Michael Jackson's influence

[brucenz]

Lust in Red

Date: Friday, March 25th 2005 12:07:50 PM
Camera: HP PhotoSmart C935
Exposure Time: 1/10 second
F Number:2.6
Manipulated Using: Jasc Paint Shop Pro 8
Attached Images attachment.php?attachmentid=4921&stc=1

Last edited by thegreenegg : 03-29-2005 at 02:20 AM.

I love the photo of the red shirt. Brilliant!:rofl

[Davidoff]

Nothing is showing :uhoh

[wxwax]

Bruce, this is the link you're using for your photo. It won't work.

attachment.php?attachmentid=4921&stc=1

Did you read this thread? (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=8401)

[Andy]

guys, he's referring to thegreenegg's challenge entry in the main challenge thread.

but why, i can't figure out. :dunno

[ginger_55]

Lust in Red

Date: Friday, March 25th 2005 12:07:50 PM
Camera: HP PhotoSmart C935
Exposure Time: 1/10 second
F Number:2.6
Manipulated Using: Jasc Paint Shop Pro 8
Attached Images attachment.php?attachmentid=4921&stc=1

Last edited by thegreenegg : 03-29-2005 at 02:20 AM.

I think I previously posted this comment to the wrong thread - but don't people agree that this entry in Chall 35 looks rather like something from the Michael Jackson trial as shown on "E" - entertainment TV, even down to Jackson's hair hanging over the child in the front (no offense to the photopgrapher).:dunno



No! I do not. I did not even think of the subject as a child.
doG, this challenge is a problem.

ginger

[DoctorIt]

I think I previously posted this comment to the wrong thread - but don't people agree that this entry in Chall 35 looks rather like something from the Michael Jackson trial as shown on "E" - entertainment TV, even down to Jackson's hair hanging over the child in the front (no offense to the photopgrapher).:dunno

:huh



Too much TV for Bruce...

[thegreenegg]

Well Bruce,
I don't know what to tell you. I kinda laughed out loud when I read the comment and that wasn't so good because I was in the library at the time.
But I will just point out a few differences I noticed...
1) My Mr. Jackson doesn't have curly hair like the guy in the photo.
2) The picture is of a guy and a girl not two boys which are Micheal's famous tastes.
3) Neither of the subjects are children
And why I did peek at the show you are refering to I can tell you my entry was not influenced in any way from it.
I really don't know what to say to you because it seems to cast my photograph in a negative light that wasn't my intention but the comment seems rather far fetched too.
Anyway, besides all that I wanted to comment on your good taste in magazines. National Geographic is one of my inspirations (just got my new one today!). But maybe I would question the influence the TV has on you. ;).
Ashley

[landrum]

:scratch Wow...NO! I have no idea where that comes from, but I don't view either of the subjects in her photo as a child. I certainly don't see a grown man forcing himself on a boy in that photo.


I think that was very rude!

[brucenz]

:scratch Wow...NO! I have no idea where that comes from, but I don't view either of the subjects in her photo as a child. I certainly don't see a grown man forcing himself on a boy in that photo.


I think that was very rude!

everyone is allowed their own opinion Laurie - you know - freedom of speech!

[landrum]

everyone is allowed their own opinion Laurie - you know - freedom of speech!
Yes...and freedom of speech allows me to express my opinion of yours. I didn't know it only went one way!

[wxwax]

I just want you to know that I disagree with both of you and feel free to say so.

:flip

[ginger_55]

Still smarting over Christians and messy newspapers............

I guess it bothers me, not because of the photograph, but because of the implication re Christians.

ginger (That comment is/was in my thread re my photograph. I have several threads, it is the one I have been using recently. I do not mind differences of opinion, not at all, on subjects such as this, but there is something about these two strong moral opinions that bother me.)

I take note of the fear of being ostracised and I won't do that........yet.
I like your swift response and the fact you like the people here enough to "fear" loss. I like you, there.

[landrum]

I just want you to know that I disagree with both of you and feel free to say so.

:flip
WE have freedom of speech...nothing was said about you having it!

:rofl

[brucenz]

ouch!!!!

incidentally we have it too.

Yes...and freedom of speech allows me to express my opinion of yours. I didn't know it only went one way!

[landrum]

ouch!!!!

incidentally we have it too.
:poke


:D

[Andy]

:poke


:D

:lol3 you go girlie!

[mutineer]

bruce, my advbuds will know from whence this question comes, and will forgive it being out if it's customary place, but . . .




are you high?

[wxwax]

bruce, my advbuds will know from whence this question comes, and will forgive it being out if it's customary place, but . . .




are you high?
:rofl :rofl

[JamieC]

WE have freedom of speech...nothing was said about you having it!

:rofl
Actually... the freedom of speech that Americans have comes from the 1st amendment and states that Congress cannot limit speech, specifically:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

This does not mean you have a constitutional right to do so whenever, wherever, and however you please (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/410/410lect08.htm) Because this forum (I am assuming) is a business, or is a private entity (like most forums) the administration is free to censure any of us (actually any American citizen - the rest of us do not enjoy the same rights in the jurisdiction in which the forum is hosted), per the terms we agreed to when we became members. They might do so for instance to protect themselves agains libel suits. See also http://www.rbs2.com/freespch.htm

I am not arguing this point, I am just pointing out that free speech has to pass the "forum" (legal term, not internet term) test to determine if it is truly protected. It gets eben more complicated for internet chat boards, where the person committing the questionable action may not only be a non-citizen, but may be committing said action from a non-US location... as am I right now.

Interesting huh?

Jamie

[Mongrel]

I have no idea at all what this thread is about... :scratch
















and happy that I don't :clap