On Apr 29, 2008, at 11:50 AM, Jean Laeremans wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> She is topless, from what I hear, but not technically exposed. > > Meaning ?
No intent to spread misinformation, but the local morning DJ's (who were looking at the pictures) said that she was topless, but without breasts exposed. I took that to mean that she had her back to the camera, but I don't know. But the fact that she was portrayed in a mature, sexy way is central to my point. She herself seems to be spinning the story that she feels it was inappropriate. Ken _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
