Re: nude preteen models, illegal, underage nudity, ls magazine, lolita art
- From: Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:27:10 -0700
In article
<e77965b0-8d5d-45a0-83b8-c9e62ddac22e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Don Stockbauer <donstockbauer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
nude preteen models, illegal, underage nudity, ls magazine,
lolita art.
But are they good at math?
They are a pretty good representation of the empty set. Whatever may
have been at the links the spammer gave is gone.
I do not understand the point of spamming about a porn site. Pretty
much all the porn one could reasonably consume in a lifetime, no matter
what obscure perversions turns one on, is readily available for free, so
why would someone pay for porn?
--
--Tim Smith
.
- References:
- Re: nude preteen models, illegal, underage nudity, ls magazine, lolita art
- From: Don Stockbauer
- Re: nude preteen models, illegal, underage nudity, ls magazine, lolita art
- Prev by Date: Re: (x+f(x)*Q[x])^(-1)
- Next by Date: Re: (x+f(x)*Q[x])^(-1)
- Previous by thread: Re: nude preteen models, illegal, underage nudity, ls magazine, lolita art
- Next by thread: Re: nude preteen models, illegal, underage nudity, ls magazine, lolita art
- Index(es):