Hi, Jim, my comments interspersed with your text:
--- Jim Colwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > frank, > > I'm new to PDML, but I've been on the www since it > was a DARPA project in > the 1970's. I don't see how that's relelvent to the rest of your post. > There are many sites with office sex > pics, I suppose there may well be. I wouldn't know... > but I don't think > that PDML should be one, I heartily agree. > nor (I suspect) do about > 51% of the potential PDML > audience. What an odd number! And how did you arrive at that, as opposed to 50% or 52%? > > I don't want to start a flame war, but if required, > my asbestos undies are > nearby (as is my flame thrower). I really can't see that this will start a flame war. It's really just too silly. > > Jim > www.jcolwell.ca > > P.S. I know that the content of your pics does not > match the label, but that > is not the point... Then what exactly is your point, Jim? I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't get it. You acknowledge that the photos don't depict office sex, so what's the problem? Is it that I used the words "Sex With Filing Cabinet"? Are those offensive words to you? As I explained, I was photographing a piece of dance (with the permission of the artist, btw) called "Sex With Filing Cabinet". Had she called it "Dances With Office Furniture", so would I. FWIW, the dance featured no depiction of sexual intercourse, either actual or simulated. I can think of lots of reasons Marlee called her piece by that name, but really there isn't room to go into that now. Anyway, I must admit to great curiousity as to why you might take offence with the title of the group of two photos. Thanks for looking at them. cheers, frank (still confused) > > > > ===== "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
