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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Nov 12, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Nov 12, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Irwell Guest

    Irwell, Nov 12, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

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



    Thank God for that! ;-)
    Bruce, Nov 12, 2010
    #3
  4. RichA

    Nervous Nick Guest

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


    fucking wanker.
    Nervous Nick, Nov 13, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    peter Guest

    peter, Nov 13, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 11/13/2010 11:50 AM, G Paleologopoulos wrote:
    > "peter" <> wrote
    > news:4cde9558$0$5552$-secrets.com...
    >>
    >> On 11/12/2010 5:17 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...hoto_update_news_303593.html?offset=&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
    peter, Nov 13, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    Alex VI Guest

    Alex VI, Nov 13, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    ScotchBright Guest

    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.u...hoto_update_news_303593.html?offset=&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.
    ScotchBright, Nov 13, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    ScotchBright Guest

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

    >"peter" <> wrote
    >news:4cde9558$0$5552$-secrets.com...
    >>
    >> On 11/12/2010 5:17 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.
    >>>
    >>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...hoto_update_news_303593.html?offset=&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.
    ScotchBright, Nov 13, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    ScotchBright Guest

    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$5552$-secrets.com...
    >>>
    >>> On 11/12/2010 5:17 PM, RichA wrote:
    >>>> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...hoto_update_news_303593.html?offset=&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.
    ScotchBright, Nov 13, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    ScotchBright Guest

    On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:03:05 -0000, "Alex VI" <> wrote:

    >"RichA" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.
    >>
    >> http://www.amateurphotographer.co.u...hoto_update_news_303593.html?offset=&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.
    ScotchBright, Nov 13, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    Alex VI Guest

    "Nervous Nick" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    On Nov 12, 4:17 pm, RichA <> wrote:
    > Because AMERICA and JESUS CHRIST would object.


    fucking wanker.


    Isn't "fucking wanker" that an Oxymoron?
    Alex VI, Nov 13, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Charles Guest

    Charles, Nov 13, 2010
    #13
  14. 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.
    John McWilliams, Nov 14, 2010
    #14
  15. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Nov 13, 7:33 pm, John McWilliams <> 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...
    Rich, Nov 14, 2010
    #15
  16. On 11/13/10 PDT 6:40 PM, Rich wrote:
    > On Nov 13, 7:33 pm, John McWilliams<> 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
    John McWilliams, Nov 14, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    peter Guest

    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<> 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
    peter, Nov 14, 2010
    #17
  18. 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<> 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
    John McWilliams, Nov 14, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    ScotchBright Guest

    On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:40:55 -0800 (PST), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >On Nov 13, 7:33 pm, John McWilliams <> 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.
    ScotchBright, Nov 14, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    peter Guest

    On 11/14/2010 3:03 PM, ScotchBright wrote:
    > On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 18:40:55 -0800 (PST), Rich<>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On Nov 13, 7:33 pm, John McWilliams<> 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
    peter, Nov 14, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    7
    Views:
    780
    Flunkett Clogwheel
    Feb 5, 2006
  2. Fred A Stover
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    834
    pcbutts1
    Dec 26, 2007
  3. Alfagreyus

    What can God never see?

    Alfagreyus, Apr 8, 2008, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    388
    Alfagreyus
    Apr 8, 2008
  4. Andrew Tang
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    625
    Andrew Tang
    Jul 5, 2003
  5. Pikoro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    591
    Ronnie Broyles
    Jul 6, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page