On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Kenneth Kixmoeller/fh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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 And she probably wasn't around when those pictures were taken ?
A+ jml _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] 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.
