«

Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.

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

On Fri, 12 Nov 2010 14:17:54 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:

> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.
>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...fset=&offset=1

It's a terrible picture, even if the winkle thing was not showing
there is no there there.

RichA <> wrote:
>
>Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.


Thank God for that!

On Nov 12, 4:17*pm, RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.

****ing wanker.

On 11/12/2010 5:17 PM, RichA wrote:
> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.
>
> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...fset=&offset=1
>

How about because it has nothing to to with reviews of equipment.
Never saw the Mona Lisa there, either.

--
Peter

On 11/13/2010 11:50 AM, G Paleologopoulos wrote:
> "peter" <> wrote
> news:4cde9558$0$5552$...
>>
>> On 11/12/2010 5:17 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.
>>>
>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...fset=&offset=1
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How about because it has nothing to to with reviews of equipment.
>> Never saw the Mona Lisa there, either.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
> Naturally, the photographer was Greek.
> That's how we usually have lunch here in Greece.
> The babe is often a rental, though )

Sure beats a, (better be careful how I state this,) salad or Chinese
take out.

--
Peter

"RichA" <> wrote in message
news:038fcbda-b1d5-452e-b78c-...
> 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.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 08:40:21 -0500, peter
<> wrote:

>On 11/12/2010 5:17 PM, RichA wrote:
>> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.
>>
>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...fset=&offset=1
>>
>
>How about because it has nothing to to with reviews of equipment.
>Never saw the Mona Lisa there, either.

Good point.

And he didn't have one at all.

Here's the thing: The radical atheists want the establishment
clause (which only means that "congress shall make no law" favoring
any one religion over another) to be accepted by the general public as
meaning that no public official can mention a belief in God in a
public place, and then they'll want no one to be able to, etc.
Of course, reasonable people don't give a rat's ass what these
idiots want.
This is a new thing though. I haven't yet seen "straw man"
arguments posted by these imbeciles in relation to what a certain
website doesn't have.
The website doesn't have nudes because maybe nudes, as you
note, aren't necessary for the site's purpose, but craphead there
wants to make it because their prudes, etc.
I would suggest that if he can't afford porn, he surf any of
the many "photography" sites that do feature nude models instead of
griping that one that features camera reviews doesn't also feature
nudity.
But to his "credit", maybe he's new to the internet and hasn't
figured out that there are plenty of photographers who do nudes and
post them and they're there, free.
Of course, most of those aren't the best photographers; far
from it actually, but I suspect that's at best a secondary
consideration for our new troll.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:50:36 +0200, "G Paleologopoulos"
<> wrote:

>"peter" <> wrote
>news:4cde9558$0$5552$...
>>
>> On 11/12/2010 5:17 PM, RichA wrote:
>>> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.
>>>
>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...fset=&offset=1
>>>
>>
>> How about because it has nothing to to with reviews of equipment.
>> Never saw the Mona Lisa there, either.
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>
>Naturally, the photographer was Greek.
>That's how we usually have lunch here in Greece.
>The babe is often a rental, though )

The idiot who wrote the original complaint probably thinks
that's a very artsy photograph because there's a vagina in it.
Photos showing complex emotions in facial expressions are
obviously something he hasn't developed enough taste to appreciate
yet. I'd try to explain the value of good photography to him, but
since he's too obsessed with finding free nude photos while reading
camera reviews, I'm afraid it would be lost on him.

On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 12:57:30 -0500, peter
<> wrote:

>On 11/13/2010 11:50 AM, G Paleologopoulos wrote:
>> "peter" <> wrote
>> news:4cde9558$0$5552$...
>>>
>>> On 11/12/2010 5:17 PM, RichA wrote:
>>>> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk...fset=&offset=1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> How about because it has nothing to to with reviews of equipment.
>>> Never saw the Mona Lisa there, either.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Peter
>>
>> Naturally, the photographer was Greek.
>> That's how we usually have lunch here in Greece.
>> The babe is often a rental, though )
>
>Sure beats a, (better be careful how I state this,) salad or Chinese
>take out.

I can't recall seeing a photo of a woman that was enhanced by
her being nude, except maybe against bright lights where it's just
about form.
If you want facial expressions that show emotion (the sort of
thing that can make a photo interesting), then I don't think nudity
could enhance it.
The original poster wouldn't be concerned about that though,
apparently, since you can't really focus on a face when you're
bouncing around in your chair in front of the computer while focusing
on the tits.