Verdict just made a good point which I'd like to reiterate.
There are a few people here who, like Verdict, regardless of any actual facts or evidence, and based soley on a hunch or suspicion, form solid conclusions about the identities of those who post pics and comments.
A hunch or a suspicion or a "could be" is NOT the same as evidence, circumstanntial or otherwise.
In actual fact, that kind of "evidence" would be laughed out of any court in the free world. You couldn't even get an indictment with that kind of so-called evidence, much less a conviction in court.
This spring and summer my wife and I were gone traveling abroad for almost 3 months, during which time I posted neither photos nor comments. Not a single one . Yet, when I got on a hotel lobby computer and checked on Pixdaus scarcely a day went by when someone wasn't absolutely certain that I was the author of a comment or the one who had posted a photo.
That behavior continues...I did NOT post the comments at F.U, nor would I have had any reason to. The whole business is just ridiculous.
Everytime you see a brand new user posting for the first time and using a "cutsy" name like "Lepi Doptera", it is a pretty good bet that patito is behind it.
Then when the up load receives an almost immediate +20 vote upgrade, you can be almost certain that patito is behind it.
However, the real clincher is when patito makes an inane comment as "yes and no" followed by typical patito vulgarities as "fuck you", and finally resorting to comments in his more usual name.
Of course patito is going to be quick to say that there is no proof of this. However, the circumstantial evidence is so great that he would be convicted guilty in any court of law anyplace on this planet.
PG is right, FU.
Instead of being so crude you could say "Have sexual intercourse with yourself," or "Have carnal knowledge of yourself," or maybe "Make the Beast with Two Backs with yourself."
That would get your point across but be a lot nicer and spare the feelings of those of more refined sensibilities.
Please ignore one of the duplicates - this one is rude.
From tineye.com I saw it was posted by zogekdeze. A search on Pixdaus of 'atlas moth', it showed it was also posted by danif - the very first picture on the page. A one minute search in both cases.
This photo was posted before, but it was too large for the frame and the right side of it was chopped off, so this is the first time the photo in its entirety has been properly posted.
Now that this vitally important matter has been disposed of we may return our consideration to less weighty affairs such as world peace, mass starvation and global warming.
No it wasn't, or if it was it was not properly identified. I just searched the archives under 'Atlas Moth' and this photo did not come up.
I entered 'moth' in the archives search bar and got over 50 pages, many of them with the word 'mother' in them. Only an obsessed maniac would spend all day looking through those pages.
