Michael Jackson's influence

brucenzbrucenz Registered Users Posts: 44 Big grins
edited April 4, 2005 in The Dgrin Challenges
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

Comments

  • DavidoffDavidoff Registered Users Posts: 409 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2005
    Nothing is showing :uhoh
    daviddinis.com

    Facebook

    500px
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2005
    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?
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2005
    guys, he's referring to thegreenegg's challenge entry in the main challenge thread.

    but why, i can't figure out. ne_nau.gif
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • ginger_55ginger_55 Registered Users Posts: 8,416 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2005
    brucenz wrote:
    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).ne_nau.gif

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

    ginger
    After all is said and done, it is the sweet tea.
  • DoctorItDoctorIt Administrators Posts: 11,951 moderator
    edited March 30, 2005
    brucenz wrote:
    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).ne_nau.gif
    eek7.gif



    Too much TV for Bruce...
    Erik
    moderator of: The Flea Market [ guidelines ]

  • thegreeneggthegreenegg Registered Users Posts: 551 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2005
    Ouch!
    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
    Green is the way to be!
    ashleyharding.smugmug.com
  • landrumlandrum Registered Users Posts: 285 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2005
    headscratch.gif 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!
    Laurie :smooch

    www.PhotoByLaurie.com
  • brucenzbrucenz Registered Users Posts: 44 Big grins
    edited March 30, 2005
    opinion
    landrum wrote:
    headscratch.gif 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!
  • landrumlandrum Registered Users Posts: 285 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2005
    brucenz wrote:
    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!
    Laurie :smooch

    www.PhotoByLaurie.com
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2005
    I just want you to know that I disagree with both of you and feel free to say so.

    FLIPA.gif
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • ginger_55ginger_55 Registered Users Posts: 8,416 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2005
    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.
    After all is said and done, it is the sweet tea.
  • landrumlandrum Registered Users Posts: 285 Major grins
    edited March 30, 2005
    wxwax wrote:
    I just want you to know that I disagree with both of you and feel free to say so.

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

    rolleyes1.gif
    Laurie :smooch

    www.PhotoByLaurie.com
  • brucenzbrucenz Registered Users Posts: 44 Big grins
    edited March 31, 2005
    ouch!!!!

    incidentally we have it too.
    landrum wrote:
    Yes...and freedom of speech allows me to express my opinion of yours. I didn't know it only went one way!
  • landrumlandrum Registered Users Posts: 285 Major grins
    edited March 31, 2005
    brucenz wrote:
    ouch!!!!

    incidentally we have it too.
    :poke


    :D
    Laurie :smooch

    www.PhotoByLaurie.com
  • AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited March 31, 2005
    landrum wrote:
    :poke


    :D

    lol3.gif you go girlie!
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • mutineermutineer Registered Users Posts: 46 Big grins
    edited March 31, 2005
    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?
    www.carbchronicles.com
  • wxwaxwxwax Registered Users Posts: 15,471 Major grins
    edited March 31, 2005
    mutineer wrote:
    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?
    rolleyes1.gifrolleyes1.gif
    Sid.
    Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
    http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
  • JamieCJamieC Registered Users Posts: 154 Major grins
    edited April 1, 2005
    landrum wrote:
    WE have freedom of speech...nothing was said about you having it!

    rolleyes1.gif
    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
  • MongrelMongrel Registered Users Posts: 622 Major grins
    edited April 4, 2005
    I have no idea at all what this thread is about... headscratch.gif
















    and happy that I don't clap.gif
    If every keystroke was a shutter press I'd be a pro by now...
Sign In or Register to comment.