Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=184075

In an earlier message, posted by THORNE, he mentioned a comment that I had made to the attached image. He had initially misinterpreted the fact that I was poking fun at the TOS issue that MOSCA's image had prompted. I removed the comment to prevent further misunderstandings, however, now that I've seen this thread it might be worth reposting my comment here. (Please check the image to understand the comment) "Given the recent MOSCA controversy this image may violate the terms of service. The ice cream cone is clearly a phallic symbol, the cherry on top is clearly a symbol of the virginal state of the young girl, and I'm not even going to address the image conveyed by the dripping ice cream"... Thorne's initial response was ctitical of me in that he thought that I was endorsing that view of the image. So early this morning, before this thread was even started, Thorne and I exchanged messages where I pretty much told him that I was trying to be sarcastic and that people who want to can see filthy images in even the most innocent images. There can be such a thing as innocent child nudity. (Look at the beaches in Europe and South America). When involved with children not everyone who sees a naked child has sexual intent, and not every priest has the work of God in mind. It's too easy to think that you can really regulate a deviant's behavior by restricting everyone's behavior. The real answer is to hold people accountable for what they actually do rather than what they think. The second part of that is that when we decide to hold a person responsible that we DO hold him responsible.