Britney's Shootz

by **Pinperson** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:22 pm

The un-made-up version looks better, in my opinion.

by **bruce** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:35 pm

I'd still hit that.

Bruce

by **Jack Straw** » Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:10 pm

by **Lysander** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:32 pm

bruce wrote:
James Bond wrote:vitriol-filled
I thought Filling Vitriola was ICJ's job description these days.

A-hah! Finally, someone caught that!

by **bruce** » Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:34 am

James Bond wrote:vitriol-filled

I thought Filling Vitriola was ICJ's job description these days.

Bruce

by **Ice Cream Jonsey** » Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:02 pm

Lex wrote:YOU ARE IN A ROOM WITH A TOPLESS BRITNEY SPEARS, ASSJACK.

Probably because her people would blacklist you.

But then again, Playboy is offering up $7 million for her to pose naked, so who cares if you're blacklisted if you never have to work again?

Anyway, I'd feel sorry for her if something like that happened, but really the only thing she's got going for her is that we haven't seen her naked yet. So actually, she had that in common with Lex, so there's that. But anyway, the T.A.T.U. girls would have been around longer if they had played their cards differently and not had those naked club shots out there from the get-go.

Oh, and if they weren't filthy, godless Soviets, natch.

by **THE SNOWMAN** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 8:16 pm

Worm your sig makesme sick.

by **THE SNOWMAN** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 8:16 pm

You're really having trouble posting IMAGES, CASUAL.

WHY NOT ASK YOUR FIANCEE FOR HELP. HE'S NOT HERE? I WILL HELP YOU

by **Casual** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 6:27 pm

by **Vitriola** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 6:07 pm

by **Britney Spears** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 2:23 pm

James Bond wrote:Now listen here, god damn it. We are not going to talk about Britny Spears. Because if we do, then I am just going to fucking *snap*, and I am going to start posting long, vitriol-filled, acidic and furious rants on the subject and get needlessly worked up over it again, and again, and again, and I'm going to say over and over how utterly and completely dispicable a creature she is, and I will go into great detail on the subject. And, seriously, no one wants that. kay?

Oops, you did it again.

Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah

by **James Bond** » Tue Nov 25, 2003 1:32 pm

Now listen here, god damn it. We are not going to talk about Britny Spears. Because if we do, then I am just going to fucking *snap*, and I am going to start posting long, vitriol-filled, acidic and furious rants on the subject and get needlessly worked up over it again, and again, and again, and I'm going to say over and over how utterly and completely dispicable a creature she is, and I will go into great detail on the subject. And, seriously, no one wants that. kay?

by **Worm** » Mon Nov 24, 2003 6:41 am

I thought they did snap away and just took the best shots.

by **Lex** » Mon Nov 24, 2003 2:59 am

It occurs to me, that for every bunch of photos that come out of a shoot (like the ones currently on Britney.com), in which she appears topless/naked, she would have to be in a room with at least 1 cameraman, but much more likely a photographer/director, several lighting assistants, etc.

So why the hell aren't there more leaked photos out there of the shots where her wrists weren't in quite the right place? And, if you were photoing Britney, wouldn't you keep the camera rolling as she changed position? YOU ARE IN A ROOM WITH A TOPLESS BRITNEY SPEARS, ASSJACK.

Seriously, could *you* ignore the temptation to keep firing away with yo' lens while she jiggles into the next pose?

Just a thought.

Britney's Shootz

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: Britney's Shootz

Re: Britney's Shootz

Britney's Shootz