WTF

[interest1]

Well then it appears the thread was not only aptly named, but is succeeding in its mission, as well. What more can you want from a thread named What The Fuck?

[Faust]

it's a metawhatafucka.

[jogu]

omfg cutest pic i ever seen , i want that lil puppy

[mortalveneer]

the two photos on this page thus far are such a beautiful juxtaposition...

[endersgame]

That aside, I agree with alice anise. It's a violation of privacy to post someone's photo on a public medium without that person's consent.

you don't need a consent form to photograph someone in public.

[interest1]

I don't know but taking photos of random people to laugh at them on the internetz is more juvenile than tween celebrity gawking. The dude wasn't even in Wal-Mart . . .

alice_anise–I believe this is the photo you posted earlier today to another thread:

So apparently, it's perfectly fine to laugh at random people from photos you rip from the 'internetz' and post to SZ–as long as you are not the one behind the camera, right? I have a word even more fitting than 'juvenile' for that logic: hypocritical.

SombreResplendence– Perspective is an interesting thing. I see my using the word 'he' to simply refer to a male, as opposed to a female, in the photo. It was the most basic word I could find. "He was in line in front of me". It's not as if I italicized the word He, which spins it toward the direction of someone noteworthy.

I figured that one glance at the actual outfit, given the exacting tastes of the forum as a whole, would be more than enough to explain why it was posted. Nonetheless, I still took the time to add text to the photo; I can't be blamed if someone doesn't read it.

Also, whoever thought I was in violation of the subject's privacy by snapping their photo in public with intent to go internationalwith it, you may notice that this photo was taken from behind. His face is not visible, save for a sliver of ear which I'm fairly certain can't be identified in a line-up, LOL. Besides, consent only comes into play if you're making $$$ off someone's image. I've worked with enough consent forms over the years to kinda-sorta know when to have someone sign on the dotted line

If I misinterpret a word that someone has used in their writing and it leads me to draw an erroneous conclusion, I can't turn around and blame that on the other person by claiming that I only got it wrong because that's what they were "implying".

SombreResplendence:You're the one who implied twice that the man was a celebrity...

Well, noooo, I didn't imply that. You perceived that. There's a difference.

In all fairness, yes of course I see how that assumption could be drawn, especially with the increasing number of celeb clips posted to this thread. I'm tired of them myself–after all, this thread was INTENDED to show actual garments that beg the question: WTF? Pieces that make you wonder what a designer was thinking. A celeb wearing a shoe or jacket doesn't elicit a WTF response from me–especially since most of the shit they're wearing a stylist put them in.

This is why I found morsto's presumption that I (of all people, LOL) am "dragging my fascination for celebrities in here" so preposterous. The only thing I would be 'dragging' is a noose in which to hang myself from if I ever crossed over into that netherworld, LOL

I really felt the photo screamed WTF based on the absurd combination of a classic Edwardian-era silhouette cut from fabric which one wears to the gym. Or as a guest on Jerry Springer.. In other words, celeb or no celeb, it's not who is wearing that trifecta of fail garment that ever mattered… it's the garment itself.

Anyhow, no harm done. For my part, I will certainly be more mindful with regard to banter, and am even toying with the idea of hiring a proofreader to keep me in line. The last thing I need is for my official WTFs to start giving birth to any illegitimate WTFs. This thread is over-populated as it is.

[Servo2000]

I don't know if I've posted this in seriousness before but:

too long; didn't read

[endersgame]

tl;dr

i think you can label it fine art and sell it without model consent..

[Servo2000]

what he said

[interest1]

Agreed. The lump-sum replies that attempt to address every Tom, Dick, & Chicken are pointless. Really more for the poster's sake than the recipient's, I surmise.

Looks like it's back to communicating via image posts. Quick & concise. And each one saves me roughly a thousand words, from what I hear...

[Sombre]

If I misinterpret a word that someone has used in their writing and it leads me to draw an erroneous conclusion, I can't turn around and blame that on the other person by claiming that I only got it wrong because that's what they were "implying".

Well, noooo, I didn't imply that. You perceived that. There's a difference.

Interesting you should mention this. There was a famous supreme court case from the 1960s I think involving embezzlement or tax evasion (I forget exactly what) where drawing erroneous conclusions was precisely the issue. The outcome was basically what you just said. In short, you're right.

In all fairness, yes of course I see how that assumption could be drawn, especially with the increasing number of celeb clips posted to this thread.

Showing it was a reasonable assumption was the only point of my four(?) posts in this thread today. The poor horse has been ground into meat paste. I now wash my hands of this (trivial) matter.

[alice anise]

alice_anise–I believe this is the photo you posted earlier today to another thread:



So apparently, it's perfectly fine to laugh at random people from photos you rip from the 'internetz' and post to SZ–as long as you are not the one behind the camera, right? I have a word even more fitting than 'juvenile' for that logic: hypocritical.

I hav eanother word for it, photochop. Sorry didn't read the rest fo the preply a si n too plasternes at teh moment.

[baizilla]

this thread is seriously wtf. unsuscribed.

[tomatous]

I hav eanother word for it, photochop. Sorry didn't read the rest fo the preply a si n too plasternes at teh moment.

W T F ?

[interest1]

^ well now that's one way to get your daily calcium