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.

(Click Orlando)   Local 6 in Orlando finds a drone with a GoPro cam containing 2 hours of video - part of which shows woman sunbathing   (clickorlando.com) divider line 341
    More: Florida, GoPro, Altamonte Springs  
•       •       •

13395 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2013 at 10:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-25 03:54:20 PM

MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.


I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.
 
2013-06-25 03:55:08 PM

servlet: Waldo Pepper: well you can take all the photos you desire of the hollywood sign but once you try to sell it as a print you have a copyright issue on your hands.  but you can take a photo of the hollywood sign and sell it for editorial purposes such as newspapers

I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission

You're actually wrong on both accounts. You can't use the picture of the girl at the beach in a commercial capacity (think "advertising") without getting a model release from her, but selling the photo as art is completely okay. The hollywood sign falls under derivative works, so you can do whatever you'd like with the photograph.


from wiki  The Hollywood Chamber of Commerce claims trademark rights over the sign's image and demands license fees for commercial use

I don't believe you could take a photo of a girl at a beach (the photo would be of just her and showing her face) and sell it without her permission even as art, she owns her image. Now if the photo is of the beach and she happens to be in it and isn't the main point of the photo, I believe this would be okay
 
2013-06-25 04:00:35 PM

firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.

I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.


when I go to the beach I feel everything is free to shoot but not everything is free to post online.  A lot of what photographers are shooting is just learning their craft, also candid street photography is a well known and accepted art form.
 
2013-06-25 04:01:36 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: I never thought you were this stupid. But ok.

You know that your posts don't get deleted and we can all scroll back up and see what you've said, right? You said that "Of or concerning the people as a whole." or "Ordinary people in general; the community." can be construed to mean "everything outside" (in other words, everything outside is public), and you also said that your yard isn't public. Is your yard indoors?


You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.  Really, you're a jackass.
 
2013-06-25 04:02:30 PM

Loadmaster: MNguy: Get a farking life, don't take pictures of people when they have not explicitly given permission to do so. I guess this is difficult for weirdos and creeps to understand.

You might want to read up on privacy laws involving photographing people in public.

Of course, it varies from country to country, but generally speaking if you're visible in a public area, I can take a picture of you without your explicit permission. All the more so if you have some amount of fame or notoriety.

Remember the case a few years ago where some of the girls in the Girl Gone Wild videos sued the producers? They lost their case after the judge pointed out that they had no lawful expectation of any right to privacy while exposing themselves in public.


The Girls Gone Wild guy is on the losing end of a major lawsuit.
 
2013-06-25 04:04:24 PM

firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.

I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.


It does basically boil down to 'I don't like it'  but yeah, how about you don't take my picture and fap, and I won't take yours.
 
2013-06-25 04:07:36 PM
F.A.T may be the biggest jackoff I've ever seen on here.  It is not ok to take unsolicited pictures, no matter how much you fark the chicken and think that it is.
 
2013-06-25 04:08:16 PM

Waldo Pepper: firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.

I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.

when I go to the beach I feel everything is free to shoot but not everything is free to post online.  A lot of what photographers are shooting is just learning their craft, also candid street photography is a well known and accepted art form.


That's an interesting interpretation of the law, that you're free to take the picture and possess the picture, but not to put it online, even for non-commercial purposes. I don't think I agree with that assessment at all (I'd argue you could put it online), but I'd derfer to servlet on this particular question.

WRT you shooting at the beach or parks, I'm aware that many people are just shooting landscape or architecture and working on their craft, and I'm a-ok with that. Like I said, I don't feel it would be reasonable for me to tell someone not to take pictures of the bridge I hung out on just because I was hanging out on it... take all the pictures you want, you can even post them in a non-commercial manner with relative impunity. The only caveat is if an image in which I am the main subject matter gets used for a commercial purpose and I found out about it, I'd come looking for my royalties, which would almost certainly be higher in court than what I would have sought had prior consent been asked.
 
2013-06-25 04:09:59 PM

MNguy: firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.

I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.

It does basically boil down to 'I don't like it'  but yeah, how about you don't take my picture and fap, and I won't take yours.


IDGAF if you take a picture of me having fun mountain climbing and fap to it.. it doesn't in any way take away from the fun I had climbing the mountain.
 
2013-06-25 04:10:09 PM

firefly212: Waldo Pepper: firefly212: MNguy: I understand, if you step outside of your house you are likely on camera.  I don't have to like it.

I don't think anyone expects you to "like" it... but your attitude of "why does the big office building have pictures of me, if not to masturbate furiously to them?" is quite bewildering. Your picture is taken hundreds of times a day, in big groups, even more... think about the Boston Marathon Bombing, when they did the investigation there... the guys were there for a few minutes, but they were captured in literally tens of thousands of still and moving images. It wasn't because the surrounding crowd was all planning on masturbating to pictures of them later, like dirty pervs... but because they had the ability to take pictures when/how/where they wanted, and the bombers made themselves available to be photographed. Your argument about privacy indicates that none of those photographs should have existed, everyone should have asked the people in their photos, including the bombers themselves, if they had consent first.

By all means, if someone is stalking, harassing, or attempting to get underskirt or in house photos of you and your family, report it to law enforcement so it can be dealt with appropriately. That said if someone is taking pictures of the public park, and you and your family stroll through, no... you don't get to tell them they have to destroy the pictures or anything like that. When I lived in NYC, some of my favorite spots to hang out were in Central Park, and often photographed, it would be insane of me to think that I had some sort of privacy right to tell other people that they were not permitted (or should not be permitted) to photograph the bridge merely because of my presence.

when I go to the beach I feel everything is free to shoot but not everything is free to post online.  A lot of what photographers are shooting is just learning their craft, also candid street photography is a well known and accepted art f ...


No.  It's not necessarily 'private' but it is most certainly not for public consumption.  No way.
 
2013-06-25 04:11:33 PM
firefly212:

IDGAF if you take a picture of me having fun mountain climbing and fap to it.. it doesn't in any way take away from ...

You're right, but the line gets drawn where?  Can anyone just start taking pictures and fapping?
 
2013-06-25 04:11:47 PM

MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.


That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.

MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.


That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.
 
2013-06-25 04:12:40 PM
HOW ABOUT YOU DON'T TAKE PICS OF PEOPLE IN PUBLIC SPACES AND RESPECT OTHERS' PRIVACY.
 
2013-06-25 04:13:33 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.

That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.

MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.

That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.


yOU'RE NOT CLEVER, AND YOU'RE NOT MAKING AN INTELLIGENT ARGUMENT.
 
2013-06-25 04:14:57 PM

MNguy: You're right, but the line gets drawn where? Can anyone just start taking pictures and fapping?


Yes, as long as the fapping doesn't take place in public (though that has nothing to do with privacy laws). Don't like that? Talk to your local lawmakers and get the laws changed. But don't come here and say that it's illegal to do something just because you think it should be, especially when it so easily proven that you're wrong.
 
2013-06-25 04:15:40 PM
CAPS LOCK DOESN'T CHANGE LAWS.
 
2013-06-25 04:15:53 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.

That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.

MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.

That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.


You are full of derp, and you can scroll all you want.  You are defending child pornography, do you get that?
 
2013-06-25 04:16:32 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're right, but the line gets drawn where? Can anyone just start taking pictures and fapping?

Yes, as long as the fapping doesn't take place in public (though that has nothing to do with privacy laws). Don't like that? Talk to your local lawmakers and get the laws changed. But don't come here and say that it's illegal to do something just because you think it should be, especially when it so easily proven that you're wrong.


What did I say that was wrong?
 
2013-06-25 04:16:38 PM

DirkTheDaring: Waldo Pepper: I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission

If that were true, TMZ wouldn't exist.


It's not exactly true. What you guys are talking about are "publicity rights" which are a tricky area that has a lot of caselaw behind it. There's no standard nationwide as far as what constitutes publicity rights, and there's also first amendment questions which enter into the analysis. A quick example: I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach, then frame it and hang it in my photography gallery - I'm probably fine. I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach and use it in an ad for whatever beach-related crap I'm hawking - I'm probably violating her publicity rights by falsely implying she's endorsing my product.

In other words, people have a (property) right to their own image, but I also have a copyright to art I create capturing that image. There's a balance between the two that's pretty complicated. And it's also how EA gets away with putting college kids and old athletes in its games without paying them, like when Jim Brown sued them over using a black running back wearing #32 on the All-Browns historic team in Madden and lost.
 
2013-06-25 04:17:13 PM

Noticeably F.A.T.: CAPS LOCK DOESN'T CHANGE LAWS.


That was my bad, CAPS LOCK
 
2013-06-25 04:18:36 PM

phyrkrakr: DirkTheDaring: Waldo Pepper: I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission

If that were true, TMZ wouldn't exist.

It's not exactly true. What you guys are talking about are "publicity rights" which are a tricky area that has a lot of caselaw behind it. There's no standard nationwide as far as what constitutes publicity rights, and there's also first amendment questions which enter into the analysis. A quick example: I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach, then frame it and hang it in my photography gallery - I'm probably fine. I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach and use it in an ad for whatever beach-related crap I'm hawking - I'm probably violating her publicity rights by falsely implying she's endorsing my product.

In other words, people have a (property) right to their own image, but I also have a copyright to art I create capturing that image. There's a balance between the two that's pretty complicated. And it's also how EA gets away with putting college kids and old athletes in its games without paying them, like when Jim Brown sued them over using a black running back wearing #32 on the All-Browns historic team in Madden and lost.


Derp.  Have you ever played Madden?
 
2013-06-25 04:19:51 PM
My head hurts from reading all that & I'm exhausted chasing after those continually moving goalposts.  However I can't really decide if MN is just a magnificent troll or someone who is that thickheadedly stubborn about something that he thinks is right (even when shown again & again he's wrong), it really is puzzling.

Whatever though, he is someone who in his profile brags about putting thousands of people on ignore (to create his own version of reality where everyone agrees with him I guess...), so I say we return the favor & then get back to talking about pretty women in bikinis...
 
2013-06-25 04:20:08 PM

MNguy: derp derp derp.


You said it, brother. Actually, that's pretty much all you've said in this entire thread. While everyone else in this thread is trying to have a logical, rational discussion, here you are shiatting in the thread, attacking everyone with a different opinion than yourself. You are coming across as a petulent child, who can't come up with a reasoned argument so you have to resort to ad hominem attacks.
 
2013-06-25 04:20:11 PM
Look, there is public  and private.  If you're going to defend the exploitation of the private there's nothing I can do for you.
 
2013-06-25 04:21:01 PM
Someone get sinbox and The Stealth Hippopotamus in here, stat. This thread needs a serious redirect.
 
2013-06-25 04:21:04 PM
Sin_City_Superhero:  ad hominem attacks.

Show me one.
 
2013-06-25 04:24:29 PM
Oh, your pretty little face couldn't come up with an ad .hominem, but I'm sure you tried
 
2013-06-25 04:27:45 PM

phyrkrakr: DirkTheDaring: Waldo Pepper: I can take a photo of a gorgeous girl at the beach but once I try to sell it I'm violating her rights to her image, unless I have her permission

If that were true, TMZ wouldn't exist.

It's not exactly true. What you guys are talking about are "publicity rights" which are a tricky area that has a lot of caselaw behind it. There's no standard nationwide as far as what constitutes publicity rights, and there's also first amendment questions which enter into the analysis. A quick example: I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach, then frame it and hang it in my photography gallery - I'm probably fine. I take a picture of a gorgeous girl at the beach and use it in an ad for whatever beach-related crap I'm hawking - I'm probably violating her publicity rights by falsely implying she's endorsing my product.

In other words, people have a (property) right to their own image, but I also have a copyright to art I create capturing that image. There's a balance between the two that's pretty complicated. And it's also how EA gets away with putting college kids and old athletes in its games without paying them, like when Jim Brown sued them over using a black running back wearing #32 on the All-Browns historic team in Madden and lost.


well stated but I would add that you probably can't sell the photo as a stock image. Also if lets say the girls bikini top fell off in the surf you have the right to take the photo (regardless of her age) but as the photo might cause her embarrassment you wouldn't be able to sell even in your gallery (assuming her identity is clear in the photo)

I'm still not 100% sure you can take said photo of the girl and sell it in your gallery without her permission if she is the main focus of the photo.

Assume her face is facing the photographer. Would it be legal to sell this photo without her permission. perfectly legal to shoot and I would fill up a cf card with her lol
www.insidesocal.com
 
2013-06-25 04:30:02 PM

MNguy: Noticeably F.A.T.: MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be.

That really wasn't as clever as it sounded in your head.

MNguy: Really, you're a jackass.

That may be, but I'm also correct. Again, I can still see what you've typed. I don't have to make shiat up to show that you've been incorrect, inconsistent and antagonistic. I just have to scroll up and copy & paste. If you don't like people pointing out that you can't put together a decent argument to save your life, the internet is a really poor place to argue. Try your local local hospital, I'm sure they have some coma patients who won't counter your arguments.

You are full of derp, and you can scroll all you want.  You are defending child pornography, do you get that?


are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..
 
2013-06-25 04:31:16 PM

MNguy: Oh, your pretty little face couldn't come up with an ad .hominem, but I'm sure you tried


Jesus Tits, you're full-bore retarded.
 
2013-06-25 04:31:36 PM
Waldo Pepper:

are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..

I'm saying you shouldn't take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, yes.  Are you saying that you should?
 
2013-06-25 04:31:40 PM

MNguy: Look, there is public  and private.  If you're going to defend the exploitation of the private there's nothing I can do for you.


Too bad you can't seem to figure out that when you're in PUBLIC, you have no expectation of PRIVACY.
 
2013-06-25 04:32:56 PM

MNguy: Waldo Pepper:

are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..

I'm saying you shouldn't take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, yes.  Are you saying that you should?


you have no clue what child pornography is do you?
 
2013-06-25 04:32:57 PM
Clutch2013:

Jesus Tits, you're full-bore retarded.

Do you even speak english?
 
2013-06-25 04:34:08 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Look, there is public  and private.  If you're going to defend the exploitation of the private there's nothing I can do for you.

Too bad you can't seem to figure out that when you're in PUBLIC, you have no expectation of PRIVACY.


Well, how about fark off, and you'd best not start snapping pics of me and my family creep.
 
2013-06-25 04:35:14 PM

MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero:  ad hominem attacks.

Show me one.


MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be. Really, you're a jackass.


There's one right there. Not to mention the countless accusations you've made that everyone in here is a pedo or a rapist.
 
2013-06-25 04:35:38 PM

Waldo Pepper: MNguy: Waldo Pepper:

are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..

I'm saying you shouldn't take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, yes.  Are you saying that you should?

you have no clue what child pornography is do you?


No, I don't know what pedophiles find interesting.  What do you all like?  Because don't take pictures of my family and I don't care what you like.
 
2013-06-25 04:36:11 PM
 
2013-06-25 04:37:00 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Sin_City_Superhero:  ad hominem attacks.

Show me one.

MNguy: You're not an attorney, stop trying to be. Really, you're a jackass.

There's one right there. Not to mention the countless accusations you've made that everyone in here is a pedo or a rapist.


You are an attorney?  No, you are not, and you are trying to come across as one.  Quit it.  And if you like to take pictures of little girls you are a pedo.
 
2013-06-25 04:37:04 PM

MNguy: Well, how about fark off, and you'd best not start snapping pics of me and my family creep


Or what? You'll cry about it on the internet? Woooo!
 
2013-06-25 04:38:36 PM
Look, the logical extension of these laws are going to allow some asshole to pohtograph your daughter.  If you're ok with that then fine.  But I am not.
 
2013-06-25 04:38:40 PM

MNguy: You are an attorney? No, you are not, and you are trying to come across as one.


No I'm not. And stop calling me a pedo.
 
2013-06-25 04:39:22 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: MNguy: Well, how about fark off, and you'd best not start snapping pics of me and my family creep

Or what? You'll cry about it on the internet? Woooo!


Some creep like you will eventually reveal himself.
 
2013-06-25 04:40:40 PM

MNguy: Waldo Pepper: MNguy: Waldo Pepper:

are you saying taking a photo of child who isn't your own kid is child pornography..

I'm saying you shouldn't take a picture of a kid who isn't yours, yes.  Are you saying that you should?

you have no clue what child pornography is do you?

No, I don't know what pedophiles find interesting.  What do you all like?  Because don't take pictures of my family and I don't care what you like.


don't fret I have no intention of interfering with you taking your own pedo photos of your family.  you know since you consider all photos of children to be pedo photos I assume you have them of your own kids
 
2013-06-25 04:40:52 PM
I'm just calling you a creepy fark.  Maybe you're a pedophile, I don't know.  But there's no way in hell you're getting anywhere near anyone I care about.
 
2013-06-25 04:42:11 PM
Waldo Pepper:

don't fret I have no intention of interfering with you taking your own pedo photos of your family.  you know since you consider all photos of children to be pedo photos I assume you have them of your own kids

I hope you felt dirty typing all of that.
 
2013-06-25 04:42:54 PM
 
2013-06-25 04:44:17 PM
You ARE aware that not every photograph goes in someone's spank-bank, right? I mean, some of us use pictures for stuff other than jerking off. Me thinketh the dude doth protest too much...
 
2013-06-25 04:45:05 PM

MNguy: Waldo Pepper:

don't fret I have no intention of interfering with you taking your own pedo photos of your family.  you know since you consider all photos of children to be pedo photos I assume you have them of your own kids

I hope you felt dirty typing all of that.


nope not at all. you are the one claiming that all photos of children are pedo.  Now I don't consider children photos to be pedo, but I do have to wonder about a parent like you who I believe doth protest too much
 
2013-06-25 04:45:50 PM

Sin_City_Superhero: You ARE aware that not every photograph goes in someone's spank-bank, right? I mean, some of us use pictures for stuff other than jerking off. Me thinketh the dude doth protest too much...


LOL man i swear i did not see your post before typing mine
 
Displayed 50 of 341 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report