On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 20:16:36 +0200, newhere <somebody@nowhere.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:24:02 -0700, OddBALL <odd@ball.net> wrote:
>
>First picture is beautiful, indeed very beautiful. Just don't
>understand why an artist can't put a somewhat appealing logo on the
>pics.
>Second pic is nice too, apart from that street sign or whatever that
>is that grows out of the girl's neck. Reminds a little bit of
>Frankenstein :D
>Just a little editing or a slight position change ...
>Ned tends to ignore details. Many lampstands or some other garbage
>sneak into his pics. Not very professional.
I know, you're so right. Ned's pics are dogshit. Hardly even worth
downloading. Just outright dogshit. You would think he's just some
drunk guy who found a camera in the trash.
Look at these two pictures. What fucking trash. And you're right,
what 'artist' would put an obnoxious logo on the free sample pics that
are posted for deadbeats who don't pay for them to see? What an
asshole.
I wouldn't even download this garbage shit for free.
Fuck him, I think we all should keep making posts showing what utter
dogshit Ned's pictures are, they suck so bad.
|
|
 (1/1) (0/1)')){kind=link}