 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Reality digitally distorted
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: GUEST Date: 10 Aug 06 - 07:36 PM Oh yes I can! Winston Smith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 10 Aug 06 - 06:12 PM Uncle! I'll agree that it is hard detect film forgeries. The next person to post that gets a fifteen yard penalty for piling on...that's a(n American) football allusion. I do stand by my comment that we can all be Winston Smiths. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: GUEST,Grab Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:11 PM John, if you think it was easy to detect fakes, I suggest you look up the details of the famous "fairies" photos in Britain in the late 1800s. Fooled an awful lot of people at the time, and weren't conclusively "outed" until the kids responsible owned up. Of course, the subject matter made it a moot point, but the fact that even schoolgirls could do a good fake with an analogue camera in the late 1800s says a lot about the trustworthiness of analogue. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Clinton Hammond Date: 10 Aug 06 - 01:04 PM "Well done retouching, even in the early days, is not detectable." I saw a dude on The Discovery channel not that long ago that said it's actually much easier to find a digital 'fake' than an analogue.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Homeless Date: 10 Aug 06 - 12:46 PM JohnotSC - "But those akes were easily detected by competant technicians" This is simply not true. It is correct that a bad fake is fairly easy to spot. But how do you tell a good fake?? Well done retouching, even in the early days, is not detectable. By what means can you look at a print and know for certain that no retouching has been done on it? Bert - what you say about not printing what came from the camera has merit. As you probably know, the dynamic range of tones that film will capture is much greater than what print paper is capable of showing (which is what allows burning and dodging to work). Most cameras capture 3-5% more image on the negative than what shows in the viewfinder. Add to these two facts the options in choosing which paper you print on (such as portrait paper, high color sat, etc.) and you find that the photographer is only half done once the film is developed. IMO, the true artistic vision requires work in the darkroom. When I have a lab print my work rather than doing it myself I feel robbed. Homeless - who is or isn't, depending on your definition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 10 Aug 06 - 11:03 AM I'm happy that we agree that there is no Big Brother--and I'd bet so is GWB whose gov't has often been so compared. But modern technology has rendered Big Brother unneccessary. On our desktop computers and/or our laptops we have more computing power than was contained in large rooms of computers just 40 years ago--to say nothing of the power of nascent computing in 1948 (Orwell's publication)--so that EACH of us can become our own Winston Smith. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Clinton Hammond Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:34 AM " You also sort of missed my allusion" I didn't miss it... I dismissed it.... it's flawed....Without Big Brother, there is no Ministry Of Truth.... And there is NO Big Brother.... Old faked photos were not always easy to find.... altered digital images are much easier to discover.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:20 AM Clinton, you have asserted falsity twice, with no substantiation. You also sort of missed my allusion to Winston Smith...it was not big brother I was refering to, but to Smith's job, which, as I recall, was to alter newspapers and books by deleting persons and events from them, or adding same where none had actually existed. So I guess that's strike three (that's a baseball allusion, not the draconian law allusion). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Clinton Hammond Date: 10 Aug 06 - 10:11 AM "those akes were easily detected by competant technicians" False.... "Digital images conceivably be altered so well, that one might need to find the actually computer to tace the steps of alteration" False.... "We are indeed in the world of "Winston Smith" Bullflop.... There is no Big Brother... he died of boredom a LONG time ago.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Bert Date: 09 Aug 06 - 08:41 PM I think that is just a question of where do you draw the line. Even before the days of Paint Shop Pro, I don't think that I ever printed a photo exactly as the camera took it. There was always some cropping and retouching before the picture looked the way I wanted it. Every modification is done with the intent to deceive to some extent, even if it's just to make you think that I'm a better photographer than I really am. I guess when I do it it's OK. but when THEY do it it's wrong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 09 Aug 06 - 08:28 PM Homeless--and I hope you;re not really--I am well aware that doctoring photos is nearly as old as photography itself. But those akes were easily detected by competant technicians. Digital images conceivably be altered so well, that one might need to find the actually computer to tace the steps of alteration. We are indeed in the world of "Winston Smith". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Homeless Date: 09 Aug 06 - 01:16 PM Sorry, Alice, I meant arguing in terms of formal discussion or debate, not as in a yelling match or fight. I enjoy a good debate, and will frequently play devil's advocate for the sake of such (and occasionally I'll argue both sides of a point). Since you started this thread, I assume you feel strongly about this topic, but I'm having difficultly determining exactly what your main point is. ¿Comprende? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: GUEST,Alice at library computer Date: 09 Aug 06 - 12:33 PM Homeless, I'm not arguing with you. I don't know why you think I am. I am just discussing the topic of how people are influenced by images. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Homeless Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:24 AM Ever hear of Pallywood? Want to see real manipulation and changing of history? And they don't even need digital. http://www.break.com/index/what_really_happens_pallywood.html clicky |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Homeless Date: 08 Aug 06 - 11:15 AM Alice, I'm still lost. Are you against changing a photo after it's been taken, manipulating the truth photographically, exaggerating to manipulate consumers' opinions, or the use of digital means to accomplish any of the above? "Compare pre-digital magazines to the ones we have today and you will see more idealized enhancement just because it is faster and easier to do." In a word, Bull. The only difference is that today it is done to photos and looks like a photo and in the past the idealization was done via illustrations. I've seen the perfect mom in the kitchen and the 98 pound weakling at the beach. The exaggeration in the ads hasn't changed, only the avenue of the visual representation. So you're arguing that it isn't the degree of manipulation that's extreme, just that it's more pervasive? regarding stretching of legs - any competent photographer can do that in the camera. It's called corrective posing. Any decent portrait photographer (I'm talking professional here, not walmart, olan mills, or their ilk) knows and uses these techniques with every client to make them look their best. A good lab tech can (and did) stretch images in the darkroom. Greek sculpture? Somehow I think we've gotten WAY out of the realm of digital here. Once again, it shows that manipulation is nothing new. I would think than any given sculpture back then would have had more of a per-capita impact than any given photo now. "deliberate changes to persuade buyers to spend their money on a product" This is what marketing is. It's not new. Since food was brought up earlier in the thread, I can remember as a kid reading about how they would put motor oil in the beer on commercials and ads to give it a more golden appearance. They just did their manipulation pre-photo. It's still a lie to appear more appealing. JohnoSC - "Reuters stringer, purporting to show massive devastation to Beirut" This is nothing new. Go to the library and do a little research on the "photo fakes" that Hitler had put together for propaganda purposes. 6- "The altering of history i.e. through distorting digital pics, documents, news articles ... anyone can do this." You have got to be kidding, right? I would bet that if every single one of us on this forum were to distort whatever things we liked, that not one piece of it would make it into "history." Just because "anyone" can do it, doesn't mean it's going to affect history. And those powerful enough to have an impact distort it before it gets to the general public anyway. You want to see distorted history? Get on any file sharing network and do a search on "banned cartoons" then ask yourself why you never see any of Disney's cartoons that had characters in blackface in them anymore. Or "Song of the South" for that matter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Clinton Hammond Date: 08 Aug 06 - 10:19 AM "people still respond to photos as if they are a factual represenation" Only stupid and or gullible people... And well, that's their problem.... "doctored pictures by a Reuters stringer" Only an idiot believes what they see in newspapers, on TV, on the net, or in a magazine unquestioningly..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: s&r Date: 08 Aug 06 - 08:06 AM The photo of Kim Phuc was cropped from the original - in my opinion making a much stronger picture. The orinal neg showed a number of people running: the Time cover showed Kim isolated. So is cropping manipulation? Stu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: number 6 Date: 07 Aug 06 - 10:45 PM Here's the story on CNN about the doctored photo ... distorting photos is a definate no-no for press photographers. Once done, they will never have a pic published again in a credible news journal. Fast dishonourable route to the end of their career. doctored shots sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: number 6 Date: 07 Aug 06 - 08:56 PM The altering of history i.e. through distorting digital pics, documents, news articles ... anyone can do this. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Alice Date: 07 Aug 06 - 08:49 PM Whether it is photo journalism or fashion photo illustration, it still comes back to the subject of ethics. We do not want our news photos manipulated, but because illustration is art, manipulating it is part of our cultural esthetic... but fashion photos are also about manipulation of the consumer to make them buy more diet products, more cosmetics, plastic surgery, etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Alice Date: 07 Aug 06 - 08:40 PM Had not heard anything about that until your message, John sunset coast. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 07 Aug 06 - 08:18 PM You know, I was excited to see the title of this thread, and oh so disappointed in its content. I expected Alice was commenting on the doctored pictures by a Reuters stringer, purporting to show massive devastation to Beirut (as if the actual devastation wasn't enough) by adding more smoke through a process called cloning. That same stringer apparently doctored other fotos, too. Reuters has taken down all his work. And that, Clinton Hammond, is the 'so' in digital distortion when used for misleading propoganda. PS-the picture and the explaination of the doctoring can be found on littlegreenfootballs.com |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Geoff the Duck Date: 07 Aug 06 - 08:05 PM http://www.campaignforrealbeauty.ca/flat2.asp?id=6155§ion=homepage_firming Quack! GtD. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Alice Date: 07 Aug 06 - 07:54 PM I remember the days when we had to use real airbrushes to change photos. Compare pre-digital magazines to the ones we have today and you will see more idealized enhancement just because it is faster and easier to do. We are able because of the technology to publish more images now than ever before, on the net, in print and video. It is done to greater extremes by having more places to publish, faster technology to do more volume, and deliberate changes to persuade buyers to spend their money on a product. For example, legs are stretched out to look aesthetically more appealing rather than leaving them the natural length of the model. That is a famous demonstration, once done on Oprah, showing what the real model standing in the studio looked like compared to the final stretched-out body in the magazine ad. In photo journalism, it is a matter of ethics to know whether a photo has been manipulated. Remember the OJ Simpson photo printed darker in one news magazine than in the competitor's mag? Fashion photography is photo illustration, not trying to portray news or documentary. But, people still respond to photos as if they are a factual represenation, even when photo illustration now usually is not a factual representation. In an interesting series on art on PBS recently, the narrator pointed out that when Greek sculpture evolved to the point of representing the human body naturalistically, with correct proportion of legs, arms, torso, etc., it did not last for long. Sculpture went back to idealized sizes and postures, not those that would exactly match a human body. It seems to be human nature to want to see exaggerated forms and features, not the real thing, just as in the early venus fetish statues. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Peace Date: 07 Aug 06 - 06:29 PM "Life is bad enough, reality is ten times worse." Reality is bad enough, why should I tell the truth. Pat Sky |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Aug 06 - 06:05 PM Been ill today so didn't manage to ge the folk club:-( To make up for it though just saw a wonderful example of political 'incorrectness' on Qi. Fry, Jupitis and co were mercilessly taking the piss out of the Japanese - I must say I did find it very funny but it's odd that it made me cringe a little at times. Suppose some comedy should do that? I dunno - maybe. American Comedian Rich Hall was on and didn't seem to know quite what to make of it at first - Soon got into it though:-) Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:23 PM Don't know the guy or his work but just read some bits on Google - I do sort of agree but is it right to go back in time and allow anything to be said about anyone. After all, you are quite right, it hurts nothing but sensibilities. How do we re-educate all these people with a higher sensibility than us? DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: bobad Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:19 PM Life is bad enough, reality is ten times worse. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Peace Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:18 PM Reality being distorted? Hell, makeup has been doing that for ages. Just because computers now do it instead of a photo retouchers air brush doesn't make it new. I think the women's asses getting bigger is insulting. But not much worse than some shit being posted there either. Threads like that allow some folks to bash the sex of their choice--too bad that life has dealt so many such harsh blows. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Clinton Hammond Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:17 PM Sure.... That's what Larry Flint fought for.... and won IIRC |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:16 PM Sorry guys - just realised that does come across as WAY off topic. Perhaps a better example would be is it OK to digitaly enhance photographs to show, for instance, famous people having sex with donkeys. Oh, hang on, some of them do... :D (tG) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Aug 06 - 05:12 PM Good one Clinton - Anyone ever seen a big Mac that REALY looks like that:-) I'm coming more and more to the viewpoint that some people don't deserve to be protected. Out of interest, without going too much off topic, where would you draw the line though? Surely we cannot say anything goes or we would be back to stereotyping Irish, Blacks, Jews and, heaven forbid, Englishmen:-) Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Clinton Hammond Date: 07 Aug 06 - 04:11 PM Get MORE up in arms that fast food places don't use pictures of REAL food in their adds |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Homeless Date: 07 Aug 06 - 03:57 PM As usual, when people bring up the subject of digital manipulation, I'm confused. Is it the "manipulation" of images (in this case, photos) or is it the "digital" that is getting everyone's knickers in a twist? Is it okay to create an artist's interpretation if the piece is intended for a museum, but not if it's for print somewhere? Digital age... distort history? That's just bizarre. Fashion is not news. It is not history, other than in the study of culture. Alice, you say that it is done to "greater extremes." What exactly do you mean by that? Only that it is more pervasive? I can go to just about any library and find (old) books with extensively retouched photos in them. I have found books from the 40s about how photo fakes were done. In the photo of my ancestors I mentioned above, my great-grandmother was added in the dark room. She was not present for the original photo. Adding someone to an image is pretty extreme. Bee, you claim that "Earlier retouched photos were pretty obvious..." This is not true. Granted that amatuer jobs were east to spot, but a competent lab tech could create images that you cannot tell were touched. But the same holds true today. I've seen numerous images that were obviously retouched, the sure sign of a bad job. But a good job of retouching *is not* detectable. That holds for the past as well as today. And why is it that photography is singled out? I can walk thru just about any business or shopping area and find women that have alterer their appearance with makeup and/or clothing. Do you think all famous people in the paintings all over the world really looked as good as the painting, or did the artist do a little "idealization" as he put brush to canvas? Before Hef and the skin magazines there were pin-ups (and I'm sure some of you remember when those were prevailent). Do you believe those drawings were accurate portrails of the models? PHoto Shop (sic) is a tool. Hear, hear! It is no more a tool than brushes and paint, or pen and ink. Why can a painter capture his vision and be praised for it, but if we use digital means to create an image we are condemned for it? DavetG - you write about not adding to the pressure or offending one group (those of small stones). Why is that group any more important than any other? Personally, and I'm not alone, I find the overly cautious, politally correct way of speaking to be offensive. If you have a bunch of nancy-boys toning down their language to keep from offending one group, they end up offending another. You can't please all of the people all of the time. So why should one group get preferential treatment over the other? Karen Carpenter died before digital manipulation. So we're back to the question of "digital" or "manipulation"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: number 6 Date: 07 Aug 06 - 03:44 PM "we evolved because it's a harsh mtrfker of a world and we were FORCED to fight to survive.." Good point CH. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Clinton Hammond Date: 07 Aug 06 - 03:32 PM Baaah... protection gets you nowhere.... We didn't evolve to where we're at becasue we were protected.... we evolved because it's a harsh mtrfker of a world and we were FORCED to fight to survive.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Aug 06 - 03:06 PM Not everyone has your testicular fortitude, Clinton:-) Surely you must see that some people DO need wrapping in cotton wool? Just because they don't have the strength that you have why should they be subjected to both material offensive to them and to abuse becasue they are different in other ways? I do feel sorry for the poor guys and girls who do feel so pressured by the media that they end up harming themselves. I would never dream of adding to that pressure. Surely they need help rather than ridicule don't they? I am far from perfect (in many ways) but even I can see that! If nothing else we do need to protect those, like Karen Carpenter, who are sufferng from an illness don't we? Maybe I am being too condescending but I hope not. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: number 6 Date: 07 Aug 06 - 02:47 PM On the topic of "digitally distorting" ... I am in some ways guilty ... PHoto Shop is a tool I use very freguently in enhancing, yes distorting my photos ... This is one of the many issues my wife and I never seem to come to an agreemnt on,( argue about this quite often ) ... I shoot a photo, and then distort it (via Photo Shop) to the tone of the subject (whether it is a building, tree, seascape or whatever) in which I see, what I'm presenting to the viewer ... but then again it is of an artistic mode rather than capturing an "historical" moment ... unlike taking a picture of my grandson on his first birthday ... so, I guess it depends on the picture and why it is distorted ... is it art for art's sake or capturing an historical event, if distorted than is a lie, or in the advertising industry in creating an illusion of what the world is ... where do we draw the line, or is it up to us as individuals to determine? sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: number 6 Date: 07 Aug 06 - 02:35 PM Bill ... I've always been a 6 ... though the thought has occured to me a couple of times maybe I should add3 points and become a 9. sIx |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Clinton Hammond Date: 07 Aug 06 - 02:27 PM "It is like telling them they are ugly because they don't look like the images" Only if the person viewing the image is projecting their own personal insecurities into the image.... If you have the stones to OWN your own body and mind, you won't allow these things to affect you in the least Karen Carpenter was mentally ill.... that much is obvious |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Alice Date: 07 Aug 06 - 02:23 PM Yes, idealized beauty has always been a part of culture, and yes, people try to reach that ideal, whether it is thin, fat, tattooed, pierced, with rings around the neck to stretch it, bones through the nose, etc. The point is, many people hope our culture is becoming more aware of manipulation and how it affects our physical and mental health. Karen Carpenter, where are you to respond to "So what..."? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Dave the Gnome Date: 07 Aug 06 - 02:22 PM I can well imagine women, and men for that matter, being offended by looking at digitaly enhanced imqages. It is like telling them they are ugly because they don't look like the images. If calling someone ugly doesn't cause offense I don't realy know what would. In these days of ultra sensitivety to peoples feelings how is it OK to suggest they do not look good unless they appear as plastic as the image in question? Whereas I agree that some people are definitely oversensitive to these things there do seem to be an equal number who believe that no harm can come from, say, an internet forum! Neither extreme are right. Cheers DtG |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Clinton Hammond Date: 07 Aug 06 - 02:11 PM If we stopped eating crap sold to us at places like McDonalds, or from ready-made, pre-packaged, frozen turkey twizlers crap we'd all be a lot more healthy If we stopped caring about what some bimbo-dimbo on the cover of a magazine, or on a TV commercial looked like, our gloabal IQ would shoot through the roof.... "but women (and especially girls) go bulemic" Body image issues affect both sexes equally.... just "the poor little girls" make the news more..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Bill D Date: 07 Aug 06 - 02:07 PM you didn't answer my question....awww..never mind. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Grab Date: 07 Aug 06 - 02:06 PM Every generation of every society has had an ideal of what a beautiful woman should look like. And a beautiful man too. We shouldn't stop saying that some people are beautiful, because that would be utterly artificial - we all make that judgement, whether it's on a person, a house or a car. What we could change would be fashion. And the fashion business is 100% female-led. My own take on it is that the fashion for ultra-thin, ultra-stylised women is *created* by women, the women at the top of the fashion business and the women's publishing business. Unless someone's obviously overweight, men really don't care, but women (and especially girls) go bulemic because they're trying to live up to what some advertising idiot has published, and that advertising idiot is invariably female in this context. It's corsets and bustles, all over again. I'm sorry, but if women stopped buying into that fashion crap, they'd be a lot healthier (mentally and physically). I have huge sympathy for the poor girls who get sucked into this, but I have no sympathy for women as a whole perpetuating it. And if you buy any magazine with "...Woman" or "Women's..." in the title, you're probably one of those contributing to the situation. Men suffer similar problems from all those magazines showing hugely muscular/defined bodybuilders, which is what causes teenage steroid abuse. Same thing again - if men stopped promoting that (WWF et al) then young men would be healthier. But muscle-mass is hard to grow whereas it's obvious that anyone can starve themselves thin, so maybe that's the difference there. Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Clinton Hammond Date: 07 Aug 06 - 02:01 PM It's not about me at all Biil.... Not even if you keep trying to make it so.... Not on dope? You'd have to be to be offended by pretty pictures that intend nothing more than to entertain..... 'now' has more WAYS... That there are more and better tools is irrelevant.... Nothing changes.... Idealized beauty has always been there.... will always be there.... Give it the power? You do give TV the power... you allow yourself to be offended by mutability.... "reading my posts for 7-8 years" Ya... like I pay attention to the internet.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Bill D Date: 07 Aug 06 - 01:51 PM such perceptive questions, too! "Are you on DOPE?"..answer:nope "why should now be any different?" because 'now' has more WAYS to deceive and hide the deception. " How easily "why give it the power??" I don't...that's why I wrote as I did. Ok? Those answers suitable? So, why do YOU enter so many threads and make insulting remarks? Maybe it IS about you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Clinton Hammond Date: 07 Aug 06 - 01:43 PM "I'd gotten the idea that you considered YOUR opinion to be WAY more valueble than most others." Then you're not a very perceptive man in the least Bill.... "to be offended by the pretense" To be offended by art? You'd have to be pretty over-reactionary.... It's just pretty pictures... in this case, pretty pictures that move.... "If not, why bother?" Way to go Bill... can't aswer my questions, so you fall back to trying to make this about me.... well, it's not. sorry. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Bill D Date: 07 Aug 06 - 01:37 PM *grin*...why, Clinton....I'd gotten the idea that you considered YOUR opinion to be WAY more valueble than most others. (real on TV? why sure! Haven't you seen all the 'reality shows? *bigger grin*)... I don't have to think it MIGHT be real to be offended by the pretense. You sure seem to be something like 'offended' by all the weak, silly, postings that you comment on here. If not, why bother? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Reality digitally distorted From: Bill D Date: 07 Aug 06 - 01:17 PM (just out of curiosity, six, have you always been six, or have you been numerically enhanced from four or five? ;>)....) |
