shrillbabyshrill
Faster,Pussycat!Shrill!Shrill!
shrillbabyshrill

Sorry, that was poorly worded. I was asking about Putin/Russia in terms of motives.

I'd be interested reading something about the collaboration you speak of. This kind of stuff would suggest that there is no such thing going on.

Don't be surprised when people get offended when you write in such a glib manner about countries that are rarely on the international radar. You should understand that it is not the same as someone saying something unflattering about the U.S., because as much as there is talk about smug Europeans dissing the States,

I think they have a problem with a man working for an educational system rigged in the favor of women and built to indoctrinate boys to uphold the misandrist hegemony.

I just spent the afternoon with a guy who sells WoW gold for a living. I mentioned that I've logged my fair share hours back when I was in a guild some years ago. He said "I knew women play video games too", but found the idea that I have done that unbelievable. He kept bringing it up once in a while because for some

My Days has a flower as its logo, but other than that it's pretty basic and gender-neutrally adequate in its look. One of the fun things you can do with it is marking down when you have sex.

Thank you for the clarity and tone of your answer. I will try to do the same

The thing is, nobody owes you an answer, or is obliged to continue a discussion. When there is little hope anything you say would be taken in the meaning you intended, be that fault at either end of the conversation, it is better to just close up shop.

I don't want realism or anything else in particular. I just don't want to look at a picture and see right away that the "problem areas" of a woman's body have clearly digitally been altered, while there are vast areas of the picture that remain untouched w.r.t. that type of editing, if that is not the point.

Well if it is the case, as it is sometimes, that the person doing the editing is not the same as the one who took the photograph (and note that I have nowhere objected to Photoshop in itself, only some of its applications), then giving credit for the end result, which was not finished by the actual photographer...

I wrote "one's profession" not "Annie Leibowitz's profession" or "her profession." and "raises the question", not "surely this means". I did not choose to use these expressions instead of the others for purely stylistic reasons.

You are reading quite a lot into my comments that wouldn't be there if you took off your condescension-colored glasses.

The opinion I was trying to express that started this whole thing was: The final aesthetic outcome would have been better if the process had been different. You can say that it is an ill-informed opinion, but I stick by it.

Then I don't understand why you care about my opinions - which I have never even presented in their entirety in the brief comments I've made on the subject. Maybe you are just bad photographer. For sure you are one touchy motherfucker, and it is quite possible that these are matters of taste that we are disputing,

Well I don't appreciate her vision in her recent work - or the problem is less with the vision and how it is executed. How would us dopes who are not professional photographers would be allowed to criticize her work in a way you would deem acceptable?

I'm not undermining your experience in the field, but unless you are Annie Leibowitz , it doesn't immediately translate to knowledge of the facts on how she works. I don't think I'm wrong in presuming she has more resources at her disposal than most photographers, so one would expect something more. And it is quite

I'm not gonna go through your argument point by point, my tram stop has come up, and it's raining outside. There are professional photographers in the comments who agree with me and I don't know what Mennonite photography your experience is in are where touching the fabric close to the breast in this kind of shoot is