there's no pictures yet, but OMG!

I got the latest issue of EW today and the cover is Lindsay Lohan, completly naked, with her legs crossed and arms over her breast. The only thing shes wearing is stockings.

Sexy, sluttly...very Britney Spears like.

Is she trying to BE the next pop princess?
I think so.

And I believe this may get the award for most unnecessary thread of the day. Congratulations

YES!
is this getting the kind of attention that Britney Spears would have gotten?

Im not sure.

100 bucks says she has a bra and panties on.

How you so sure about the panties?

Um...this just looks like an immitation Demi Moore-from-Striptease pose.

Sorry, I'm getting a little giggly and rediculous from the stupic paper I'm working on. :idea:

OMG, me too! What's your on?

I'm doing 2: One on Jean Genet (ew), and another on Sartre.

I.want.to.die.

It is the law of tradeoffs between maximum exposure and maximum coverage.

I wish. I wrapped up that one on Joan (posted it in the lit section) and passed it yesterday, but I'm already 12 pages into a goddam Jimmie Durham Bibliography. That's right, and its not even for one of my Library Science classes. Its for my freakin' Art history class. I oculd see it in L.I.S because we would have question about information organization, etc. But for art history? Its tought because you're never done. You can always dig up more freakin articles that the guy publshed in 1983. The thing is, silly stuff like making sure every performance peiece he did has a proper location, date, punctation, and eveything is like fishing for needles in hay stacks. So I've been up 'til like 5 am every night this week getting it done. Twelve freakin pages on looking over his books, and then just makin annotated comments on them under each book entry. Like reading and regurgitating without that lovely thing called *sythesis* which we're supposed to be doing.

I'm lucky though...manipulating my professor's knowledge. Otherwise I'd really be in trouble. 8)

Well, that sounds like fun. Since we've already hijacked this thread, as it deserves to be, I'll just state what my essays are on:

-The Genet one: I'm basically arguing that his play The Balcony, he attacks social conventions regarding the body, the self, etc., and in doing so undermines them, showing the plasticity of the body and the self to the point where neither has much meaning. The end is anarchy.

-The Sartre one: Without God, morality is essentially subjective; whatever you do, you cannot be judged for it, really, etc. I'll obviously elobrate on it, but that basically is it.

hey the sarte, one i dunno about. could you not argue that with so many religious interpretation God is subjective, and there for claiming divine intervention will lead to just as ambiguous a morality pose. That's what the 100 Years War was all about. Trying to reassert Charles VII claim to the french throne. And one of his cheif "tools" was Joan's vision from Michael, Catherina, and Margaret that he had a divine right to it, and that it did not matter what his "earthly" transgressions (bastard kid, assassination of the Duke or Burgundy, etc) were.

I've not read Sartre, so I know it has to be based off of what he says, so I might just be talking long.

Speaking of which:

On taking a normal situation and retranslating into overlapping and multiple readings of conditions past and present. Antwerp: Museum of Contemporary Art, 1993.


That has to be the loooongest name for an exhibition I have ever seen. How'd they even fit that on the front of the catalogue???

Too bad I can't write about this, cause all the stuff I've been reading is very interesting, and I've always found Durham to be a very unique person. so meh...back to work.

Sorry, for you, guys, but I tell you what's the REAL DEAL.

I have a final in Social Science next week. It is mainly on globalisation, the meanings of the word "Security" and the question: "If the government passes a law for a minimal wage in Germany, will that help against the dumping of wages?"

The final is on Friday. We all pretty much know all the questions of the final. But you CAN NOT IMAGINE how hard it is to write all these answers. Stuff like this is usually done in colleges and universities, not in schools. In my last final I wrote 18 pages, this time around it looks to be the same.

That means:

I am stressed

My weekend is ruined

I get frustrated

here here!!
:wink:

That's pretty much a standard model pose. I've seen so many actresses pose like that I lose count.

I think she looks incredible!

If she was Lindsay who worked at Wal-Mart in the photo dept, she could be one of the cuter girls at the store. Her jock boyfriend would show her pictures to his friends and her parents would talk about her cute she is and how she was the 4th place runner up in the Miss Teen Arkansas competition.

In the grand scheme of things though, Lindsay is really far from incredible. Anyone with a bit of makeup and a qualified photographer can take great pics. Incredible beauty doesn't need to be touched up. Airport Lindsay does not look like these photos. She looks like Wal-Mart Lindsay, ok but nothing to create threads about.

White people love average looking famous white girls. :wink:

I agree. She is Wal-Mart hot, and perhaps Target hot, but definitely not Best Buy hot. You've got to be really attractive to make me look away from anything the Best Buy has.

There's only a few girls that are Best Buy hot, and they all were in the cast of the Facts of Life. Which, by the way, is proof us crackers don't just fall in love with average looking white girls. We like the black ones too (Tootie).

I agree with Pink, i think she looks sexy as hell. Who cares if she's copying someone, she is tasty!!!! I wouldnt mind having that pic, only i wouldnt want the writing around it, would ruin it a little

I say: no bra, no panties, just stockings, and isnt that grreeeaatt!!!!!

Her legs look freakishly long


But I like her neways

It's as often true for guys too, though. :wink:

I'd hit it.

She gets way too much attention on the internet. She's cute, but there are MANY girls that are far better looking, yet they don't get the attention online, because, yes, you guessed it, it's not as trendy. From the amount of threads dedicated to her that I've seen around the net, you'd think the attention would at least be understandable, but it just looks like a media induced "it girl" trend that people are following, because she's not all that.

No Mav she's fucking banging. There aren't too many girls hotter than her. And she has huge tits.

shes 18 and has breasts man!!

You've forgotten what it was to be 16.

tsk tsk.

She was on Saturday Night Live last night. And the girl didn't look hot in high def. Im not saying she's a complete mook but you can't say she's some uber-babe, cause, come on, being fuckable is different than being some goddess.