I stand corrected. As I mentioned, I had only read the most recent posts back to this particular page(s) from the present day. I have only discovered this section recently, and have, obviously, not put in the time to read every subject and comment back to when this section began. My impression of your suggestion for lesser-quality photographers to not even bother posting their photos was the result of your blanket statement of how they were of, apparently, lower quality than even the crap that is elsewhere on the web. Your reply to my reply seems to indicate that that is not your overall attitude - just perhaps a bit exaggerated as stated, due to your frustration over the situation here. If so, I apologize for my misunderstanding and for not questioning what you really meant by that statement. As you have stated, there definitely is a dearth of constructive criticism of said photos.

Nevertheless, there are a good number of interesting, intriguing, and high quality photographs of the female form (not porn) on the net. The downside is that you have to wade through thousands of photos in order to find the photographers who know how to do it, and even then it is certainly not every photograph. Unfortunately, none can be posted here due to the lack of releases and probable copyrights.

Apparently, you have not seen any of the photographs on the web posted by supposed professionals. I'm working backward here from the most recent posts and have not seen any as bad as many online. There are nudes online that are better than any I've seen here so far, and many that make the posts here look admirable. I have not seen any here that qualify as porn. Nudity per se is not porn. We are all born naked. Porn is the depiction of actual sexual acts, the pretend-depiction of sexual acts (soft porn), or the deliberate pose (usually by a woman) that indicates that she is available for sex at that moment. I have seen nothing so far that even comes close. The artistic quality of the posts is an indication of the experience and knowledge of the photographer himself/herself, or lack thereof. Nude photography is relatively difficult to learn. Of course, most shots will not be of highest quality until the photographer has a deeper understanding of how to do it. In terms of the numerous posts that praise the specific photographs, some of the posters may be just viewing them for the titillation (the perverts, as several commentators have stated), but it would be highly inaccurate to assume that that is the main motivation of most of the people here. Many posters do not give criticism of any kind, because they are not experienced enough to be able to comment on it themselves. It is very easy to recognize quality without being able to discuss it at length. Perhaps many viewers do not even know what higher quality looks like. They may recognize that the photos are not of a higher quality, maybe not. They are at least giving praise, such that the photographer will continue trying, which is a good thing. Of course, many photographers are just appreciative that they are in the presence of a nude woman. I would go so far as to argue that that is one of the main motivations of all heterosexual male photographers, even ones that become consummate, artistic, professionals. I imagine denial by many may arise from that statement. Also, we mustn't forget that the posters who praise may not have the time or energy to think a more constructive response - especially if they are not moved by the photo.

The bottom line here is that to suggest that these lesser-quality photos should not be posted is a form of repression. If posters were made to think that their work has zero value here, they will not post enmasse. I have the impression that this blog is meant to be a sounding board of sorts, not a place delegated to only commercial-quality photographs. The posting of more ordinary photos should be expected, not repressed. It is up to us to decide. If you, or anyone else, cannot come up with advice that may improve the photographer's work, you should move on. It's the constructive advice that helps the photographer. The fact that there are not more people here who do this is a indication of the overall knowledge and experience of the people who visit this site. This is not a damning statement. That's just the way it is. Perhaps anyone really concerned in this way could convince other, more experienced professionals to weigh in on this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but uploaded photos to an image bank have no value unless they are of professional, commercial quality. Most cell phone pictures no doubt are not good enough for commercial use, so there would be no payment. They certainly are not going to be giving away money for unusable pictures. Also, sites like this usually require the photographer to give up all rights to the photo, so, aside from it perhaps never being used (sold), the photographer loses all possibility of future commercial or public use of the photograph. Were you to use your own photo in some article, magazine, or online, they could conceivably claim copyright on your own picture and demand payment for the use, of your own photograph. Presumably, you would not pay, and it would be too trivial for them to take you to Small Claims Court...but still.... Unless, of course, your photograph was of very high quality and value, in which case you might feel like a loser, having lost all potential use of it yourself.

"I know," the man said. "Your father died and I am your sister's attorney. She asked me to give you your $3,000 inheritance."[/quote]

Funny. However, if this were a real situation, he would still owe her $3000. Unless there were some caveat in the will to such effect, an heir would not have to "earn" their inheritance, regardless of whether or not the fee for services rendered seemed outrageous or not. If this happened in Nevada, where prostitution is legal, she could sue the lawyer in small claims court and have no problem winning the case. Many attorneys charge very high fees, so it may not have been any kind of burden on the scumbag anyway. I hope I have not been a wet blanket with this.

No one mentioned getting a "partial," meaning a partial denture. I'm pretty sure they can do it for one tooth. My insurance paid for mine, which included several teeth in different parts of my mouth, all connected in the back. It was free for me. Do you have insurance that might pay for at least most of it? If not, it should still be cheaper than the root canal option. Partials include small wire hooks to hold it in place that cannot be seen from the front. The hooks wrap around adjoining teeth. If your dentist doesn't do this, or doesn't know about it, you should get another dentist. They're not all the same - some know things others don't. I was surprised when I found that out. For instance, one such option that one entire dental clinic didn't know anything about was fusing (it may have a different name). They put a permanent adhesive strip on the front and the back of the tooth (which blends in with the color of the teeth in the front). This attaches the affected tooth to the tooth on each side Then they cut the tooth at the gumline with a tiny circular saw (amazing to know they can do that - it takes seconds), after which they extracted the root. The original tooth/teeth are in the original spot and look the same as they always had. This would depend on the condition of the tooth above the gumline, of course, though it sounds like yours is not salvageable.

Don't laugh. I knew a young woman who did just that, in order to save time. She said you get used to it and the strong taste doesn't bother you after a while. When I told her that eating the raw coffee grounds could have an escalating-desire effect, and can become physically addictive, she stopped.

And let us not forget that chocolate is one of the major food groups. It is only because of the vegetable and meat cabals' power and influence that chocolate is not represented on the food group charts. Congress should get on the ball and introduce bills on the matter. That would probably get bipartisan support, depending on how powerful the vegetable and meat pacs are. Just saying.