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  
•       •       •

21966 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 178 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report