On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 20:31 +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Tuesday 07 December 2004 11:22, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net> wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-12-07 at 10:01 +1100, Brian May wrote: > > > So are you saying I should take my web pages of my naked dogs down? > > > > Depends on who's prurient interests are appealed to by your naked > > dogs. > > > > Fortunately, though, pictures of naked dogs are *not* considered > > to be appealing to prurient interests. Unless, *maybe*, a hyper- > > horny 13 year old boy is seeing a picture of dogs copulating, and > > not in the context of some "scientific value", i.e., a text book. > > Even in that case, though, the boy would probably be told to wash > > his hand and stop being a pervert. > > So you have no objections to bestiality web sites then? How does "a picture of dogs copulating" get morphed into "bestiality"? Are you are purposefully misinterpreting what I wrote? [snip] -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. "Fear the Penguin!!"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part