A Child has just finished a finger painting assignment in her kindergarten art class. To the teacher's dismay, Faye's painted fingers have fashioned together a word of extreme offense. Admittedly the four letters are not as clear as day but the teacher deems them present nonetheless. After all, it is somewhat hard to ignore such profanity.

  However, Faye's intention was to paint a horse grazing in a field beside a tree, which she maintains she has done successfully. She is proud of her horse painting and doesn't understand her teacher's response.

  A debate ensues amongst the school's staff in regards to the degree of Faye's offense and whether or not her painting should be excluded from the upcoming kindergarten art show. How much offense can be affixed to the four letters in Faye's painting if the artist's intent is absent? Is that world still present once it has been established that it only occurred accidentally? And although the painting looks nothing like a horse grazing in a field beside a tree, how can anyone argue that it is anything but?

  It is decided after much deliberation that it would be cruel to exclude Fay'es painting from the art show. She would be the only child who wouldn't have her work shown and this would be terribly upsetting to the proud girl (not to mention her parents). After all, the word only lived within the realm of the adult's interpretation and theoretically didn't exist at all. How could they justify punishment? Instead, the staff agreed that it would suffice to have a small warning alongside her art explaining the situation and ensuring the parents that no offense need be taken.

  The night of the art show there was such uproar amongst the parents about the card beside Faye's painting which read This does not say 'cunt' that the principal of the school was fired.