Forgive my seeming like the dork with the encyclopedic memory, but I have to break in and give a little "pictures of Katie" history lesson to you relative newbies.
The picture of Katielynn that was first aired in the allakhazam forum is no where to be seen in on her yahoo site.
Initially Katie and I were verbally sparring over one thing or another...given this was back when it was usually just me vs. Katie as opposed to Allakhazam's entire forum vs. Katie. Anyhow...I had make some sort of comment about her most likely being a cow. She retorted that she was of course not, and said I could check her yahoo page if I did not believe her.
Now the picture that was posted at this point was a shot of Katie and this really country looking goober that she was married to at that point. (Yes she is 21 and twice married...) This guy made Katielynn look like a total winner in comparison as he was decked out in full red gear, including bollo and cowboy hat. Imagine the stereotype country line dancer in every movie that has a country bar scene and you get my meaning.
So...the picture really did not show much of Ms. Katie's figure and I commented on that, and of course my opinion about her pick-up truck sweetie. This picture was yanked in favor of the one where she is showing off her itty-bitties and sporting the "do" from the cover of "trailer part wives." This picture remained up about 2 days, much to the merriment of the forum as a whole.
My unending ridicule was only highlighted when Katie displayed the hideous sweaty head shot that has the title "puppies" under it on her page now.
Well, as can be seen, this picture was no jewel either. It did not show all that much, and in reality gave much credence to my "fat chick" theory. After a goodly amount of ridiculing Katie was once again forced to remove that picture in favor of the current one.
Now I will admit when I am wrong, and if Katie always looks like the girl in the current picture, then she is pretty attractive. But I would really be loathe to go to sleep next to that girl and wake up to the one entitled "puppies."
So which is the real thing? Was "puppies" a bad moment in time followed by an even worse moment entailing the display of such a picture...or is the other thing the real deal? If the first is closer to reality then the photographer of the second picture is deserving of a pulitzer for his work.
Any questions?
Tacosid
Edited, Sun Jun 13 22:35:40 2004 by Tacosid
____________________________
I voted for the other guy.