A strategy for increasing visibility on PhotoNet

[tim_b]

Beginner�s guide on how to generate greater visibility for oneself on photonet.

 

Spend hours going through the nudes folder to find a controversial photo. Find

one. A photo depicting a ritualistic sacrifice of a dog in a sexual manner

would be great but in its absence just pretend, contrary to common sense, that

this is what the photo depicts.

 

It is better to pick on a photographer who has pushed the limits already and

has had photos removed. Those kind never rate photoshopped sunsets and who

would defend filthy pornographers anyway?. Anna/Barney are good, also that

Lueders woman (she obviously is aiming to bring the downfall of western

civilization a bit closer and could possibly be a closet communist).

 

Start a thread expressing moral outrage and call for the photo to be removed

and the photographer banned. Do not email abuse@photo.net because that would do

jack all in generating visibility for yourself.

 

Put an emotive title on the thread. Alliterations are good, everybody likes

alliterations. Disgusting and Distasteful. Perverted and Pernicious. Egregious

and Execrable. Appalling and Abominable. Heinous and Horrifying. Not a Sunset.

 

Sit back and wait. Bad people will attack you but the best strategy is to

repeat �but I don�t like it� over and over and over.

 

If all else fails use the �but what if a child sees it� argument. Only an utter

fiend would try to challenge that logic.

 

Watch your visibility rise. If the photo is actually distasteful and is

removed, feel the warmth of moral vindication.

 

Wait two weeks, repeat.

[a. a.]

This is funny!

[mona_chrome]

Or I suppose you could just write the above!

[tim_b]

Not at all, it's just another of my thousands of postings.

[steven_fuller1]

That should keep the PN staff on their toes.

[jcs56]

Hi Tim,

 

I did not see the picture, I may did to have the full history. I took a time reading the post about you'r talking. I can smell the fire to burn the witch...

 

Nice to read you.

 

JC, Mexico city.

[natureshots]

OK, I got suckered and Tim B got another increment on his counter. Thousands of postings, eh? Man, the accounting scandal expands! There is too much truth to what Mona wrote. There's no need for this thread; it should belong in the other thread.

[davidmccracken]

I hope I don't detect any cynicism here Tim. That said, it is amazing what trash is on this site when you consider what was removed of mine.<br><br><b><a href=http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00E2Uv>A reminder</a>.</b>

[mona_chrome]

I can't tell if David thought it all had been removed or what?!?

[cjfraser]

"That Lueders woman." -- Sylvie, this may be a great new moniker for you. Would make a fine title for your new website.

[darius.tulbure]

Funny, Tim B, except that Will King is not a non-visible beginner and I think that it is too much to accuse him that what he did is to increase his page`s visibility.

[mike l]

Aha, someone with sense of humour (well one like mine anyway).

[yann_r.]

Funny indeed Tim : ) and so right.<br>

BTW, How many views your page is counting more now than before you've posted this thread? : )) <i>(just kidding of course)</i>

[aizan_sasayama]

will king is an attention seeking rabble rouser who had no intention to truly debate the issue in public, though he has no qualms with displaying his piety in public (on his profile page). it's pathetic and unchristian.

 

simple as that.