1) Are your reading skills so poor that it takes you over FOUR MONTHS to read a topic, or were you so busy creating the acoustic torture you call music and thinking up some fresh über-lame slurs?
2) Not that it would ever get through your thick skull, but a little more than 'taking a picture' was involved. We'll save the details for discussions with adults whose mental faculties exceed those of a lobotomized hippopotamus, i.e. anyone on this forum who isn't you.
kdj2hot · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Ok, I'll just split this into two parts:
1) Are your reading skills so poor that it takes you over FOUR MONTHS to read a topic, or were you so busy creating the acoustic torture you call music and thinking up some fresh über-lame slurs?
2) Not that it would ever get through your thick skull, but a little more than 'taking a picture' was involved. We'll save the details for discussions with adults whose mental faculties exceed those of a lobotomized hippopotamus, i.e. anyone on this forum who isn't you.[/QUOTE]
1. I usually don't pay attention to posts I don't make. I'm very vain and arrogant like that. I don't apologize.
2. The topic of this thread involves a picture of Freddie Mercury from nearly 25 yrs in public that's not illegal and I just thought it was an idiotic comment you made that's all.
Hangman_96 · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Ok, I'll just split this into two parts:
1) Are your reading skills so poor that it takes you over FOUR MONTHS to read a topic, or were you so busy creating the acoustic torture you call music and thinking up some fresh über-lame slurs?
2) Not that it would ever get through your thick skull, but a little more than 'taking a picture' was involved. We'll save the details for discussions with adults whose mental faculties exceed those of a lobotomized hippopotamus, i.e. anyone on this forum who isn't you.[/QUOTE]
Don't bother talking to him, let alone explaining something. It's like talking to a wall.
SkyeTV · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]kdj2hot wrote:[/b]
2. The topic of this thread involves a picture of Freddie Mercury from nearly 25 yrs in public that's not illegal and I just thought it was an idiotic comment you made that's all.[/QUOTE]
You're right. It's not illegal for someone to show a picture from 25 years ago, but that's not what Mr Quinn said. You just missed the point. It was the means of obtaining the photo, 25 years ago, that was the point.
Try and let your brain catch up with your fingers before you post.
kdj2hot · Member since
[QUOTE] [b]SkyeTV wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]kdj2hot wrote:[/b]
2. The topic of this thread involves a picture of Freddie Mercury from nearly 25 yrs in public that's not illegal and I just thought it was an idiotic comment you made that's all.[/QUOTE]
You're right. It's not illegal for someone to show a picture from 25 years ago, but that's not what Mr Quinn said. You just missed the point. It was the means of obtaining the photo, 25 years ago, that was the point.
Try and let your brain catch up with your fingers before you post.[/QUOTE]
Well you almost got my point. I didn't say showing the picture isn't illegal. If I typed that it was a typo. I meant it's not illegal to take pictures. They weren't in his house, it was a picture taken outside. No one owns outside except God...so there. If greedy paparazzi types wanna take pictures of dying people who refuses to admit they're dying thus making them fair game and newsworthy than they have as much right to take the pic as you or me have to breathe.
SkyeTV · Member since
That's incorrect. If you wish to challenge a picture being taken of you, and published, you can. Despite many papers doing it on a daily basis, it is illegal to publish pictures taken without your permission, unless it is a picture of a busy street and you're unlucky enough to have been snapped passing by.
SkyeTV · Member since
That said, that's from 1998 laws, so wouldn't have covered Freddie in '91. Perhaps another law would have, but I'm unclear on that.
It's still immoral and unethical, though. It may have been a public street, but it's still about someone's private life. Clearly, it wasn't a "public" appearance, but a quick transfer from home to car.
Day dop · Member since
I remember clearly, back in 91, being in the newsagents and seeing that photo and headline plastered across the front of that piece of shit tabloid.
