Re: Photo Tampering Throughout History

You're engaging a different argument.

The original webpage that was posted presented the bust enhancement as a 
given.  

Mike F.    


 



________________________________
From: Karl <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 1:11:15 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Photo Tampering Throughout History

Here is an interesting theory.

http://nyquil.org/archives/852-Debunkery-I-demonstrate-how-Emma-Watsons-Boobs-We
re-NOT-Altered-for-the-IMAX-Poster.html



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf
Of Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 11:03 AM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Photo Tampering Throughout History

On Mon, 14 Feb 2011, Mike Findlay wrote:
> So now your defense is they didn't do it at all?

They slightly enhanced a 17-year-old girl's bust, yes.  You say they
"sexualized" her.  I guess you'd have to clarify what you mean by that term;
that would be part of how you mount your argument.



-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot