4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Keith wrote:BTW, Tom, has the server log twitched on that picture yet?
Sorry it took me a while to see this; the signal to noise ratio on this thread is way out of spec. The scenery isn't all bad, but the discussion keeps getting lost in between girl parts.
Overall site traffic is a bit up, but nothing I can attribute to that photo. Our server doesn't mind a bit.
Did someone say girl parts?
Or... did you just want generic body parts?
The Quasi Mofo will drop panties quicker.
An ode to Tom's avatar, much win involved......
Tom Heath wrote:The scenery isn't all bad, but the discussion keeps getting lost in between girl parts.
What discussion? 
Well I was going to post a picture to add to "the discussion" but it is difficult to find a hot girl on the hood of an MG. I wonder why.
96DXCivic wrote:Well I was going to post a picture to add to "the discussion" but it is difficult to find a hot girl on the hood of an MG. I wonder why.
It's hard to sit on an open hood
96DXCivic wrote:Well I was going to post a picture to add to "the discussion" but it is difficult to find a hot girl on the hood of an MG. I wonder why.
Is this an acceptable substitute?
There's no MG content in this post. I don't care. 
Closest I could find:
More fine examples.
From here:
http://ranwhenparked.blogspot.com/2009/02/golden-age-of-automotive-advertising.html
In reply to jrw1621:
Hey I have the MG Midget version of that ad. It must be might cold out. 
In reply to MrJoshua:
I approve. I should get my girlfriend to pose on my MG. I guess a rusty one wouldn't be as good.
jrw1621 wrote:More fine examples.
From here:
http://ranwhenparked.blogspot.com/2009/02/golden-age-of-automotive-advertising.html
That's the first time I have ever seen a car make a girl look worse rather than the girl making the car look better.
4cylndrfury wrote:
meh...mines pretty good!
ROFL! The "sick" one has a lower bottle count. There's a lightweight at every party, right?
Wow. Haven't read the whole thread, but from what I have read, there's a whole lot of stupid going on. And a whole lotta awesome pics. Thanks for that!
First, the only time any of this matters at all is if a VERY popular site hits you. Otherwise, it's nothing.
Bandwidth is virtually free... I'm talking terrabytes of throughput per month. More bandwidth than you'll ever begin to use unless you're trying to re-invent youtube. For any reasonalbly well-built normal site, you'll never hit your bandwidth cap unless you get hit by a much a larger site.
Even then, it's not the bandwidth that kills you, it's the sudden influx of server requests. Bad Analogy: Would you rather give someone a dollar, or 95 pennies, one at a time?
If a site owner REALLY cares, they can do some pretty simple voodoo that says if the domain requesting the image != this domain, feed them this very small image instead. That cuts back on the bandwidth and somewhat eases the requests, since it's all pulling the one small image, but honestly, it's not worth it.
Personally, I don't think much of watermarking images, either. I think 9 times out of 10 it looks like crap, it creates extra workload to put it in, and it does no good. If I want to know where the image came from, I'll right-click. If I want to take the image and claim it, I'm going to. Photoshopping out the watermark is trivial.
And this whole idea that it's the LINK thats bad, not the image... that's just stupid. Links have no bandwidth. All they do is give the linked-to site a little extra google love. The web is built on linking. Link away. Links are good.
Anyway, absolutely none of this should be of any concern whatsoever to you, the user. You have every right to link and post images any damn way you like. That's what the web is all about.
If some site owner has bunched panties, that's his problem, not yours.
And now, back to silly pictures...
Wally wrote:96DXCivic wrote:Well I was going to post a picture to add to "the discussion" but it is difficult to find a hot girl on the hood of an MG. I wonder why.
It's hard to sit on an open hood
Yup, no girl here.
