[gatagato]

With those watermarks they killed her again
It's a great set though, thanks

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by gatagato ↗

With those watermarks they killed her again
It's a great set though, thanks

Yeah, I am not pleased about them either. But the photos were pretty good, there were just so many, and the watermark itself is more transparent than opaque, so I let it slide.

[r0tten]

Fuck me, I hate burns. And I hate eye injuries. Fuck a bunch of that.

What the hell could she have done to make them want to do that to her?

[Razorhead]

great post, thanks

[DiamondSmiles]

Can't tell if she was pregnant, but, she had given birth at some point. Sad!

[Sharon]

Terrible

*Please note rule about watermarked images
http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...ncements.html*

[Vedderman]

Originally Posted by Sharon. ↗

Terrible

*Please note rule about watermarked images
http://www.documentingreality.com/fo...ncements.html*

Yes, I am aware of the rule. Though the announcement says "in most cases they will now be removed." Since 19 out of the every 20 images I post have no watermarks, I took the liberty of posting these, especially since the watermark is almost transparent and it was such a big set.

But apparently my interpretation of 'most cases' was too liberal and Kelly actually meant 'all cases' in her announcement.

As I no longer have the time available to spend hours removing near-transparent, center-image watermarks in photoshop, I will henceforth only post images that are originally published with no watermarks at all here at DR.

As for this set, would you prefer to delete the thread itself altogether? Or should I just delete the photos and let the thread die on its own?

[zombie-rot420]

They always murder the hot ones.

[wujuan]