Topic: Re: Photos are pretty cool - A (Read 280721 times)

Sox · « **Reply #3050 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 19:07 »

Everybody has a polaroid of them kissing an ex that they cling onto for nostalgic reasons, but it's pretty weird to actually take pictures of yourself while making out. Even weirder to post them on the internet afterwards.
Gene, somebody else took that photo of you? Did you not find it incredibly weird and creepy at the time?
oh, wait, I'm getting a thought...

There is a HUGE difference between affection and indulgence. You gotta be careful if you're gonna post a picture of you making out with somebody. Infact, it's probably a better idea to just not post stuff like that, because your eyes will be all clouded over from the making out or something and you won't be the best person in the world to decide whether or not it's tasteful. Affection is something nice. There's not enough real affection and it's always nice to see it, but it's so incredibly difficult to capture that in an image that can be shared. So difficult. Indulgence is exactly the opposite of that. Indulgence is never welcome.

Gene, your picture, it looks like indulgence. I know you're not a person that is like that, it was just a bad choice of image for an internet web forum. If you want to share with us your affections for a person, try something more subtle. A loving glance is much nicer to see than faces on faces.
A loving glance is devoid of all pretense. You could even be standing at opposite sides of a room, with just the expressions saying "this is how much we love eachother". That is so honest, so wonderful, that is what people like to see. It raises a smile, warm feelings. Faces on faces just doesn't accomplish that, it makes people want to barf. Faces on faces is the same as having your hand on your penis while you stare at the mirror on your ceiling. I do hope that your reason for posting that is that you're genuinely just really really into this girl and want to tell us how into this girl you are. I think that is exactly it and it just didn't occur to you that the picture you chose might get a reaction.
As a general rule though, you gotta assume that nobody wants to look at you making out with somebody. I've never been good at thinking up rules, but I really do believe that is a good one.

Ballard · « **Reply #3051 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 19:26 »

At the risk of sounding shallow, I didn't post the picture to illustrate that I am in love. Indeed, that is the sort of sentiment that I keep to myself because any deep, romantic relationship that I am a part of is not likely to involve any other forumites (you bunch of morally bankrupt, incestuous rogues) and is not something anyone on the board can directly relate to.

Gushy, cutesy make-out pictures, however, have been a consistent, recurring theme in the Picture Thread and I figured I was not above indulging in the practice. The second shot was posted because people asked to see her face, and not to further threaten your supper Darryl.

Either way, my sincerest apologies for upsetting your delicate digestive systems.

Sox · « **Reply #3052 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 19:31 »

Usually we don't say anything because it's chicks posting them.

Eris · « **Reply #3053 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 19:33 »

Quote from: Ballard on 13 Oct 2009, 19:26

Gushy, cutesy make-out pictures, however, have been a consistent, recurring theme in the Picture Thread and I figured I was not above indulging in the practice. The second shot was posted because people asked to see her face, and not to further threaten your supper Darryl.

This is basically what I was thinking when reading your post, Darryl. It's not like Gene posted the intimate details of their sex life or anything, it was just a photo of them kissing. It wasn't even a graphic photo of them kissing, with tongues a-flapping. I think maybe you're taking the whole thing a little too seriously. I agree that there are some things that people don't need or necessarily want to hear about, but that photo could have been much worse.

Inlander · « **Reply #3054 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 19:39 »

Quote from: Ballard on 13 Oct 2009, 19:26

I didn't post the picture to illustrate that I am in love

He posted the picture to illustrate that he's going bald. Read the captions, Darryl!!

David_Dovey · « **Reply #3055 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 20:01 »

Quote from: Eris on 13 Oct 2009, 19:33

Darryl...

Quote

...taking the whole thing a little too seriously

There's a 1,368th time for everything

MrBlu · « **Reply #3056 on:** 13 Oct 2009, 22:09 »

Quote from: Eris on 13 Oct 2009, 19:33

with tongues a-flapping.

Why did that make me laugh?
Why am I reminded of something I saw on MADtv...?

Sox · « **Reply #3057 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 03:32 »

I never take anything seriously, I just really like talking. If I was gonna take the forums seriously, I'd be more worried about my reputation and post in that other subforum.
You can tell when I am being serious because there is usually an absence of my posts in those situations.

Lines · « **Reply #3058 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 05:22 »

Photos are serious business.

ledhendrix · « **Reply #3059 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 05:24 »

Serious Business?

Dollface · « **Reply #3060 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 05:36 »

i will be watching you with my freaky pocket watch eyes.

Barmymoo · « **Reply #3061 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 05:46 »

Jussi: saving the thread since 2006

Ballard · « **Reply #3062 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 05:51 »

Jussi you are my favorite, bro.

valley_parade · « **Reply #3063 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 07:14 »

Always be that rad, Jussi.

scarred · « **Reply #3064 on:** 14 Oct 2009, 15:22 »

You need to wear your fur hat with those fancy eyeglasses, sir.

Papersatan · « **Reply #3065 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 15:52 »

There's nothing wrong with kissing and sharing, as long as his wife doesn't see.

Then we looked at the camera and the flash caught us off guard.

Also, my roots look atrocious

jhocking · « **Reply #3066 on:** 15 Oct 2009, 16:19 »

I am not used to you being a forumite so I thought that was him posting and then when I saw the comment about your roots I was like "wait what?"

Barmymoo · « **Reply #3067 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 02:28 »

Kat is much radder than Stephen; Stephen was too much of a wuss to swim in his clothes in a lake.

Barmymoo · « **Reply #3068 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 02:28 »

No offence Stephen but you were a big wuss.

Wuss.

Lummer · « **Reply #3069 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 04:52 »

A few weeks back, I was at a guitar show! It was called Vintage Show, and the new thing they had going this year, was that they brought in NEW stuff as well, so it was part vintage guitar swap meet and part trade show. Quite awesome!

The hired photographer for that show apparently snapped a shot of me trying out an ESP Sanskrit 7-string. I was apparently too busy ruining everyone's day with blistering Death-Grind riffs to notice I was having my picture taken.

A friend also took two pictures of me, when I DID notice I was being photographed:

Same guitar, massive sweatstains. Fuck yeah.

And this thing was just too damn hideous not to poke fun at:

michaelicious · « **Reply #3070 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 08:14 »

Isn't that thing called the "Zoot Suit" or somethin'?

Lummer · « **Reply #3071 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 08:57 »

Yes, and it looks terrible.

Ballard · « **Reply #3072 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 14:19 »

Honestly, I like it a lot. Though the design would do better on a Telecaster maybe.

'Cause I was about to say "I can see myself playing it" but no, I can't see myself playing a rainbow candy cane SG.

the_shankmaster · « **Reply #3073 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 16:54 »

I can't recall why I was not happier to be holding this peach.

Cernunnos · « **Reply #3074 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 17:01 »

Quote from: Ballard on 17 Oct 2009, 14:19

better on a Telecaster maybe.

NOOOOOOO

Inlander · « **Reply #3075 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 18:00 »

Why is it called the Zoot Suit? I can't think of many things less related to a zoot suit than a rainbow-coloured electric guitar.

Emaline · « **Reply #3076 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 19:39 »

Yeah, I agree. I reminds me more of like a hippie psychedelic type thing.

E. Spaceman · « **Reply #3077 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 20:15 »

That is a very apt comparison, actually.

michaelicious · « **Reply #3078 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 20:47 »

Quote from: Inlander on 17 Oct 2009, 18:00

Why is it called the Zoot Suit? I can't think of many things less related to a zoot suit than a rainbow-coloured electric guitar.

Yeah it's a pretty dumb name for a pretty dumb guitar.

Lummer · « **Reply #3079 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 21:05 »

Nevertheless, It's more or less solid maple (or whatever basic material they use for that whole plywood approach to it) so technically it *should* sound really good for the stuff I play.

Ironic, eh?!

EDIT: Oh god crappiest geekiest pagebreak ever. Sorry.

Lines · « **Reply #3080 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 23:47 »

Sorry, but the first name that comes to mind for that is Gaytar. That thing has some serious pride. But you know what, if it sounded any good, I would buy it, slap a Rainbow Bright sticker on it, and learn to play guitar and rock everyone's socks off.

Lunchbox · « **Reply #3081 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 01:31 »

PICTURE

Lummer · « **Reply #3082 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 05:14 »

If that's a t-shirt for Lifetime, the band, then you've gotten a good, good boy, Lunchy.

Lunchbox · « **Reply #3083 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 05:35 »

Yes. And yes. Thanks.

michaelicious · « **Reply #3084 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 06:46 »

Shades. Sweats. Let's go.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #3085 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 10:33 »

BODACIOUS

Ballard · « **Reply #3086 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 15:26 »

Quote from: Sam on 17 Oct 2009, 17:03

i can see anton newcombe playing it, maybe

Dude what? You can accuse Anton Newcombe of many things but being gaudy is not one of those things. Dude is the most understated frontman ever. And he owns a shit ton of vintage VOX Teardrops, Phantoms, Fender Coronados and the like.

More like, I can see Wayne Coyne playing it.

Lummer · « **Reply #3087 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 16:00 »

Wayne Coyne playing it, would actually make pretty good sense, I think. But me playing it!? No way.

ibrahimdelil · « **Reply #3088 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 16:12 »

LTK · « **Reply #3089 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 16:14 »

Your eyes, they are on fire

calenlass · « **Reply #3090 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 17:10 »

yesssssssss

Ozymandias · « **Reply #3091 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 17:21 »

Guys I was sort of a lot drunk last night

This is the least gay picture of me that came out of it.

MrBlu · « **Reply #3092 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 17:34 »

In other words, a very good night.

Ballard · « **Reply #3093 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 17:56 »

Jordan, tell your buddy that wearing a nice vest and button down tucked into jeans is not okay.

Ballard · « **Reply #3094 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 18:12 »

.. no, not until you mentioned it, and even then it took me a minute.

The only explanation here is that my brain blocked the image out entirely.

BlakeJustBlake · « **Reply #3095 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 18:19 »

If that's the least gay picture from your night, then the others must've been of y'all making out or something.

Drill King · « **Reply #3096 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 18:20 »

Quote from: Ballard on 18 Oct 2009, 17:56

Jordan, tell your buddy that wearing a nice vest and button down tucked into jeans is not okay.

I actually do this all the time and it looks hella rad, and I know a lot of art student guys that do this look, maybe it is about skinniness.

Ballard · « **Reply #3097 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 18:32 »

I do it with skinny jeans all the time. So, yeah it's about weight, body shape, and general level of attractiveness.

Eris · « **Reply #3098 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 18:38 »

So basically you are not saying that how he is wearing his clothes is wrong, you are just saying he is an ugly fatty?

Ballard · « **Reply #3099 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 18:40 »

No, he is a normal-sized, average looking dude who is dressed like a petite 18 year old girl. Subsequently he looks like a douche.

(I will admit for the record that I dress like a petite 18 year old girl and subsequently look like a douche.)

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Re: Photos are pretty cool - A (Read 280721 times)