Well played, none can say now you posted a random girl.

>>2
...because?

This pic is not random...
... because I took it the other day.

>>3

>>8

>useless...

as in not in game farming da phat lewtz 24/7 to give her as tribute, seriously, how many hints do you losers need? Sheesh. lrn2read between the lines.

cracky quit WoW years ago...

>>13

Lies.

>>14

prove me otherwise

Extracted from Swami Vivekananda’s "Bhakti Yoga":

The next points to be considered are the worship of Pratikas or of things more or less satisfactory as substitutes for God, and the worship of Pratimâs or images.
[...]
Now worshipping Ishvara and Him alone is Bhakti; the worship of anything else — Deva, or Pitri, or any other being — cannot be Bhakti. The various kinds of worship of the various Devas are all to be included in ritualistic Karma, which gives to the worshipper only a particular result in the form of some celestial enjoyment, but can neither give rise to Bhakti nor lead to Mukti [...]

[When you are worshipping Pratikas-images] if the image stands for a god or a saint, the worship is not the result of Bhakti, and does not lead lo liberation; but if it stands for the one God, the worship thereof will bring both Bhakti and Mukti. Of the principal religions of the world we see Vedantism, Buddhism, and certain forms of Christianity freely using images; only two religions, Mohammedanism and Protestantism, refuse such help. Yet the Mohammedans use the grave of their saints and martyrs almost in the place of images; and the Protestants, in rejecting all concrete helps to religion, are drifting away every year farther and farther from spirituality till at present there is scarcely any difference between the advanced Protestants and the followers of August Comte, or agnostics who preach ethics alone. Again, in Christianity and Mohammedanism whatever exists of image worship is made to fall under that category in which the Pratika or the Pratima is worshipped in itself, but not as a “help to the vision” (Drishtisaukaryam) of God; therefore it is at best only of the nature of ritualistic Karmas and cannot produce either Bhakti or Mukti. In this form of image–worship, the allegiance of the soul is given to other things than Ishvara, and, therefore, such use of images, or graves, or temples, or tombs, is real idolatry; it is in itself neither sinful nor wicked —it is a rite — a Karma, and worshippers must and will get the fruit thereof.

I love you carpfolding

Resurgam

Go try and lord over someone else already.

>>5
Let's see. There at least two, and probably three who think she looks like a boy.
So you post an image to show that she's undeniably a girl, which was already established (no need to point out "that boy looks like a boy"), and deriving somehow that either those who think she looks like a boy, or you, must be homosexual.

So either she is you, and you're feeling somewhat short changed because random internet strangers feel you do not look like a typical girl, in which case I would like to say.
I think I see your point; maybe posting some more nudes will make it more clear for all to see.

Or in case you're not her.
Well, I think an analyst/philosopher like you can figure out the obvious.

This here site is a Cracky sub-culture site, not a general chan site.

I suppose it's enough for you to mention Cracky in your post to post your latest infatuation, but believe me, it is not.

gb2 chansluts, or /b/

>>1
You have my "attention"

Full story now.

:P

>>12

Untexted version, please.

>>13

lrn2tineye

karen pond
amy gillan

Oh wow, I remember reading this years ago, and that her Hotmail roughly translates to ugly mermaid.

it completely depends on the feeling i get from the model. i think it's much easier to base & create a photograph around the model for me right now than it is to find a model to fit a specific idea i have.

that said, i like weird, dreamy, odd, perverse or just plain beautiful kinds of photos. a few people commented that i have a slightly warped sense of beauty, but i don't know... those are the kind of photos i want to take - but whether i actually have the ability at the moment, i don't know. i'm a student, i'm trying to learn.

almost all the photos in my journal are selfportraits, but i find this really limiting and awkward as i don't have much control over the camera. also i don't particularily feel comfortable in front of it. (but if you're curious, here's one: http://www.livejournal.com/users/scarecrowmaiden/21326.html#cutid1)

i think i want to make much more striking pictures and i can't do that when the only model is myself. everything is so passive when the camera isn't in my hands.

as for where, probably somewhere in public in the city, like perhaps a graveyard, the park or public gardens, the canal, a cafe, church, etc. there's no space in my house and it's cramped and boring and i'd probably feel uncomfortable photographing a stranger there, anyway.

if its you yourself interested, and you feel okay with it, you could send me a photo of your face and then i'd be able to think in much more detail about the kind of photos i'd like to take...

Take my photo sometime.

>>12
someone called "yhellothar (chloe)" is campaginig for cracky's meme status

>>14 hm. I didn't know Tabby had a KYM article. Oh well, i suppose KYM has evolved into more of an 'internet figures' site than a meme site. Then Cracky surely deserves a page.

>>15

Know your meme doesn't deserve cracky.

>>16 I suppose that too is true.