Post by: sheber on May 20, 2002, 10:05:20 AM
Post by: Goldeneye on May 20, 2002, 10:32:43 AM
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on May 20, 2002, 11:19:36 AM
Blame it on Goober!
Post by: gOOber on May 20, 2002, 11:29:47 AM
Post by: berkovw on May 20, 2002, 06:34:08 PM
Post by: **DONOTDELETE** on May 20, 2002, 07:34:54 PM
Post by: gOOber on May 20, 2002, 09:05:54 PM
Post by: hilarius on May 21, 2002, 01:59:48 AM
Post by: berkovw on June 29, 2002, 08:41:06 AM
Post by: RHIC on June 30, 2002, 03:33:13 AM
Post by: Prophet_Tenebrae on June 30, 2002, 01:16:45 PM
Post by: homevintner on June 30, 2002, 04:45:49 PM
Post by: Byz on June 30, 2002, 06:15:18 PM
Byz
Post by: Goldeneye on July 01, 2002, 01:43:00 AM
Post by: 3deroticer on July 01, 2002, 02:21:42 AM
Post by: soonersfan on July 01, 2002, 03:03:05 AM
Post by: TheZookie007 on July 04, 2002, 03:00:51 PM
Where is Playboy when you need them? Imagine if they were to do a "Pregnant Playmates" pictorial? (But then, that's the one thing they are sorely lacking in nowadays -- imagination.)
Post by: Goldeneye on July 04, 2002, 04:10:54 PM
Drooooooooollllllllllllll...........
Post by: Psf_79 on July 04, 2002, 05:04:25 PM
Playboy would never do such a pictorial. Pregnancy is somewhat of a taboo in our Western society, and I guess preggo sex is even more of a taboo, so a magazine as mainstream as Playboy would never even consider anything as 'perverted'. Even though there were many potential customers.
Post by: Goldeneye on July 05, 2002, 05:26:40 AM
I find it surprising that this is still considered a taboo thing, though. I've heard lots of people talk about pregnant sex; once in high school I even heard a group of classmates (I have NO idea why talking about how it was "healthy for the baby" and they were looking forward to it. And just the other night there was a great episode of "Mad About You" that focused on pregnant sex.
Post by: 3deroticer on July 05, 2002, 11:50:04 AM
Post by: turbo on July 05, 2002, 11:34:08 PM
The only only way that crazy broad is walking around with 10 pounds of boobs is if you include her head!!
Post by: Tux on July 16, 2002, 05:19:06 PM
Post by: TheZookie007 on July 16, 2002, 05:28:41 PM
Post by: Tux on July 16, 2002, 11:09:38 PM
Post by: Goldeneye on July 18, 2002, 01:07:37 AM
Post by: Chestnuts on July 18, 2002, 01:50:00 AM
Post by: Catch on July 19, 2002, 01:14:01 AM
Post by: Palomine on July 21, 2002, 11:35:18 PM
Palomine
Post by: DTM on July 22, 2002, 05:35:13 AM
http://www.planetvictoria.com (http://www.planetvictoria.com)
Post by: Psf_79 on July 22, 2002, 12:33:32 PM
Post by: leaf on July 23, 2002, 01:41:50 PM
Post by: Goldeneye on July 24, 2002, 05:23:31 AM
Post by: wingedassassin on November 05, 2003, 11:45:38 AM
Post by: shaggy on November 05, 2003, 11:49:34 AM
Post by: HomerJay on November 05, 2003, 12:46:14 PM
I have a different favorite...
Post by: Varchild on November 05, 2003, 01:19:36 PM
Post by: wizard on November 05, 2003, 01:20:37 PM
Post by: HeavyMetal1980 on November 05, 2003, 02:50:39 PM
Post by: nick_caesar on November 05, 2003, 04:13:14 PM
Post by: Haknslash on November 05, 2003, 08:06:18 PM
Post by: Craig_Mercer on May 29, 2004, 10:56:55 PM
Post by: Jim31415 on April 03, 2009, 10:21:53 PM
and is listed as a C-cup.Does anyone know how big she was at her biggest (probably when she was on "Singled Out" on MTV) and if there are any pics of her form that era?
Thanks.
Post by: Hugeboobfan on April 03, 2009, 10:28:01 PM
Post by: Jim31415 on April 03, 2009, 10:35:52 PM
Post by: FrogMan on April 03, 2009, 11:14:16 PM
Post by: joenny on April 04, 2009, 12:12:48 PM
Iīd love to see some clips from that time.
Post by: AgentDee on April 04, 2009, 12:20:08 PM
Jenny at 22 on the cover of Playboy (well probably 21 at the time who knows
).
Post by: jscott991 on April 04, 2009, 12:35:25 PM
She said some really nasty things about having big breasts though around the time she downsized. I've thought negatively of her ever since.
Post by: luvdemwhoppers on April 04, 2009, 12:38:56 PM
Post by: BP on April 04, 2009, 01:40:56 PM
Post by: Fuzzy on April 04, 2009, 02:57:07 PM
Quote:
luvdemwhoppers said:
and she has a awesome sense of humor, cracks me up
Me too - at least, until she became an Anti-Vaxer and started killing ch*ldren...
Fuzzy
Post by: GALVATRON on April 04, 2009, 03:50:42 PM
Technically, the diseases are killing those rugrats. Blaming Jenny McCarthy (or the absence of vaccination) is like blaming the lack of a bulletproof vest as the cause of death when someone shoots you.
edit* (I would also like to add that anyone who gets their medical advice from a third rate former MTV personality probably deserves whatever woes fall upon them)
Post by: ltfields on April 04, 2009, 11:39:56 PM
Post by: Cammy Gee on April 05, 2009, 12:21:26 AM
Quote:
Jim31415 said:
I'm not sure if she has no implants or just smaller implants. My guess it's that she has smaller implants. At her peak she was a match for Pamela Anderson.
I don't know if its just me...but I dont recall Jenny being anywere near the size of Pam...
Post by: AgentDee on April 05, 2009, 12:40:08 AM
Quote:
Cammy Gee said:Quote:
Jim31415 said:
I'm not sure if she has no implants or just smaller implants. My guess it's that she has smaller implants. At her peak she was a match for Pamela Anderson.
I don't know if its just me...but I dont recall Jenny being anywere near the size of Pam...
Pamela makes Jenny look flat by comparison
Post by: TheZookie007 on April 05, 2009, 12:55:18 AM
NGTV: "Jenny McCarthy in Dirty Love"
Post by: Jim31415 on April 05, 2009, 04:46:43 AM
Quote:
AgentDee said:Quote:
Cammy Gee said:Quote:
Jim31415 said:
I'm not sure if she has no implants or just smaller implants. My guess it's that she has smaller implants. At her peak she was a match for Pamela Anderson.
I don't know if its just me...but I dont recall Jenny being anywere near the size of Pam...
Pamela makes Jenny look flat by comparison
That was long after Jenny had her implants removed or downsized and after Pam went up to "porn star" cup size (which I was very happy about!).
When Jenny was on "Singled Out" and at her peak size, it was a lot closer.
Post by: Fuzzy on April 07, 2009, 12:01:28 PM
Quote:
GALVATRON said:
bwaahhhhh!
Technically, the diseases are killing those rugrats. Blaming Jenny McCarthy (or the absence of vaccination) is like blaming the lack of a bulletproof vest as the cause of death when someone shoots you.
If Jenny McCarthy is the one back at the station going "you don't need a bulletproof vest, it will only cause your k8ds to have autism" then, yes, she gets some of the blame. So do you, of course, for being stupid enough to believer her...but she's the one using her fame to promote a message that ends up killing people.
Quote:
edit* (I would also like to add that anyone who gets their medical advice from a third rate former MTV personality probably deserves whatever woes fall upon them)
Unfortunately, the "woes" include not only the deaths of the children of those who believe her, but potentially the death of your ch*ldren too, as diseases no longer held back by universal immunization spread.
Fuzzy
Post by: DJPFC on April 07, 2009, 02:55:58 PM
Now these children are getting sick and there's a mini-epidemic going on over there.
Post by: joenny on April 07, 2009, 03:09:19 PM
Post by: solvegas on April 07, 2009, 03:24:22 PM
Post by: TripleB on April 07, 2009, 03:54:46 PM
Post by: zeo on April 07, 2009, 05:02:26 PM
Quote:
Fuzzy said:
If Jenny McCarthy is the one back at the station going "you don't need a bulletproof vest, it will only cause your k8ds to have autism" then, yes, she gets some of the blame. So do you, of course, for being stupid enough to believer her...but she's the one using her fame to promote a message that ends up killing people.
Well, it would be equal if the bulletproof vests contained inward pointing spikes and toxins. Now maybe the spikes and toxins won't hurt the wearer, but sometimes they do, so the risk has to be balanced. Better yet, at one time there were cops who didn't wear them because of the bulk, the overheating, etc of the older models. They did a risk-benefit calculation for themselves.
The idea that vaccines are risk free is totally absurd. They aren't risk free and that's why the companies who make vaccines have the government covering their behinds liability wise so long as it is a government "recommended" (aka required) vaccine. Contamination, poor design, and other issues can cause a person harm.
Because of this arrangement a moral hazard is established. Quality control? Who cares, government has their back. This is why vaccines such as the HPV vaccine which only protects for such a narrow range that the benefit is very low but the risk of harm appears rather high for vaccine are pushed through lobbying efforts *politically*. These government office holders are generally ignorant power seekers who will take the campaign contributions and put the vaccine on the list. They don't know what the risk/benefit ratio is. But heaven forbid people decide for themselves!
PS: I am amused by how Hg is deadly toxin when spilled in the home in very very tiny amounts but put it in a vaccine and it's just fine to inject into someone's body.
Post by: deebo on April 07, 2009, 11:14:30 PM
Post by: Fuzzy on April 08, 2009, 10:54:05 AM
Quote:
zeo said:Quote:
Fuzzy said:
If Jenny McCarthy is the one back at the station going "you don't need a bulletproof vest, it will only cause your k8ds to have autism" then, yes, she gets some of the blame. So do you, of course, for being stupid enough to believer her...but she's the one using her fame to promote a message that ends up killing people.
Well, it would be equal if the bulletproof vests contained inward pointing spikes and toxins. Now maybe the spikes and toxins won't hurt the wearer, but sometimes they do, so the risk has to be balanced.
Of course there's a possiblity of bad effects from vaccines - there's a possiblity of bad effects from everything...it's just that, weighing those effects like you want, the possiblity of millions of dead ch*ldren wins.
Quote:
Better yet, at one time there were cops who didn't wear them because of the bulk, the overheating, etc of the older models. They did a risk-benefit calculation for themselves.
The problem is with vaccines, you're not just doing it for yourself, or even just for your ch*ldren.
Vaccines, after all, don't always take. They also wear off after varying amount of times (remember the "amusement" after 9/11 when everyone realized that, hey, even those who had been vaccinated against smallpox as ch*ldren were probably no longer immune?). That means that even vaccinated and supposedly safe k*ds can, if exposed to it, catch the disease the vaccine was supposed to prevent.
So, in order to work, you pretty much have to vaccinate everyone (or as close to it as you can manage) to make sure that the chance that anyone in particular coming in contact with the disease is as low as possible. That's how we got rid of smallpox.
You have a block of unvaccinated k*ds out there, you have a nice block of the disease that can and does spread out of that "made their own choice" group and into everyone else.
Quote:
They aren't risk free and that's why the companies who make vaccines have the government covering their behinds liability wise so long as it is a government "recommended" (aka required) vaccine.
Well, it's mostly because the profits on vaccines are way too low for them to afford any sort of liability insurance for them.
Basically, if the government didn't cover that, they wouldn't make them...the fate of many "orphaned drugs" out there that do everything they're supposed to...except make the big pharms lots of money...
Quote:
Contamination, poor design, and other issues can cause a person harm.
No, really?
Putting out bullshit info as medical advice, ala McCarthy, can and does cause harm too...
Quote:
Because of this arrangement a moral hazard is established. Quality control? Who cares, government has their back. This is why vaccines such as the HPV vaccine which only protects for such a narrow range that the benefit is very low but the risk of harm appears rather high for vaccine are pushed through lobbying efforts *politically*.
...or bullshit like this.
Quote:
They don't know what the risk/benefit ratio is.
Neither does Jenny McCarthy - or any of the antivaxxers that I can see.
Quote:
But heaven forbid people decide for themselves!
Again, they're not just deciding for themselves! Heck, even if the disease didn't spread out into the community at large from their nice "decided for themselves" ch*ldren, well, they're not deciding for themselves - they're deciding for their ch*ldren!
Quote:
PS: I am amused by how Hg is deadly toxin when spilled in the home in very very tiny amounts but put it in a vaccine and it's just fine to inject into someone's body.
And I'm amused how often antivaxxers bring up a preservative that a) has been shown to have no bad effects and b) hasn't been used since 1992 anyway. If seventeen-year out of date info is the best you can do...
Autism rates
...well, I can do better:
The Jenny and Jim antivaccine propaganda tour has begun
While the anti-vax movement strengthens, their arguments only get weaker
Vaccines do not cause autism
Post by: vermin on April 08, 2009, 11:23:44 AM
Seriously, I have no idea what you folks are talking about. I've never really paid much attention to the words coming out of Jenny McCarthy's mouth.
Post by: Pipatel on April 08, 2009, 01:47:28 PM
Jim Carrey has to deal with that, I for one prefer looking at her sexy Playboy pictorials.
Maybe my favorite 90ies PMOY after Karen McDougal.
Post by: zeo on April 08, 2009, 05:16:02 PM
Quote:
Fuzzy said:
Of course there's a possiblity of bad effects from vaccines - there's a possiblity of bad effects from everything...it's just that, weighing those effects like you want, the possiblity of millions of dead ch*ldren wins.
It's for the ch***ren, well then the coercion of the state is perfectly justified! It's also 'for the ****' that a bare breast can't be on broadcast TV, even for a fraction of a second.
Quote:
The problem is with vaccines, you're not just doing it for yourself, or even just for your ch*ldren.
Vaccines, after all, don't always take. They also wear off after varying amount of times (remember the "amusement" after 9/11 when everyone realized that, hey, even those who had been vaccinated against smallpox as ch*ldren were probably no longer immune?). That means that even vaccinated and supposedly safe k*ds can, if exposed to it, catch the disease the vaccine was supposed to prevent
So the state has to use force to inject us with vaccines because some people didn't get updated? That has got to be the most absurd argument for vaccines ever. If vaccines work, then only those who didn't go in for it have a problem and that is their choice! And as to the post-sept-2001 paranoia, where did that come from? The state.
Quote:
You have a block of unvaccinated k*ds out there, you have a nice block of the disease that can and does spread out of that "made their own choice" group and into everyone else.
EVERYONE ELSE IS VACCINATED, so if they actually work, then, there's no problem!
And it's not that there are just a few vaccines, there are tons of them now, some of them sketchy. Ask those in the military who are disabled from reactions to the vaccines the government forced on them.
Quote:Quote:
They aren't risk free and that's why the companies who make vaccines have the government covering their behinds liability wise so long as it is a government "recommended" (aka required) vaccine.
Well, it's mostly because the profits on vaccines are way too low for them to afford any sort of liability insurance for them.
BS. The HPV vaccine is very profitable.
Quote:
Basically, if the government didn't cover that, they wouldn't make them...
LOL. If they worked and were as wonderful as advertised, they would make money. You are arguing that there is so little a market that the price is essentially zero, but they are so wonderful that people can't go without them. It can't be both.
Quote:Quote:
Contamination, poor design, and other issues can cause a person harm.
No, really?
Yes really. See some of the wonderful things that have happened to people in the third world who were 'vaccinated'.
Quote:Quote:...or bullshit like this.
Because of this arrangement a moral hazard is established. Quality control? Who cares, government has their back. This is why vaccines such as the HPV vaccine which only protects for such a narrow range that the benefit is very low but the risk of harm appears rather high for vaccine are pushed through lobbying efforts *politically*.
I suggest you go do some actual leg work, because the lobbying effort behind the HPV vaccine and it's very limited protection if it works perfectly is documented fact.
Quote:Neither does Jenny McCarthy - or any of the antivaxxers that I can see.
They don't know what the risk/benefit ratio is.
Jenny McCarthy can't stick a gun to my head and a needle in my arm. The state can. And that's what the pro-vaccine crowd aims to do, have the state FORCE it.
Quote:
Again, they're not just deciding for themselves! Heck, even if the disease didn't spread out into the community at large from their nice "decided for themselves" ch*ldren, well, they're not deciding for themselves - they're deciding for their ch*ldren!
The perfect excuse for tyranny.
Quote:Quote:
PS: I am amused by how Hg is deadly toxin when spilled in the home in very very tiny amounts but put it in a vaccine and it's just fine to inject into someone's body.
And I'm amused how often antivaxxers bring up a preservative that a) has been shown to have no bad effects and b) hasn't been used since 1992 anyway. If seventeen-year out of date info is the best you can do...
I have no position on vaccines themselves, it's the fact that some people think it's perfectly acceptable to force other people to be injected with substances against their will. We are not property of the state. I would think people here who are consistently finding the FDA's rules on breast implants wrong headed would realize that.
Post by: luvdemwhoppers on April 08, 2009, 07:56:17 PM
Post by: AgentDee on April 08, 2009, 08:06:09 PM
Post by: luvdemwhoppers on April 08, 2009, 08:18:34 PM
Post by: AgentDee on April 08, 2009, 09:34:17 PM
Quote:
luvdemwhoppers said:
asked for it to be removed, thanks for the heads up I know i screwed up
for future reference, if you are within your 24 hr window you can always go back and edit posts, and or remove attachments. but if a mod sees it before you edit it, they will edit it for you and report the violation if any.
Agent "watching out for the new guys since 2001" Dee
Post by: PregNut on April 08, 2009, 11:38:17 PM
Quote:I long ago stopped listening to **28** and their opinions, especially for whom to vote.
joenny said:
People should stop listening to celebs who donīt have a special (in this case: medical) education to give advice.
Post by: GALVATRON on April 09, 2009, 10:15:40 AM
Quote:
PregNut said:Quote:I long ago stopped listening to **28** and their opinions, especially for whom to vote.
joenny said:
People should stop listening to celebs who donīt have a special (in this case: medical) education to give advice.
bwaaahhh!
Whoa! Hold on there just one minute! Let's not get crazy here.
Summarily dismissing the opinions of **28** is not what I had in mind. After all, **28** are better than you. Which is why they are "celebrated" and you are not. You most certainly should take their council in who to vote for, and what products to use, how to dress, etc. These are decisions that are free for any idiot to make. Idiots like you and me (well, not so much me) can make these decisions, so it would only be prudent to take the advice of the culture's superior beings. The Alpha dogs... Movie Stars and Musicians. They made it in life. They achieved a status that makes them matter. So of course you should listen to their basic ideas. But, in stuff that requires specialized training, like medical or scientific advice, you have to be prudent about which **28** you listen too.
Post by: PregNut on April 09, 2009, 06:29:26 PM
Sorry, but I'm still not buying it.
Preg(No hard feelings.)Nut
Post by: PattiFLover on May 18, 2012, 09:01:12 AM
McCarthy, who also will host the upcoming sophomore season of NBC's reality show Love in the Wild, first bared her body for Playboy in 1993, and later earned the title Playmate of the Year."
Post by: salem on January 13, 2015, 10:40:11 AM
Post by: salem on January 27, 2015, 12:11:15 PM
Post by: salem on February 10, 2015, 11:57:00 AM
Post by: Palomine on February 16, 2015, 01:54:40 PM
Post by: wintry on February 16, 2015, 02:12:38 PM
Not entirely off-topic per the URL
She is a menace.
Post by: salem on February 24, 2015, 02:20:43 AM
Post by: Robin_K2 on February 24, 2015, 08:08:01 AM
I'd like to vaccinate her. ;)
Post by: Cris_H on February 24, 2015, 10:27:12 AM
She is a menace.
It's very sad. She THINKS she is doing the right thing. When you look at the science, though, it's disturbing. Check out the current issue if National Geographic about science being under attack.
Mod edit to add that there was a superb recent episode of Nova called "Vaccines - Calling the Shots" per my post here: http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,9981772.msg10278782.html#msg10278782 -Pal
Post by: pedonbio on February 24, 2015, 06:55:49 PM
Post by: Palomine on February 24, 2015, 07:04:16 PM
8)
Sadly, so true.
Though he's not even in my top 5 SF authors, let alone authors in general, indisputably he was a great man and a great thinker.
I had the pleasure of meeting his second wife Janet on a couple of occasions... she was very articulate, friendly and extremely gracious. I met Isaac himself briefly at a book signing after a lecture. He was sharp as a tack and entertaining as hell, resplendent in a turquoise blue western-cut suit and bolo tie, with muttonchops that'd make any Founding Father envious. :) I didn't meet her, but I did see (and momentarily fall in love with) his daughter at that lecture ...she was an attractive Manhattan blonde and, I'm guessing, has a very respectable IQ too. I never met his nephew Eric, or read any of his restaurant reviews that I can recall, but I gather he's a smart, decent fellow.
"The road to hell is paved with good intentions" ...so the saying goes. McCarthy "meaning well" doesn't change the fact that she's leveraged her proudly militant and selfish ignorance and her **29** to promote lies based on other long-since-debunked lies and as a result, chi1dren have become ill and statistically, it's certain that more than a few have died by now.
Asimov advanced human culture as a whole through his fiction and non-fiction writing (and he's not to blame for that terrible Will Smith movie based on his novel "I, Robot"). He was a credit to the human race and in 1992 he died of HIV-related complications, having contracted it during a blood transfusion given during heart surgery. Jenny McCarthy is "famous" for being naked in magazines, hosting a game show on MTV, sucking Jim Carey's dick for a few years, sniffing and licking her armpit on camera, and for spreading ignorance among parents and suffering and death among chi1dren.
If there's any justice in the world, there's a special spot in hell reserved just for her. While chi1dren everywhere are waiting for her to get there, here's a pic of her to stay on-topic. Happy wanking. ::)
Post by: Palomine on February 27, 2015, 10:35:29 PM
Post by: salem on March 02, 2015, 02:23:46 AM
Post by: salem on March 16, 2015, 01:42:58 PM
Post by: salem on March 23, 2015, 02:49:20 AM
Post by: salem on April 03, 2015, 03:43:16 AM
Post by: salem on April 17, 2015, 03:01:02 AM
From one of her memorable appearances in 'Two and a Half Men'
Post by: salem on May 01, 2015, 01:46:58 AM
Post by: salem on December 24, 2015, 04:17:25 PM
Post by: salem on January 21, 2016, 06:19:41 AM
Post by: salem on December 23, 2016, 02:16:35 AM
Post by: salem on May 24, 2017, 07:22:44 PM
Post by: salem on April 09, 2018, 04:15:21 PM
Post by: salem on May 22, 2018, 07:34:23 PM
Post by: salem on June 15, 2018, 06:23:16 AM
Post by: salem on July 10, 2018, 07:25:04 PM
Post by: salem on August 20, 2018, 02:08:25 AM
Post by: salem on September 09, 2018, 03:50:58 PM
Post by: salem on October 03, 2018, 02:38:26 AM
Post by: Brahma on October 03, 2018, 06:22:13 AM
(Whoops, comment made in reference to earlier image, not Playboy cover. Well, she still in pretty good shape for a woman her age.)
Post by: salem on November 02, 2018, 03:28:32 AM
Is this recent? If so, she's in pretty good shape for a woman her age.
(Whoops, comment made in reference to earlier image, not Playboy cover. Well, she still in pretty good shape for a woman her age.)
Not sure how recent any of these are TBH, but I believe that she still scrubs up well.
Post by: salem on May 22, 2019, 04:48:47 AM
Is this recent? If so, she's in pretty good shape for a woman her age.
(Whoops, comment made in reference to earlier image, not Playboy cover. Well, she still in pretty good shape for a woman her age.)
This is recent. 46 years old and still looking damn hot.
Post by: solvegas on May 22, 2019, 06:22:37 AM
Post by: bignatslover on May 22, 2019, 04:26:51 PM
her anti-vaccination campaign makes her a public health menace. Can't stand her anymore. >:(I must concur that moment also ruined it for me. Not sure if she's ever really apologized for it either (and no longer talking about it doesn't count as an apology!).
Post by: salem on July 26, 2019, 02:33:24 AM
Post by: salem on April 29, 2022, 06:42:49 PM