Celebrity Videos - cleaned

[blueoystercult]

Honestly. It's as though the Rocket Scientists in the peanut gallery have never encountered stage costume before.
I weep for my species and its dwindling gene pool. The best part of them landed on their mothers' chins.

 

[blueoystercult]

I swear to all the Gods in the Pantheon, the next idiot to post "The tits are plastic" here will be banned. I'm sick of clearing them.
It's a fucking stage costume. Get over yourselves. If you must point out the blazingly obvious or generally bitch and whine about it do it here.
http://www.nudecelebforum.com/showthread.php?t=232995
Rule 03c. Post only pictures or videos in the Celebrity Content Vault; do NOT post comments or requests.
Read and follow the bloody rules.
For heaven's sake stop making pointless work for us.
BOC​

 

[blueoystercult]

Infraction for IgnatiusJ.: Comments In Content Threads

Post: Miley Cyrus
User: IgnatiusJ.
Infraction: Comments In Content Threads
Points: 1

Administrative Note:

Infraction

Message to User:

I'm seriously tempted to ban you for a] being obvious and not funny, b] for rubbing salt into the wound and c] for BREAKING THE FUCKING RULES BY POSTING A COMMENT IN THE CONTENT THREAD.
Jesus Wept.

Original Post:

That penis is totally fake.

 

[blueoystercult]

never fail to expect the intellect of some members to be far lower than your own, and then you won't be disappointed so often.....

it may take someone really dumb not to realise from the first image that she is wearing fake tits and a strap-on, but that don't mean that some think they've spotted something the rest of us took for granted already.....

And if the flurry of comments in the content thread started after the first post I might be inclined to give you that one but given they started flying in after the latest in a set of galleries I'm gonna have to go with "the best part of them was wiped off their mothers' cheeks and flushed"

 

[blueoystercult]

Jesus it's actually a question?

They're fucking PINK!

They are also a B cup. Cyrus is a pigeon chested ladyboy.

 

[loggin.here]

does anyone post the leelee sobieski nude scene from movie acts of violence(2010)...?

 

[ilonkin]

Jaimie Alexander - Maxim Exclusive (2011) | HD 1080p The original is not the converted video



00:01:39 - 1920x1080 - 38.3 MB - MP4

http://www93.Dead Link Removed.com/v/HdOw8Khv/file.html

 

[blueoystercult]

Stating the blazingly obvious especially where it applies to archive photos/footage etc, sometimes that information is simply not available anymore.
I have posted photos in the last couple of days the origins of which I have no clue. I don't know who took them, when, where or for what purpose. Similarly it has just taken me three days to identify a particular shot as being Alyssa Miller by Ellen von Unwerth because it has become almost anonymous on the web, and the few instances of it I found had it unidentified and lumped in with a bunch of other material. A set of Scarlett Johansson pictures has all but vanished from the forum and the original poster does not have the full set anymore and has no information on them. There is no information attached to any identical instances of those images left on the web that I could find. So almost an entire set is gone outside better versions of the two that were left alongside the one addition I found.
Will you therefore remove all material that does not have this information attached? Penalise or ban members for not knowing? As propositions go that's pretty preposterous and will do nothing but serve to alienate contributors beyond regurgitating what they take from publicity and social media sites.
In short, while this idea might be thunderously convenient for you to check you aren't posting duplicates (because heaven forbid you should bother to scroll back a few posts to actually look for yourself), the only people it will really benefit are the cash whores posting for profit. Most of those classics shots and old scans will vanish.
There is a big difference between leading by example and hoping others adopt practices as a matter of course and courtesy and imposing a rule which must absolutely be followed. By applying and enforcing a rule which cannot necessarily be followed we will either limit the scope of what can be posted or will decimate the membership who cannot hope to live up to the new rules being enforced.
This is a community forum, not Getty. If you want information included I suggest you lead by example as I do, posting pictures and collections with date, publication, photographer and campaign WHERE I HAVE THAT INFORMATION, and see others pick up the habit [as indeed they are doing]. If you want information on picture or shoot then ask the poster. I they don't have the information, do a little research.
Trying to turn this into an enforcable rule is draconian, unsociable and downight unenforceable. It will kill the forum stone dead for all but a few people.
In my opinion.
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

I never Dead Link Removed any. Saw the Miley thread, went "hey those look weird and fake lemme ask" and tada here we are. This thread was posted a pube hair after the very first post was made, which of course were the worst shots.

Nope. This thread showed up after the umpteenth set of duplicates were removed along with a dozen comments in the content forum stating "those are plastic tits" [sic]. By that time of course there were galleries of this shitty little fame trollop in her latest totally imagination-free plea for attention.
I find the entire matter utterly depressing.

 

[blueoystercult]

upgrades and addition to #25
These are all I have been able to find in the time available to look. Other images in this series have been lost. If you have them please add them.
Cheers
BOC

 

[ilonkin]

Katy Perry - I Kissed A Girl (The Prismatic World Tour Live) 2015 | HD 1080p



00:04:47 - 1920x1080 - 87.3 MB - MKV

http://www81.Dead Link Removed.com/v/XeA1piNV/file.html

 

[blueoystercult]

There really isn't anything there I can disagree with.
We have to be realistic. Before we can start talking about imposing a rule to be enforced (which was the purpose of the initial proposition) we have to consider the implications. If we aren't going to remove posts that don't include that information then the notion of a rule becomes a nonsense and it becomes a request for a courtesy. In which case I maintain the best modus operandi is to lead by example.
People are already adopting this habit anyway, especially with events or fashion photoshoots where the information continues to be available. Why become tub thumpers about it? We want to encourage people to contribute not disuade them from doing so. Show them a better way and they'll see the advantages.
As big a pain in the arse as it is, manual checking will always be a fact of moderation and of regular contribution. To my mind it's neither practical nor sociable to force people into providing a shortcut.
BOC

I should reply to this since I believe I'm the mod who gakon referred to as stating what a pain in the ass it can be to search a large thread for duplicates. First of all, I don't think gakon (or me or anyone else who would favour this proposition) would like to have any posts without such information removed. Obviously, there are times when that just isn't possible. Even those of us who are extremely diligent in trying to provide info sometimes have to post images without it. I've always been of the mind that providing such info - when available, of course - is in the best interest of posters, collectors and mods checking posts.

This is supposed to be a community where we are all working together to provide the best quality images to each other, but the reality is that it's become more of a platform for the post whores to either fill their pockets or their egos.

Addendum
"This is supposed to be a community where we are all working together" This is why we have a report button. Moderators are human and fallible just like everyone else and members are actively encouraged to report duplicates and other rule breaches that we may have missed so we can act on them quickly and decisively with minimal fuss. We have mechanisms in place to catch the bits that are missed. Generally speaking, regular contributing members are superb at letting us know about those things that slip under the wire. Though no system is perfect, generally speaking, and when egos don't get in the way, this works quite well.

 

[blueoystercult]

Best of the rest I have. Random shots. Varying quality from small to huge. No additional info

 

[blueoystercult]

But you can't avoid the inevitable consequences of introducing a rule. If you don't intend to apply it retrospectively then posters of current material have a legitimate grievance. If you do intend to apply it retrospectively then much current material will have to be removed. Not applying a rule properly and comprehensively makes that rule an unfair and unjust nonsense.
And as I asked previously, what about information that is no longer available? You're not the only one adept at research, and my knowledge and memory of the entertainment and fashion industries is fairly extensive but even I struggle with and even fail to complete many identifications. So we would have to prohibit the posting of and the removal of material the information of which cannot be determined. That is the inevitable consequence of introducing a hard and fast rule.
Again, this is community forum. Not Getty. It is ar better to lead by example and demonstrate a better way and a more helpful habit. Not everyone will follow but more will than won't.
I note that you wrote "I can give instructions on how to easily determine even ancient pictures", and yet rather than do that straight away in the Discussion forum, explaining how much easier it would make finding material and determining duplication, you come to this section and propose a rule that everyone must obey.
How "respectful" and un-dictator-like.
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

"Many of them have never even read the rules, and only know it when they get a warning."
Yet you want to implement and enforce a new rule that can't possibly apply retrospectively and would need so many qualifications as to render it impotent and meaningless.
"The easiest way that anyone can do is to immediately search for the same photo on Google Images"
So that implementation of rocket science was well worth waiting for and probably never occurred to anyone ever.
Sorry, Old Horse, but you're making my points for me. The more we examine this as a propostion, the more futile an exercise it becomes.
Lead by example in including all possible information you have when you post. Check manually for duplicates as everyone else has to do, and suck it up. You can't force through an impossible legislation that will alienate half the membership and take away their enjoyment of participation for your own convenience.

I thought a Discussion forum is for news, etc. So I put here. If this is the problem, move it to the correct section.

Nobody has nobody to listen. I turned attention to personal messages, some posters who are very active. Everyone, but everyone, they say they will, but not...And I'm sure they do not read. Many of them have never even read the rules, and only know it when they get a warning.

Btw, the easiest way that anyone can do is to immediately search for the same photo on Google Images. For others need a little more patience.

 

[blueoystercult]

Giovani Donne - Richard Aujard PS for Esquire It 1992

Monica Bellucci & Yasmeen Ghauri


Unprinted additions



The real question here is "How often did Aujard have to be nudged from his daydreams to press the shutter?"

 

[blueoystercult]

‘What’s Contemporary’ by Patrick and Victor Demarchelier

Additions and remsters from post #3 including colourisations

[

 

[blueoystercult]

A] they are entirely different frames of the same photo-op. If we delete these we have to start deleting and disallowing a ton of similar posts.
B] They aren't "LQ and cropped version of pics in post above". They just haven't been so ineptly blown up that they've become pixelated, as the previous post has.
Two points to strongly underline in red pen.
1] I really do wish some of these fuckwits would grasp that "big" isn't necessarily "HQ"
2] This endless pissing contest between imagetwist posters is beginning to get on my nads, as is this new trend of trying to manipulate the moderators into getting rid of the competition.
I don't mind people thinking they are smarter than me as long as they have some basis for that assumption. This inneptitude is just an insult. My mood isn't improved by the fact that every time I click on one of these bloody images my adblock, pop up blocker and firewall light up like a flipping Christmas tree. I never had an issue with malware till I started moderating. That can't be a coincidence.
Ah well. Rant over. Soapbox dismounted.
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

I'd already removed these, not because of the report but because they were pointless additions to an earlier post where she's flashing her crotch. Had they all been posted at the same time in the same message I'd have been inclined to leave them, but as a follow up they added nothing IMO.
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

OTB