notsofatpat

You're quite stunning! Like, wow! You must be a pretty lucky lady!

Dey took meh interrweybs! I say... let the thread rest. If Smallsquatch was sighted near them thar trees, well then, he'll come back round again when ready. Smallsquatch does not reply to the beckon of enthusiasts, and surely neither does Margot.

Yeah, you resurrecting this from the abyss.

I feel that I've gained quite a repertoire as an abstract photographer. Some of my "thumb over the lens" captures rival the works of Eddie Torres, a first grader who is akin to taking first-class shots of pigeons on sidewalks. Many captures from my best photo shoots have up to 20% of the subject in frame, overexposed, and only partially obstructed by the notorious thumb! Some of my works have made it to the garbage, maybe you've seen them there? In reality, I'm the worst photographer, and rely on today's digital cameras and editing software to make my captures worth looking at. Maybe I could pick up a thing or two (maybe three, or four!) from this thread. My folly, before digital cameras had finally reached 2Mp and priced under $600, was the thumb over the lens technique. Then, graduating to a higher resolution digital SLR and trying it out in Mexico... the notorious "lens cap-pitch black" captures. Hopeless. Today's cameras, it's practically point and shoot, take extras, review, rinse, repeat, publish. These days, some of my captures are now on websites and in scientific books, and people consider them to be exceptional! I bought a cheap 14Mp camera for $50, tried it out in situ, and the results are comparable to a professional photographer's attempt. My subjects are very precise, typically staged, and have large amounts of detail, so focus and depth in field is the major hump to get over... easily remedied by taking 20 pics with a little variance!

The channel can accept and reject what they want. You, the viewer, decide if that company's advertising campaign was worth it. I support protest in this instance; a suggestion of protest is not to watch or support that broadcasting company. I have been actively protesting all the television broadcast companies for over 15 years now... I haven't watched tv for a loooooong time.

Since you're asking for personal preference... my answer is a solid NO, I would not break up with a partner due to a change in their weight. I do not consider myself conceited, entitled, nor shallow. You'll find that the person you decide to let into your life, is more than a physical exterior. Sorry, when you turn 50, things kinda get weird in the looks department. So if you're seeking a lasting relationship, be more mindful of the future. Personality, ambitions, goals, desires. These are traits that outlast looks. Now, if their physical exterior impedes on any of these traits, or your quality of life (besides sexual or selfish desires), then it may be time to evaluate the future or direction of the relationship. In this stage, communication and sincerity is key. If I have decided to be with a person, I should have carefully evaluated those traits and our compatibility before ever telling that person I am in love with them. It is love to the collective. It is love of who they are, how they look, and the desire to continue a relationship with them. If they fall ill to MS or become paralyzed due to an accident; the collective person is who I love. If a person can end love there; they are not worthy of loving. Love is an earned emotion; it is not given. Please refer to the life and marriage of Dr. Stephen Hawking, as his wife did not falter and give up love despite Stephen succumbing to Lou Gherigs disease. This is one of the strongest loving relationships that can be demonstrated (despite that she remarried a few years ago). Basically, I am attempting to convey that looks come n go. The question if answered "yes" seems more relevant to someone who does not understand what a lasting and meaningful relationship truly is... but may be better suited to casual open relationships, which can lead to depression, anxiety, and a myriad of sexually transmitted diseases. Again, through the test of time will one begin to realize mistakes and reflect on. Learning and moving onwards is the only way to grow.

If you don't have that person's consent for a photograph: it is unwarranted. Synonymous with creepy. If you're doing a project or filming to release to the public, you must obtain consent forms. Why? Just blowing a point out of proportion to demonstrate... Lemme take some pics of ya when you're least expecting it. At night in the park, I'm the guy peeking out of the bushes with one arm in my trenchcoat, thick mustache, and I tortured little animals as a kid. It's cool though, you are ok with me photographing you because I think you look attractive, or it may be part of my thesis on the effects of the moon's gravitational pull easing the load in night-jogging? With GPS coordinates encrypted in photographs through your smartgeniusphones, if I post pics of you to the web, anyone with an education can retrieve the stamp and figure out your life patterns as nd coordinates, without you ever knowing someone took your picture. You may then be subjected to an actual creaton, via the world wide intraweb, 50km away, who would visit the coordinates to act on opportunity. As technology progresses, please do not think safety increases. In fact, crimes and methods have linearly progressed as well. At least back in my day (the reign of the Kodak Brownie and tin negatives), it would have been harder to conceal a camera when in situ of the nudie beach. Now, we are all too de-sensitized to privacy and personal comfort infringements. End:rant

Are you embarrassed of us to the point you're willing to erase us forever!? Lol If you did a factory clean reset and still worried, put some random pics back on there, any other info, and repeat the process. This will rearrange the IC chip (flip flops, etc), RAM (if iPhones have any, bet they do), and if they try to retrieve any info, it'll be tidbits of the platonic stuff, rather than tidbits of the good stuff... probably. I work with electronics, and lemme say, it's just not that easy. The buyer literally would have no life. You can check the buyer Or bidder purchase history, and see if they are buying phones all the time. Your decision may be merited there. Sure sounds like you're nervous! Hehe

Password protection is severely overlooked. In the government sector, you typically must change it monthly, and use a CAC card. I'd rather be found with my pants down, than not being able to ever afford pants. Threatening a lawsuit to retain compensation is blackmail. Don't be fooled, take your chances in court. Unless, if course, you're profiting off of material that is not yours.

My attempts on mind control: Fart into one's mouth while they are asleep and dreaming. They will wake up thinking whatever you want them to. I controlled their mind to them puke, and so it happened.

Candids are creeper

It's a crappy circumstance for sure. I've got problems too, but you'll never see me put my hand out. Maybe my foot in my mouth but... phggghhhh gfrrfffph ahhhemnhph. Without real dental knowledge (despite knowing a dentist) looks like it could be an abscess tooth, which a hospital can take care of.

Reading more of the last poster in the original post, it sounds as if their computer or server security was drastically compromised through a keylogging worm or information sender. I'd look into a good computer security software, which anyone should have. Especially true if you own a business, or deal with any personal information. The second poster in the original post (same subject) ultimately could put any customer or prospective buyer-contributer, whatever, if on the same computer! So, without really knowing the issue at hand because the dealings or things the poster was doing it makes no sense. If there are any customers of the original poster, I'd suggest taking measures to secure your personal information, and watch your financial issues. Again, it hardly makes sense what the dealings are?

I couldn't read all of this, just too much conjecture and dancing around a straight line. Where was all the information obtained from about the plaintiff's electronic methods of obtaining information? It seems as if the only person that could know that is a.) the unnamed site owner, b.) the unnamed site owner's acquaintance, or c.) through public records, which the sources should be cited. If no public records exist, then the statements made are worth their weight in hot air, and again, based on conjecture. What I gather from this issue is that people are taking videos, and redistribute them via other means (uploading to another site, trading, selling, etc.). The owner of the material is then seeking damages through civil court, without reporting incidences to authorities. Is this correct? If so, the owner of that copyrighted work can use all legislative means to collect and deter THEFT from occurring. Even a picture posted somewhere would be considered theft, regardless of any compensation. Once you have had a picture of yours used for monetary gain, then you can truly understand there is damage to be done to reputation, character, and possibility of future exploits. Now, there's a tough part; if the owner of the material wants to sue you, they must go file where you are. Once served and you do not show up, automatically the plaintiff won the case. The owner could independently file criminal charges against you, which the outcome may or may not afflict bias on the civil courts. If you fell victim to settling before court, there must be a signed agreement (there should always be a signed agreement in ALL circumstances). You MUST be able to identify the person who submits such claims to you, cross-reference (call the person, verify identity through other means, do not accept PO box addresses), and ask that any documents be submitted through USPS registered mail, and reciprocate. This ensures the person is not committing fraud, setting you up for a scam, and that the person is a legitimate party. At this point, if you haven't seen a lawyer; do so. If no documents are signed, you should stop everything you are doing. If you are knowingly at fault, it is suggested an agreement be met, and if the owner suggests monetary penalty, DO NOT PAY ANYTHING! Leave the monetary damages for a court decision. You submitting payment is an admission of guilt. If you went to court and lost, an appellate venue will be where it should escalate, if you feel you are doing nothing wrong. Ultimately, the person on the defensive needs to know the law, their rights, and WHEN TO SIGN ANYTHING. A signature will kill your position in a case. If this site owner is utilizing illegal methods of obtaining personal information (which, a modified script, watermarking, or 'traces' are not considered hacking or illegal methods), you must prove that in court. Fishing for information through a fake account is not illegal, however, it is schemingly efficient and immoral, but it is your goof. If they utilized a fake account, fished for information, which led to you sending them money; this is fraud, and you can take them to court for everything and some. You must have a lawyer. Good luck to whomever is affected. Do realize anything you share here can be seen, and can be used against you. I don't know if this is the right venue for any of this.