[Real]

let me just post this for the sake of deading it here:

ive tried twice, months ago and was rejected.

leave the lady alone and dont be a fucking heatscore lol.

let the folks with whatever ins they have populate this thread, and appreciate.

dont ruin this or by god i will hunt you down lol...

[TheZookie007]

I agree completely with grayboy -- do not do anything on that social networking site that would garner the BEA Forum any attention, positive or negative. To quote Palomine:

Over the decade and a half that this forum has been online, it's become very clear that it's best for the BEA (and the large community of users who depend upon it) to be discreet. By maintaining a low profile (not attracting undue attention) and by implementing and enforcing a set of rules designed (in part) to prevent the posting of any excessive quantity of copyrighted content belonging to a single entity, the BEA has manged to survive far longer than comparable sites (i.e.: you recall BR's 'no rules' forum that got shut down in 3 short days, right?)

This discretion on the part of all users means that when a model/actress does happen to find us on her own and decides to participate, she's welcomed and hopefully treated with respect... though of course there have been incidents where someone acts immaturely and the subject is offended and leaves. This discretion ALSO MEANS that as a matter of policy, we think it's best NOT TO GO OUT OF OUR WAY INVITE models/actresses to the forum. This is because when this has happened in the past, in some cases it hasn't worked out as expected... ending in 'cease and desist' legal threats to the BEA Owner and more prohibitions added to the site rules.... I'm merely pointing out that in the past, well-intentioned users have invited model/actresses here, thinking they'd appreciate the attention/publicity only to find that she or her legal representative decided that they DIDN'T like what went on here for one reason or another. And then the legal threats and rule additions begin.

So you see... in our (rather long) experience, it's generally best for users NOT to extend invitations like this... though sometimes it works out fine, there's also the very real chance that it can hurt EVERYBODY (no one here wants the list of prohibited subjects/sites to be any longer than it already is, nor do we (mods) want more rules to enforce, nor does the Owner enjoy receiving sometimes aggressive legal threats). Your User Agreement doesn't cover this explicitly, as we have no authority to moderate what you do outside of the BEA (nor would we want to) but the reality is that people are unpredictable and that the 'net can be a very litigious place, so we'd strongly prefer it if you DIDN'T extend such an invitation.

Thanks for considering our request/suggestion.

P.S.: as a further deterrent, we've discussed naming any future new rules that come about as a result of such ill-advised invitations after the user who caused them... just to give credit where credit is due.

In a word, doop69, please don't fuck this up for everyone. Be careful out there in the social networking world, and DO NOT get us ALL in trouble by slobbering over NQ or anyone else for that matter while there. PLEASE.

[TheZookie007]

Oh, and I know you're new here, but one more thing:

i also want to upload my nancy quill folder from my computer, but im not aware of the rules of this forum or of which file hosting site to use.

You know what they say: ignorance of the law is no excuse. When you signed up to the Forum, you had to have read the rules. If you haven't, well, I just linked to them. Please read them and abide by them, for the good of us all.

Thank you.

[doop69]

yes yes, i know to keep my distance from the NQ **24**..  no worries there guys!

thanks for the quick replies!  i'll check the forum rules now before posting anything new.

 


p.s. i agree with everything that was said after my last post. ive been lurking here on the nancy quill page for quite some time.. im not a spazz noob that will screw things up for everyone else. 

looking forward to contributing my collection.. real soon!

[vidiot]

It would be helpful if the posters who mentioned that F-site would remove the F-site's name from their postings in this thread.  Or if the moderators would do the same.

Mod edit: Fac3b00k posts aren't against the BEA Owner's rules, and the site is mentioned in this and many other threads. Thus, we have no cause to edit posts here to remove that word. If you were referring to something else, or have some other actionable concern for the benefit of the forum community, please PM me and let me know. Thanks. -Palomine

[Palomine]

The purple one surely looks manipulated but the other two look quite real. Exceptional! Thanks for posting.

Yah, the odd softness on the lower edge certainly looks like the photo was (poorly) manipulated, though from other pix it's clear that she's that size so it's odd that someone would leave such obvious retouching artifacts w/o benefit. Regardless, the new pix are appreciated and are postable here (provided they abide by the rules re: 1-1-1, underag3 subjects, etc... of course). And I echo the pleas of AD and other users asking folks NOT to attract Ms. Quill's attention to our little tiny corner of the net (for all the reasons already stated). Whether she appreciates this sort of attention or not is moot... if we admire her from afar (w/o inviting her here and in conjunction with the BEA Owner's rules) then we can continue to admire her productively and respectfully for some time to come. Thanks.

[Real]

ah that's good, i thought the source might have been an issue.

maybe that one photo itself is somehow distorted cuz yeah, its clear from plenty of other photos that she is that big...

Mod edit: sorry to inteject again, but the concerns raised below are absolutely valid IMO. A well-intentioned user inviting her (or any model) here CAN and HAS had disastrous results, which is why we frown on such 'outreach' and prefer that the forums keep a discreet 'low profile'. However, even without that particular kind of risk, a subject/model (or someone else who knows/represents her) can still stumble upon mention of her here (the forums are public and googleable) which can lead to the exact same unfortunate situation.

As mentioned, content from Fac3b00k is still allowed here since thus far, it hasn't created the same kind of liability that material from other social networking sites has (those that are now prohibited). We're looking into how we might possibly reduce the risk of an 'accidental encounter' by an outside party while still permitting the content in our forums... we have an idea, but have to discuss it first. If there's any change in policy, we'll pin a notice about it as usual.

Thanks! -Palomine  

[Glottis]

Obviously some parts of the photo are slightly blurred because she sticks out so close to the camera that it's out of the focal length

Mod comment: by which you mean depth of field I assume, and it doesn't work like that exactly (if so, the closest foreground detail would also be out of focus, but it's not). It could simply be just some odd artifact, even though it looks like sloppy retouching. JMHO.

Other mod butts in: although it does look unusual, I don't think the Purple Sweater On Beach photo has been photoshopped. The odd-looking softness along the underside of her boobs is caused by light reflecting up from the sand. If you blow the photo up, you can see the same reflected color on the undersides of the wrinkles in the sweater under her boobs (note that in the shade under her boobs, the shadows are cast upward). I think it's just a combination of light and a kinda fuzzy sweater. - gonZo

[grayboy]

No reason we can't make the rules fun. Incidentally, any woman built like NQ can't be too modest in that color.

[funkyboobster]

Gulp!

In all seriousness, I'm guessing those are at least  H or HH cups under there.  Band size of 32 to 34 tops.  The camera loves this woman. 

[Offline]

Oh wow!!!

If I ever saw that woman in a bra or bikini top --- my head would just explode.

[Palomine]

In response to the justifiable concerns some folks have about the word 'faceb00k' appearing in this thread and elsewhere in the forums (i.e.: attracting undue attention from outside web searches) we've added that word to the auto-censor list. Content from there is NOT against the rules: it can still be posted (subject to the other rules of course: 1-1-1, no iffy/underag3, etc...) nor is using the word prohibited... it will just be automatically censored: **24** throughout the forums in order to help the site avoid potential hassles. Thanks.

-Pal

[DJPFC]

No reason we can't make the rules fun. Incidentally, any woman built like NQ can't be too modest in that color.

That is pretty brilliant.  This woman rocks, bar none.  Gotta love her. 

[gonZo]

What sort of personality does Nancy Quill project on her radio show? When you think of prodigiously busty women who've become **28** for reasons other than their figures (like Dolly Parton, Christina Hendricks, Sherri Shepherd, and Faith Brown, to name a few contemporary examples), they've cultivated candid, saucy, humorous attitudes about their bodies. Maybe it's a matter of necessity when you're that stacked and often in the public eye.

So I'm wondering: when Nancy Quill's doing her radio show and making public appearances, does she acknowledge her own remarkableness?

[rebel6731]

Everyone,
Sorry for causing such a kerfuffle over the site that is now edited but still allowed.  I knew that it was allowed to reference and post from otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it, but probably should have thought better about posting where the images are from.  I do want to reiterate the sentiments from others that if you should be her "friend" somewhere, then please be courteous and as inconspicuous as possible.  BTW, she deleted the awesome photo of her alone in pink from her album.  I'm assuming that she got some comments that she did not appreciate.  Be nice, be courteous, and please be a gentleman.

Regarding Gonzo's query, I've listened to her station a few times while she is on-air, because I was curious like you.  First of all, the station is very soft/pop-rock, so not my cup of tea.  It has been my experience that she is very professional and leans more to discussing current Boston events, family things, and pop culture when she does do more than talk about upcoming station events and giveaways or the music she's about to play or just did play.  I've never once in my 5 or 6 times of listening to her heard her refer to anything real personal.  But maybe our Boston members might have more to offer, since I have just listened a few times online from Texas.

Cheers!