HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
^breathe^
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:12,
archived)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
I'd add the word "allegedly" to that...
Just incase the legal knobs jumb up & down on your bones.
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:12,
archived)
just reporting the NOW allegations
could I have legal norks jumping on me instead ?
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:15,
archived)
Question:
Did it originally have "allegedly" in the bottom corner? I could have sworn it didn't..
*takes glass eye out and washes it*
"Legal Norks" : Are they ones belong to 16+ year old girls... As opposed to "Paedo Norks", which obviously belong to 11-15 year olds...
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:20,
archived)
*takes glass eye out and washes it*
"Legal Norks" : Are they ones belong to 16+ year old girls... As opposed to "Paedo Norks", which obviously belong to 11-15 year olds...
No
you can take it at face value if you want - or you could look at the The NOW website.
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:16,
archived)
I'd rather not
the world would be a better place if you were their headline writer :)
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:21,
archived)
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
I don't get it.
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:15,
archived)
I don't get it.
well spotted
very strange, the only thing the other way round is the design.
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:40,
archived)
cos that's been photoshopped
to make leslie ash appear as though she's close in behind him in a muslim woman hating style, as opposed to the more likely "walking about 4 feet apart", and the image has been flipped because we "read" from left to right, so we see big imposing lee chapman, and then his diminutive wife appearing to cower behind him.
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:42,
archived)
Its obvious it's been 'shopped
but that's a huge no-no on Fleet Street these days, even in the Nudes Of The World.
It strikes me as very careless to publish two versions.
Perhaps we should have them publicly dragged through the courts, humiliated, and closed down?
I wish
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:45,
archived)
It strikes me as very careless to publish two versions.
Perhaps we should have them publicly dragged through the courts, humiliated, and closed down?
I wish
it's only a nono to a certain point
that is perfectly allowed.
however, if they'd photoshopped ash's face to make it look like she'd had a worse chinning, or chapman wearing a knuckleduster or something, that's a no-no
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:47,
archived)
however, if they'd photoshopped ash's face to make it look like she'd had a worse chinning, or chapman wearing a knuckleduster or something, that's a no-no
... and another thing
if you look closely at the two images, it is clearly only the t-shirt design that has been flipped, so it seems unlikely that its summat to do with picture composition.
Very odd.
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:47,
archived)
Very odd.
or the whole image was flipped,
and the shirt design not flipped back. the one in the story is likely an older image, i'd guess
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 16:52,
archived)
check out Leslie's parting
It changes sides, in the pictures when she is with him it is on the left, in the picture with her sister and the one at the bottom with him it is on the right.
It might explain why she look a little not right in the main photos, not many people are symetrical enough that you can flip them whithout it looking a little odd.
Either way, blookdy careless to have two almost identical versions of the same image.
( ,
Sun 9 May 2004, 18:20,
archived)
It might explain why she look a little not right in the main photos, not many people are symetrical enough that you can flip them whithout it looking a little odd.
Either way, blookdy careless to have two almost identical versions of the same image.