Hi Erica,

Ironically, I think you misunderstood the context of Bill's remarks.

You said: > The subject matter was not questioned!

Indeed M. Papp's first post specifically referred to only the subject line,
but the subsequent supporting post by P. Murray stated:

"... I really can't understand why
these topics MUST be talked about. ...I too must ask that people keep
this kind of chatter down to a minimum....Perhaps this is not
the best type of forum. I'm sure there are other newsgroups that could
better handle this topic."

Clearly condemning the topic as well as the subject line.

P. Murray then reluctantly backpedaled:

"Do we have to spell it out? Sheeesh! If you must talk about these things
don't print it on the subject lines!"

While a partial backing away, it still condemns the topic.

Any employer monitoring the initial dialog would have readily understood the
context in which the question was originally asked. Interestingly, in some
of the subsequent "Enough please" postings it is not inherently clear what
the context of the discussion was.

P. Murray's posts do, in fact, standing alone, imply that the topic was
somehow prurient. Had the discussing remained focused on the issue of
avoiding offense through interpretive panels, no such confusion could have
occurred.

No offense intended.