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.

(Sydney Morning Herald)   William and Kate, with boobies covered, greeted by women and young girls, with boobies uncovered, in Solomon Islands tour. Boobies   (news.smh.com.au) divider line 178
    More: Amusing, Solomon Islands, British Royal Family, God Save the Queen  
•       •       •

21965 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2012 at 9:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-17 08:38:26 AM
This article is worthless without pics.
 
2012-09-17 09:40:03 AM
I know its way early in the thread but:

i758.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 09:44:26 AM

Krymson Tyde: This article is worthless without pics.

 
2012-09-17 09:46:56 AM

Krymson Tyde: This article is worthless without pics.


//needs to be said as many times as possible
 
2012-09-17 09:47:31 AM
Well. Nice for them to have me imagine the whole thing in my mind.
 
2012-09-17 09:48:02 AM
t0.gstatic.com
"william and kate, with boobies covered!"
 
2012-09-17 09:48:52 AM
WHAR DA BEWBS?!? WHAR!!!
 
2012-09-17 09:49:22 AM
Kate and William, their boobies covered, in the Islands.
 
2012-09-17 09:49:34 AM

fireclown: "william and kate, with boobies covered!"


Shaka, when the bras fell.
 
2012-09-17 09:50:02 AM
Pretty sure that the titties we'd see would be national geographic type boobies
 
2012-09-17 09:51:02 AM

picturescrazy: fireclown: "william and kate, with boobies covered!"

Shaka, when the bras fell.


You know, I thought I had the funny nailed in this situation, and you go and pull the rug out.
 
2012-09-17 09:51:08 AM
Seriously, though. It's like a farking National Geographic article in the Solomons. Afros and tits. Everywhere.

I believe there is also a cult that worships Prince Philip, but I may be mistaking that for another island.
 
2012-09-17 09:51:51 AM

jfivealive: Pretty sure that the titties we'd see would be national geographic type boobies


Correct.

The Dail Mail has the article with lots of National Geographic type pictures if anyone is interested. NSFW
 
2012-09-17 09:51:54 AM
You guys that desperate for little girl boobies? Dude, did I accidentally load up 4chan by mistake?
 
2012-09-17 09:52:45 AM

Sachlpch: Krymson Tyde: This article is worthless without pics.

//needs to be said as many times as possible

 
2012-09-17 09:53:21 AM
This just highlights the silliness of the whole Kate boobies situation. They are farking casually hanging out with a bunch of topless women and nobody is dying or suing one another. They are just boobs people. Half the world has them. Get the fark over it.
 
2012-09-17 09:53:24 AM
Kate has some flapjacks, that was a let down.
 
2012-09-17 09:53:53 AM

fireclown: picturescrazy: fireclown: "william and kate, with boobies covered!"

Shaka, when the bras fell.

You know, I thought I had the funny nailed in this situation, and you go and pull the rug out.


Ha it just sounded so perfect that I was sure you intentionally set it up.
 
2012-09-17 09:54:07 AM
"0 people have clicked this link"
 
2012-09-17 09:54:31 AM
farm9.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-17 09:55:43 AM
ITT: boys who desperately need to grow the fark up.

We all biatch about government invading our privacy, but it's OK for asshole photographers to do it?
 
2012-09-17 09:56:21 AM
<b><a href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7331228/79430645#c79430645" target="_blank">HotWingConspiracy</a>:</b> <i>Kate has some flapjacks, that was a let down.</i>

Yeah but I think the Prince only cares about what her clacker looks like (probably flap-jacky now too).
 
2012-09-17 09:56:35 AM
Pics

Nothing too interesting, but there ya go.
 
2012-09-17 09:57:34 AM

Silly Jesus: This just highlights the silliness of the whole Kate boobies situation. They are farking casually hanging out with a bunch of topless women and nobody is dying or suing one another. They are just boobs people. Half the world has them. Get the fark over it.


I think all the people in the world have boobs. Some are just bigger, rounder, and softer than others.

/I have boobs, could you milk me?
 
2012-09-17 09:58:04 AM
Shaka, when the bras fell.

One internet for you!
 
2012-09-17 09:58:28 AM

picturescrazy: fireclown: "william and kate, with boobies covered!"

Shaka, when the bras fell.


/thread
 
2012-09-17 10:01:49 AM
Will the natives be suing the Royal Family for releasing the pictures?

Kate is hot, but needs to mix in a cheeseburger once in awhile. A little too thin.
 
2012-09-17 10:04:10 AM
I used to live in a Melanesian country, so I'm getting a kick....

/Yes, everyone was topless.
//Yes, just like here, some were nicer than others.
 
2012-09-17 10:04:15 AM
blackmanblogger.typepad.com

Kong! Kong! Kong!
 
2012-09-17 10:04:44 AM
{multiple "Useless Without Pics}

William and Kate, with boobies covered, greeted by women and young girls, with boobies uncovered, in Solomon Islands tour. Boobies

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-09-17 10:05:34 AM
They had to have gotten a nice chuckle out of that.

Well, I would've anyway.
 
2012-09-17 10:05:41 AM
i.imgur.com

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .
 
2012-09-17 10:06:28 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: Seriously, though. It's like a farking National Geographic article in the Solomons. Afros and tits. Everywhere.

I believe there is also a cult that worships Prince Philip, but I may be mistaking that for another island.


My bad. That would be Vanuatu.
 
2012-09-17 10:07:12 AM
 
2012-09-17 10:07:24 AM
We took pictures of the native girls but they weren't developed.

We're going back next week.
 
2012-09-17 10:09:26 AM
"It's up to people around the world to regulate themselves with common sense and decency,"

One of the greatest phrases of wisdom i have ever heard and all ya'll care about is boobs. lol.

farm7.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-17 10:09:30 AM
But when scandal hijacks a royal tour, it seems there's just no escaping it.

Especially when you bring it up in the very first sentence of your "news" story and wrap the whole story around it.

wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]
If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .


yeah. I wish I had boobs that hung down into my lap, even at a young age. That's my dream.
 
2012-09-17 10:11:59 AM
You said boobies thrice.
 
2012-09-17 10:12:07 AM

picturescrazy: fireclown: "william and kate, with boobies covered!"

Shaka, when the bras fell.


HAMMERTOE, his eyes wide...
 
2012-09-17 10:12:09 AM

Heist: Pics

Nothing too interesting, but there ya go.


I thought most of the pictures were interesting. The pictures make it seems like they went back in time to the era of the British Empire at the beginning of the 20th century and before.
 
2012-09-17 10:14:42 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Kate has some flapjacks, that was a let down.


THIS
 
2012-09-17 10:17:34 AM

Krymson Tyde: This article is worthless without pics.


It's worthless WITH pics! EEK!! Them don't count man!
 
2012-09-17 10:20:17 AM

fireclown: "william and kate, with boobies covered!"


Boobies, when the walls fell.

/first thing I thought of too
 
2012-09-17 10:22:20 AM

picturescrazy: fireclown: picturescrazy: fireclown: "william and kate, with boobies covered!"

Shaka, when the bras fell.

You know, I thought I had the funny nailed in this situation, and you go and pull the rug out.

Ha it just sounded so perfect that I was sure you intentionally set it up.


Came for a Shaka joke - the headline was written in a way that begged for one.....

/leaving satisfied
 
2012-09-17 10:24:50 AM
Without pictures, how am I going to know what their boobies look like?
 
2012-09-17 10:25:50 AM

cryinoutloud: But when scandal hijacks a royal tour, it seems there's just no escaping it.

Especially when you bring it up in the very first sentence of your "news" story and wrap the whole story around it.

wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]
If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

yeah. I wish I had boobs that hung down into my lap, even at a young age. That's my dream.


Exaggeration is udderly for effect.
 
2012-09-17 10:27:36 AM

bigmike485: Pics

 

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-17 10:29:35 AM

cryinoutloud: But when scandal hijacks a royal tour, it seems there's just no escaping it.

Especially when you bring it up in the very first sentence of your "news" story and wrap the whole story around it.

wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]
If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

yeah. I wish I had boobs that hung down into my lap, even at a young age. That's my dream.


What a coincidence, young boobs in my lap is a dream of mine as well.

Stop hating on Yulia!

img.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 10:32:27 AM
biatch, when in Rome do as the romans do. Take off your shirt!
 
2012-09-17 10:34:25 AM
i512.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-17 10:34:45 AM
Kate should just give the paparazzi a collective "fark you" and pose in Playboy.
 
2012-09-17 10:34:57 AM

wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .


Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?
 
2012-09-17 10:35:03 AM
book mark for the natives
 
2012-09-17 10:38:30 AM
I still fail to see the controversy of an attractive woman sunbathing topless in France. It's better than the alternatives.

Pic is reasonably related
 
2012-09-17 10:40:24 AM

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I still fail to see the controversy of an attractive woman sunbathing topless in France. It's better than the alternatives.

Pic is reasonably related


Dammit, and Fark no like-y my hotlink. Fine.

/It was the Paris, Texas/Paris, France picture
 
2012-09-17 10:41:35 AM

jfivealive: Pretty sure that the titties we'd see would be national geographic type boobies


When growing up that's the boobie we had access to and we liked it. Now get off my lawn.
 
2012-09-17 10:44:02 AM

Muta: jfivealive: Pretty sure that the titties we'd see would be national geographic type boobies

When growing up that's the boobie we had access to and we liked it. Now get off my lawn.


Indeed! Still, whar the white bobies at?
 
2012-09-17 10:44:16 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
"William and Kate, with boobs covered"

media.noob.us
"I've seen everything."

i.ytimg.com
"They're flajacks. Computer! Holographic projection of Picard Spank Bank entry Stardate 9-14-2012."

www.bob937.com
*computery sounds*

i.imgur.com
"Bear, with paws extended. Dog, with plate of broccoli." 
 
2012-09-17 10:47:15 AM

muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?


Her Indian name is "girl wth big floppies that rest on her lap". Don't even get me started about the nasty sweat under there.
 
2012-09-17 10:47:50 AM

Parthenogenetic:
"Bear, with paws extended. Dog, with plate of broccoli."




You are my hero.
 
2012-09-17 10:49:01 AM

muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?


Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.
 
2012-09-17 10:51:13 AM

airsupport: Parthenogenetic:
"Bear, with paws extended. Dog, with plate of broccoli."


Arab, with frown on face but interest in eyes.
 
2012-09-17 10:52:57 AM

Silly Jesus: This just highlights the silliness of the whole Kate boobies situation. They are farking casually hanging out with a bunch of topless women and nobody is dying or suing one another. They are just boobs people. Half the world has them. Get the fark over it.


I gather (because I read gossip, sue me) that it was Prince William who had a shiat-fit about the pictures, and wanted to sue. Remember who his mother was. I have to say that I can't really blame him. He wants to protect his wife.
 
2012-09-17 10:53:05 AM
article with pictures. NSFW.
 
2012-09-17 10:58:29 AM

picturescrazy: fireclown: "william and kate, with boobies covered!"

Shaka, when the bras fell.


Damn. I came here to make that joke.

/you did it better anyhow
 
2012-09-17 11:00:59 AM

Parthenogenetic: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 358x333]
"William and Kate, with boobs covered"
"I've seen everything."
"They're flajacks. Computer! Holographic projection of Picard Spank Bank entry Stardate 9-14-2012."
*computery sounds*
"Bear, with paws extended. Dog, with plate of broccoli."



I think I love you.
 
2012-09-17 11:03:48 AM

muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?


Ann (or Tanya) Song

NSFW link
 
2012-09-17 11:06:47 AM

cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: This just highlights the silliness of the whole Kate boobies situation. They are farking casually hanging out with a bunch of topless women and nobody is dying or suing one another. They are just boobs people. Half the world has them. Get the fark over it.

I gather (because I read gossip, sue me) that it was Prince William who had a shiat-fit about the pictures, and wanted to sue. Remember who his mother was. I have to say that I can't really blame him. He wants to protect his wife.


Protect her from what?

I understand his feelings due to what happened to his mother...but if it wasn't just about the boobies, then he'd throw a shiat fit every time the paparazzi took pictures...and he doesn't, from what I can tell.

Laws against people with cameras actually actively CHASING you, fine. Laws against people with camera aided super-duper eyesight seeing you standing around outside...boobs out or not....yeah, no law for that.
 
2012-09-17 11:08:09 AM
NSFW http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/250964/slide_25096 4_1530250_free.jpg?1347872914793
 
2012-09-17 11:09:44 AM
'nudder http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/250964/slide_25096 4_1529762_free.jpg?1347864369803
 
2012-09-17 11:10:13 AM
How quaint.Britain still has an empire.I expect H.M.S. Bounty to set sail forwith.Is Marlon still available?
 
2012-09-17 11:10:55 AM
Topless dancers (NSFW):

Link
 
2012-09-17 11:15:35 AM

Silly Jesus: Protect her from what?
I understand his feelings due to what happened to his mother...but if it wasn't just about the boobies, then he'd throw a shiat fit every time the paparazzi took pictures...and he doesn't, from what I can tell.
Laws against people with cameras actually actively CHASING you, fine. Laws against people with camera aided super-duper eyesight seeing you standing around outside...boobs out or not....yeah, no law for that.


There's these things called "photo ops" and then there's intrusive paparazzi photos. The British press made a pinky swear when William and kate got married that they'd stop doing the Princess Di guerrilla photos and let these guys live their lives without a camera following them around 24 hours a day.

I don't know why I bother to explain anything to you anyway, since you're obnoxious just for the sake of being obnoxious. You'd probably be the first person to try to sell up-skirts of Kate, and then defend it on free speech grounds or something.
 
2012-09-17 11:23:01 AM

Parthenogenetic: Bear, with paws extended. Dog, with plate of broccoli."


images2.wikia.nocookie.net

Rudd and Rogen, with game controllers in hands.
 
2012-09-17 11:24:43 AM

cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: Protect her from what?
I understand his feelings due to what happened to his mother...but if it wasn't just about the boobies, then he'd throw a shiat fit every time the paparazzi took pictures...and he doesn't, from what I can tell.
Laws against people with cameras actually actively CHASING you, fine. Laws against people with camera aided super-duper eyesight seeing you standing around outside...boobs out or not....yeah, no law for that.

There's these things called "photo ops" and then there's intrusive paparazzi photos. The British press made a pinky swear when William and kate got married that they'd stop doing the Princess Di guerrilla photos and let these guys live their lives without a camera following them around 24 hours a day.

I don't know why I bother to explain anything to you anyway, since you're obnoxious just for the sake of being obnoxious. You'd probably be the first person to try to sell up-skirts of Kate, and then defend it on free speech grounds or something.


It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.
 
2012-09-17 11:25:49 AM

cryinoutloud: You'd probably be the first person to try to sell up-skirts of Kate, and then defend it on free speech grounds or something.


I would sell them. I wouldn't defend it, though. I'd just pay someone to assuage my guilty conscience with the money I'd get.
 
2012-09-17 11:27:53 AM
Before you f*cks get too excited, this is the caliber of women ol' Wills was viewing...

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-09-17 11:28:44 AM

Silly Jesus: cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: Protect her from what?
I understand his feelings due to what happened to his mother...but if it wasn't just about the boobies, then he'd throw a shiat fit every time the paparazzi took pictures...and he doesn't, from what I can tell.
Laws against people with cameras actually actively CHASING you, fine. Laws against people with camera aided super-duper eyesight seeing you standing around outside...boobs out or not....yeah, no law for that.

There's these things called "photo ops" and then there's intrusive paparazzi photos. The British press made a pinky swear when William and kate got married that they'd stop doing the Princess Di guerrilla photos and let these guys live their lives without a camera following them around 24 hours a day.

I don't know why I bother to explain anything to you anyway, since you're obnoxious just for the sake of being obnoxious. You'd probably be the first person to try to sell up-skirts of Kate, and then defend it on free speech grounds or something.

It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.


The road was a half mile away. If you need special equipment to see them, you may as well be looking in their windows.
 
2012-09-17 11:31:42 AM

calm like a bomb: Parthenogenetic: Bear, with paws extended. Dog, with plate of broccoli."

[images2.wikia.nocookie.net image 292x280]

Rudd and Rogen, with game controllers in hands.


i.imgur.com

Studman69, his preference for rounded knees expressed.
 
2012-09-17 11:33:59 AM

Silly Jesus: cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: Protect her from what?
I understand his feelings due to what happened to his mother...but if it wasn't just about the boobies, then he'd throw a shiat fit every time the paparazzi took pictures...and he doesn't, from what I can tell.
Laws against people with cameras actually actively CHASING you, fine. Laws against people with camera aided super-duper eyesight seeing you standing around outside...boobs out or not....yeah, no law for that.

There's these things called "photo ops" and then there's intrusive paparazzi photos. The British press made a pinky swear when William and kate got married that they'd stop doing the Princess Di guerrilla photos and let these guys live their lives without a camera following them around 24 hours a day.

I don't know why I bother to explain anything to you anyway, since you're obnoxious just for the sake of being obnoxious. You'd probably be the first person to try to sell up-skirts of Kate, and then defend it on free speech grounds or something.

It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.


So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?
 
2012-09-17 11:34:00 AM
Bumblebee Tuna!
 
2012-09-17 11:34:57 AM

BigRightRear: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Her Indian name is "girl wth big floppies that rest on her lap". Don't even get me started about the nasty sweat under there.


i upped my meds-up yours: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.


wambu: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Ann (or Tanya) Song

NSFW link


Just added her to my friends list on Facebook. My mother is going to be so mad at her 40+ year old soon who should know better.
 
2012-09-17 11:37:43 AM

catson: Topless dancers (NSFW):

Link


Priceless

i50.tinypic.com
 
2012-09-17 11:40:57 AM
Google image search for Anna Song won't let me go away. I am in boobie heaven
 
2012-09-17 11:45:13 AM
i50.tinypic.com

I'm tellin' ya, Princess, the damn rent is too high...
 
2012-09-17 11:54:17 AM

Timmy the Tumor: [i50.tinypic.com image 458x305]

I'm tellin' ya, Princess, the damn rent is too high...


Princess is covering her most valuable asset. Rent is too damn high on that.
 
2012-09-17 12:00:39 PM

Silly Jesus: It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.


Why do you guys make me comb the Daily Fail to find ways to support my position? it's just mean. Here's where the pictures were taken from:

i.dailymail.co.uk

Would you be OK with someone taking pictures of you from that distance?

Another question: If some nice woman asked you "Please don't take pictures of me" (as she surely would have, if asked), would you take the pictures anyway, then sell them? If you say yes, then I guess we know what kind of person you are, and no amount of arguing will change you

But personally I think you just like to troll.
 
2012-09-17 12:02:15 PM

Parthenogenetic: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 358x333]
"William and Kate, with boobs covered"

[media.noob.us image 300x225]
"I've seen everything."

[i.ytimg.com image 300x225]
"They're flajacks. Computer! Holographic projection of Picard Spank Bank entry Stardate 9-14-2012."

[www.bob937.com image 400x300]
*computery sounds*

[i.imgur.com image 320x240]
"Bear, with paws extended. Dog, with plate of broccoli."


My keyboard, snotted.
 
2012-09-17 12:04:10 PM
You know, for a boobies thread I'm getting a lot of Fark.tv flashbacks

/that's my dream
//that's my nightmare
 
2012-09-17 12:14:15 PM
After yesterday's disaster of bewbies threads, all I can say is...

OhPleaseOhPleaseOhPleaseOhPlease.

I'll be checking back after work. Don't let me down!
 
2012-09-17 12:21:20 PM
thewittank.files.wordpress.com

Approves.
 
2012-09-17 12:26:56 PM

picturescrazy: Silly Jesus: cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: Protect her from what?
I understand his feelings due to what happened to his mother...but if it wasn't just about the boobies, then he'd throw a shiat fit every time the paparazzi took pictures...and he doesn't, from what I can tell.
Laws against people with cameras actually actively CHASING you, fine. Laws against people with camera aided super-duper eyesight seeing you standing around outside...boobs out or not....yeah, no law for that.

There's these things called "photo ops" and then there's intrusive paparazzi photos. The British press made a pinky swear when William and kate got married that they'd stop doing the Princess Di guerrilla photos and let these guys live their lives without a camera following them around 24 hours a day.

I don't know why I bother to explain anything to you anyway, since you're obnoxious just for the sake of being obnoxious. You'd probably be the first person to try to sell up-skirts of Kate, and then defend it on free speech grounds or something.

It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.

The road was a half mile away. If you need special equipment to see them, you may as well be looking in their windows.


media.scout.com
 
2012-09-17 12:28:27 PM
Wait until they get to New Guinea and they're greeting by men wearing kotekas...
 
2012-09-17 12:29:14 PM

Carth: Silly Jesus: cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: Protect her from what?
I understand his feelings due to what happened to his mother...but if it wasn't just about the boobies, then he'd throw a shiat fit every time the paparazzi took pictures...and he doesn't, from what I can tell.
Laws against people with cameras actually actively CHASING you, fine. Laws against people with camera aided super-duper eyesight seeing you standing around outside...boobs out or not....yeah, no law for that.

There's these things called "photo ops" and then there's intrusive paparazzi photos. The British press made a pinky swear when William and kate got married that they'd stop doing the Princess Di guerrilla photos and let these guys live their lives without a camera following them around 24 hours a day.

I don't know why I bother to explain anything to you anyway, since you're obnoxious just for the sake of being obnoxious. You'd probably be the first person to try to sell up-skirts of Kate, and then defend it on free speech grounds or something.

It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?


If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.
 
2012-09-17 12:30:36 PM

Parthenogenetic: "William and Kate, with boobs covered"


"I've seen everything."


"They're flajacks. Computer! Holographic projection of Picard Spank Bank entry Stardate 9-14-2012."


*computery sounds*


"Bear, with paws extended. Dog, with plate of broccoli." 


Igor, his laughter out loud
 
2012-09-17 12:33:18 PM

cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.

Why do you guys make me comb the Daily Fail to find ways to support my position? it's just mean. Here's where the pictures were taken from:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x460]

Would you be OK with someone taking pictures of you from that distance?

Another question: If some nice woman asked you "Please don't take pictures of me" (as she surely would have, if asked), would you take the pictures anyway, then sell them? If you say yes, then I guess we know what kind of person you are, and no amount of arguing will change you

But personally I think you just like to troll.


Stop your biatching, biatch.
 
2012-09-17 12:42:18 PM

cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.

Why do you guys make me comb the Daily Fail to find ways to support my position?
it's just mean. Here's where the pictures were taken from:.

 

HOLY FARGIN HELL! What a HUNK of glass that guys got. There's cullet piles at Corning that aren't as big as that lens. He HAD to take pix of her so he could afford to buy the damn lens.
Pix of alleged lens-upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-09-17 12:44:22 PM

Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus: cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: Protect her from what?
I understand his feelings due to what happened to his mother...but if it wasn't just about the boobies, then he'd throw a shiat fit every time the paparazzi took pictures...and he doesn't, from what I can tell.
Laws against people with cameras actually actively CHASING you, fine. Laws against people with camera aided super-duper eyesight seeing you standing around outside...boobs out or not....yeah, no law for that.

There's these things called "photo ops" and then there's intrusive paparazzi photos. The British press made a pinky swear when William and kate got married that they'd stop doing the Princess Di guerrilla photos and let these guys live their lives without a camera following them around 24 hours a day.

I don't know why I bother to explain anything to you anyway, since you're obnoxious just for the sake of being obnoxious. You'd probably be the first person to try to sell up-skirts of Kate, and then defend it on free speech grounds or something.

It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.


What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?
 
2012-09-17 12:50:54 PM

cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.

Why do you guys make me comb the Daily Fail to find ways to support my position? it's just mean. Here's where the pictures were taken from:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x460]

I'm aware of where they were taken. I've seen that photograph before. It just further proves my point. They were in public (visible from a public road).


Would you be OK with someone taking pictures of you from that distance?

Yes. Do you suggest we set up some arbitrary distance beyond which the public must avert their eyes? Say, if someone is 500 yards away it'd be illegal for you to look in that direction or take a picture?


Another question: If some nice woman asked you "Please don't take pictures of me" (as she surely would have, if asked), would you take the pictures anyway, then sell them? If you say yes, then I guess we know what kind of person you are, and no amount of arguing will change you.

Probably not. It depends on the situation.

1) Starving family and I need the money and she's out in public and the brain dead public will pay big money to see pictures of someone who loves being in the spotlight? Sure, I'll take them and sell them.

2) Out hiking and I see a random person and for some strange reason feel the need to photograph her...and she asks me to stop. Then I'd stop.

But personally I think you just like to troll.

Yeah, that's not the first time I've heard that. That's the term generally ascribed to anyone with a different opinion. I'm a self imposed outcast from the Fark echo chamber...what can I say.

 
2012-09-17 12:51:14 PM

cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.

Why do you guys make me comb the Daily Fail to find ways to support my position? it's just mean. Here's where the pictures were taken from:

[i.dailymail.co.uk image 634x460]

Would you be OK with someone taking pictures of you from that distance?

Another question: If some nice woman asked you "Please don't take pictures of me" (as she surely would have, if asked), would you take the pictures anyway, then sell them? If you say yes, then I guess we know what kind of person you are, and no amount of arguing will change you

But personally I think you just like to troll.


A couple things, not to defend, but, if your job is to take pictures of that person, then isn't that the point? I mean, it is a stretch, but if a politician asked you to not fact check, and you did anyway, then does that make you a bad person?

Right/Wrong, people want these pictures, they are big money, and people get assigned to take them, or get asked for them. So asking somebody to not do their job, is like asking somebody to not support their family. So if a public figure, and these people's job is to be a public figure for their country, asks you to not do your job, then wtf. Sure the british have agreed to now have their royals pictures published in compromising situations. But that is them.
 
2012-09-17 12:52:29 PM

MoronLessOff: After yesterday's disaster of bewbies threads, all I can say is...

OhPleaseOhPleaseOhPleaseOhPlease.

I'll be checking back after work. Don't let me down!


You are aware that there are other sites on the internet devoted solely to boobies....
 
2012-09-17 12:57:10 PM

gerbilpox: catson: Topless dancers (NSFW):

Link

Priceless

[i50.tinypic.com image 458x305]


Kate looks stiff and standoffish. There's no warmth there.
 
2012-09-17 12:57:54 PM
Damn, way too late on the draw to get Tamarian memes up here.

static.quickmeme.com
 
2012-09-17 12:58:58 PM

KierzanDax: Wait until they get to New Guinea and they're greeting by men wearing kotekas...


Kotekas are just male bikinis.
 
2012-09-17 01:01:26 PM
Can't believe no one has commented on the awesome shark costume/caption.
 
2012-09-17 01:04:23 PM

Silly Jesus: MoronLessOff: After yesterday's disaster of bewbies threads, all I can say is...

OhPleaseOhPleaseOhPleaseOhPlease.

I'll be checking back after work. Don't let me down!

You are aware that there are other sites on the internet devoted solely to boobies....


www.thewholefreakinginternet.com

But some farkers have provided excellent examples and links. It's all good fun.
 
2012-09-17 01:04:35 PM

Carth: Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus: cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: Protect her from what?
I understand his feelings due to what happened to his mother...but if it wasn't just about the boobies, then he'd throw a shiat fit every time the paparazzi took pictures...and he doesn't, from what I can tell.
Laws against people with cameras actually actively CHASING you, fine. Laws against people with camera aided super-duper eyesight seeing you standing around outside...boobs out or not....yeah, no law for that.

There's these things called "photo ops" and then there's intrusive paparazzi photos. The British press made a pinky swear when William and kate got married that they'd stop doing the Princess Di guerrilla photos and let these guys live their lives without a camera following them around 24 hours a day.

I don't know why I bother to explain anything to you anyway, since you're obnoxious just for the sake of being obnoxious. You'd probably be the first person to try to sell up-skirts of Kate, and then defend it on free speech grounds or something.

It comes down to should there be a law that says that if you're on a public road you can't look in a certain direction if certain special people happen to be outside. That's nuts. They have great benefit from being who they are, and that benefit comes with a downside. They have to take the good with the bad. It's not as though the photographers were peeking in their windows (trespassing on their property). They were visible from a public road. I can't go stand out in my yard and get pissed if someone takes a picture of me.

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?


Reductio ad absurdum
 
2012-09-17 01:06:06 PM
Seriously. Google Anna Song images.Wow!
 
2012-09-17 01:08:12 PM

Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum


You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?
 
2012-09-17 01:15:37 PM

Electromax: Can't believe no one has commented on the awesome shark costume/caption.


seriously, that was the best part of the article.
 
2012-09-17 01:16:50 PM

Carth: Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum

You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?


Wait, where we talking about something?
 
2012-09-17 01:17:18 PM

Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum


Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.
 
2012-09-17 01:19:38 PM

Carth: Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum

You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?


The local PD are going to plant a camera on public property in front of and behind every single house in town in order to monitor them 24/7 to prevent crime?

I don't have a problem with it in the same way that I don't have a problem with the paparazzi...I just think that it's an absurd notion.
 
2012-09-17 01:20:19 PM
Always interesting when a socially backward country comes across a more progressive one.
 
2012-09-17 01:21:51 PM

Carth: Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum

Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.


Stop trolling. This thread is about tits.

www.zgeek.com
 
2012-09-17 01:25:28 PM
Always having to put the retards back in their place. What is wrong with you people?
 
2012-09-17 01:25:49 PM

Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum

You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?

The local PD are going to plant a camera on public property in front of and behind every single house in town in order to monitor them 24/7 to prevent crime?

I don't have a problem with it in the same way that I don't have a problem with the paparazzi...I just think that it's an absurd notion.


You've never been to London or (increasingly) Washington DC have you? London already has 2 million CCTV cameras and DC refuses to admit how many they use. If you're fine with always being recorded in public at least your consistent. I just disagree.
 
2012-09-17 01:25:58 PM
Who's yer' boobie?
 
2012-09-17 01:26:09 PM

Carth: Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum

Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.


The two are very similar...perhaps I was wrong, but here's my line of reasoning...

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial[1][2], or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

I said that it's OK for cameras to view people in public and you countered with the government monitoring houses 24/7. 

In my mind you were trying to invalidate my viewpoint by showing that an absurd result would follow from its acceptance.
 
2012-09-17 01:28:26 PM

Carth:
You've never been to London or (increasingly) Washington DC have you? London already has 2 million CCTV cameras and DC refuses to admit how many they use. If you're fine with always being recorded in public at least your consistent. I just disagree.


sorry, in the UK not London specifically. The best number I could find for London specifically was 400,000 cameras.
 
2012-09-17 01:29:37 PM

Carth: Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum

You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?

The local PD are going to plant a camera on public property in front of and behind every single house in town in order to monitor them 24/7 to prevent crime?

I don't have a problem with it in the same way that I don't have a problem with the paparazzi...I just think that it's an absurd notion.

You've never been to London or (increasingly) Washington DC have you? London already has 2 million CCTV cameras and DC refuses to admit how many they use. If you're fine with always being recorded in public at least your consistent. I just disagree.


I've been to both several times. I almost used them as an example in my last post, but I got the impression that you were proposing the idea of the local PD monitoring individual houses around the clock with cameras, so I left that point out.

But, yeah, I don't have a problem with them. If a cop can stand on the corner and stare at me or a cop can sit in a chair somewhere in a computer room and stare at me through the camera, what's the difference really?

Speaking of consistency, are you also opposed to people following the police around with cameras?
 
2012-09-17 01:29:47 PM

Carth: Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus:

So in your mind do people ever has a reasonable expectation of privacy when outside?

If someone can see you from publicly accessible land / air....no.

What if it is the government doing the monitoring? You'd have no problem with CCTV cameras recording your every move outside?

Reductio ad absurdum

You just said people have no reasonable expectation of privacy when they can be seen from publicly accessible land / air.

What difference does it make if it is a paparazzi doing it for money or the local PD doing it to stop crime? If you're ok with one why aren't you ok with the other?

The local PD are going to plant a camera on public property in front of and behind every single house in town in order to monitor them 24/7 to prevent crime?

I don't have a problem with it in the same way that I don't have a problem with the paparazzi...I just think that it's an absurd notion.

You've never been to London or (increasingly) Washington DC have you? London already has 2 million CCTV cameras and DC refuses to admit how many they use. If you're fine with always being recorded in public at least your consistent. I just disagree.


Silly Jesus: Carth: Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum

Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.

The two are very similar...perhaps I was wrong, but here's my line of reasoning...

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity") is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial[1][2], or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.

I said that it's OK for cameras to view people in public and you countered with the government monitoring houses 24/7. 

In my mind you were trying to invalidate my viewpoint by showing that an absurd result would follow from its acceptance.


Shut up! Both of you! Post boobies or GTFO!
 
2012-09-17 01:50:08 PM

i upped my meds-up yours: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.


See also, Yulia Nova
d.yimg.com
 
2012-09-17 01:54:57 PM

halfpastnvr: i upped my meds-up yours: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.

See also, Yulia Nova
[d.yimg.com image 340x480]


I always thought she had a butterface.

See also, Maria Swan. Rachel Aldana (not sure about the last name, but you'll find it.)
 
2012-09-17 01:57:42 PM

halfpastnvr: i upped my meds-up yours: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.

See also, Yulia Nova
[d.yimg.com image 340x480]


Oh my lord...Thank you
 
2012-09-17 01:58:56 PM
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 02:14:54 PM

MoronLessOff: halfpastnvr: i upped my meds-up yours: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.

See also, Yulia Nova
[d.yimg.com image 340x480]

I always thought she had a butterface.

See also, Maria Swan. Rachel Aldana (not sure about the last name, but you'll find it.)


True, but the rest looks pretty good to me...Beauty is just a light switch away.

Oh, early Kay Parker, there's a lovely set there as well. 

May be slightly NSFW
NSFW
 
2012-09-17 02:16:11 PM

MajorTubeSteak: [imageshack.us image 500x604]


There's a turkey in that picture?? Oh, wait, now i see it...
 
2012-09-17 02:16:47 PM

fireclown: [t0.gstatic.com image 257x196]
"william and kate, with boobies covered!"


I was going to make sure this episode was mentioned; glad I'm not the only one who thought it read like a story recited by Dathon.

Also all you Farkers posting awesomely great racks are doing us all a public service, keep it up :)
 
2012-09-17 02:17:27 PM

jfivealive: Pretty sure that the titties we'd see would be national geographic type boobies


Came to make a national geographic comment.

I can see I'm no longer needed here.

/Carry on.
 
2012-09-17 02:19:14 PM

muck4doo: Carth: Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum

Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.

Stop trolling. This thread is about tits.

www.zgeek.com


Anyone know who this fine specimen of womanhood is BTW? I know she's a staple in boobies threads...
 
2012-09-17 02:22:30 PM

halfpastnvr: MajorTubeSteak: [imageshack.us image 500x604]

There's a turkey in that picture?? Oh, wait, now i see it...


You do? Can you point it out to me?
 
2012-09-17 02:25:54 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: muck4doo: Carth: Silly Jesus:

Reductio ad absurdum

Also, just so you don't misuse the term again reductio ad absurdum is a technique used to highlight fallacious points in another person's argument, not a fallacy in itself. (unless you meant to imply you were wrong but i don't think you did)

If you meant to imply that my reasoning wasn't a logical progression from your statements the fallacy you should have referred to was a strawman.

Stop trolling. This thread is about tits.

[www.zgeek.com image 536x768]

Anyone know who this fine specimen of womanhood is BTW? I know she's a staple in boobies threads...


her name is boobies. Okay, hold on, her name is Anna Song, and i am discovering she has videos on the net. :)
 
2012-09-17 02:26:37 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: fireclown: [t0.gstatic.com image 257x196]
"william and kate, with boobies covered!"

I was going to make sure this episode was mentioned; glad I'm not the only one who thought it read like a story recited by Dathon.

Also all you Farkers posting awesomely great racks are doing us all a public service, keep it up :)



Well ok, but only because you asked.

imageshack.us

imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 02:27:39 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Anyone know who this fine specimen of womanhood is BTW? I know she's a staple in boobies threads...


i upped my meds-up yours: muck4doo: wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]

If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

Okay, I've seen this girl on the internet before. What is her name?

Anna Song. GIS is delightfully NSFW.

 
2012-09-17 02:44:27 PM

Parthenogenetic: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 358x333]
"William and Kate, with boobs covered"

[media.noob.us image 300x225]
"I've seen everything."

[i.ytimg.com image 300x225]
"They're flajacks. Computer! Holographic projection of Picard Spank Bank entry Stardate 9-14-2012."

[www.bob937.com image 400x300]
*computery sounds*

[i.imgur.com image 320x240]
"Bear, with paws extended. Dog, with plate of broccoli."


???????
Racoon, with paw outstretched.

/also Brando, slowly clapping
 
2012-09-17 02:48:19 PM
But srsly, what's with all the Kate hate?

i216.photobucket.com 

That's a nice lookin' woman.
 
2012-09-17 02:51:19 PM

Banned on the Run: /also Brando, slowly clapping


or Orson Welles
 
2012-09-17 03:21:40 PM
So where is the pic of just her tits? (And the rest too.)
 
2012-09-17 03:21:58 PM

Banned on the Run: But srsly, what's with all the Kate hate?

[i216.photobucket.com image 391x500] 

That's a nice lookin' woman.


Her knees might poke a hole in that boat.

/i keed
 
2012-09-17 03:25:10 PM

bazzanoid: Shaka

 
2012-09-17 03:28:12 PM

brandent: bazzanoid: Shaka


What's this?
 
2012-09-17 03:46:50 PM

devilEther: Banned on the Run: /also Brando, slowly clapping

or Orson Welles


Kane, slowly clapping, his countenance stern
 
2012-09-17 03:56:20 PM

Stoker: So where is the pic of just her tits? (And the rest too.)


Are you aware of this little thing called google?
 
2012-09-17 03:57:58 PM

cryinoutloud: But when scandal hijacks a royal tour, it seems there's just no escaping it.

Especially when you bring it up in the very first sentence of your "news" story and wrap the whole story around it.

wambu: [i.imgur.com image 270x270]
If only Kate had some boobies worth viewing . . .

yeah. I wish I had boobs that hung down into my lap, even at a young age. That's my dream.


Have you tried getting a lap dance?
 
2012-09-17 04:04:08 PM

Parthenogenetic: devilEther: Banned on the Run: /also Brando, slowly clapping

or Orson Welles

Kane, slowly clapping, his countenance stern


Yes, I shouldn't nitpick, I enjoy Banned on the Run's montages very much.
 
2012-09-17 04:24:29 PM
I hope they lose their lawsuit. She was the one who was outside topless. They are just breasts after all. The extra media coverage generated from the couple having a hissy fit about it is far more than would have happened had they issued an official statement of "Meh, whatever." - it's not like they are unflattering photos. She'll be thankful when she's an old droopy queen.
 
2012-09-17 04:33:09 PM
Okay, I think I used up all my horniness points for the week. Whar my football thread?
 
2012-09-17 04:38:05 PM
Okay, seriously, big boobs are nice, and much appreciated. To me though this is the most beautiful woman on the net. Enjoy:

Linkm/
 
2012-09-17 04:39:03 PM

Stoker: So where is the pic of just her tits? (And the rest too.)


Here, now you can find them one handed
 
2012-09-17 04:39:57 PM
Fark does not link my link. Try again:

http://www.taylordavisviolin.com/

If it doesn't work, her name is taylor davis, and she is a damn good violin player.
 
2012-09-17 04:49:58 PM
Ashley Pridgen:
imageshack.us

i3.squidoocdn.com

If only she had kept her boobies...however, as a man that has dated some large chested women, I can understand why she would have reduced them.
 
2012-09-17 04:50:44 PM

MajorTubeSteak: halfpastnvr: MajorTubeSteak: [imageshack.us image 500x604]

There's a turkey in that picture?? Oh, wait, now i see it...

You do? Can you point it out to me?


I lost it.
 
2012-09-17 04:57:33 PM

devilEther: Banned on the Run: /also Brando, slowly clapping

or Orson Welles


dammit

Me:
[Add Comment] *click*
Oh crap, that wasn't Brando, was it.
 
2012-09-17 05:00:14 PM

halfpastnvr: Ashley Pridgen:
[imageshack.us image 500x401]

[i3.squidoocdn.com image 180x280]

If only she had kept her boobies...however, as a man that has dated some large chested women, I can understand why she would have reduced them.


Well look at that. i learned 4 words today.
 
2012-09-17 05:10:53 PM

halfpastnvr: Ashley Pridgen:
[imageshack.us image 500x401]

[i3.squidoocdn.com image 180x280]

If only she had kept her boobies...however, as a man that has dated some large chested women, I can understand why she would have reduced them.


Still very nice.
 
2012-09-17 05:25:25 PM

halfpastnvr: MajorTubeSteak: halfpastnvr: MajorTubeSteak: [imageshack.us image 500x604]

There's a turkey in that picture?? Oh, wait, now i see it...

You do? Can you point it out to me?

I lost it.


Damn.

Boobs: 1
Turkey: 0
 
2012-09-17 06:49:20 PM

mainstreet62: ITT: boys who desperately need to grow the fark up.

We all biatch about government invading our privacy, but it's OK for asshole photographers to do it?


The woman relentlessly pursued him due to his wealth and fame- it comes with a price. Royals get unearned wealth and adoration from dimwits. In exchange, the dimwits feel entitled to every last detail of their lives. It's part of the transaction and she should know that part of being a princess is keeping your boobs covered anywhere a camera could intrude. The photographers are parasites, but so are the royals, so I guess I don't have that much sympathy.
 
2012-09-17 06:54:34 PM

muck4doo: Muta: jfivealive: Pretty sure that the titties we'd see would be national geographic type boobies

When growing up that's the boobie we had access to and we liked it. Now get off my lawn.

Indeed! Still, whar the white bobies at?


There was a BBC documentary on the Discovery Channel several years ago that showed South American and African women's boobs, but pixelated those of European sunbathers. One of the weirdest acts of racism I've ever seen on TV.
 
2012-09-17 07:21:22 PM

gerbilpox: catson: Topless dancers (NSFW):

Link

Priceless

[i50.tinypic.com image 458x305]


Now that is a butterface.
 
2012-09-17 07:58:21 PM

Silly Jesus: Yeah, that's not the first time I've heard that. That's the term generally ascribed to anyone with a different opinion. I'm a self imposed outcast from the Fark echo chamber...what can I say.


No, you're someone who likes to nitpick and argue about details, then (probably) tell yourself that you're a huge intellectual. Also you have severe boundary issues. As do a lot of other people in this thread. But it seems to be how the world runs anymore--why farking have any respect for anybody, just because? After all, it's not a LAW.

So I guess you're probably just an asshole. I was trying to be nice.
 
2012-09-17 08:28:58 PM
.
 
2012-09-17 09:03:34 PM

Straelbora: showed South American and African women's boobs, but pixelated those of European sunbathers. One of the weirdest acts of racism I've ever seen on TV.


I think the old National Geographic rules were: Showing topless African women in Africa = fine. Showing topless Pacific Islander women in the Pacific Islands = fine. Showing topless African women not in Africa = not fine. Showing topless European women anywhere = not fine. Other media have sort of stuck to similar rules, possibly because of the creeping fox terrier clone effect.

That said,
crow202.org
crow202.org
 
2012-09-17 09:15:42 PM
And here... we... go!
imageshack.us
 
2012-09-17 09:17:46 PM
If you like readheads, you are in for a treat.
Do not click this link at work.
Or this one.
Not this one either.
 
2012-09-17 09:19:39 PM
 
2012-09-17 09:20:49 PM
Interesting use of color in these two images.
NSFW
NSFW
 
2012-09-17 09:21:49 PM
Dignified. (NSFW)
 
2012-09-17 09:22:40 PM
Opposite of dignified, but hot as fark (and NSFW).
 
2012-09-17 09:23:47 PM
Contrast the two similar NSFW images below:

Link
Link
 
2012-09-17 09:24:46 PM
And with this one (also NSFW), you may find Chris Hansen knocking on your door. (Legal, though. NSFW)
Link
 
2012-09-17 09:33:12 PM
In case you missed the links above, here's an attention grabber.

The following is 100% premium breast meat. No filler.
www.hollywoodtuna.com
 
2012-09-17 09:34:58 PM
Also, a missed link. Here: NSFW
 
2012-09-17 09:44:07 PM

cryinoutloud: Silly Jesus: Yeah, that's not the first time I've heard that. That's the term generally ascribed to anyone with a different opinion. I'm a self imposed outcast from the Fark echo chamber...what can I say.

No, you're someone who likes to nitpick and argue about details, then (probably) tell yourself that you're a huge intellectual. Also you have severe boundary issues. As do a lot of other people in this thread. But it seems to be how the world runs anymore--why farking have any respect for anybody, just because? After all, it's not a LAW.

So I guess you're probably just an asshole. I was trying to be nice.

  

media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-17 09:46:46 PM
...and everything was OTAY! 

i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2012-09-17 09:54:27 PM
Oooh, I liked that "one handed" effect. to find these pics.
 
2012-09-17 09:57:10 PM
omnibus_necanda_sunt has definitely contributed a bunch of interesting stuff. So: Women with African ancestry who we really wouldn't mind seeing topless, whether in Africa or not....

crow202.org
crow202.org
 
2012-09-18 12:59:00 AM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: If you like readheads, you are in for a treat.
Do not click this link at work.
Or this one.
Not this one either.


Redheads? No, we don't like those on Fark.

/for that and your other posts:
//thankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyoutha n kyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouth ankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyouthankyou
///thx
 
Displayed 178 of 178 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report