Okay, Collin, it's a really hugh deal. Jack
--- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Jack Davis > Mon, 08 Aug 2005 11:14:30 -0700 > > > >Never would have guessed there would be such > >preoccupation with a pair of shorts. Especially > this > >semi-baggy, non-defining example. Is it the fact > that > >we all know what is under there? <snicker> > >The wearer's position at this moment, while > >incidental, is obviously a GREAT distraction to > many. > >Too bad. > > > >Jack > > It surprises me that anyone would either expect or > even simply > anticipate no reaction to the center of the > photograph. > Instead we argue that the distraction, for whatever > reason, > shouldn't be a distraction. It's a clear piece of > duplicity > that we act like it's not there. > > My argument was one of taste rather than the > morality of it. > > Yes, voyeurism does apply to some degree. Bum, > smirk, baby, & all. > > Collin > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > mail2web - Check your email from the web at > http://mail2web.com/ . > > > > ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
