Personal computing discussed
Moderators: askfranklin, renee, emkubed, Captain Ned
DancinJack wrote:I though this would be spam. Things like this generally don't get posted here.
And it is.
GeForce6200 wrote:JohnC,
flip-mode wrote:This.These pics of Emma are pretty terrible - completely forced and awkward. They're really bad.
auxy wrote:I don't understand the purpose of these photos. 「(°ヘ°)
Are they erotic? Well, not really. (⊙﹏⊙✿)
Are they artistic? Not even. (」゚ペ)」
Are they nice to look at? I sure don't think so. ┐( ̄ヮ ̄)┌
The weird contrast of colors is jarring and Emma herself looks like a drowned rat. Of course, I've never thought she was pretty. Ψ(`▽´)Ψ Commence jealous shrew accusations!
Black Applesauce wrote:I have no problem with anything involving Emma Watson, if you catch my drift.
Meadows wrote:You know, while I never thought she was pretty -- cute as a child perhaps, in a rodentine way -- this really only made her portrayal of Hermione perfect: she was a little ragamuffin with long, unkempt hair and made herself thoroughly unlikeable as a snotty little brat, which was exactly perfect for the character of Hermione. (*´・v・)Black Applesauce wrote:I have no problem with anything involving Emma Watson, if you catch my drift.
Catch a drift, you say.
WINGARDIUM LEVIOSA
destroy.all.monsters wrote:The pics are attractive without being over the top, there are no lady parts shown (and barely even hinted at), she's of age and JohnC is a long time poster.
What's the problem?
cynan wrote:Yes? ( ̄□ ̄;)You seriously have to ask?
cynan wrote:How does it "cheapen" the forums? Can you explain this statement or justify it? (@ ̄Д ̄@;)The obvious elephant in the room is that TR forums have never been notorious for pin-up-like material of any sort (unless it's DC powered of course :o - and has at least a few transistors in the mix somewhere). Some people obviously think this cheapens the forums a tad. I don't feel strongly either way, but don't entirely disagree either.
cynan wrote:She was like ten when she started starring in the movies. She's over 20 now. What's your point? It sounds like you're just dredging this up to attract anti-child-porn hysteria and panic when there's nothing of the sort involved. This is incredibly inflammatory and I am disgusted you'd even bring it up. щ(ಠ益ಠщ) If looking at Emma Watson naked makes you uncomfortable, perhaps you should examine what's going on in your own head to do so.The second elephant is that Emma Watson will be like 14 years old in the eyes of many people for the foreseeable future because of her role in HP (no, not the business machine company). Her generally youthful appearance for her age and not un-waif-like stature doesn't help on this front.
cynan wrote:"exploitative"? Are you freaking kidding me? She's like my age, 22 or 23; there's nothing "exploitative" about a grown woman being photographed naked of her own volition. Get out of here with this junk. If I was a moderator I'd delete your post and give you a warning. (ノಠ益ಠ)ノPlus, there's always a fine line between tasteful art and exploitative in these types of shoots, or at least a line that shifts markedly depending on who's viewing.
auxy wrote:How does it "cheapen" the forums? Can you explain this statement or justify it? (@ ̄Д ̄@;)
cynan wrote:I support the earlier poster who said that the reason for the feedback was "eeek girls". (¬_¬) If he'd posted some trashy celebrity paparazzi photos site, or if it was hardcore porn or something, I could understand. These are at least relatively taseful, if not especially artistic.Lol. I rest my case. I didn't say I held these views myself. I was just trying to fathom some of the negative feedback this thread got initially. The fact remains that these types of posts are uncommon at TR...
Meadows wrote:It's the offtopic forum. Your argument is invalid. (¬_¬)ノIf you have a car forum and you start discussing which brand of moisturiser you use on your buttocks, then the forum is no longer only about cars.
If you have The Tech Report and you start discussing Emma Watson, then you no longer report the tech so much.
auxy wrote:And why do people always go for car analogies with tech stuff? ( ̄Д ̄;)
cynan wrote:The obvious elephant in the room is that TR forums have never been notorious for pin-up-like material of any sort (unless it's DC powered of course - and has at least a few transistors in the mix somewhere).
Meadows wrote:Simple. If you have a car forum and you start discussing which brand of moisturiser you use on your buttocks, then the forum is no longer only about cars.
Meadows wrote:If you have a car forum and you start discussing which brand of moisturiser you use on your buttocks, then the forum is no longer only about cars. If you have The Tech Report and you start discussing Emma Watson, then you no longer report the tech so much.
flip-mode wrote:Since you haven't complained about anything else the implication you're making is that only "hottie" pictures don't belong.
Meadows wrote:auxy wrote:How does it "cheapen" the forums? Can you explain this statement or justify it? (@ ̄Д ̄@;)
Simple. If you have a car forum and you start discussing which brand of moisturiser you use on your buttocks, then the forum is no longer only about cars.
If you have The Tech Report and you start discussing Emma Watson, then you no longer report the tech so much.
Meadows wrote:I'm not thick! I am very thin.'`,、('∀`) '`,、flip-mode wrote:Since you haven't complained about anything else the implication you're making is that only "hottie" pictures don't belong.
I'm not making implications. I elaborated on a point cynan made, because auxy is right about as thick as two short planks.
just brew it! wrote:cynan wrote:Unless you count the obligatory annual re-post of the Octoberfest beer wenches pic.The obvious elephant in the room is that TR forums have never been notorious for pin-up-like material of any sort (unless it's DC powered of course - and has at least a few transistors in the mix somewhere).
JohnC wrote:Ok, forget it. Female bodies are clearly offensive here...