That's quite a name. I wish people would use actual names around here instead of posting anonymously. If I am going to libel someone, I want to know their real name.
Yong Xi
that's rcrocket as in Robert Crocket.
I chose to use the temple names given to my wife and I. They told us they were more important than our real names.
May we ask what your real name is?
I thought Yong was poking fun rather than being serious.
Sincerely,
Poking-a tator
a.k.a. Mosiah
I think it would be morally right to lie about your religion to edit the article favorably. bcspace
That's quite a name. I wish people would use actual names around here instead of posting anonymously. If I am going to libel someone, I want to know their real name.
Yong Xi
that's rcrocket as in Robert Crocket.
I chose to use the temple names given to my wife and I. They told us they were more important than our real names.
May we ask what your real name is?
Surely, you understand I was jesting.
I am using my (Yong) and my wife's (Xi) temple names as well. I know it sounds strange, but we went through the Hong Kong temple.
I would reveal my real name but have concerns about someone telling my daddy. Please understand that my daddy is dead. However, I worry that my local ecclesiastical leader might ask an almost dead member to rat me out on the other side.
rcrocket wrote:Proud father bragging. If you haven't been able to tell so far, I can take abuse.
Fair enough.
In that case, your son (I'm presuming he's the dark haired one) has a nice smile. But for the love of Al Gore, turn off your porch light during the day, man!
You presume wrong.
Cute kid.
The road is beautiful, treacherous, and full of twists and turns.
A couple of technical photographic oversights, all due to the man behind the camera or the person directing the shoot(if they had one).
The two boys are not looking at the same spot(i.e. fictitious person's face camera left behind door frame). The boy in the foreground is looking up and appears genuinely engaged, while the boy in the back is not looking up and has a blank stare(note eyelids). This is probably due to no one standing in the doorway, camera left. There should have been a director standing in the doorway coaching the kids to keep them looking in the same spot... or a tennis ball on the end of a stick if there was a concern for ambient light coming from inside...
The depth of field does not support the shot. The shallow depth of field does not isolate the main subject, the engaged boy with the envelope asking for mall dollars. They should have stopped the aperture down to at least f8, and gone with a much shorter focal length to pull both boys in focus. Or had the boy with the envelope in focus, or had the boy to the rear with the envelope.
The chair in the background does not support the scene.
Lastly, the boy to the rear is not wearing slacks or a belt.
Also, in most areas outside of dense mo'tropolises like San Diego, deacons do not go door to door, especially in the evening.
rcrocket wrote:Well, you never know. But I find solace and peace in my faith in Jesus Christ, as His doctrines are taught by the priesthood of the Everlasting One. So, I don't have a problem with activity and faith in the Church.
Don't worry it, it was a little overblown comment on Mercury's part. Finding solace in your faith is a good thing.
Many of us are incapable of doing that.
This is the biggest picture I could find. Congrats on your son's budding modeling career. I hear Tyson Beckford started the same way.
On another note, I'm impressed the Church has recognized their mistake from the 1970's and has devoted a magazine to the creation of a new ERA. Are the boys on the cover going door to door to educate people on this important amendment?
cinepro wrote:I hear Tyson Beckford started the same way.
A young white Mormon?
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
