Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > You'll never see this on "God fearin' Dpreview

Reply
Thread Tools

You'll never see this on "God fearin' Dpreview

 
 
ScotchBright
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2010
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:03:05 -0000, "Alex VI" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.
>>
>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...fset=&offset=1
>>

>
>
>
>Difficult one to call. After all, Michelangelo's "David" was put on show in
>a public square over 500 years ago and this was in a catholic country.
>


Yeah, and at least that was real art.

Some guys think that if the lighting isn't bad and the girl is
showing her face, it's high art even if it's just a crotch shot.

I'm betting those won't be the photographers who win the
awards.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alex VI
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2010
"Nervous Nick" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Nov 12, 4:17 pm, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.


****ing wanker.


Isn't "****ing wanker" that an Oxymoron?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charles
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-13-2010


"RichA" wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...

Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...fset=&offset=1

OMG, he has been brutally castrated!

 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2010
On 11/13/10 PDT 11:54 AM, ScotchBright wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:50:36 +0200, "G Paleologopoulos"


>
> The idiot who wrote the original complaint probably thinks
> that's a very artsy photograph because there's a vagina in it.


But such is not showing. Other lady parts, yes.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2010
On Nov 13, 7:33*pm, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 11/13/10 * PDT 11:54 AM, ScotchBright wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:50:36 +0200, "G Paleologopoulos"

>
> > * *The idiot who wrote the original complaint probably thinks
> > that's a very artsy photograph because there's a vagina in it.

>
> But such is not showing. Other lady parts, yes.


I can see a few religious maniac Americans lashing themselves after
accidentally viewing the image...
 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2010
On 11/13/10 PDT 6:40 PM, Rich wrote:
> On Nov 13, 7:33 pm, John McWilliams<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 11/13/10 PDT 11:54 AM, ScotchBright wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:50:36 +0200, "G Paleologopoulos"

>>
>>> The idiot who wrote the original complaint probably thinks
>>> that's a very artsy photograph because there's a vagina in it.

>>
>> But such is not showing. Other lady parts, yes.

>
> I can see a few religious maniac Americans lashing themselves after
> accidentally viewing the image...


Why limit it to one country?? Religious fanatics know no geographical
bounds.
Unless you are a fanatical type yourself, of course.

--
lsmft
 
Reply With Quote
 
peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2010
On 11/13/2010 10:22 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
> On 11/13/10 PDT 6:40 PM, Rich wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 7:33 pm, John McWilliams<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/10 PDT 11:54 AM, ScotchBright wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:50:36 +0200, "G Paleologopoulos"
>>>
>>>> The idiot who wrote the original complaint probably thinks
>>>> that's a very artsy photograph because there's a vagina in it.
>>>
>>> But such is not showing. Other lady parts, yes.

>>
>> I can see a few religious maniac Americans lashing themselves after
>> accidentally viewing the image...

>
> Why limit it to one country?? Religious fanatics know no geographical
> bounds.
> Unless you are a fanatical type yourself, of course.
>


who is more illogical, fanatical atheists, or religious fundamentalists.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2010
On 11/14/10 PDT 9:33 AM, peter wrote:
> On 11/13/2010 10:22 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
>> On 11/13/10 PDT 6:40 PM, Rich wrote:
>>> On Nov 13, 7:33 pm, John McWilliams<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/10 PDT 11:54 AM, ScotchBright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:50:36 +0200, "G Paleologopoulos"
>>>>
>>>>> The idiot who wrote the original complaint probably thinks
>>>>> that's a very artsy photograph because there's a vagina in it.
>>>>
>>>> But such is not showing. Other lady parts, yes.
>>>
>>> I can see a few religious maniac Americans lashing themselves after
>>> accidentally viewing the image...

>>
>> Why limit it to one country?? Religious fanatics know no geographical
>> bounds.
>> Unless you are a fanatical type yourself, of course.
>>

>
> who is more illogical, fanatical atheists, or religious fundamentalists.


Atheism wins hands down, but neither is attractive when espoused
vehemently.

--
john mcwilliams

 
Reply With Quote
 
ScotchBright
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2010
On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:40:55 -0800 (PST), Rich <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>On Nov 13, 7:33*pm, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 11/13/10 * PDT 11:54 AM, ScotchBright wrote:
>>
>> > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:50:36 +0200, "G Paleologopoulos"

>>
>> > * *The idiot who wrote the original complaint probably thinks
>> > that's a very artsy photograph because there's a vagina in it.

>>
>> But such is not showing. Other lady parts, yes.

>
>I can see a few religious maniac Americans lashing themselves after
>accidentally viewing the image...


Yeah, all two of them. Seriously, why do these cultural
leftists want to make it appear that everywhere their ideas aren't
popular, you find rabidly over-religious people who can't stand to
even accidentally see someone nude?
They, on the other hand, are almost uniform in their "talking
points" (because they get them from the same sources), and while their
numbers are also very few, they have a greatly disproportionate
representation in politics and the media. Well, they need all the help
they can get, I suppose.
 
Reply With Quote
 
peter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2010
On 11/14/2010 3:03 PM, ScotchBright wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:40:55 -0800 (PST), Rich<(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> On Nov 13, 7:33 pm, John McWilliams<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/10 PDT 11:54 AM, ScotchBright wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:50:36 +0200, "G Paleologopoulos"
>>>
>>>> The idiot who wrote the original complaint probably thinks
>>>> that's a very artsy photograph because there's a vagina in it.
>>>
>>> But such is not showing. Other lady parts, yes.

>>
>> I can see a few religious maniac Americans lashing themselves after
>> accidentally viewing the image...

>
> Yeah, all two of them. Seriously, why do these cultural
> leftists want to make it appear that everywhere their ideas aren't
> popular, you find rabidly over-religious people who can't stand to
> even accidentally see someone nude?
> They, on the other hand, are almost uniform in their "talking
> points" (because they get them from the same sources), and while their
> numbers are also very few, they have a greatly disproportionate
> representation in politics and the media. Well, they need all the help
> they can get, I suppose.


The vast majority are sincere in their beliefs. But, all too many are
simply pandering to the religious right, to advance a political agenda.
I love it when they get caught in their own hypocrisy.



--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wonders never cease. Someone posts good photos on Dpreview RichA Digital Photography 0 08-01-2009 07:15 AM
See the reaction to Dpreview slagging a Canon product RichA Digital Photography 0 11-25-2008 07:21 PM
You've never seen it before and you'll never see it again. Fred A Stover Computer Support 7 12-26-2007 03:33 AM
XML Schema never-never occurence of declared elements / attributes Soren Kuula XML 1 12-01-2005 01:27 PM
string routines go to never never land on unix Kevin C Programming 4 10-17-2003 06:07 PM



Advertisments