aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM
Mon Nov 17 04:01:42 UTC 2014
While the theory is plausible, I don't think it applies.
Note the quote again, this time with some highlighting.
> In the *most revealing photo* (*seen above*, with black bars that
> didn’t make their way to the magazine), a nude Kardashian goes
> full-frontal, wearing nothing but a pearl choker.
> Not everyone was a fan of *the now-famous booty shot*...
While the first and the last highlighted parts may be coincidental and
the two lines refer to different photos. In the middle, however, there
is the "seen above", which is hard to erase. The only photo "seen above"
is a side shot with the same black dress gown down to the hips, the
pearl choker and the gloves. It's not the same "booty shot", but it's in
no way frontal.
The Fox link is actually secondary. The original story, with photo, is
at NYPost PageSix
On 11/16/2014 4:55 PM, ADSGarson O'Toole wrote:
> Victor Steinbok wrote:
>>> In the most revealing photo (seen above, with black bars that didn't make their way to the magazine), a nude Kardashian goes full-frontal, wearing
>>> nothing but a pearl choker.
>>> Not everyone was a fan of the now-famous booty shot
>> There may be some confusion between two different images. One image
>> might be designated the "now-famous booty shot" and another image
>> might be designated "full-frontal, wearing nothing but a pearl
>> choker". Several images from the series are visible at the Paper
>> Magazine website (NSFW):
>> http://www.papermag.com/2014/11/kim_kardashian.php It is possible
>> that the writer was referring to the front-facing image (at an angle)
>> when using the term "full frontal".
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
More information about the Ads-l