown up yet?
>
>
There must be another post, I haven't seen anything to support her
stance on this particular image either.
I would suggest that someone who sees something obscene in a poor
quality 275px в 76px jpeg probably lives a very sheltered life.
--
Cheers
Oldus Fartus
Bullwinkle
Not much of an expert.
"RonNNN" <nr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:MzKAn.142568$gF5....@newsfe13.iad...
SeaNymph
"Oldus Fartus" <deni...@westozNOSPAMcomputers.com> wrote in message
news:83hv9q...@mid.individual.net...
produce documentation backing up her stance, she would have to provide
verifiable evidence that someone in a position of authority considers that
particular graphic obscene or pornographic. That certainly hasn't happened.
Perhaps in a parallel universe.
Ferd.Berfle
> 'Nuff said.
Ron,
How about this?
Pareja Dispareja
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyCVKTrMSS0
Jenn
"Oldus Fartus" <deni...@westozNOSPAMcomputers.com> wrote in message
news:83hv9q...@mid.individual.net...
>> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>> news:hqvmri$il2$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>> I've provided plenty of information thus far to show that the image in
>>> question is NOT *family oriented*.
>>
>> I haven't seen any. Have you made a post that just hasn't shown up yet?
> There must be another post, I haven't seen anything to support her stance
> on this particular image either.
>
The premise I was arguing is the image is NOT *family oriented*. An image
that is NOT *family oriented* can be classified as PG-13 and above, or
*obscene* or pornographic in nature, even. At that time the discussion went
in various directions and the subject of what is *obscene* was discussed.
Text was provided that proved that *obscene* images are defined based on
local standards via a specific test. An image does not have to be obscene
to be disqualified from being *family oriented*, it simply has to be an
image that society would not approve of young children viewing. I also
provided a link to the Supreme Court's most famous *obscenity* decision. In
Miller vs. California, the court established three guidelines to determine
whether
something can be legally defined as obscene.
(http://www.ehow.com/how_2140125_understand-legal-definition-obscenity.html)
I'll repeat: The premise I was arguing is the image is NOT *family
oriented*. An image that is NOT *family oriented* can be classified as
PG-13 and above, or *obscene* or pornographic in nature, even.
I provided links that talked about how *contributing to the delinquency of a
minor* is open to interpretation from state to state and also text that said
that *the laws of various states and cities may see it differently*.
Specifically I also said:
"Just because an adult does not find an image offensive, it does not mean
the law will consider it appropriate for children and adults who provide or
allow such images to children thinking because it isn't offensive to them
could end up with an education of how far the law system these days can
interfere with a parents rights to judge what is right for their own
children. That parent could end up in court defending their very character.
The laws around here are getting very strict when it comes to interpreting
situations that *might* harm children in some way. This could
possibly fall into that category."
I provided a link to School Laws of Oklahoma, 2009 which discussed
protecting children from viewing *any obscene materials, or materials deemed
harmful to minors*, too. As mentioned above what is considered to be obscene
is defined by local standards. The cartoon image could fall into that
category.
I provided links to CIPA which requires schools and libraries using E-Rate
discounts to operate "a technology protection measure with respect to any of
its computers with Internet access that protects against access through such
computers to visual depictions that are obscene, child pornography, or
harmful to minors..." Again, what is considered to fall into that category
is defined by local and state governments and local school boards. I
suggested finding the original site this image
(http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/5213/kbap.jpg) was snatched from and see
if library filters had that site blocked or not. If blocked, that local
government and school system would deem those images and content as being
unfit for children to view.
> I would suggest that someone who sees something obscene in a poor quality
> 275px � 76px jpeg probably lives a very sheltered life.
>
You can suggest such a thing about me personally, but you would be very
wrong. Others have taken a similar direction attacking me personally, which
has nothing to do with what I have said from the beginning that my premise
has nothing to do with how I feel or see the cartoon image. It has
everything to do with how I've seen local school boards and governments make
a big fuss out of much less, which leads me to the premise that the cartoon
image is NOT *family oriented* and it would be considered inappropriate for
children to be viewing on a family oriented group.
Lastly, I'll repeat: The premise I was arguing is the image is NOT *family
oriented*. An image that is NOT *family oriented* can be classified as
PG-13 and above, or *obscene* or pornographic in nature, even.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"Ferd.Berfle" <fa...@farkle.com> wrote in message
news:hr1l4f$j6n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Seems alot of men these days need the inflatible woman.. Are you suggesting
RonNNN get one? LOL
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
RonNNN
news:hr1l4f$j6n$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
He really knows how to shut a woman up! ;')
Jenn
funny ... he probably couldn't get a real woman to begin with. I think Ferd
is giving you a hint! LOL
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
RonNNN
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
news:hr1lld$n43$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Yea? Is your plug located on your back? ;')
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>
> "Oldus Fartus" <deni...@westozNOSPAMcomputers.com> wrote in message
> news:83hv9q...@mid.individual.net...
>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>>> news:hqvmri$il2$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>> I've provided plenty of information thus far to show that the image in
>>>> question is NOT *family oriented*.
>>>
>>> I haven't seen any. Have you made a post that just hasn't shown up yet?
>
>> There must be another post, I haven't seen anything to support her stance
>> on this particular image either.
>>
>
> The premise I was arguing is the image is NOT *family oriented*. An image
> that is NOT *family oriented* can be classified as PG-13 and above, or
> *obscene* or pornographic in nature, even. At that time the discussion
> went in various directions and the subject of what is *obscene* was
> discussed.
>
nothing more than your opinion. You have provided nothing that would
indicate, factually, that the image transcends your opinion and somehow
magically becomes not family oriented. You cannot arbitrarily decide such a
thing based on speculation and opinion. It's simply not your call.
You are free to provide all the irrelevant material you like. None of it
supports your opinion that the image in question is not family oriented.
Jenn
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>>>>> 'Nuff said.
>>>>
>>>> Ron,
>>>> How about this?
>>>>
>>>> Pareja Dispareja
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyCVKTrMSS0
>>>
>>>
>>> He really knows how to shut a woman up! ;')
>> funny ... he probably couldn't get a real woman to begin with. I think
>> Ferd is giving you a hint! LOL
> Yea? Is your plug located on your back? ;')
LOL well ... why do you want to know? Are you flirting with me now? LOL
(jk)
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in message
news:hr1mb1$98c$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
> news:hr1lc4$kjn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Oldus Fartus" <deni...@westozNOSPAMcomputers.com> wrote in message
>> news:83hv9q...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Dustin Cook wrote:
>>>> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>>>> news:hqvmri$il2$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>> I've provided plenty of information thus far to show that the image in
>>>>> question is NOT *family oriented*.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen any. Have you made a post that just hasn't shown up yet?
>>
>>> There must be another post, I haven't seen anything to support her
>>> stance on this particular image either.
>>>
>>
>> The premise I was arguing is the image is NOT *family oriented*. An
>> image that is NOT *family oriented* can be classified as PG-13 and above,
>> or *obscene* or pornographic in nature, even. At that time the discussion
>> went in various directions and the subject of what is *obscene* was
>> discussed.
> The fact remains that the notion that the image is not family oriented is
> nothing more than your opinion.
It's not just my opinion. Post it on some real *family oriented* groups...
I'll pick the groups, even ...and see what the general response is.
> You have provided nothing that would indicate, factually, that the image
> transcends your opinion and somehow magically becomes not family oriented.
> You cannot arbitrarily decide such a thing based on speculation and
> opinion. It's simply not your call.
My call? Hey ... I've posted a challenge above... put up or shut up. I'll
find 10 or more family oriented groups, and you go post the image to their
groups, and we will see what happens.
My guess that you will have an objection to doing that.......
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Ferd.Berfle
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
Maybe a good fishing companion?
http://sidesplittingauctions.com/uploaded_images/finally-a-woman-765152.jpg
Jenn
>
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
> news:hr1lhs$mci$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Ferd.Berfle" <fa...@farkle.com> wrote in message
>>>
>> Seems alot of men these days need the inflatible woman.. Are you
>> suggesting RonNNN get one? LOL
>>
>
> Maybe a good fishing companion?
>
> http://sidesplittingauctions.com/uploaded_images/finally-a-woman-765152.jpg
I'm guessing she'd be doing all the fishing... haaaaahaha poor thing...
think of all the mosquito bites she's going to be scratching later on... LOL
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>
>>>
>> The fact remains that the notion that the image is not family oriented is
>> nothing more than your opinion.
>
> It's not just my opinion. Post it on some real *family oriented*
> groups... I'll pick the groups, even ...and see what the general response
> is.
It is your opinion. It could also be the opinion of others, I'm sure there
are more people as rigid as you out there. But that changes nothing.
Whether people find the image objectionable or not isn't the issue either.
You are attempting to argue that there is some legal definition that
encompasses the image, there's not. In fact, everything you've posted
points out that local jurisdictions may decide what's allowable and what's
not. What ordinary people think isn't the issue, if you keep pressing for
the idea that some legal authority would say the image was obscene or
pornographic.
>
>> You have provided nothing that would indicate, factually, that the image
>> transcends your opinion and somehow magically becomes not family
>> oriented. You cannot arbitrarily decide such a thing based on speculation
>> and opinion. It's simply not your call.
>
> My call? Hey ... I've posted a challenge above... put up or shut up.
> I'll find 10 or more family oriented groups, and you go post the image to
> their groups, and we will see what happens.
Put up or shut up? That's a real childish response. How about you answer
the questions that have been asked of you, and provide the information you
said you could provide. How about you explain how what you've posted
indicates that the image in question is questionable?
>
> My guess that you will have an objection to doing that.......
Face it Jenn, for every group of rigid, sheltered, unbending individuals you
might fine, I'm sure the people who think you're wrong could find 10 groups
that would find the image just fine. And what would that prove? It would
only prove that there are people who think like you and people that don't,
something that's already been proven. It would not address the legality of
the issue that you keep trying to push.
>
> --
> Jenn (from Oklahoma)
>
Jenn
>
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
> news:hr1n3a$vec$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> The fact remains that the notion that the image is not family oriented
>>> is nothing more than your opinion.
>> It's not just my opinion. Post it on some real *family oriented*
>> groups... I'll pick the groups, even ...and see what the general response
>> is.
> It is your opinion.
Opinions make the world go around, Linda, and if there are enough of those
opinions then those opinions make general policy for local governments,
school boards, and even at the state and even national levels.
> It could also be the opinion of others, I'm sure there are more people as
> rigid as you out there.
uh huh ... you insert the word *rigid* as if that would discount the
collective opinion of policy makers for the previously mentioned local
governments, school boards, etc.
> But that changes nothing.
Sure it does... you and others have argued that the cartoon image is
acceptable on a family oriented group. I challenged you to put your actions
where your mouth is, more or less, and you're backing up.
> Whether people find the image objectionable or not isn't the issue either.
Yes it is. PEOPLE are who decide if something is appropriate in a family
oriented environment, and when enough people object, then that thing that is
NOT accepted as appropriate.
> You are attempting to argue that there is some legal definition that
> encompasses the image, there's not.
I'm arguing that there are laws that protect children from things that can
harm them, and objectionable images falls into that category. I've posted
that image to my facebook and asked people to tell me if the image is family
oriented or not and why, and I'll post their responses here.
> In fact, everything you've posted points out that local jurisdictions may
> decide what's allowable and what's not.
Exactly! I've been saying that all along and you and others have said I've
provided no proof of anything I'm saying, which I have.
> What ordinary people think isn't the issue,
We are ALL ordinary people, and it is the people who decide and their
representatives follow through. All it takes is enough people to object to
something for it to be established, and when it concerns children being in
family oriented groups, there is a normal expectation that such a group
would define a specific standard as to what it will and won't allow those
children to be exposed to... If that standard is not upheld, then it loses
its *family-oriented* status.
> if you keep pressing for the idea that some legal authority would say the
> image was obscene or pornographic.
I am not pressing for anything. I am SUGGESTING it is possible that some
legal authority could see it that way.
>>> You have provided nothing that would indicate, factually, that the image
>>> transcends your opinion and somehow magically becomes not family
>>> oriented. You cannot arbitrarily decide such a thing based on
>>> speculation and opinion. It's simply not your call.
>> My call? Hey ... I've posted a challenge above... put up or shut up.
>> I'll find 10 or more family oriented groups, and you go post the image to
>> their groups, and we will see what happens.
> Put up or shut up? That's a real childish response. How about you answer
> the questions that have been asked of you, and provide the information you
> said you could provide. How about you explain how what you've posted
> indicates that the image in question is questionable?
>> My guess that you will have an objection to doing that.......
> Face it Jenn, for every group of rigid, sheltered, unbending individuals
> you might fine,
It has NOTHING to do with "rigid, sheltered, unbending individuals" and
everything to do with what family-oriented people percieve to be
*family-oriented*. Such people tend to want to protect their children when
IN a family-oriented environment.
> I'm sure the people who think you're wrong could find 10 groups that would
> find the image just fine. And what would that prove?
Those 10 groups would have to specifically be advertised as
*family-oriented* groups, of course, that allow children access.
> It would only prove that there are people who think like you and people
> that don't, something that's already been proven. It would not address
> the legality of the issue that you keep trying to push.
Hey .. do it then. I've already posted the question to my facebook
requesting their opinions as to whether the image is *family-oriented* or
not. I'll post their comments here as I get them.
Who here has the guts to post that image on family-oriented groups in order
to tally the results? {{waits}}
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Dustin Cook
news:hqvtvi$ttk$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> This current tirade shows that Jenn's logic is different than the
> logic the rest of us know.
Her logic doesn't oompute. All my gates are hanging and reversing current
flow. Damnit, Jenn.
Dustin Cook
news:hr1p8k$chp$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Sure it does... you and others have argued that the cartoon image is
> acceptable on a family oriented group. I challenged you to put your
> actions where your mouth is, more or less, and you're backing up.
Why do you feel anyone is backing up? In the entire time I've known B-
boy; his sigtag was never an issue. Not one single person ever said, hey
you need to change that.
He's actually a gifted up and coming antimalware guy, Jenn. You might
even like him.
> Yes it is. PEOPLE are who decide if something is appropriate in a
> family oriented environment, and when enough people object, then that
> thing that is NOT accepted as appropriate.
People have already decided that. His sigtag stays, BD's pics and his
account leave. That was a decision made by the majority. :)
> I'm arguing that there are laws that protect children from things that
> can harm them, and objectionable images falls into that category.
> I've posted that image to my facebook and asked people to tell me if
> the image is family oriented or not and why, and I'll post their
> responses here.
Ahh. Trial by public.. Doesn't work that well. You know ambulance chasers
do that alot?
>> In fact, everything you've posted points out that local jurisdictions
>> may decide what's allowable and what's not.
>
> Exactly! I've been saying that all along and you and others have said
> I've provided no proof of anything I'm saying, which I have.
Well, OK jurisidictions have no weight up north.. Shrug.
> We are ALL ordinary people, and it is the people who decide and their
> representatives follow through. All it takes is enough people to
I disagree. Not everyone is ordinary. Many things the same, but no two
people really alike.
Glenn
the previous one using this antique style.
Just tuned in. All this arguing over a darned CARTOON?
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
news:hr1p8k$chp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> It is your opinion.
Opinions make the world go around, Linda, and if there are enough of
those
opinions then those opinions make general policy for local
governments,
school boards, and even at the state and even national levels.
Just tuned in. All this arguing over a darned CARTOON?
Jenn
> "Leo" <nom...@for.me> wrote in
> news:hqvtvi$ttk$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> This current tirade shows that Jenn's logic is different than the
>> logic the rest of us know.
>
> Her logic doesn't oompute. All my gates are hanging and reversing current
> flow. Damnit, Jenn.
>
>
>
Perhaps you should close those gates and just read what I'm saying. :)
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>
>
>> It is your opinion.
>
> Opinions make the world go around, Linda, and if there are enough of those
> opinions then those opinions make general policy for local governments,
> school boards, and even at the state and even national levels.
Would've, could've, shouldva doesn't change anything. Please let us know
when some jurisdiction has ruled that the image in question is obscene or
pornographic.
>
>> It could also be the opinion of others, I'm sure there are more people as
>> rigid as you out there.
>
> uh huh ... you insert the word *rigid* as if that would discount the
> collective opinion of policy makers for the previously mentioned local
> governments, school boards, etc.
Read above.
>
>> But that changes nothing.
>
> Sure it does... you and others have argued that the cartoon image is
> acceptable on a family oriented group. I challenged you to put your
> actions where your mouth is, more or less, and you're backing up.
Um no. Define "family oriented". As I've stated, opinion of people in a
group really doesn't matter. Hasn't the group already decided that where
the image is posted is just fine? I've seen nothing that would indicate
that anyone in that location finds it offensive.
>
>> Whether people find the image objectionable or not isn't the issue
>> either.
>
> Yes it is. PEOPLE are who decide if something is appropriate in a family
> oriented environment, and when enough people object, then that thing that
> is NOT accepted as appropriate.
Um no...that's not how it works. Majority doesn't rule how law enforcement
works.
>
>> You are attempting to argue that there is some legal definition that
>> encompasses the image, there's not.
>
> I'm arguing that there are laws that protect children from things that can
> harm them, and objectionable images falls into that category. I've posted
> that image to my facebook and asked people to tell me if the image is
> family oriented or not and why, and I'll post their responses here.
You have provided no legal proof that anyone in a position of authority
finds the image objectionable. What people on your facebook page say is
just as irrelevant as what you say in this matter.
>> In fact, everything you've posted points out that local jurisdictions may
>> decide what's allowable and what's not.
>
> Exactly! I've been saying that all along and you and others have said
> I've provided no proof of anything I'm saying, which I have.
That statement is incorrect. What you have posted is a lot of stuff that
claims that local jurisdictions can make a determination about objectionable
material. You have provided no proof that the image in question is viewed
as objectionable by those local jurisdiction.
>> What ordinary people think isn't the issue,
>
> We are ALL ordinary people, and it is the people who decide and their
> representatives follow through. All it takes is enough people to object
> to something for it to be established, and when it concerns children being
> in family oriented groups, there is a normal expectation that such a group
> would define a specific standard as to what it will and won't allow those
> children to be exposed to... If that standard is not upheld, then it loses
> its *family-oriented* status.
Your "representatives" are under no legal or binding obligation to do what
you want them to do. That much should be evidenced by the current congress
of this country.
Again, when some entity in authority over such issues finds that particular
image objectionable, please let us know.
>
>
>> if you keep pressing for the idea that some legal authority would say the
>> image was obscene or pornographic.
>
> I am not pressing for anything. I am SUGGESTING it is possible that some
> legal authority could see it that way.
>
"Possible" doesn't mean likely or probable.
>> Face it Jenn, for every group of rigid, sheltered, unbending individuals
>> you might fine,
>
> It has NOTHING to do with "rigid, sheltered, unbending individuals" and
> everything to do with what family-oriented people percieve to be
> *family-oriented*. Such people tend to want to protect their children
> when IN a family-oriented environment.
No, it doesn't have anything to do with what people perceive. It's a legal
issue, one that you have not proven. People can attempt to protect their
children from those things they find objectionable. You have already proven
extreme bias, by questioning the morals of a woman you don't know, yet
allowing that a father is free to allow his children to look at pictures of
naked people. Therefore, everything you say now appears highly questionable
and biased.
>
>
>> I'm sure the people who think you're wrong could find 10 groups that
>> would find the image just fine. And what would that prove?
>
> Those 10 groups would have to specifically be advertised as
> *family-oriented* groups, of course, that allow children access.
How do you define "specifically advertised"? I see now that you're
attempting to add qualifiers to your previous statements. No matter, it's
absolute nonsense and has no bearing on whether the picture is or is not
objectionable, since opinions really don't matter in a legal sense.
>
>
> Hey .. do it then. I've already posted the question to my facebook
> requesting their opinions as to whether the image is *family-oriented* or
> not. I'll post their comments here as I get them.
>
> Who here has the guts to post that image on family-oriented groups in
> order to tally the results? {{waits}}
I'm still waiting for you to explain how the opinion of unknown people has
any bearing on whether the image is objectionable or not, in a legal sense.
Dustin Cook
news:hr1ras$ooo$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Eletronics jokes just bounce right off that head of yours, huh? If I were
to close all of the gates, I'd have eletrical failures all over the place.
Hint: horse/cow gate isn't what I was talking about.
Dustin Cook
news:hr1rf7$ua7$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> Um no...that's not how it works. Majority doesn't rule how law
> enforcement works.
If it did, marijuana wouldn't be illegal. People wouldn't be wasting
taxdollars in a jail cell for smoking pot. The "Majority" sees it as a
waste of tax dollars and time. law enforcement still sees it as cheap bread
and butter.
Jenn
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
> news:hr1p8k$chp$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Sure it does... you and others have argued that the cartoon image is
>> acceptable on a family oriented group. I challenged you to put your
>> actions where your mouth is, more or less, and you're backing up.
> Why do you feel anyone is backing up? In the entire time I've known B-
> boy; his sigtag was never an issue. Not one single person ever said, hey
> you need to change that.
Well... If you intend on maintaining your group is family-oriented, someone
is saying it now. Take up my challenge. Post that image on 10 advertised
family-oriented groups and see what happens.
> He's actually a gifted up and coming antimalware guy, Jenn. You might
> even like him.
Sure.. I'd probably like him... :) Liking him personally has nothing to
do with your claim that the group is family-oriented.
>> Yes it is. PEOPLE are who decide if something is appropriate in a
>> family oriented environment, and when enough people object, then that
>> thing that is NOT accepted as appropriate.
> People have already decided that. His sigtag stays, BD's pics and his
> account leave. That was a decision made by the majority. :)
Then that must mean you will change the status of the group to not be
family-oriented then?
>> I'm arguing that there are laws that protect children from things that
>> can harm them, and objectionable images falls into that category.
>> I've posted that image to my facebook and asked people to tell me if
>> the image is family oriented or not and why, and I'll post their
>> responses here.
> Ahh. Trial by public.. Doesn't work that well. You know ambulance chasers
> do that alot?
It's called taking a poll .... or even a survey of public opinion.
>>> In fact, everything you've posted points out that local jurisdictions
>>> may decide what's allowable and what's not.
>>
>> Exactly! I've been saying that all along and you and others have said
>> I've provided no proof of anything I'm saying, which I have.
> Well, OK jurisidictions have no weight up north.. Shrug.
OK jurisdictions don't need to ...
>> We are ALL ordinary people, and it is the people who decide and their
>> representatives follow through. All it takes is enough people to
> I disagree. Not everyone is ordinary. Many things the same, but no two
> people really alike.
Line people up side by side with no labels on them, and what you get is
ordinary people. Ordinary people can do extraordinary things. It is how we
decide to put labels on people that puts some on a pedastal and others not.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"Glenn" <gl...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:c728f$4bd46f75$407e31c0$29...@EVERESTKC.NET...
> Moved to the top. Down there, there seems to be no separation from the
> previous one using this antique style.
>
> Just tuned in. All this arguing over a darned CARTOON?
>
I'm so glad I can finally see your posts again, Glenn! :D
yep .. some people believe a cartoon is good for children ... and I don't...
they like to argue with me about it... and I love to debate.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
> news:hr1ras$ooo$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D657EC3A6B...@69.16.185.250...
>>> "Leo" <nom...@for.me> wrote in
>>> news:hqvtvi$ttk$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> This current tirade shows that Jenn's logic is different than the
>>>> logic the rest of us know.
>>>
>>> Her logic doesn't oompute. All my gates are hanging and reversing
>>> current flow. Damnit, Jenn.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you should close those gates and just read what I'm saying.
>> :)
> Eletronics jokes just bounce right off that head of yours, huh? If I were
> to close all of the gates, I'd have eletrical failures all over the place.
What do you expect?? LOL I'm not an electronics person by any stretch of
the word, and to make me the butt of some electronics joke isn't really all
that good to do anyway, wouldn't you say? :)
Now, my husband and son both are into electronis, but I know zilch about it.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Dustin Cook
news:hr1rvt$sho$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
> "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D657FB5243...@69.16.185.250...
>> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>> news:hr1p8k$chp$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> Sure it does... you and others have argued that the cartoon image is
>>> acceptable on a family oriented group. I challenged you to put your
>>> actions where your mouth is, more or less, and you're backing up.
>
>> Why do you feel anyone is backing up? In the entire time I've known
>> B- boy; his sigtag was never an issue. Not one single person ever
>> said, hey you need to change that.
>
> Well... If you intend on maintaining your group is family-oriented,
> someone is saying it now. Take up my challenge. Post that image on
> 10 advertised family-oriented groups and see what happens.
This is worth noting, Jenn. If not for your benefit, for others.
Malwarebytes is *not* my group. Thanks. I don't run any forums. In fact,
it's been a very long time since I've even administrated a web server.
>> He's actually a gifted up and coming antimalware guy, Jenn. You might
>> even like him.
>
> Sure.. I'd probably like him... :) Liking him personally has
> nothing to do with your claim that the group is family-oriented.
The group is family oriented. Hence, no soft/hard porn. Even if it's
cute, as BD's was. :)
>>> Yes it is. PEOPLE are who decide if something is appropriate in a
>>> family oriented environment, and when enough people object, then
>>> that thing that is NOT accepted as appropriate.
>
>> People have already decided that. His sigtag stays, BD's pics and his
>> account leave. That was a decision made by the majority. :)
>
> Then that must mean you will change the status of the group to not be
> family-oriented then?
I have no way to change nor set the status Jenn. The people have spoken.
His pic and his account were removed. What more can one ask for?
>
>>> I'm arguing that there are laws that protect children from things
>>> that can harm them, and objectionable images falls into that
>>> category. I've posted that image to my facebook and asked people to
>>> tell me if the image is family oriented or not and why, and I'll
>>> post their responses here.
>
>> Ahh. Trial by public.. Doesn't work that well. You know ambulance
>> chasers do that alot?
>
> It's called taking a poll .... or even a survey of public opinion.
Well, Jenn. you should accept the opinions presented if your going to
take a survey. The opinions of the forum mods (the only opinions that
matter) is known. I told you, trial by public doesn't work well. :)
> OK jurisdictions don't need to ...
That's what you've been using for source material. Some state laws from
your state. I just felt it was necessary to remind you, they don't apply.
>>> We are ALL ordinary people, and it is the people who decide and
>>> their representatives follow through. All it takes is enough people
>>> to
>
>
>> I disagree. Not everyone is ordinary. Many things the same, but no
>> two people really alike.
>
> Line people up side by side with no labels on them, and what you get
> is ordinary people. Ordinary people can do extraordinary things. It
> is how we decide to put labels on people that puts some on a pedastal
> and others not.
As I said above, no two people really alike. We are not clones, or
identical copies of our parental units or the units before those. We are
all unique. If everyone was the same as you wish we all were, we'd have
the same interests. And we don't. The PC people who think everyone should
win, no losers (like a softball group I know of here locally) are more in
with your line of thought. I don't subscribe to that BS.
Dustin Cook
news:hr1sce$uhu$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
Hey now. I set the joke in motion, but you walked right into it.:)
Dustin Cook
news:hr1s79$too$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
some=should mean everyone who has posted on the subject, aside from Jenn.
She is so far, the only one who feels the cartoon isn't for children.
Jenn
>
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
> news:hr1p8k$chp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>
>>> It is your opinion.
>>
>> Opinions make the world go around, Linda, and if there are enough of
>> those opinions then those opinions make general policy for local
>> governments, school boards, and even at the state and even national
>> levels.
> Would've, could've, shouldva doesn't change anything. Please let us
> know when some jurisdiction has ruled that the image in question is
> obscene or pornographic.
ahh .. I see you're not willing to put your assertions to an actual live
test in the real world of family-oriented groups.
>> I'm arguing that there are laws that protect children from things that
>> can harm them, and objectionable images falls into that category. I've
>> posted that image to my facebook and asked people to tell me if the image
>> is family oriented or not and why, and I'll post their responses here.
> You have provided no legal proof that anyone in a position of authority
> finds the image objectionable. What people on your facebook page say is
> just as irrelevant as what you say in this matter.
The general public defines what is considered to be family-oriented, so I'm
asking the general public. Aside from that, the school system also decides
based on local societal norms, and then the local and state governments
create laws to protect familys in that respect.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
> "SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in
> news:hr1rf7$ua7$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Um no...that's not how it works. Majority doesn't rule how law
>> enforcement works.
>
> If it did, marijuana wouldn't be illegal.
I see public polls quite regularly asking if they believe marijuana should
be legalized and the results have always been a majority saying NO... even
for medical usage they say NO (which I think it should be legal for medical
usage)
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
> news:hr1s79$too$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> "Glenn" <gl...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:c728f$4bd46f75$407e31c0$29...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>>> Moved to the top. Down there, there seems to be no separation from
>>> the previous one using this antique style.
>>> Just tuned in. All this arguing over a darned CARTOON?
>> I'm so glad I can finally see your posts again, Glenn! :D
>>
>> yep .. some people believe a cartoon is good for children ... and I
>> don't... they like to argue with me about it... and I love to debate.
> some=should mean everyone who has posted on the subject, aside from Jenn.
> She is so far, the only one who feels the cartoon isn't for children.
:) So far......... besides.. this group isn't a random sampling of
polled opinions.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>
>
> "Glenn" <gl...@kc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:c728f$4bd46f75$407e31c0$29...@EVERESTKC.NET...
>> Moved to the top. Down there, there seems to be no separation from the
>> previous one using this antique style.
>>
>> Just tuned in. All this arguing over a darned CARTOON?
> don't... > they like to argue with me about it... and I love to debate.
Let me ask you a few simple, direct questions.
Can you admit that there is no legal basis for your argument that the image
in question is not family oriented?
Can you admit that your entire argument is based on opinion, and nothing
more, in a legal sense of the issue?
Can you admit that you are now trying to turn this into an issue of polling
and opinion, as opposed to actual fact?
You are the one who stated that it didn't matter who agreed or did not
agree, since that wasn't the issue.
> --
>
RonNNN
>> some=should mean everyone who has posted on the subject, aside from Jenn.
>> She is so far, the only one who feels the cartoon isn't for children.
>
> :) So far......... besides.. this group isn't a random sampling of
> polled opinions.
Jenn, how much are you paying to get people to take your side? If the price
is right, I may switch sides! LOL! Buy my vote! LOLOLOL!!!!
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
opposed to gay marriage, yet gay marriage exists in many places.
The American public was consistenly against the passage of the so called
healthcare reform, yet democrats passed it anyway.
And yet, marijuana is available for medical purposes in many places. In
fact, 14 staqtes have enacted laws that legalize marijuana for medical
purposes.
>
>
> --
> Jenn (from Oklahoma)
>
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>
> "SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in message
> news:hr1rf7$ua7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>> news:hr1p8k$chp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is your opinion.
>>>
>>> Opinions make the world go around, Linda, and if there are enough of
>>> those opinions then those opinions make general policy for local
>>> governments, school boards, and even at the state and even national
>>> levels.
>
>> Would've, could've, shouldva doesn't change anything. Please let us
>> know when some jurisdiction has ruled that the image in question is
>> obscene or pornographic.
>
> ahh .. I see you're not willing to put your assertions to an actual live
> test in the real world of family-oriented groups.
Please point out where I made that statement.
>> You have provided no legal proof that anyone in a position of authority
>> finds the image objectionable. What people on your facebook page say is
>> just as irrelevant as what you say in this matter.
>
> The general public defines what is considered to be family-oriented, so
> I'm asking the general public. Aside from that, the school system also
> decides based on local societal norms, and then the local and state
> governments create laws to protect familys in that respect.
The general public makes no such determination. It is, as your citations
have clearly pointed out, subject to local and/or state jurisdiction, or
individual parents or guardians, if not considering the legal aspect.
>
Aardvark
> ahh .. I see you're not willing to put your assertions to an actual live
> test in the real world of family-oriented groups.
The only group that matters in this conversation is the Malwarebytes
forum, and they have spoken.
--
Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
<http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq08-topp.html>
Jenn
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
> news:hr1sce$uhu$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D6582D0571...@69.16.185.247...
>>> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>>> news:hr1ras$ooo$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:Xns9D657EC3A6B...@69.16.185.250...
>>>>> "Leo" <nom...@for.me> wrote in
>>>>> news:hqvtvi$ttk$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This current tirade shows that Jenn's logic is different than the
>>>>>> logic the rest of us know.
>>>>>
>>>>> Her logic doesn't oompute. All my gates are hanging and reversing
>>>>> current flow. Damnit, Jenn.
>>>> Perhaps you should close those gates and just read what I'm saying.
>>> Eletronics jokes just bounce right off that head of yours, huh? If I
>>> were to close all of the gates, I'd have eletrical failures all over
>>> the place.
>> What do you expect?? LOL I'm not an electronics person by any stretch
>> of the word, and to make me the butt of some electronics joke isn't
>> really all that good to do anyway, wouldn't you say? :)
> Hey now. I set the joke in motion, but you walked right into it.:)
The joke might as well have been written in swahili as far as I'm concerned.
The joke may have been funny to people who knew what it meant, but I had no
idea what you were talking about, and it was the inspiration of a long
thread of posts that attacked me personally and my character, which I didn't
find to be funny at all.
Since, you found it to be funny, I guess it's ok then.. right? At least
post a joke I will understand so I can respond properly in the context of
the joke instead of wondering what it is everyone is laughing about. I have
a decent sense of humor and don't mind a good joke, either....
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Aardvark
Is it illegal????? I'll have to get rid of this stash of skunkweed!
Very quickly.
Jenn
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in
>>> Why do you feel anyone is backing up? In the entire time I've known
>>> B- boy; his sigtag was never an issue. Not one single person ever
>>> said, hey you need to change that.
>> Well... If you intend on maintaining your group is family-oriented,
>> someone is saying it now. Take up my challenge. Post that image on
>> 10 advertised family-oriented groups and see what happens.
> This is worth noting, Jenn. If not for your benefit, for others.
> Malwarebytes is *not* my group. Thanks. I don't run any forums. In fact,
> it's been a very long time since I've even administrated a web server.
Well I never said it was your group specifically... I've just addressed your
claim that is is a family oriented group.
>>> He's actually a gifted up and coming antimalware guy, Jenn. You might
>>> even like him.
>>
>> Sure.. I'd probably like him... :) Liking him personally has
>> nothing to do with your claim that the group is family-oriented.
> The group is family oriented. Hence, no soft/hard porn. Even if it's
> cute, as BD's was. :)
What about inappropriate for children?
>> Then that must mean you will change the status of the group to not be
>> family-oriented then?
> I have no way to change nor set the status Jenn. The people have spoken.
> His pic and his account were removed. What more can one ask for?
I'm sure if you objected, they would listen.
>>> Ahh. Trial by public.. Doesn't work that well. You know ambulance
>>> chasers do that alot?
>> It's called taking a poll .... or even a survey of public opinion.
> Well, Jenn. you should accept the opinions presented if your going to
> take a survey. The opinions of the forum mods (the only opinions that
> matter) is known. I told you, trial by public doesn't work well. :)
haha You've never done a trial by public like I've done before, then.
>> OK jurisdictions don't need to ...
>
> That's what you've been using for source material. Some state laws from
> your state. I just felt it was necessary to remind you, they don't apply.
I used Oklahoma specifically because someone along the way asked about
specific school and localities.
>>> I disagree. Not everyone is ordinary. Many things the same, but no
>>> two people really alike.
>>
>> Line people up side by side with no labels on them, and what you get
>> is ordinary people. Ordinary people can do extraordinary things. It
>> is how we decide to put labels on people that puts some on a pedastal
>> and others not.
> As I said above, no two people really alike. We are not clones, or
> identical copies of our parental units or the units before those. We are
> all unique. If everyone was the same as you wish we all were, we'd have
> the same interests. And we don't.
Perhaps you aren't understanding what I'm trying to say. We all begin as
equals. What we actually do from that point on qualifies as extraordinary.
> The PC people who think everyone should
> win, no losers (like a softball group I know of here locally) are more in
> with your line of thought. I don't subscribe to that BS.
Oh.. I don't like PC any more than you do. I'm probably one of the most
rebellious when it comes to PC anything.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Peter Foldes
and I responded as was needed. Then Mother Hen (Jenn) stuck her nose in taking sides
when she should not have. I asked her numerous times courteously to avoid putting
her 2 cents (one sided) in. She kept ignoring it and I in turn blasted here and will
keep blasting her until she becomes neutral in matters concerning BD ,myself and
others. She is welcome to stay friends with BD and that is not an issue at all but
she has to learn how not to get involved between others and that Trolling,lying and
bullshiting BD. Jenn swallowed the bait set by BD hook line and sinker and she does
not realize it as BD does and is using it to the hilt.
--
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
"RonNNN" <nr...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:gW_An.136785$sx5....@newsfe16.iad...
Jenn
ROFLOL!!!!!!!! too funny!!!
Anybody can argue a point when the majority agrees. Can you argue a point
if you're in the minority?
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"Peter Foldes" <ok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hr1veo$cdm$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>I came to this group with nothing but an open mind. BD started his Trolling
>with me and I responded as was needed. Then Mother Hen (Jenn) stuck her
>nose in taking sides when she should not have. I asked her numerous times
>courteously to avoid putting her 2 cents (one sided) in.
As I recall... the very first post of yours here that I responded to was
when you wished physical harm and death onto Dave.
This is a public forum and I'd respond the same way to anyone wishing
physical harm and death to posters here.
> She kept ignoring it and I in turn blasted here and will keep blasting her
> until she becomes neutral in matters concerning BD ,myself and others.
Bring it on bubba ... I can take you in any argument with one hand held
behind my back, and I don't even have to utter one nasty word do it, either.
> She is welcome to stay friends with BD and that is not an issue at all but
> she has to learn how not to get involved between others and that
> Trolling,lying and bullshiting BD. Jenn swallowed the bait set by BD hook
> line and sinker and she does not realize it as BD does and is using it to
> the hilt.
Additionally, you can go kiss the nearest telephone poll as far as I'm
concerned.. and I say that with a big smile on my face... I will respond to
whomever I please, including you. :D Now, put that in your pipe and smoke
it a while why don't ya? LOL
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:hr1u9b$9no$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:10:37 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>
>> "Dustin Cook" <bughunte...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D658325886...@69.16.185.247...
>>> "SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in
>>> news:hr1rf7$ua7$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>
>>>> Um no...that's not how it works. Majority doesn't rule how law
>>>> enforcement works.
>>>
>>> If it did, marijuana wouldn't be illegal.
>>
>> I see public polls quite regularly asking if they believe marijuana
>> should be legalized and the results have always been a majority saying
>> NO... even for medical usage they say NO (which I think it should be
>> legal for medical usage)
>
> Is it illegal????? I'll have to get rid of this stash of skunkweed!
>
> Very quickly.
>
>
hey.. you're in the UK anyway.. what's the laws there on the little weed?
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
.. ya win some ya lose some ... we'll see what happens in the next election,
too.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
Jenn
>
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
> news:hr1svu$2s1$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "SeaNymph" <SeaN...@deepbluesea.com> wrote in message
>> news:hr1rf7$ua7$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>
>>> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>>> news:hr1p8k$chp$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> It is your opinion.
>>>>
>>>> Opinions make the world go around, Linda, and if there are enough of
>>>> those opinions then those opinions make general policy for local
>>>> governments, school boards, and even at the state and even national
>>>> levels.
>>
>>> Would've, could've, shouldva doesn't change anything. Please let us
>>> know when some jurisdiction has ruled that the image in question is
>>> obscene or pornographic.
>>
>> ahh .. I see you're not willing to put your assertions to an actual live
>> test in the real world of family-oriented groups.
>
> Please point out where I made that statement.
So you accept my challenge then?
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)
RonNNN
>> price is right, I may switch sides! LOL! Buy my vote! LOLOLOL!!!!
>
>
> ROFLOL!!!!!!!! too funny!!!
>
> Anybody can argue a point when the majority agrees. Can you argue a point
> if you're in the minority?
I'm not a glutton for punishment like you seem to be![g] I know when to
quit!
Now, if I may go slightly to the side of center on this subject, just how
"family-oriented" do you think a "malware-protection" site needs to be to be
considered so? Should the content be suited for a 3 year old? 10? 13? 17?
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>
> The joke might as well have been written in swahili as far as I'm
> concerned. The joke may have been funny to people who knew what it meant,
> but I had no idea what you were talking about, and it was the inspiration
> of a long thread of posts that attacked me personally and my character,
> which I didn't find to be funny at all.
Sorry, but this just made me laugh out loud. A long thread of posts that
attacked you personally? How odd that such a thing would be upsetting to
you, as one who is so fond of the infamous ad hom attack <g>
After all, you are the person who posted that I was a "sick puppy" and that
you "hadn't begun to get into my life". So, don't expect much sympathy from
me.
You reap what you sow, as the saying goes.
>
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>
>> I have no way to change nor set the status Jenn. The people have spoken.
>> His pic and his account were removed. What more can one ask for?
>
> I'm sure if you objected, they would listen.
Why should he, or anyone for that matter, object to something they don't
find objectionable?
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>
>
> Anybody can argue a point when the majority agrees. Can you argue a point
> if you're in the minority?
Who knows, it seems you can't.
SeaNymph
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
>>>>
>>> ahh .. I see you're not willing to put your assertions to an actual live
>>> test in the real world of family-oriented groups.
>>
>> Please point out where I made that statement.
>
> So you accept my challenge then?
When you start answering direct questions, then I'll consider yours.
>
>
> --
> Jenn (from Oklahoma)
>
SeaNymph
"Aardvark" <aard...@youllnever.know> wrote in message
> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:08:03 -0500, Jenn wrote:
>
>> ahh .. I see you're not willing to put your assertions to an actual live
>> test in the real world of family-oriented groups.
>
> The only group that matters in this conversation is the Malwarebytes
> forum, and they have spoken.
If only that incredibly logical statement could be understood by some.
Bullwinkle
"Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
news:hr21st$2te$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Jenn
> "Jenn" <no...@noway.atnohow.anyday> wrote in message
> news:hr21cl$url$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>> "RonNNN" <nr...@charter.net> wrote in message
>>> Jenn, how much are you paying to get people to take your side? If the
>>> price is right, I may switch sides! LOL! Buy my vote! LOLOLOL!!!!
>>
>>
>> ROFLOL!!!!!!!! too funny!!!
>>
>> Anybody can argue a point when the majority agrees. Can you argue a
>> point if you're in the minority?
> I'm not a glutton for punishment like you seem to be![g] I know when to
> quit!
I LOVE a good debate.... :D I quit when I don't have the time, get bored,
or lose interest, or on occasion if I find myself getting frustrated, angry,
or upset, and I can't respond without responding out of anger or
frustration, I will either quit and mark everything read and move on.. or
wait until I can respond when I'm in a better mood.
> Now, if I may go slightly to the side of center on this subject, just how
> "family-oriented" do you think a "malware-protection" site needs to be to
> be considered so? Should the content be suited for a 3 year old? 10? 13?
> 17?
I would go with the current rating system that applies to what constitutes
*family-oriented*, which would aline with how movie content is rated, and
also how video games are rated. Those rating systems seem to be in
agreement with how static images are also rated.
Family-oriented would be considered to be a G-rating for general audiences.
That would mean a parent could trust a site for their children to
participate in.
PG rating comes next, suggests a parent be present for supervision....
then pg-13... would be apprpriate for 13 yrs old and above, but some
parental guidance should be employed...
Malwarebytes would be more like a pg-13 or above based on the content
allowed there currently.
--
Jenn (from Oklahoma)