Sir,
You state that "the authors were selective about the pictures they showed here". This argument is wrong. We were not selective in our assertion that in that thread there is no closeup of women which is not blurred (http://www.farsnews.com/imgrep.php?nn=8611210101).
You say "It does not make sense to have still pictures of actresses blurred when their faces are all over the movie theater". For that argument you need to analyze the way closeups of the actresses are treated in the movies.
You call the contributors to this item "people with an agenda". More information in that respect will be much appreciated.
Furthermore, I am still waiting for a response to my latest answer to your comments: http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20080214-prize-best-actress-we%...
Response
Soumis par Arash Kamangir le ven, 15/02/2008 - 21:24.Sir,
You state that "the authors were selective about the pictures they showed here". This argument is wrong. We were not selective in our assertion that in that thread there is no closeup of women which is not blurred (http://www.farsnews.com/imgrep.php?nn=8611210101).
You say "It does not make sense to have still pictures of actresses blurred when their faces are all over the movie theater". For that argument you need to analyze the way closeups of the actresses are treated in the movies.
You call the contributors to this item "people with an agenda". More information in that respect will be much appreciated.
Furthermore, I am still waiting for a response to my latest answer to your comments:
http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20080214-prize-best-actress-we%...
Arash Kamangir