Thursday, August 13, 2009

more nudie cuties

So I apologized to our correspondent Erica yesterday for the excesses of the Grim Reaper -- he had fallen under the spell of fellow blogger Stoogepie, and had gone for the raunch.

It seemed too vulgar.

But now I have learned more about Erica's concerns.

I have familiarized myself with "Google Reader."

It pitches itself as a way to keep up with all of your fave blogs.

In truth: it's a scheme to subject subscribers to the whims of other bloggers, in BIG BOLD photos [none o' yer little thumbnails].

Mind you -- a great big Catherine Deneuve would probably be fine with me, but I'm the first to recognize that it's not gonna catch on with all of yer office managers.

So I'm sensitive.

I'll try to watch it in the future.


Nevertheless, our readership demands skin. So it's on to more nudie cuties.

I'm sorry about the enhancement on the part of the distaff side; she ultimately thought that the endowment of her maker just didn't look right, and so some changes were made.

"All-natural" is nice, but ultimately, you've got to be comfortable in your own skin.

Or, for our two-dimensional subjects, in their own shadings.

click any photo to enlarge

4 comments:

The Jestaplero said...

Just got caught up on the controversy here, and I have a coupla observations:

When the nudie photo went up, Erica responded with alarm that viewing said nudie on her work computer without a heads-up might get her in trouble with her employer. That was all there was in her comment, nothing about how it was gratuitous or in poor taste, etc.

But there followed many comments from both the Muleboy and commenters that reacted to the complaint as if Muleboy had been chastised by an offended prude for displaying gratuitous nudity, poor taste, etc., when actually it was just someone who likes to follow this blog from work saying "Hey, bud, give us a heads-up next time!"

I think that's where the disconnect was.

mister muleboy said...

No, it was clear that the original comment was only related to Google Reader and work concerns.

The gratuitous nudity line of thinking came up because the pervert Stoogepie brought his unChristian views to the blog and a much-needed reprimand of tGR was needed.

How dare you accuse me of accusing another of offended prudery! Why, it's the height of . . . douchebaggery to wield the . . . prudery. . . .

it's kinda easy to see how things go off the track.

I believe that the correspondents' requests have been more more nudity, lots more nudity, but more carefully presented to not bring it up on screen in huge unbidden chunks.


As someone who was unaware that Google Reader didn't have thumbnails like Blogger's "Blogs followed" feature, I thought it was a pretty smart request.

Of course, I never read this stuff or post from work, so I wouldn't know and can't understand her concern.

Speaking of blogs -- some gratuitous nudery that offends the prudity on your blog would be just the sort of thing to revive the hopes and dreams of men.


Just got caught up on the controversy here,

what controversy?

tom(henny)anonymous said...

So I was away spreading the good word about Les Paul Studios. Diddeye miss anything?

I gotta tell ya, is it hot in here, or is it just Cathy D.?

Seriously folks, I only come in here for the link to Charlie Parker.

stoogepie said...

These pictures make me all sweaty. I could see how, if I had a job, I might get into trouble. Not just for these pictures, but for all the other nudity that helps the hours go by. Fortunately, that whole job thing does not seem to be an issue.