If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Bad: Kid doesn't have class picture permission slip. Good: They let him take part in the class pic anyway. Fark: They cover his face, sort of.... (click to see what may be one of the best uses of Farktography ever)   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 155
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

35213 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Apr 2012 at 10:09 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-06 12:25:41 AM

quickdraw: aybara: I'm still baffled at the need for a permission slip for a group class photo.

Its because images like that get used on web sites and in brochures or whatever and you have to have the parents permission to use the photo for those purposes. They dont want to take the pic and then 6 months later decide to use it and then have to hunt all the parents down and ask them.


Or a child may be in a protected location because of an abusive family member. All sorts of reasons you might not want a childs image to be made public.
 
2012-04-06 12:28:08 AM

accelerus: The common sense thing would be to have the kid standing out of the picture on the side waiting to go back to class.


No, no, no! The common sense thing would have been to take the photo anyway without requiring some stupid-ass 'consent form' in the first place.
 
2012-04-06 12:31:07 AM

Alien Robot: accelerus: The common sense thing would be to have the kid standing out of the picture on the side waiting to go back to class.

No, no, no! The common sense thing would have been to take the photo anyway without requiring some stupid-ass 'consent form' in the first place.


See above.
 
2012-04-06 12:36:01 AM

PirateKing: What would not have been degrading? A star, as the photographer suggested? A blank circle? Pixelization like the news did?

A white smiley face?


t1.ftcdn.net

A really hot plus sign?
 
2012-04-06 12:39:36 AM

quickdraw: Or a child may be in a protected location because of an abusive family member. All sorts of reasons you might not want a childs image to be made public.


Then don't make it public. Offering a copy to the other students in the class is not "making it public" as those students already know who their fellow students are. Unless they all sit around with burlap sacks on their heads while at school just in case one of them might recognize another as a child who is "in a protected location because of an abusive family member."
 
2012-04-06 12:46:36 AM
Yes!! A new meme, but it's kind of racist. I won't snitch.
 
2012-04-06 12:46:53 AM

quickdraw: quickdraw: aybara: I'm still baffled at the need for a permission slip for a group class photo.

Its because images like that get used on web sites and in brochures or whatever and you have to have the parents permission to use the photo for those purposes. They dont want to take the pic and then 6 months later decide to use it and then have to hunt all the parents down and ask them.

Or a child may be in a protected location because of an abusive family member. All sorts of reasons you might not want a childs image to be made public.


My kids school didn't require a permission slip for her class photo. However, if the permission slip specifically stated it would be used for promotional purposes, that is something else entirely.
 
2012-04-06 12:47:00 AM

FloydA: The smiley face on that one kid isn't so bad. From the photo, it looks like the photographer replaced all the other kids' faces with Japanese pr0n.


hallelujah.typepad.com

/seriously, well done

As for the photog's excuse, that the PTA "requested he place the smiley over his face, instead of a star Claussen reportedly recommended," WTF?
Someone's gotta be

img.photobucket.com

/sorry for the embiggenness
 
2012-04-06 12:48:40 AM

cowgirl toffee: BurnShrike: [i.huffpost.com image 640x445]

Which one of the kids is the teacher farking?

All of them?
Maybe?


Nope, just feeding them the special cookies.
 
2012-04-06 01:02:06 AM

Butterflew: [i124.photobucket.com image 640x353]


That made me laugh a lot harder than I'm accustomed to.
 
2012-04-06 01:17:58 AM
The smiley face community frowns upon your shenanigans.
 
2012-04-06 01:20:44 AM

PirateKing: What would not have been degrading? A star, as the photographer suggested? A blank circle? Pixelization like the news did?

A white smiley face?


farm2.static.flickr.com
 
2012-04-06 01:49:27 AM

BurnShrike: [i.huffpost.com image 640x445]

Which one of the kids is the teacher farking?


All but mister smiley.

Also, why is the principal scheduling another photo shoot instead of just demanding the original from the portrait company? Or did they give it to him, and he was the one who personally edited the face in, and now they're charging him a dumbass fee to get another copy?
 
2012-04-06 02:11:46 AM
Can't... breathe... from... laughing...
 
2012-04-06 02:45:06 AM
I wonder if the guy who did that was a farker

img266.imageshack.us
 
2012-04-06 02:47:15 AM
I'm calling BS on the whole thing

** the ELEMENTARY SCHOOL kids look about 18
** fashion looks dated
** as said many times above: why let him in the photo then?
** schools would CHARGE MONEY to parents, and they would receive a class photo with STUPID ASSED faces on the students who didn't have permssion? yeah that's believable

Wake up, people.
 
2012-04-06 02:59:20 AM
I'm glad I'm alone at work. I laughed for a solid 10 minutes out loud. I was taking a leak and couldn't stop laughing. This is just pure gold.
 
2012-04-06 03:00:51 AM

BurnShrike: [i.huffpost.com image 640x445]

Which one of the kids is the teacher farking?

~
Weird. They look much younger in this pic than the colour photos up top of this thread.

Erm. While I've got you. First thing I thought of when I saw the pic:
i42.tinypic.com
 
2012-04-06 03:36:27 AM

Ensnared Wit: I gotta admit its pretty funny, but why didn't they just make him stand off to the side and not be in the picture at all?

Oh yeah. FTFA:"While the photographer, David Claussen, would not agree to go on camera, he told WPLG that he never meant to cause such controversy and that he was only following orders"

"We were only following orders" will be carved into the gravestone of humanity, right alongside "This is being done for your protection"


Yeah, they sure picked a ninny to take those pictures.
 
2012-04-06 03:58:27 AM
There are permissions slips for everything today. For school photos, you have to sign saying that you're allowing someone you don't know to photograph your child, that you have no control over how the photo is used, and that the school is not responsible if the photo winds up in the hands of a pedo. A field trip permission form is packed with more legalese than a mortgage contract.
 
2012-04-06 04:03:47 AM
i read the headline as
"They let him take part in the class picnic anyway. Fark: They cover his face"

and was worried that the kid had his face covered with peanut butter, and died due to having an allergic reaction

/it's late
//no reading news while tired anymore
 
2012-04-06 04:09:55 AM
Back in the stone ages when I was a kid (the 70's), if a kid didn't have their signed permission slip to be in the class photo, they were still included... the family just didn't get a copy of the picture. How freaking difficult is this to understand now? Your kid is in a class, they are a part of that class and thus should be included in the class photo. The only question should be if you want to pony up the dough to buy a copy of said photo or not. Period.

I am so glad I don't have kids and thus don't have to deal with such stupidity.
 
2012-04-06 04:20:44 AM

Butterflew: [i124.photobucket.com image 640x353]


I laughed. SO. HARD.

I have half of those names on my ignore list. And you've been faved.
 
2012-04-06 04:27:02 AM

Butterflew: [i124.photobucket.com image 640x353]


1. LOL
2. Right-click
3. Save As
 
2012-04-06 05:08:51 AM
lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-04-06 06:21:24 AM
when i was in school, we didn't need permission slips. we showed up, got our picture taken and showed our parents that way they could choose to buy a larger copy. thats how i did it and it was good enough for me....


oh god i'm old.....
 
2012-04-06 06:25:42 AM
Hysterical.
 
2012-04-06 06:28:16 AM

Walker: Color photo is better:
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x354]


So brown.
 
2012-04-06 07:21:56 AM
You need a permission slip because the picture might steal the kids' soul. Would you want to be responsible for that?
 
2012-04-06 07:28:42 AM
This made me LOL bigtime...I find it hard to believe it is real - and subby failed to use the Florida tag.

Living here is so full of crazy sometime. This article is perhaps a defining Florida tag moment.

Just...everytime I look at the picture...the laughing....it's just so good.
 
2012-04-06 07:59:42 AM
sorry...but that's some funny shiat right there. It's even funnier considering how uptight people are today that someone would actually do that.
 
2012-04-06 08:10:54 AM
The only asinine and offensive thing about it is that they did this to the kid over a stupid consent form... maybe he forgot it or lost it, kids do stupid shiat like that sometimes. That said, it IS pretty hilarious- I imagine there's probably a few jealous kids who'd LOVE to have that face in their photo.
 
2012-04-06 08:21:04 AM

No Such Agency: [i.imgur.com image 634x354]


Damn that kid is a good hacker.

Personaly I would have gone with this face.
www.dvd.net.au
Brings good luck
 
2012-04-06 08:29:45 AM

Alien Robot: quickdraw: Or a child may be in a protected location because of an abusive family member. All sorts of reasons you might not want a childs image to be made public.

Then don't make it public. Offering a copy to the other students in the class is not "making it public" as those students already know who their fellow students are. Unless they all sit around with burlap sacks on their heads while at school just in case one of them might recognize another as a child who is "in a protected location because of an abusive family member."


I'd pretty much expect that if you give a photo to a class full of kids, one of their parents is going to stick it on Facebook now, and you probably have good odds of one of them tagging everyone in it as well.

We always had kids missing from class photos growing up. It wasn't usually a problem; stand to the side for two seconds and it's done. It would have been 'incomplete' anyways most of the time - someone always manages to be out sick on picture day.
 
2012-04-06 08:30:26 AM

accelerus: The common sense thing would be to have the kid standing out of the picture on the side waiting to go back to class.


...no, the common sense thing would be not to farking cover a kid's face in the first place. But I guess since the school didn't wring every last dime from the kid's parents, he deserves to be a non-person, amirite?

/Josef Stalin unperson pic.jpg
 
2012-04-06 08:48:39 AM

Butterflew: [i124.photobucket.com image 640x353]


That's even funnier than the article.
 
2012-04-06 09:23:17 AM

Walker: Color photo is better:
[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x354]


oh no...
 
2012-04-06 09:29:14 AM

Via Infinito: Butterflew: [i124.photobucket.com image 640x353]

I laughed. SO. HARD.

I have half of those names on my ignore list. And you've been faved.


I was just thinking the same thing, I have probably around half on ignore too.
 
2012-04-06 09:29:16 AM

The Ghost of Tom Ace: [lh6.googleusercontent.com image 600x383]


WELL DONE!


/that friggin' 'video' gave me nightmares in gradeschool
 
2012-04-06 09:30:02 AM

Berz: Via Infinito: Butterflew: [i124.photobucket.com image 640x353]

I laughed. SO. HARD.

I have half of those names on my ignore list. And you've been faved.

I was just thinking the same thing, I have probably around half on ignore too.


I was just thinking... I barely remember half those names.
 
2012-04-06 09:38:11 AM
cowgirl toffee

>>> PirateKing: What would not have been degrading? A star, as the photographer
>>> suggested? A blank circle? Pixelization like the news did?

A white smiley face?

They should have used a plain ol' yellow smilie face.


media.tumblr.com
 
2012-04-06 09:49:01 AM
Mr. Bean approves.

i406.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-06 09:50:03 AM

MythDragon: No Such Agency: [i.imgur.com image 634x354]

Damn that kid is a good hacker.

Personaly I would have gone with this face.
[www.dvd.net.au image 500x281]
Brings good luck


My daughter LOVES that movie!
 
2012-04-06 09:58:34 AM

LivefromGA: thurstonxhowell: accelerus: doesn't matter what it is, or how it's handled, black people will find a reason to biatch.

The common sense thing would be to have the kid standing out of the picture on the side waiting to go back to class. Of course had anyone done that, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be at the school the next day biatching how a white school excluded a black kid.

*rolls eyes*

This isn't a race thing and the article didn't suggest it was. Your persecution complex is pathetic. Just laugh at the funny picture, asshole.

Wrong, it's "offensive", I wish everyone had your sense of humor though. I LOL'd and thought it was hilarious. The article says otherwise.


If I had been replaced with a subhuman cartoon character in a school picture, my parents would have been offended. They, being offended, might have called the act that offended them "offensive". They're white, though, so I guess that's OK. Black people aren't allowed to be offended. Offended black people are automatically racist.

/ There's a reason "racist" and "offensive" are two different words, chief.
// I guess they don't teach reading comprehension down in Georgia.
 
2012-04-06 10:03:45 AM

I should have posted this last night, but....


tommcmahon.typepad.com

'Let the photoshopping...BEGIN!"
 
2012-04-06 10:13:40 AM
Meh, it's been done before:

i.imgur.com


/first thing i thought of, hope i wasn't alone
 
2012-04-06 10:18:53 AM

thurstonxhowell: accelerus: doesn't matter what it is, or how it's handled, black people will find a reason to biatch.

The common sense thing would be to have the kid standing out of the picture on the side waiting to go back to class. Of course had anyone done that, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be at the school the next day biatching how a white school excluded a black kid.

*rolls eyes*

This isn't a race thing and the article didn't suggest it was. Your persecution complex is pathetic. Just laugh at the funny picture, asshole.


OK then can you explain what the controversy is? Cause I understood it when I assumed the "humiliating" part was that a black smiley resembling old vaudeville blackface was used to replace the face of a black child and that was automatically assumed to be racist.

absent that I don't see why it's anything other than amusing.
 
2012-04-06 10:38:48 AM
Thank god Sharpton and Jackson finally have a reason to leave central Florida...
 
2012-04-06 11:27:33 AM
For some reason, I was expecting The Rock to show up unexpectedly...

img840.imageshack.us
 
2012-04-06 11:37:32 AM

Digitalstrange: thurstonxhowell: accelerus: doesn't matter what it is, or how it's handled, black people will find a reason to biatch.

The common sense thing would be to have the kid standing out of the picture on the side waiting to go back to class. Of course had anyone done that, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be at the school the next day biatching how a white school excluded a black kid.

*rolls eyes*

This isn't a race thing and the article didn't suggest it was. Your persecution complex is pathetic. Just laugh at the funny picture, asshole.

OK then can you explain what the controversy is? Cause I understood it when I assumed the "humiliating" part was that a black smiley resembling old vaudeville blackface was used to replace the face of a black child and that was automatically assumed to be racist.

absent that I don't see why it's anything other than amusing.


An actual newspaper can't report is as "hey, take a look at this picture, it's god damned hilarious", but they still want to sell papers/get pageviews. What they can do is talk about how the parents are offended. Now, they've got a story that doesn't embarrass the paper or make fun of the child, but does still include the freaking hilarious picture.

Of course, they miscalculated just how severe some white peoples' persecution complex can be, so now, even though they studiously avoided any racial terms, you jackasses are trying to make it into a race thing.

I've got one question, if that kid was white, the cartoon character was white, and the article used all the same words, would you accuse the white parents of trying to make this a race issue? If yes, why? If no, what does that say about you?
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report