Wonderfully whimsical channel pic ... just sayin'

Hey there Turd! I saw your comment and was compelled to stop in and say how much I adore your channel pic. Cheers

I was wondering why they didn't include the obligatory penis shock pic.

Gizmodo has a pic of the aftermath.

From the few recent new pics i've seen, seems they got the color of Pluto wrong. Surprised Neil didnt have issue with it

Meh, that's debatable.

The women involved in the original scandal didn't claim to feel harassed.

She didn't even see the infamous picture.

In fact, she herself thought it was a obscene prank perpetrated by some conservatives who disapproved of her support for Weiner. (hehe)

Furthermore, the leakers weren't "whistleblowers" doing some ground-breaking investigative reporting on corrupt politicians.

They were right-wing lackeys who monitored Weiners communicates with the specific intent to dig up dirt.

From Wikipedia--

According to the New York Times, evidence later revealed that..


So..

Seems like Breitbart henchmen were hunting for some character-assassination dirt..

And Weiner accidentally handed it to them on a silver platter. (Hah)


There were supposedly 5 other women he sexted, and those scenarios may possibly constitute sexual harassment..

But, as far as the original scandal & dick-pic seen 'round the nation go..

A hilarious mistake lead to shaming and the end of a career.

Which sucks because Anthony Weiner was a fierce politician who was fighting the good fight.


So yeah, bad example for Oliver to pick.

Wow, how baked are you @MrFisk?

The point you made was about Public figures and their privacy.

Regardless of how their privacy came to be violated..

(Anthony Weiner mistakenly? linked his pics on is public twitter originially. Hah.)

the result is the same:

People flocking to oogle their naked/scantily-clad bodies in photos that were meant to be private.

Isn't that the issue?


And then the rest of your comment about how..

..even private citizens should expect less privacy because of illegal data collection by the NSA..

(not unlike the illegal seizure by the Fappening hacker effectively)

Yet somehow that's okay because.. they didn't publicly share those photos.. O_o? really?

..wtf dude.. @_@

Really. Public figures have less expectations of privacy. The difference between Wiener's wiener and 'The Fappening' is how the material was accessed and disseminated. And I'm not saying either is not a problem, but I'm saying that Wiener was a married elected official who chose to send dick picks to chicks other than his wife while in office. And then some of the recipients provided the material to the media, which isn't the same as an ex-lover self-publishing. And 'The Fappening' was a lapse of security of the cloud, right? So I don't see causation of similarity.

@GenjiKilpatrick -- I'm sure you could contact Anthony Wiener and get more pics. And I definitely wouldn't say leaked nudes is perfectly acceptable and to be expected, but it's most likely to be expected because the technology and ramifications are new. Snowden said the NSA casually exchanged images of nude women (probably men, too), and they weren't celebrities. Of course, I'm sure neither Snowden or the NSA leaked them.

I don't remember much about the Anthony Weiner story but if the pics he sent were unsolicited (which may have been the case) then that might put it into different territory than if she asked him to send her pictures of his cock.
Of course if could also be because Weiner was a guy, and we still live with the double standard that no matter what happens a guy's job is to suck it up and take it like a man. And men are probably worse with each other about it in the same way that women will engage in merciless slut shaming amongst each other.

Wowie Zowie! Am diggin' the new channel pic

Happy Birthday to YOU Brandon! Have I told you how much I love your profile pic?

*Fake!

Yeah, this was completely debunked.

Good comp/CGI work, but if you hold it next to a pic of the real B-ham the differences are obvious.

I'm not talking about building a "serious gaming rig". Any half decent gaming pic is 2-3 times more powerful than an xbone/ps4. 1080 is really pretty low end for modern PCs.

I'm talking about building a low end PC that's comparable to a console. There are plenty of articles detailing it on the web.

As for configuration, drivers, etc, this isn't the 90s any more. If you want to build a god machine, oc the hell out of it, then yeah, you need to put some serious effort in. But to build a simple machine, run windows and steam, and play at 1080p? Not really much work involved.

I built a pretty powerful machine last year (water cooled, over clocked, etc) and it took a lot of work. But I haven't really needed to do much since.

These tips never really sit properly with me.. I want to know why the rule is important, perhaps contrasting it with pictures that are similar but somehow fail to meet the same standard, or maybe offset the picture slightly from it's normal alignment and show that it doesn't work as well.

When it says "use natural frames like windows and doors!" and shows a few pics of windows and doors, that's not evidence of how good windows and doors are for framing pictures, it just shows that some pictures of windows and doors are nice. Diagonals create movement? Well the first pic was of a kid running, and the second one in the snow looked perfectly still to me.

I've yet to see one of these that really sells me on the idea that composition trumps subject matter.. the pictures are always of interesting things, and whilst i'm willing to believe the composition makes it interesting, it hasn't proved that to me, and i can always find or create examples that don't work within the rule.

But of course! BTW I adore your latest channel pic