Celebrity Videos - cleaned

[nudografias]

Charlotte Lebon

02:43 - 1280x720 - 44 MB
Charlotte Lebon in Le grand méchant loup (2013).mp4

​

 

[Captain Video]

Lea Thompson, Amy Pietz - "Caroline In The City" S01E24

Season 1 Finale!

180 MB | 6 Min 28 Sec | 960x540 | xvid avi
http://depositfiles.com/files/ft68wl1r7


- thanks to eastside :beer:

 

[gesd23]

Almost entirely duplicating page 1 of the thread

 

[blueoystercult]

Infraction for gesd23: Posted Duplicates

Post: Elena Anaya
User: gesd23
Infraction: Posted Duplicates
Points: 1

Administrative Note:

Why you have just been infracted

Message to User:

So many duplicates of multiple posts all on the same page as this one submission.
Baffling
Please read the forum rules again. CAREFULLY>
BOC

Original Post:

 

[blueoystercult]

I think we have to accept that social media content is a fact of life now. The question is where and how we draw lines.
I sent the following DM to LARI about his Kardashian flood a while back [this is a text copy, the original having been deleted to clear my message box]

Do we really need any more Kardashian pregnancy pictures? At this point she just looks like she's smuggling a family of pigs in a fishing net and is about as sexy. She's milking the whole thing for all it's worth but do we need galleries of it?
BOC

In Reply to your post add #610

To which he replied

From : -LARI-
To : blueoystercult
Date : 2015-11-08 14:03
Title : Re: Kim Kardashian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK. I respect that

I left the existing galleries alone and thankfully did not see another picture of Her Royal Bloatedness on the board, so the quiet word thing does work sometimes. Similarly when we had the hissy-fit post off about the Cyrus dildo costume I just deleted all of it and they shut up and resumed normal business. So sometimes the big stick works. That's part of the whole discretion thing
I don't think that banning imagetwist will be a panacea to endall ills, but I do think disincentivising the cashwhore posters as best we can will alleviate some of the problem at least. [On the subject of Friend26, I believe he posts much of what others post, to fit in and to supply what is wanted. He messages me often to let me know about problems or issues and seems genuinely to want to be a part of an online community. If the social media tat ebbed away his focus would be drawn to better quality.]
The imagetiwst issue came to a head for me this evening when trying to check this post
http://www.nudecelebforum.com/showpost.php?p=890075&postcount=29
Firefox on which I have installed a popup blocker and ad stopper, would not load it. Chrome which is add-on free, crashed on multiple attempts trying to load it. Finally I opened it in a sandboxed IE browser to be flooded with pop-ups and redirects. It took me nearly 30 minutes to get to the actual image so I replaced it in the post with the same image Dead Link Removed to the board's pimp and host service.
To my mind that experience is ridiculous. It is things like this as much as the tat posted by click-thru profiteers that makes me wonder if this is a hosting service we should be advocating. However, I don't know what the business model of the board is so can't comment beyond these observations.
None of this has anything to do with my primary query however, which is the establishment of a thumbnail parameter. Because different hosts have different sizes it would be hard to set a pixel dimension, but making it clear that small or moderate sized thumbs are preferred and full sized images unacceptable would seem to be a sensible addition to the rules/guidelines.
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

That's been the problem all along, grey muddy water.
If we're talking now about retrospective clearing of posts like this to redefine the benchmarks of acceptable content though we have to have a starting point. Alternatively we could have a kind of amnesty on existing posts to leave content intact to a certain point but establish new benchmarks and post a forum announcement to make this clear
As an aside I'd also suggest bringing video and picture fora into line to make posting standards less confusing and also to eliminate the endless talk shows and weather reports that are TV tapioca. But that's just me.

 

[blueoystercult]

That's been the problem all along, grey muddy water.
If we're talking now about retrospective clearing of posts like this to redefine the benchmarks of acceptable content though we have to have a starting point. Alternatively we could have a kind of amnesty on existing posts to leave content intact to a certain point but establish new benchmarks and post a forum announcement to make this clear
As an aside I'd also suggest bringing video and picture fora into line to make posting standards less confusing and also to eliminate the endless talk shows and weather reports that are TV tapioca. But that's just me.

 

[walle1001]

Kate Bosworth in sex scene hard in Straw Dogs





Actris : Kate Bosworth
FORMAT : avi
WEIGHT: 178 mb
RESOLUTION : 1920 x 800
DURATION: 2:43 min


DOWNLOAD

Dead Link Removed

http://www.anafile.com/qknfydy823nt.html

...

 

[nudografias]

Summer Altice

01:06 - 1280x720 - 18 MB
Summer Altice in Heist (2015).mp4

​

 

[nudografias]

Gemma Arterton

01:30 - 1280x720 - 24 MB
Gemma Arterton in Gemma Bovery (2014).mp4




Gemma Arterton in Byzantium (2012).mp4
01:12 - 1280x720 - 19 MB




Gemma Arterton in Tamara Drewe (2010).mp4
01:25 - 640x360 - 11 MB




03:12 - 640x360 - 25 MB
Gemma Arterton in The Disappearance of Alice Creed (2009).mp4




00:51 - 640x360 - 5 MB
Gemma Arterton in Three and Out (2008).mp4




00:45 - 1280x720 - 10 MB
Gemma Arterton in Quantum of Solace (2008).mp4

​

 

[nudografias]

Carla Quevedo

01:20 - 1280x720 - 18 MB
Carla Quevedo in Affluenza (2014).mp4




02:10 - 1280x720 - 31 MB
Dead Link Removed




01:09 - 1280x720 - 18 MB
Carla Quevedo in The Secret in Their Eyes (2009).mp4

​

 

[walle1001]

rachel sterling being groped by an old man in A Man Apart






Actris : rachel sterling
FORMAT: mkv
WEIGHT: 119 mb
RESOLUTION : 1920 x 1080
DURATION: 1:29 min


DOWNLOAD

Dead Link Removed

http://www.anafile.com/p21745e3dbeq.html

...

 

[nudografias]

01:13 - 1280x720 - 17 MB
Catherine Keener in War Story (2014).mp4




00:31 - 640x360 - 4 MB
Catherine Keener in The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005).mp4




00:57 - 1280x720 - 15 MB
Catherine Keener in Being John Malkovich (1999).mp4




00:24 - 640x360 - 3 MB
Catherine Keener in The Real Blonde (1997).mp4




00:18 - 1280x720 - 5 MB
Catherine Keener in Living in Oblivion (1995).mp4



​

 

[nudografias]

01:01 - 1280x720 - 17 MB
Winona Ryder in Sex and Death 101 (2007).mp4




00:17 - 640x360 - 2 MB
Winona Ryder in Autumn in New York (2000).mp4


​

 

[nudografias]

00:52 - 1280x720 - 12 MB
Rachael Taylor in The Loft (2014).mp4




00:27 - 1280x720 - 6 MB
Rachael Taylor in Any Questions for Ben (2012).mp4




02:16 - 640x360 - 18 MB
Rachael Taylor in Summer Coda (2010).mp4




01:02 - 640x360 - 8 MB
Rachael Taylor in Cedar Boys (2009).mp4

​

 

[blueoystercult]

in that case the only real question remaining would be the form and parameter of the updated posting rule or guideline. The trickiest question of all.
as an example consider this posthttp://www.nudecelebforum.com/showpost.php?p=890103&postcount=20
No one can deny the quality of the set or the allure of both subject and content, but if we were to take this post strictly by skin exposure, most of it would be disallowed.
Similarly this post of mine of Christy Turlington [and you can include several others of her in this thread and also of Ysmeen Ghauri]
http://www.nudecelebforum.com/showpost.php?p=877401&postcount=27
would also be disallowed, but I defy you to tell me it's not one of the sexiest images you're likely to see, clothed or unclothed.
Conversely, most shots of Miley Cyrus are about as sexy as semolina unless you're 15yrs old and have never seen a pair of pubescent manboobs before. So how do we frame our minimum standard? On skin alone would seem to be too crude a measure unless we take your idea of subfora to it's logical conclusion and have similar sections for fashion models and shoots, social media releases etc.
I'm ust throwing ideas at the wall at this point to see if anything sticks. Trying to start a discussion and examination. These aren't firm proposals.
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

in that case the only real question remaining would be the form and parameter of the updated posting rule or guideline. The trickiest question of all.
as an example consider this posthttp://www.nudecelebforum.com/showpost.php?p=890103&postcount=20
No one can deny the quality of the set or the allure of both subject and content, but if we were to take this post strictly by skin exposure, most of it would be disallowed.
Similarly this post of mine of Christy Turlington [and you can include several others of her in this thread and also of Ysmeen Ghauri]
http://www.nudecelebforum.com/showpost.php?p=877401&postcount=27
would also be disallowed, but I defy you to tell me it's not one of the sexiest images you're likely to see, clothed or unclothed.
Conversely, most shots of Miley Cyrus are about as sexy as semolina unless you're 15yrs old and have never seen a pair of pubescent manboobs before. So how do we frame our minimum standard? On skin alone would seem to be too crude a measure unless we take your idea of subfora to it's logical conclusion and have similar sections for fashion models and shoots, social media releases etc.
I'm ust throwing ideas at the wall at this point to see if anything sticks. Trying to start a discussion and examination. These aren't firm proposals.
BOC

 

[blueoystercult]

That I agree with completely and is along the lines of my thinking too. Most Pap shots are garbage. People wandering through carparks and streets. If you're a fanataic fine, but there are plenty of fora and newsgroups for fanatics. It's the same with red carpet shoots. Endlessly repeated frames of the same old same old. There are some notable exceptions but generally event photos are terribly dull unless the subject is wearing something spectacular.
There were pap shots of one of the Jenners a while back where she was getting into a car or something and was wearing see through leggings. It was like watching a baboon in tights flash its arse at the world and they just kept posting them. I think this is where my deep seated [no pun intended] revulsion of the term "adds" is rooted actually. Had to approve them till finally I started trashing them for adding nothing but it wasn't anything I'd care to include generally and I'd have happily limited it to one post only for "record keeping".
Perhaps that could be a new limitation? Discarding posts that add nothing to previous posts? I've already set some precedents wit that and no one challenged me.
BOC

One thing I use as sort of a personal guideline is I think less skin is almost always more acceptable when the images are from a photoshoot... I'm more likely to remove borderline paparazzi pics than ones from an actual photo session. The sexiness factor is much more likely to be present.

 

[blueoystercult]

That I agree with completely and is along the lines of my thinking too. Most Pap shots are garbage. People wandering through carparks and streets. If you're a fanataic fine, but there are plenty of fora and newsgroups for fanatics. It's the same with red carpet shoots. Endlessly repeated frames of the same old same old. There are some notable exceptions but generally event photos are terribly dull unless the subject is wearing something spectacular.
There were pap shots of one of the Jenners a while back where she was getting into a car or something and was wearing see through leggings. It was like watching a baboon in tights flash its arse at the world and they just kept posting them. I think this is where my deep seated [no pun intended] revulsion of the term "adds" is rooted actually. Had to approve them till finally I started trashing them for adding nothing but it wasn't anything I'd care to include generally and I'd have happily limited it to one post only for "record keeping".
Perhaps that could be a new limitation? Discarding posts that add nothing to previous posts? I've already set some precedents wit that and no one challenged me.
BOC

One thing I use as sort of a personal guideline is I think less skin is almost always more acceptable when the images are from a photoshoot... I'm more likely to remove borderline paparazzi pics than ones from an actual photo session. The sexiness factor is much more likely to be present.

 

[nudografias]

Anna Mouglalis

02:53 - 640x360 - 22 MB
Anna Mouglalis in Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky (2009).mp4




01:58 - 640x360 - 15 MB
Anna Mouglalis in Novo (2002).mp4




03:10 - 640x360 - 25 MB
Anna Mouglalis in La vie nouvelle (2002).mp4


​