NationStates Jolt Archive

A family is outraged by the fact that someone doctored their seven year old daughter's school pictures. They added cleavage. The owner of the studio that took the picture says that although the picture looks odd, it was not manipulated. I'm thinking someone manipulated the picture. Hopefully he's not manipulating something else while looking at a seven year old.


http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/10065272/detail.html

It certainly looks doctored

Oh God, Bad Dan is at it again...

So it's a crappy pic... so what? I would simply refuse to pay for it, and that's that. What's all the fuss about? :confused:

A family is outraged by the fact that someone doctored their seven year old daughter's school pictures. They added cleavage. The owner of the studio that took the picture says that although the picture looks odd, it was not manipulated. I'm thinking someone manipulated the picture. Hopefully he's not manipulating something else while looking at a seven year old.


http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/10065272/detail.html

what is with you and news involving photos of young girls? Second one in like 5 minutes.

The picture showed the 1st grader with what appears to be significant cleavage. The question remains, is it real or is it Photoshop? Photoshop is a high tech computer program that Truhe believes was used to alter her child's picture.
Admittedly I don't know much about it, but... Photoshop is high tech now?

Pic looks fake to me.

what is with you and news involving photos of young girls? Second one in like 5 minutes.

I report the news. This is the stuff that's going on in the world right now. What can I do about it other than report it?

what is with you and news involving photos of young girls? Second one in like 5 minutes.

And one involving a young girl who crapped in a trash can...

It certainly looks doctored

Yeah, don't even try to tell me that girls face is really that blurry.

I report the news. This is the stuff that's going on in the world right now. What can I do about it other than report it?

I dunno man, seems you just report the news involving young girls :p

kidding, kidding.

Really bad photoshop job there. Though I must ask who lets their 7 year old dress like that?

Oh God, Bad Dan is at it again...

What?!? :confused: :mad:

What do I have to do with any of this?!? :confused: :mad:

Why does my name get brought up anytime something bad happens? :confused: :mad:

Yeah, don't even try to tell me that girls face is really that blurry.

Thats your fourth Seal man.


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9153/sealofapprovalpq1.png


*Adds another Sqaulking baby seal to Ifreannes collection*

Looks like the dodginess is just caused by the shadows from the jacket overlapping.

Damn. How the hell could that be interpreted as cleavage? It's a bloody shadow.

A family is outraged by the fact that someone doctored their seven year old daughter's school pictures. They added cleavage. The owner of the studio that took the picture says that although the picture looks odd, it was not manipulated. I'm thinking someone manipulated the picture. Hopefully he's not manipulating something else while looking at a seven year old.


http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/10065272/detail.html

I don't see a t-shirt or anything on that picture... are we supposed to believe that the family sent the child to school photo day with nothing on her top half but an unbuttoned denim jacket?

I suspect they are currently lamenting their choice of two-tone almost flesh-coloured t-shirt....

I looked at it, and yeah, its deffinately just a shadow.

I don't see a t-shirt or anything on that picture... are we supposed to believe that the family sent the child to school photo day with nothing on her top half but an unbuttoned denim jacket?

I suspect they are currently lamenting their choice of two-tone almost flesh-coloured t-shirt....

Yeah, the light tan chest-huggers usually aren't a great choice... Especially when photos are concerned.

Thats your fourth Seal man.


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9153/sealofapprovalpq1.png


*Adds another Sqaulking baby seal to Ifreannes collection*

Woohoo! *constructs Wanderjarian Seal of Approval Reserve*

What?!? :confused: :mad:

What do I have to do with any of this?!? :confused: :mad:

Why does my name get brought up anytime something bad happens? :confused: :mad:

No, no, you're the Good Dan. ;)

Woohoo! *constructs Wanderjarian Seal of Approval Reserve*

*goes there, clubs all the seals*

What? I didn't do it... *innocent smile*

Woohoo! *constructs Wanderjarian Seal of Approval Reserve*

Are they going to start a club?

Are they going to start a club?

Yes. There will be much clubbing at my Wanderjarian Seal of Approval Reserve.

Are they going to start a club?

You win a cookie for best pun of the morning. :D

I'd take the company's word for it.

It's got to be a shadow. It doesn't even look like cleavage. Besides, it doesn't even look like sides of the chest (where the actual boobs would be) are enlarged or distorted. Also, you can follow the lesser shadows down to where the suppossed cleavage starts. There they combine to block out the light from the two side lights. Granted, it doesn't seem like it should be that dark there, but I still don't think that it is anything other than a shadow.

That's suposed to be a child?? :eek: What the hell kind of monsters are her parents? :p

That's suposed to be a child?? :eek: What the hell kind of monsters are her parents? :p

Reverse vampires.

Damn. How the hell could that be interpreted as cleavage? It's a bloody shadow.

Makes you wonder what goes through the minds of the parents that the first thing they assumed when they lookd at the photo of their daughter was cleavage.

Makes me wonder if it's a shadow why the photographer didn't adjust her position or the lights to be rid of it. It looks like crap.

Yeah, don't even try to tell me that girls face is really that blurry.

I was gonna post that but couldn't bring myself to do it. :p

A family is outraged by the fact that someone doctored their seven year old daughter's school pictures. They added cleavage. The owner of the studio that took the picture says that although the picture looks odd, it was not manipulated. I'm thinking someone manipulated the picture. Hopefully he's not manipulating something else while looking at a seven year old.


http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/10065272/detail.html

of course its photoshoped!!! how else do you explain the blurred face????















:p

damn. was beaten to it again!

*goes there, clubs all the seals*

What? I didn't do it... *innocent smile*

YOU BASTARD!

*pulls out machete, and runs after Congo*

A family is outraged by the fact that someone doctored their seven year old daughter's school pictures. They added cleavage. The owner of the studio that took the picture says that although the picture looks odd, it was not manipulated. I'm thinking someone manipulated the picture. Hopefully he's not manipulating something else while looking at a seven year old.


http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/10065272/detail.html

Is it even legal to post that? Or for me to look at it in the UK?

Really bad photoshop job there. Though I must ask who lets their 7 year old dress like that?

Like what? In a denim jacket? wtf?

Like what? In a denim jacket? wtf?

How bout a skin toned skin hugging shirt?

How bout a skin toned skin hugging shirt?

how about you see it as what it is: a shirt - instead of just believing every female is a slut and every parent makes sluts out of their kids. she's 7. she doesn't even have tits (it's clearly photoshopped). even in prudish countries, it shouldn't matter if she was topless.

how about you see it as what it is: a shirt - instead of just believing every female is a slut and every parent makes sluts out of their kids. she's 7. she doesn't even have tits (it's clearly photoshopped). even in prudish countries, it shouldn't matter if she was topless.

I agree where the fuck did I say that she was a slut? I was just posting what potentialy that the poster you quoted was likly comenting on

http://www.writedown.com/assume.jpg

http://www.writedown.com/assume.jpg

I prefer "When you assume, it makes an ass out of u and me."

Is it even legal to post that? Or for me to look at it in the UK?
Well as it's just a crap photo, yeah, sure.

how about you see it as what it is: a shirt - instead of just believing every female is a slut and every parent makes sluts out of their kids. she's 7. she doesn't even have tits (it's clearly photoshopped). even in prudish countries, it shouldn't matter if she was topless.

I don't see any shirt, just looks like all she's wearing is a denim jacket. The idea that the parents are upset about the photo when they dressed her badly is rather absurd.

I don't see any shirt, just looks like all she's wearing is a denim jacket. The idea that the parents are upset about the photo when they dressed her badly is rather absurd.

Agreed ... seems rather ... whats the word hypocritical. They dressed her in something that made it look like she was nude under an unbuttoned coat (at the first glance)

THEN bitch about a funny shadow that adds to the effect

That doesn't look like a "funny shadow" to me.

he isnt very good if that is the best he could do. especially if he was a pro photography i would expect alot better.

but still it is a very wrong thing to do. but it is possible it isnt anywones fault but something wrong with the film or some other issue

That doesn't look like a "funny shadow" to me.

See in languages we have these things called synonyms
Some of them for “Funny” are

Synonyms: bizarre, curious, dubious, fantastic, mysterious, odd, perplexing, puzzling, queer, remarkable, strange, suspicious, unusual, weird



Pick the one that suites you

If you think the shadow was not innocent there are some of the synonyms in there that will project that onto my sentence or if you think it was just a innocent shadow there are others that will project that as well

See in languages we have these things called synonyms
Some of them for “Funny” are


Pick the one that suites you

If you think the shadow was not innocent there are some of the synonyms in there that will project that onto my sentence or if you think it was just a innocent shadow there are others that will project that as well

So what you are saying is you weren't dismissing it as innocent, but instead vaguely standing on the fence and not having an opinion about it after all?

I think a pro photographer would catch something like that, and the shadow does look like a fake... or maybe the camera gremlin got to it.

So what you are saying is you weren't dismissing it as innocent, but instead vaguely standing on the fence and not having an opinion about it after all?

No I was explaining that the descriptor “Funny” would be accurate no matter what my personal thoughts on the subject.

No I was explaining that the descriptor “Funny” would be accurate no matter what my personal thoughts on the subject.

Well, here in the real world we have these things called opinions, and intent, and meaning behind words... but I guess you're above that, Mr Smirking Ambiguity.

Well, here in the real world we have these things called opinions, and intent, and meaning behind words... but I guess you're above that, Mr Smirking Ambiguity.

Yes there is, but to assume implied intent on something is to become susceptible to error.

Either way I was just pointing out why I used the word I did when you assumed an intent on my statement.

Either way I think this is suspicious but seems pointless to me. The modification was not good nor particularly skillful if someone did do it. Personally I am waiting for my girlfriend to get off work and run it by her as she owns her own digital photo restoration studio and she is working till 4 tonight

So it's a crappy pic... so what? I would simply refuse to pay for it, and that's that. What's all the fuss about? :confused:

Agreed. Frankly, it looks to my eyes like shadows were simply cast by the jacket she was wearing. As supposed "doctoring" goes, that'd make for an awfully unsubtle and ham-handed attempt - and I've been manipulating images professionally for sixteen years.

if you're not suggesting she's a slut, why are you people so hung up on the fact taht she's wearing either a tight shirt or no shirt? she's 7 for fuck sake!

Agreed. Frankly, it looks to my eyes like shadows were simply cast by the jacket she was wearing. As supposed "doctoring" goes, that'd make for an awfully unsubtle and ham-handed attempt - and I've been manipulating images professionally for sixteen years.

So it's unsubtle and ham-handed. No one said pedophiles were professional image manipulators with 16 years of experience.

And why does she not appear to be wearing a shirt? Those 'shadows' going across her seemingly bare chest? Something is wrong here.

Frankly, it looks to my eyes like shadows were simply cast by the jacket she was wearing.

yup. especially since it occurs exactly where the shadows from each of the light sources combine and the slight unevenness of the shadow follows the uneven folding of the top of the jacket.

And why does she not appear to be wearing a shirt?

she doesn't? what's that differently shaded thing at the bottom of the picture then? it curves up next to the jacket button.

looks like a tank top to me.

Yeah, don't even try to tell me that girls face is really that blurry.

ROFL! thats funny thing I've read all day. You win this whole f*ing thread, congrats. I almost want to sig that

I report the news. This is the stuff that's going on in the world right now. What can I do about it other than report it?



EDITED TO NOT SOUND LIKE I'M TRYING TO BE A MOD: What you could do is follow the rules of the forum and not post articles with no debate. I didn't realize you're here to 'report the news'. Is this the DCD news network?

Follow the rules of the forum and not post articles with no debate. You're not here to 'report the news'. This isn't the DCD news network.

I posted this short commentary to spark discussion of whether or not the photo was intentionally manipulated.

I'm thinking someone manipulated the picture. Hopefully he's not manipulating something else while looking at a seven year old.

I do make an effort to follow the rules. Usually.

Follow the rules of the forum and not post articles with no debate. You're not here to 'report the news'. This isn't the DCD news network.

Are you a mod or do you just like to pretend you are?

Are you a mod or do you just like to pretend you are?

You took it out of a context. I wasn't telling him what to do unprompted. He asked what else could he do rather than "report the news". He wasn't asking mods. He posted that as part of the discussion so I answered his question. However, admittedly out of context it does sound like I'm actually telling him what he must do, rather than simply chastising him, mainly for my amusement, in response to his question.

if you're not suggesting she's a slut, why are you people so hung up on the fact taht she's wearing either a tight shirt or no shirt? she's 7 for fuck sake!

Um because her mom is complaining about a shadow (photoshoped or not) that supposedly makes her look like a slut when she does not find her choice on shirt coloring questionable when it is doing the same (well at least to her mom)

So it's unsubtle and ham-handed. No one said pedophiles were professional image manipulators with 16 years of experience.

And why does she not appear to be wearing a shirt? Those 'shadows' going across her seemingly bare chest? Something is wrong here.

But in this case the “Pedophile” would have to be working at the photo studio to get their hands on the prints even before it was sent to the parents.

Couldn't this story have been told without the picture? Sure... we wouldn't be able to play detective but we also wouldn't be handing out a free picture of what could be interpreted as a 7 year old with a boob job.

she doesn't? what's that differently shaded thing at the bottom of the picture then? it curves up next to the jacket button.

looks like a tank top to me.

I see nothing that looks remotely like a shirt in that picture, there may be one below the picture line, but I sure as hell don't see it. If the shirt is that damn low it's entirely inappropriate for a seven year old and the mother is a flaming hypocrite for whining about the shadow.

It looks like cleavage, but could be the shadow from the jacket. The shadow shouldn't be that dark though, and looking closely it does look as though she has a tan shirt on underneath, but the shadow hides it. At any rate, she deserves a re-shoot.

That picture doesn't look doctored at all. The girl's top gapes a bit, and the two huge lamps flanking the camera (something portrait photograhers do specifically to eliminate facial shadows) both happen to cast shadows right in the middle. Because the shadow is deeper there (as its the only part of the girl's chest not lit by at least one of the lamps), it looks like cleavage.

These people are stupid.

I see nothing that looks remotely like a shirt in that picture, there may be one below the picture line, but I sure as hell don't see it. If the shirt is that damn low it's entirely inappropriate for a seven year old and the mother is a flaming hypocrite for whining about the shadow.

There's clearly a shirt at the bottom of the photo. Look at the enlarged version.

I stand firmly behind my previous statement, if the shirt is that damn low Mommy has nothing to whine about when the photos make her look like a little whore.

So it's unsubtle and ham-handed. No one said pedophiles were professional image manipulators with 16 years of experience.

And why does she not appear to be wearing a shirt? Those 'shadows' going across her seemingly bare chest? Something is wrong here.

Paedophile? *roflmao
Has nobody besides me noticed the two lines of shadow cast by her jacket, and how they merge into the one big one in the middle? My guess is, they had lights on either side of the kids, and her jacket simply cast that shadow. She herself probably wouldn't have noticed if it wasn't for her sick parents... the mother crying because people see her baby with a shadow like this! Omg, the shame!

Get a grip, people, please.

Thats your fourth Seal man.


http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9153/sealofapprovalpq1.png


*Adds another Sqaulking baby seal to Ifreannes collection*

In the latest National Geographic, there are some nasty pics of seals eating baby penguins. I will never look at one in the same way. Anyway...

It seems like no one doctored it if the company is willing to reshoot it to emulate the conditions that produced the shadows. On the other hand, it does look very wierd.

A thought just occured to me:

Why would a pedophile want to give a 7 year old breasts?

They like children BECAUSE they're children.

More like, a young photographer saw the photo and was like "LOL BOOBIES ON A KID!" and his boss came in and he had to minimize quickly. Boss does whatever bosses do and the guy simply forgot to un-alter the picture.

Honestly, if I want a picture of a hot chick with boobs they're on the internet, it seems like a waste of time to add blurry, unappealing breasts to a small child.

A thought just occured to me:

Why would a pedophile want to give a 7 year old breasts?

They like children BECAUSE they're children.
I couldn't believe that line of reasoning was even used in the thread. People who like children like them BECAUSE THEY'RE CHILDREN.

So it's unsubtle and ham-handed. No one said pedophiles were professional image manipulators with 16 years of experience.

And why does she not appear to be wearing a shirt? Those 'shadows' going across her seemingly bare chest? Something is wrong here.

Oh noes!1! Teh pedophiles R peeking out at me from teh jam cupboard!!1.


Truly, it is to laugh.

I don't see anyone else having said this, but I didn't look too carefully...

It looks to me like cross-lighting made unfortunate shadows, and it hasn't been photoshopped at all! If there was one light to the left, and one to the right, the left light would've cast light past her jacket onto the right side, and vice versa, but if the jacket and lights were at the wrong angle, I could see that happening inadvertently.

Plus, why would a seven year old have skin showing in that area at all to have shadows make it look like cleavage, photoshopped or not? Give the kid a neckline a 7 year old ought to be wearing, and the shadows would be on a shirt instead of her chest.

I couldn't believe that line of reasoning was even used in the thread. People who like children like them BECAUSE THEY'RE CHILDREN.

It's true. A pedophile wouldn't want to digitally add breasts to a little girl.

Ok people, lets stop talking about children with boobs...

*shivers*

To be honest, it looks like someone running the developer did a shit job -- I've ended up with an entire roll of film with a similar shadow before.

Geez...So it's a bad photo. Those parents are sick and twisted if the first thing they think of when they see that is their 7 year old with boobs. Okay?


And what's wrong with being a pedophile? Phile means "friendly love" in greek. Isn't okay to be friends with kids?


Perhaps the words you would like are more along the lines of "Eros" meaning "erotic love" Which is what these people like. I hate it when people can't even speak right, and this word has infiltrated the very core of our language pretending to be something it's not.

Geez...So it's a bad photo. Those parents are sick and twisted if the first thing they think of when they see that is their 7 year old with boobs. Okay?


And what's wrong with being a pedophile? Phile means "friendly love" in greek. Isn't okay to be friends with kids?


Perhaps the words you would like are more along the lines of "Eros" meaning "erotic love" Which is what these people like. I hate it when people can't even speak right, and this word has infiltrated the very core of our language pretending to be something it's not.

The actual clinical term is pedophile. People are 'speaking right'. By the way, you mean 'speak correctly'. Perhaps the next time you chastise people for bad grammar you should expect the same of yourself.

That just don't look right, it's like her heart is a black hole... Wait a second! The kid's the anti-Christ, mystery solved.

Geez...So it's a bad photo. Those parents are sick and twisted if the first thing they think of when they see that is their 7 year old with boobs. Okay?


And what's wrong with being a pedophile? Phile means "friendly love" in greek. Isn't okay to be friends with kids?


Perhaps the words you would like are more along the lines of "Eros" meaning "erotic love" Which is what these people like. I hate it when people can't even speak right, and this word has infiltrated the very core of our language pretending to be something it's not.

But it's easier to say pedophile than to say pedoeros, and we're lazy, damnit! ;)

Jocabia...

JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE 'CLINICAL TERM' DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS WRONG.

Jocabia...

JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE 'CLINICAL TERM' DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS WRONG.

Actually it does make it less wrong. Unless you are somehow more qualified to name a disease then doctors are?

Jocabia...

JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE 'CLINICAL TERM' DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS WRONG.

Usage often changes from etymology. Language is a living form. Pedophile as a person sexually attracted to children is proper usage. The term 'speak right', however, is not. Physician, heal thyself.

Jocabia...

JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE 'CLINICAL TERM' DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS WRONG.

Yes, it does.
Maybe pedophile wouldn't have dirty connotations in Greek, but it certainly does in English.
You're going to have to recognize the difference before you nitpick.

Cripes, that is the fakest cleavage shadow I ever saw.

yup. especially since it occurs exactly where the shadows from each of the light sources combine and the slight unevenness of the shadow follows the uneven folding of the top of the jacket.
I see nothing that looks remotely like a shirt in that picture, there may be one below the picture line, but I sure as hell don't see it.
There's clearly a shirt at the bottom of the photo. Look at the enlarged version.

Yes, indeed there is. Also, the enlarged version makes it much clearer that it's a shadow.

If the shirt is that damn low it's entirely inappropriate for a seven year old and the mother is a flaming hypocrite for whining about the shadow.

Hmm... nope, it doesn't seem to fall low enough that I'd call it inappropriate.

Jocabia...

JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE 'CLINICAL TERM' DOESN'T MAKE IT ANY LESS WRONG.

Just wanted to add that shouting at people like that detracts from your argument.

Looks like a shadow to me. The parents are completely blind or just plain idiots.

But then, this did happen in Florida...

All I see is the overlapping shadows from both sides of her jean jacket. Looks like lighting off to the sides is responsible.

And what's wrong with being a pedophile? Phile means "friendly love" in greek. Isn't okay to be friends with kids?

Zoophile
Necrophile
Homophile (no longer used typically, but was only a few decades ago)

The suffix -phile no longer means, in several cases, what its Greek root implies. Languages change.

Um because her mom is complaining about a shadow (photoshoped or not) that supposedly makes her look like a slut when she does not find her choice on shirt coloring questionable when it is doing the same (well at least to her mom)

doing "the same"? how? how can a child wearing a tight shirt or no shirt at all for that matter, make her "look like a slut" or even suggest such a thing. I personally think people who get that thought from looking a 7-year-old need serious mental help. She doesn't have breasts - it doesn't matter if she's bleeding topless!

doing "the same"? how? how can a child wearing a tight shirt or no shirt at all for that matter, make her "look like a slut" or even suggest such a thing. I personally think people who get that thought from looking a 7-year-old need serious mental help. She doesn't have breasts - it doesn't matter if she's bleeding topless!

That’s why I said supposedly

Her mom is the one bitching about the shadow not me, what is with all the pseudo attacking me?

Her mom complained of a shadow making her look like a "slut" while ignoring other clothing choices that usually (following along her MOTHERS line of thinking (at least of what she has displayed so far) could be considered more “Sluty”

(I pointed out the mothers line of thinking because you seemed so worked up about this and accusing people of being sick in the head that you seem to ignore people’s actually intent and project intent where there was not supposed to be any)

Ill even make it more clear

I don’t think she looks like a “Slut”
I don’t think that a child this age has any sexual traits at this age to be worried about anyways they are a non sexual object therefore don’t honestly care what they ware

I was trying to simply point out that the woman feels content to bitch about a shadow when her daughter appears shirtless , agree with her or not I think this shows an inconsistency in behavior.

The suffix -phile no longer means, in several cases, what its Greek root implies. Languages change.
And that's really a shame, because we're throwing away information. I'm sympathetic to Zarakon's preference for etymological accuracy.

And that's really a shame, because we're throwing away information. I'm sympathetic to Zarakon's preference for etymological accuracy.

We're not throwing away the information. The information is still around. That's why have etymology as a science. However, it's a living language. Without it, the science of etymology would be pretty light. There's nothing disappointing about the evolution of language anymore than any other form of evolution.

And that's really a shame, because we're throwing away information. I'm sympathetic to Zarakon's preference for etymological accuracy.

Frankly, Jocabia went very nice and light on you. IMHO, your post, and others in the same vein, are nothing short of utterly idiotic tripe.

Etemology is the study of word origins. If you insist on some magical purity of language in absentia of semantic change (one of the fundamental features of a living language), bead would still mean "prayer" in English. Without such semantic changes, we would all still be be speaking a paleo-proto-language.

In other words, don't be a damnable idiot.

Frankly, Jocabia went very nice and light on you. IMHO, your post, and others in the same vein, are nothing short of utterly idiotic tripe.

Etemology is the study of word origins. If you insist on some magical purity of language in absentia of semantic change (one of the fundamental features of a living language), bead would still mean "prayer" in English. Without such semantic changes, we would all still be be speaking a paleo-proto-language.
But what's wrong with that? The language would still grow to encompass new concepts and ideas, but the existing words wouldn't change over time. Something written 400 years ago would still be perfectly comprehensible - it simply wouldn't refer to anything modern or use a word created recently.

So it's a crappy pic... so what? I would simply refuse to pay for it, and that's that. What's all the fuss about? :confused:
You wouldn’t understand unless you lived in a country where anyone and everyone could be a pedophile. Damn media.

yeah. it looks like amateur photoshopping.

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/th_Drawthemapicture.jpg

Oh, go follow it back to my Photobucket, I'm too lazy to resize it here. ;)

http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/th_Drawthemapicture.jpg

Oh, go follow it back to my Photobucket, I'm too lazy to resize it here. ;)
There ya go kat
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/Drawthemapicture.jpg

yeah. it looks like amateur photoshopping.

Why would a camera studio hire someone who was only an amature photoshoper?

They must do things different out there then here, out here you need to take more then a few courses just to work with a studio ...

By the end of the first year my girl friend could have convinced you the breasts are real ...

This is not done by anyone that would possibly have a job in a studio out here at least

Oh my god! This is really getting insanely absurd! :rolleyes: Why do all the people go pedophile-phobic all the time? People who LIKE kids a LOT are a much lesser threat to them than those who HATE them as far as I'm concerned! Firstly, I think it's far better to have your child molested than to have it, for example, starved to death (and not many people are making a fuss about that in comparison)... Even then, do people know that only a small percentage of the actual child molesters are pedophiles? I think that the pedophile phenomenon is just another 'common enemy' the media are feeding us with just to divert attention from other topics. Why should it possibly be a crime to be born with a pedophilic sexuality?? Assuming every pedophile is going to be a child molester is like assuming every Arabic is going to be a terrorist! It's ridiculous!

As for the case: It's extremely simple! Go take another photo shoot of the girl, if you don't like the picture! Why would anybody give YOU an altered picture? Don't you think that if they altered it to make it look more 'erotic' (if that's what you suggest, despite it's effectively against the idea of pedophilia) they would keep it for themselves ONLY? UNLESS, you want to get some easy money out of it, of course! (I'm not going to talk about how nonsensic I find a great number of sues in USA, that are actually successful!)

There ya go kat
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/Drawthemapicture.jpg

Thanks, UpwardThrust. :)

Thanks, UpwardThrust. :)

Any time

But what's wrong with that? The language would still grow to encompass new concepts and ideas, but the existing words wouldn't change over time. Something written 400 years ago would still be perfectly comprehensible - it simply wouldn't refer to anything modern or use a word created recently.

Who's going to make that happen? Are you going to visit everyone and chastise them for not using the language the way you would like. A living language refers to the fact that it is used by people who are living and thus are going to change the language as the modify usage. That's how language works. Next will you tell the sun to shine at night because you don't like the dark?

And what's wrong with being a pedophile? Phile means "friendly love" in greek. Isn't okay to be friends with kids?


Perhaps the words you would like are more along the lines of "Eros" meaning "erotic love" Which is what these people like. I hate it when people can't even speak right, and this word has infiltrated the very core of our language pretending to be something it's not.Get over yourself.

To begin with, you're vastly oversimplifying the usage of these words in ancient Greek. Both eros and philia could refer to the feeling between lovers, and both could refer to other kinds of "love." Plato, of course, famously purified "eros" of its physical aspects... and "philia" is widely used in ancient texts to refer to love between people who were sexually intimate--in this case, it's Aristotle who insists that philia refers ONLY to the "virtuous" love between friends.

If you spend any time actually reading ancient Greek texts, you start to realize that meanings were not as "hardened" as they tend to be today, partly because no one was printing dictionaries. EDIT: Which is not to say that modern meanings do not shift all the time. Even dictionaries can't prevent the inevitable... they may only delay or channel it a bit.

Anyway, the meanings of these terms didn't stop shifting about until the last few centuries. In modern usage--now that we DO have dictionaries--"pedophile" is a term referring to people who desire sexual intimacy with children.

Live with it.

Frankly, Jocabia went very nice and light on you. IMHO, your post, and others in the same vein, are nothing short of utterly idiotic tripe.

Etemology is the study of word origins. If you insist on some magical purity of language in absentia of semantic change (one of the fundamental features of a living language), bead would still mean "prayer" in English. Without such semantic changes, we would all still be be speaking a paleo-proto-language.

But what's wrong with that?

What's wrong with the natural evolutionary change of language? Nothing. It's a natural process. One might as well ask what's wrong with the occurance of the tides.

The language would still grow to encompass new concepts and ideas, but the existing words wouldn't change over time.

Words and ideas are as equally mutable, if not more so, than genes. Trying to impose a singular ultimate unmutable definition is like trying to impose a singular unmutable genetic code. It simply won't work any more than King Canute the Great commanding the tide at Bosham.

Something written 400 years ago would still be perfectly comprehensible - it simply wouldn't refer to anything modern or use a word created recently.

The span of linguistic evolution being considerd is far greater than 400 years, unless you somehow have proof that the Greek roots are somnehow magically 400 years old...

Get over yourself.

To begin with, you're vastly oversimplifying the usage of these words in ancient Greek. Both eros and philia could refer to the feeling between lovers, and both could refer to other kinds of "love." Plato, of course, famously purified "eros" of its physical aspects... and "philia" is widely used in ancient texts to refer to love between people who were sexually intimate--in this case, it's Aristotle who insists that philia refers ONLY to the "virtuous" love between friends.

If you spend any time actually reading ancient Greek texts, you start to realize that meanings were not as "hardened" as they tend to be today, partly because no one was printing dictionaries. EDIT: Which is not to say that modern meanings do not shift all the time. Even dictionaries can't prevent the inevitable... they may only delay or channel it a bit.

Anyway, the meanings of these terms didn't stop shifting about until the last few centuries. In modern usage--now that we DO have dictionaries--"pedophile" is a term referring to people who desire sexual intimacy with children.

Live with it.

Indeed, and indeed.

Oh my god! This is really getting insanely absurd! :rolleyes: Why do all the people go pedophile-phobic all the time? People who LIKE kids a LOT are a much lesser threat to them than those who HATE them as far as I'm concerned! Firstly, I think it's far better to have your child molested than to have it, for example, starved to death (and not many people are making a fuss about that in comparison)... Even then, do people know that only a small percentage of the actual child molesters are pedophiles? I think that the pedophile phenomenon is just another 'common enemy' the media are feeding us with just to divert attention from other topics. Why should it possibly be a crime to be born with a pedophilic sexuality?? Assuming every pedophile is going to be a child molester is like assuming every Arabic is going to be a terrorist! It's ridiculous!

I seriously hope you never have kids, or if you have any at the moment, you have them taken from you and put into a safe place. You clearly have no idea of the amount of damage molestation can do, and has done, to children.
It completely destroys the lives of children - so much so, that some try (or even succeed in) taking their own life, the pain, the mental trauma, is so unbearable - in other words, it's WORSE than death, it's so bad that, no matter how scared they are of death, they'd rather be dead than suffer so much. If I was a witch I would put a curse on you to prevent you ever having children.

I seriously hope you never have kids, or if you have any at the moment, you have them taken from you and put into a safe place. You clearly have no idea of the amount of damage molestation can do, and has done, to children.
It completely destroys the lives of children - so much so, that some try (or even succeed in) taking their own life, the pain, the mental trauma, is so unbearable - in other words, it's WORSE than death, it's so bad that, no matter how scared they are of death, they'd rather be dead than suffer so much. If I was a witch I would put a curse on you to prevent you ever having children.

I completely disagree. I was molested and death would have been worse. It's a serious issue and hyperbolizing it doesn't help it.

AND as to the point you are replying to, he's correct, you cannot make the assumptions about people who have that illness that people often do. However, it has nothing to do with the topic. If this was intentional it wasn't done by a pedophile. Pedophiles are attracted to children because they want them to be children. Turning them into adults is counter to their proclivities. If it were someone looking to victimize this little girl by making her look like a woman then it's a crime of opportunity by a non-pedophillic rapist.

A family is outraged by the fact that someone doctored their seven year old daughter's school pictures.

My god are people that STUPID? It's intitutively obvious to a casual observer that's a double shadow effect caused by the leather jacket.

My god are people that STUPID? It's intitutively obvious to a casual observer that's a double shadow effect caused by the leather jacket.

While I agree with the shadow theory I find it funny you comment on observance then say it is a leather jacket

Ya may want to re-look at the picture, I believe it is denim

Oh my god! This is really getting insanely absurd! :rolleyes: Why do all the people go pedophile-phobic all the time? People who LIKE kids a LOT are a much lesser threat to them than those who HATE them as far as I'm concerned! Firstly, I think it's far better to have your child molested than to have it, for example, starved to death (and not many people are making a fuss about that in comparison)... Even then, do people know that only a small percentage of the actual child molesters are pedophiles? I think that the pedophile phenomenon is just another 'common enemy' the media are feeding us with just to divert attention from other topics. Why should it possibly be a crime to be born with a pedophilic sexuality?? Assuming every pedophile is going to be a child molester is like assuming every Arabic is going to be a terrorist! It's ridiculous!

As for the case: It's extremely simple! Go take another photo shoot of the girl, if you don't like the picture! Why would anybody give YOU an altered picture? Don't you think that if they altered it to make it look more 'erotic' (if that's what you suggest, despite it's effectively against the idea of pedophilia) they would keep it for themselves ONLY? UNLESS, you want to get some easy money out of it, of course! (I'm not going to talk about how nonsensic I find a great number of sues in USA, that are actually successful!)


Run along, pedo apologist.

Run along, pedo apologist.

Dude, don't start this crap again.

Dude, don't start this crap again.

Or what? You'll post yet another "he's being mean" thread in Moderation? :rolleyes:

Or what? You'll post yet another "he's being mean" thread in Moderation? :rolleyes:

No, there will be an exclamation point this time.

:eek:
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v260/Katganistan/th_Drawthemapicture.jpg

Oh, go follow it back to my Photobucket, I'm too lazy to resize it here. ;)

ok, hands up, all those who, when they first saw this post... saw something totally different! :fluffle:

Or what? You'll post yet another "he's being mean" thread in Moderation? :rolleyes:

Or you'll waste everyone's time with your hyperbolous reaction to facts you don't like. I keep hoping you'll learn so you won't lose your main nation. Apparently, so do the mods -
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11489212#post11489212

Complain about it all you want, but all evidence suggests the forums are for debate, not your own personal crusade to insult anyone who doesn't say things just the way you'd like them to.

A living language refers to the fact that it is used by people who are living and thus are going to change the language as the modify usage.
Because they don't like precision, apparently.

Because they don't like precision, apparently.

Actually, it changes for a lot of reasons. Sometimes the reason is to increase precision. Regardless of your complaints, it's the nature of language. Admit you were wrong and drop it.

Or you'll waste everyone's time with your hyperbolous reaction to facts you don't like.

Facts...yeah... :rolleyes:

Facts...yeah... :rolleyes:

Yes, facts. It's a fact that every crime and psychological agency has found that most pedophiles have not offended and will never offend. It's also a fact that many child molesters are not pedophiles, but instead people with general rape fantasies, the difference being that they would prefer adults but they're more difficult victims. Why does that matter? Well, because if imprisoned every single pedophile on the planet is will only reduce child molestation by 10%. And the majority of them would people who never committed a crime and never will. It's an illness that needs treatment and, IF they've committed a crime or clearly stalking a child(ren), deserves punishment. However, you're broad and ridiculous attacks on anyone who even dares to voice the facts simply guarantee that they will continue to feel justified in claiming they are persecuted and will continue to be afraid to get the psychological help we'd all like them to get.

You, my friend, are a cause of the problem, not a solution. Be proud. It's exactly the opposite of what you hope to accomplish.

But, hey, your 'pedo apologist' post and your 'Facts...yeah' post are very compelling. Keep making your wonderful argument. It's not amusing that you have every opportunity to make a difference but instead you choose to behave in a manner that simply makes your complaints laughable.

As I recall, we have a moratorium on pedophilia threads. And y'all are turning this into one. Stop it.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

As I recall, we have a moratorium on pedophilia threads. And y'all are turning this into one. Stop it.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Can we also have a moratorium on people calling everyone who says anything they don't like 'pedophiles' or 'pedo apologists'? Cluich has had a bug up his butt for months and he regularly shows up with this nonsense.

Can we also have a moratorium on people calling everyone who says anything they don't like 'pedophiles' or 'pedo apologists'? Cluich has had a bug up his butt for months and he regularly shows up with this nonsense.

I'll review his posts in the thread, but keep in mind that baiting another poster as a response to what you think is bad behavior on their part is rule-breaking itself.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia