[Image removed because it was screwing around with some browsers. You can still find it over at Unreality.]
ADDED: What is the extent of the Photoshopping? An emailer hints:
The odd thing is, I look like Bjork! Thanks for making me reflect upon my unelfinness.
पोस्ट्स
४७ टिप्पण्या:
That picture is mightily disturbing.
Charming? In that pic, Emma Watson looks like Alex P. Keaton with long hair.
The list of women I want underneath me in the missionary position just got a little shorter.
I have always believed that beautiful women are direct evidence of the existence of God. (I do not discount that beautiful men may be likewise, but I like the gals.)
It is also evidence of God that the more homely among us are just as adept as the beautiful at finding partners. "There's someone for everyone," my father used to say.
Are you sure these photos are of two different people? They look like identical twins.
I see two smug and self satisfied looks that are used to identify the high class in England. So what. God loves all the people not withstanding their haughty looks which irritate Him at times.
Given that we're all interrelated, this is not surprising, and adds no further reason to wonder if there is a God.
@Bissage
You have moved her to the list of women you want in another position?
Somebody got 'photoshopped', but which one?
But Hermione Granger is the most gifted witch of her generation. It makes me more likely to believe in Wicca.
Their necks ought to be different, but you can't tell from the obscuring hair.
An unremarked sexual difference.
I'm going to hypothesize that certain groups are more likely to have been exposed to missionary atheism than others. There's a reason that if you guess an Italian will self-identify as Catholic or an Arab will self-identify is Muslim you're usually going to be right.
wv: "vatici" <--this is eerie
A shameless "separated at birth" Spy Magazine take off--except this is more of the father daughter connection. Maybe Richard Dawkins has been spreading his genes around more than he is aware of.
Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson--separated at birth?
Andrew Sullivan and Ralph Nader--separated at birth>
Separated at birth.....50 year child birth.
Oh yeah, they're totally similar.
The Brits are inbred now. They lost their best men in the wars.
You have moved her to the list of women you want in another position?
But of course, Triangle Man. Although, in all fairness, it’s not so much a list as it is an ever-expanding multi-volume set that presently occupies several bookcases.
“Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a heaven for?”
You missed a choice - "Only because of her"
"The Brits are inbred now. They lost their best men in the wars."
I have oftne thought that. Too many of of the men who had initiative and loved freedom died on the fields of Flanders and Normandy. All they had left were the cripples and shirkers. It explains a lot about why they are in such dire straights now.
And I don't think Emma Watson has grown up to be a very pretty woman. She has nice skin and the body of what she is (a thin 18 year old) but her features leave a lot to be desired. She will not age well. As she gets older she will look courser and homely.
Good flip, Chip!
As for Watson and Dawkins, the similarity is striking. Enough that her daddy lawyer of record might ask divorced Mommy lawyer if she might have met Dr. Dawkins.
As for Emma Watson herself....well... good-looking, rich, intellectually gifted. (As parents, we had kids that ate up the Harry Potter books, so we of course had to 'understand' them, then the movies.)
Only real downsides for Watson are:
1. The price of fame (loss of anonymity which young people in particular really want at many times in their lives)
2. Having to choose between a 6 million dollar fee for a new movie and losing time for another Semester at an Ivy League school.
3. Time spent away promoting the final Harry Potter flick.
4. Awkwardness of meeting Dawkins if he comes on campus.
(JK Rowling was very pleased that she had input into casting the 3 lead kids that would be her characters - into the movies. And how well they have done in the series and in their personal lives - especially about Watson - who Rowling championed from her 1st screen test.)
Bissage - I don't think Watson is in any danger of being vomited on if some lucky preppie gets to hook up with her and get into the missionary position. Unless it's some kid doing a tryst after too much drinking at a kegger.
Look at the shading under the eyes....the pattern is identical. I'm calling photoshop'd.
God is pumping for a unisex world?
One of the sad facts of the modern world is the contemporary conception of beauty, where an attractive woman looks like a dude with masculine features, and an attractive guy looks like a chick with feminine features.
There is no God, and there's your proof.
The Macho Response
Faith != evidence in any way, shape or form.
Faith is more of an emotional response and, much like most emotions, exists on a level apart from rational thought or logic. Faith in God or faith in the Big Bang Theory...it doesn't matter. When presented with the unprovable and asked to make a choice, most people go with their gut.
"As for Emma Watson herself....well... good-looking, rich, intellectually gifted."
How do you know she is intellectually gifted? She acted in the movies, the didn't write them. And she goes to Brown, which is affectionately known as "A Ghetto Ivy" Ivies love to get celbrities because they are full pays and they attract publicity. The celebrities who are really smart get into an go to Harvard or Yale (see Jody Foster). The ones who are dumb go to Brown.
A hint of Kelly Preston too?
Maybe it's an atheist - Scientology thing?
wv - "comenn" = Titus's favorite Bed & Breakfast
Either you fell for that sadly obvious photoshop or this is just another vortex.
@John, several thoughts. First, Emma Watson is not pretty or beautiful in the classic sense. Having said that, she *is attractive* and she will age quite well, far better than many of the hot babes. She is also very sexy; in particular watch the scene in Goblet of Fire where Viktor Krum puts his name in the goblet and she smiles at him.
As to her intelligence, if I am not mistaken, she has also been admitted to both Oxford and Cambridge. Trust me, she is plenty smart.
I do agree with you that Brown University is VASTLY overrated, full of PC jerks.
@Frodo Potter,
I wasn't saying that she isn't smart. I was just saying that the fact that she was a child star and goes to Brown doesn't mean she is smart. She may be smart but it is not because of that.
As far as her looks, she is attractive. I don't think she is ugly. I just don't think she is a raving beauty. She doesn't have the body or the sex appeal of a Scarlett Johanson or the classic features of a Natalie Portman. Is sexy? Well she is 18, it is hard for her not to be. If she wasn't famous and I saw her, I would think "what a cute, pretty college girl". But I wouldn't think "OMG did you see her".
I don't know, kind of disturbing, yes.
But this one, definitely wrong.
And this one, hilarious.
Also, some Brits don't get around much, evidence, Cheddar Man and the Somerset history teacher.
I think Dawkins has had cosmetic surgery and I doubt the surgeon was God.
Are you people blind? It's photoshopped, and clumsily. Dawkins' face on Watson's head. Sheesh.
John - How do you know she is intellectually gifted? She acted in the movies, the didn't write them. And she goes to Brown, which is affectionately known as "A Ghetto Ivy"
John - Just because a person is into acting does not mean they are dumb. In fact, high intelligence is a plus in casting, because the ones that show in screen tests that they can quickly assimilate changes in lines or complicated new instructions from the director will have an edge when hundreds, even thousands of aspirants are being screened for a role.
Hugh Laurie wrote something about being smart helps..though in a very Blackadder, ironic, comical way.
That said, Watson supposedly had Firsts galore, won a Brit national writing test, and had admittance from Oxford and the Sarbonne as well as Stanford, Pomona, and the Ivys.
Hawkins may say there is no God, but if there is one, evidence might be in how all the stars aligned for Watson as a kid.
He's got a pretty mouth.
But he doesn't pray.
"That said, Watson supposedly had Firsts galore, won a Brit national writing test, and had admittance from Oxford and the Sarbonne as well as Stanford, Pomona, and the Ivys."
For that reason, rather than being a child actor, she is smart. But, she still chose Brown, which makes me think she is some kind of uninformed liberal twit.
Cedarford wrote: John - Just because a person is into acting does not mean they are dumb.
Emma Watson notwithstanding, you are arguing against the weight of the known evidence here, Cedarford.
"But, she still chose Brown, which makes me think she is some kind of uninformed liberal twit."
Could be any number of reasons to chose that school. I don't know what they are, but school choice is a sort of ephemeral thing.
Nice pic of Althouse up there. I wondered if the originals were photoshopped because the noses were identical.
In the vast number of people, there are bound to be some copies.
Twenty some years ago, I got on a bus in South India and spotted someone who was the slightly skinnier, dark-skinned mirror image of my oldest brother -- in aspect and carriage and mannerisms and hair.
But, she still chose Brown, which makes me think she is some kind of uninformed liberal twit.
I think we should send her a gift--one of the "Dirty Libtard Pirate Whore" t-shirts we're having made.
I used to love that feature "Separated at Birth" in the old SPY Magazine. They had Mick Jagger and Don Knotts together... it was fantastic.
Just as I was beginning to notice that there was something fishy with THIS particular set, I noticed that people at the original site were commenting on the fact that the photos had been Photoshopped to look more alike. It's totally obvious once to start looking for it.
I'm a huge Bjork fan. You don't look anything like Bjork no matter how you are chopped. I'm not saying that's good or bad, btw.
elHombre said...
Cedarford wrote: John - Just because a person is into acting does not mean they are dumb.
Emma Watson notwithstanding, you are arguing against the weight of the known evidence here, Cedarford.
******************
I agree that some actors and performers say some pretty dumb things, but if you look at the ranks of them, plus directors that started as actors, you have some very impressive people....
Remember Hollywood is hypercompetitive. You have hundreds to thousands competing for choice roles, a chance to direct, produce...and intelligence is what separates the Arnold Schwarzeneggers from the Lou Ferrignos.
A sampling:
Mira Sorvino - Harvard, Chinese studies
James Woods - MIT. IQ 178-180.
Jodie Foster - Yale
Jackie Gleason - photographic memory
Bill O'Reilly - 1585 SAT
Arnold Schwarzenegger - IQ 137
Quentin Tarantino - IQ 160
Will Smith - SATs in high 1300s. Accepted at MIT prepatory for doing two science and physics classes prior to formal admission. Decided to try rap instead - mother told him he was crazy to not do MIT.
Matt Damon - Harvard. Left before graduating when he landed a big role.
Sharon Stone - 155 IQ.
Darth Dawkins: Emma...I am your father.
The odd thing is, I look like Bjork!
NO! I see Meg Ryan all the way. I'll have what she's having.
Has the word "Photoshop" become this generation's "xerox"?
Does Adobe get a kickback every time that word is used?
Has the word "Photoshop" become this generation's "xerox"?
Does Adobe get a kickback every time that word is used?
It sounds more like it's become genericized in the way that any facial tissue is a "kleenex," any vacuum bottle is a "thermos" and any large metal trash receptacle is a "dumpster."
But is there any other program with which one can Photoshop something? I thought the Adobe product was the only one...
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा