Thank you for aknowledging my efforts. I would also really appreciate it if you actually addressed my explanation of judging the appropriateness of images that may not be completely covered by the TOS in the context of their whole gestalt:
"These elements cannot always be broken down into specific rules or delineations, but need to be taken into consideration when viewed as a whole, in context...which is why we have to occasionally have to discuss & vote on some images. This is not about adequacy of the TOS...no set of written definitions or rules can cover every conceivable circumstance or image. Some of these things can not by their very nature of needing to be assessed in a wholistic context, be clearly defined by words (ie a specific TOS wording)"
~ This after all, is directly addressing what seems to have been one of your major concerns...that you wanted to know on what criterion your image was deleted.
I have also have a major problem with this statement you have made: "And I repeat it here that she lied, as far as I know, because nobody officially told me that she never received my email" how on earth does that justify you calling someone a liar? "As far as you know" ~ as far as you know, you could be completely wrong (ie the email was not have been delivered for whatever reason), and therefore you are making statements based on erroneous information. Just because "no-one told you", how does that make someone a liar? Publicly accusing someone of lying is very serious and damaging. I personally think you should apologise to Michelle, seriously.