This is SO wrong

I think I'm going to throw up:

1. Example 1
2. Example 2
3. Example 3
4. Example 4

-- si-blog --

Ok...those really creeped me out...

--rlparker

I got mad makeover skills.

Your image maybe a little creepy, but atleast I can still tell whats human.
Man the image from Simon, I really really don't know what to make of them. They all scream dolls. I have a feeling the artist has "other" intentions if you know what I mean.
Silk

My website

In reply to:

---

Man the image from Simon, I really really don't know what to make of them. ... I have a feeling the artist has "other" intentions if you know what I mean.

---

Thanks! And I had *almost* gotten those images out of my mind when your post reminded me of them ...

--rlparker

Those images wouldn't be as bad if they were flipped and the originals were dolls, then humanized with the help of Photoshop.

In reply to:

---

Those images wouldn't be as bad if they were flipped and the originals were dolls, then humanized with the help of Photoshop.

---

There's an idea! BTW, on your demo of your "mad makeover skills", which photo was the original?

--rlparker

hmm... I forget which one is which.

I got on a kick where I was Photoshopping the heads of these guys into anything I could find.

Many hours were wasted on that and contributing to the mosh-girl craze. At least I can say I got my money's worth out of the Wacom tablet.

What bothers me is that these exist at all. Wack-job mothers keep trying to dress up their poor little kids to fit some "ideal", and resort to Photoshoppery if they aren't satisfied with the results. I've heard that kids are being given "preemptive Botox injections" nowadays!

-- si-blog --

Stop! It's too creepy!

And suddenly... the dads that try to relive their youth by forcing their kids into sports don't seem so bad.

What about the killer cheerleader mothers?

In reply to:

---

Thanks! And I had *almost* gotten those images out of my mind when your post reminded me of them ...

---

Did you forget about them yet, did ya did ya.

My website

In reply to:

---

Did you forget about them yet, did ya did ya.

---

Well, I *had* forgotten them ... then I read your post, and they came into my mind again .... No..NO .. NOOOO!

--rlparker

I am so glad that I saw them in the morning rather than before trying to go to bed. The nightmares would have been horrible!

Wholly - Use promo code WhollyMindless for full 97$ credit. Let me know if you want something else!

Those links, at least the one I saw, are not family friendly, and should not be posted here.

Rhetorical:
Why does someone go find such stuff?
What kind of person would further publicize it?

In reply to:

---

Those links, at least the one I saw, are not family friendly, and should not be posted here.

---

That is nonsense, Bob. There is nothing actually disturbing about any of the images - they're just creepy and bad examples of what can be achieved with Photoshop.

In reply to:

---

Rhetorical:
Why does someone go find such stuff?
What kind of person would further publicize it?

---

Ah. Your usual attempt to bait me, eh?

-- si-blog --

In reply to:

---

There is nothing actually disturbing about any of the images - they're just creepy and bad examples of what can be achieved with Photoshop.

---

Ha ha! Well, speak for yourself - they "disturb" me! I see them more as "good examples" of what "bad" things can be achieved with Photoshop.

That said, I agree that there is nothing in them that less than "family friendly" ... depending upon your family, I suppose

I find it a little strange that someone who thinks the are not "family friendly" would revive the thread and help them remain visible (unless, of course, they were less than "sincere" in their objection to them and really had another reason altogether for posting ).

--rlparker

In reply to:

---

I find it a little strange that someone who thinks the are not "family friendly" would revive the thread and help them remain visible

---

You find what you're looking for, don't you. "Reviving the thread" is the obvious trade-off; however, you may notice that wholly revived it for the day, after 2 days of silence. After a 2nd post by the OP saying, "What bothers me is that these exist at all. Wack-job mothers keep trying to dress up their poor little kids to fit some "ideal", ..."

Yes, that's more hypocrisy than I felt like ignoring, after it was revived, again, by wholly.

In reply to:

---

(unless, of course, they were less than "sincere" in their objection to them and really had another reason altogether for posting ).

---

Here's an idea. I can say what I think, and you can say what you think. That will be a discussion instead of a monologue.

In reply to:

---

There is nothing actually disturbing about any of the images - they're just creepy...

---

If you can write such a sentence and think it makes sense, then we don't speak the same language.

In reply to:

---

we don't speak the same language

---

I agree wholeheartedly on that point.

-- si-blog --

Re. " There is nothing actually disturbing about any of the images - they're just creepy..."

In reply to:

---

If you can write such a sentence and think it makes sense, then we don't speak the same language.

---

Well, even though I *didn't* write that sentence, I *think* I understand it.

After quoting scjessey again, you write:

In reply to:

---

Yes, that's more hypocrisy than I felt like ignoring ...

---

So, your "point" was "hypocrisy" ... I see. You are going after scjessey again instead of discussing the subject, predictable as usual. It's always such a pleasure to have you around, Bob!

Since you appear to me to be back in "troll mode", I'm going back to "ignore mode" for you and your puppets so you guys can "slug it out".

In reply to:

---

Here's an idea. I can say what I think, and you can say what you think. That will be a discussion instead of a monologue.

---

I've tried that with you in that past, but you didn't seem to like it much. You know what I think of your puppets and your behavior on these forums, so I can't imagine either of us, or anybody else, benefiting from a rehash of that discussion.

You know, if you continue with this trend, you are likely to end up being so unhappy with the way your Anonymous2 puppet is received around here that you'll want to "bury" it at some point just like you have already done with your *first* identity.

Maybe you can you can get DreamHost to "purge" all your posts a *second time*

--rlparker

In reply to:

---

So, your "point" was "hypocrisy" ... I see. You are going after scjessey again instead of discussing the subject, predictable as usual. It's always

---

Broken record comes to mind. You only focus on one concept, despite the topic. The main point, as stated, is the links shouldn't have been posted here. A reason for not keeping that thought to myself is the hypocrisy and inconsistent statements of the OP, in this thread, as well as not completely clear comments by others.

In reply to:

---

This is SO wrong
I think I'm going to throw up:
Ok...those really creeped me out...
I have a feeling the artist has "other" intentions if you know what I mean.
I had *almost* gotten those images out of my mind when your post reminded me
What bothers me is that these exist at all....
Stop! It's too creepy!
The nightmares would have been horrible!

---

So, which is it? Wrong, sickening, creepy, "other" intentions whatever that means, causes horrible nightmares... or "There is nothing actually disturbing..."

I made my point explicitly clear - it should not have been posted - it's creepy, sickening, disturbing.

*That* point cannot be made without questioning the thought processes of the OP. *I* think the answers to the rhetorical questions are obvious. Unlike you, though, I don't belabor that point.

In reply to:

---

Re: Here's an idea. I can say what I think, and you can say what you think. That will be a discussion instead of a monologue.
I've tried that with you in that past, but you didn't seem to like it much.

---

Why extrapolate to a tangent like that? It's a simple point - on any topic, say what you think; let others say what they think. You'll save a lot of typing.

*You* just won't stay in context. You always change topic to your favorite other subjects. You frequently question intentions... I *don't* care to share secrets of life or even discuss the secrets of forums; we can agree on *that*.

Edit: If *you* think it's so important to identify people here, why don't you acknowledge you're exactly who you are, of whatever domain dot com... and confirm why you post here so much. (1) here "volunteering" your time, or (2) here somewhat subtly advertising, or (3) other; not that there's anything wrong with any of those.

(obfuscated out of respect for the apparent wishes of the individual)

ANONYMOUS0=>Max Discount ANONYMOUS2=>Max - $1. Being mean doesn't make you look smarter than him. And bigoted remarks are not appreciated on this forum.Edited by Anonymous2 on 08/09/07 04:30 PM (server time).

In reply to:

---

I made my point explicitly clear - it should not have been posted - it's creepy, sickening, disturbing.

---

The facts are these, Bob:

1. The links were to a legitimate business, that apparently does rather well out of retouching images. Nothing illegal.
2. I thought the resultant images were creepy, making the kids look like dolls.
3. This is the "offtopic" forum, and I thought others may find the links amusing - as evidenced by the amusing banter that followed.
4. You don't like it when Simon is having fun, so you decided to come along and spoil it for everyone.

-- si-blog --

> The facts

> Nothing illegal.

Nobody mentioned legality, Pee-wee.

> 4. You don't like it when Simon is having fun, so you decided to come along and spoil it for everyone.

That's your opinion, Pee-wee, and incorrect. If I cared about Simon, then I'd say

In reply to:

---

That's your opinion, Pee-wee, and incorrect.

---

And you say I'm the one who turns it personal? I don't recall ever resorting to childish name-calling.

In reply to:

---

BTW which userIDs does Simon use?

---

I've never needed to conceal my identity. I use "scjessey" for the forum and the wiki. Are you suggesting that I am using sock puppets?

-- si-blog --

This has gotten so off topic....

At least it's in the off topic forum!

Wholly - Use promo code WhollyMindless for full 97$ credit. Let me know if you want something else!