SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Aug 28 2010 01:29 pm

As much as I don't want to fan the flames any more than Syd has, I had no idea the creators would go this far.

Quote:

Well, many consumers decided they wanted a piece of the Erin brand, and the results had nothing to do with cut-rate third party, fire and theft policies. If you do a Google search for “Erin Esurance” you’ll see that it prominently returns X-rated pictures of the star that “fans” have created, some with a remarkable degree of verisimilitude to the real thing. (The pics published here are among the cleaner ones; turn off Google’s “Safesearch” mode under settings to get the full Monty.) The results for an image search are even worse: Esurance’s Erin barely exists, her search results were killed off by her unapproved evil twins.

With inappropriate, unsanctioned images dominating their online results, it’s not surprising that Esurance wants Erin gone.

Gallery 2 · Posted: Aug 28 2010 02:13 pm

The entire entertainment industry would collapse under its own weight if they decided to do what Esurance did and axe any character that has a Rule 34 record under their belt, which is practically EVERYONE.

Yes, there are sicks fucks out there, but you don't go removing your successful characters because of them.

Joined: Jun 29 2010 Posts: 1818

It's the whole idea of rule 34, isn't it? If a character is involved, it gets fucked.

Posted: Aug 28 2010 03:06 pm

Hell, isn't this how Lara Croft became such an icon?

Posted: Aug 28 2010 03:41 pm

Yeah, an intelligent company would use this to their advantage and truly make Erin an iconic figure by sticking with her and even making her more "sexy" in new ads.

A dumb company erases the mascot completely and pretends she never existed.

Posted: Aug 28 2010 03:43 pm

InvaderDim wrote:

Hell, isn't this how Lara Croft became such an icon?

Or any other Female Gaming Character?

Also, so should all the celebs who have fake nude shots quit their jobs since someone else photoshopped them? No. Its Nature of the beast. Who cares. Move along.

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Aug 28 2010 07:11 pm

Fun Fact: This is also what happened to the Taco Bell Chihuahua

Posted: Aug 28 2010 07:22 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

Fun Fact: This is also what happened to the Taco Bell Chihuahua

Really? Thats amazing/scary all at once.

Posted: Aug 28 2010 08:31 pm

I'm more attracted to:

UsaSatsui's Youtube Channel · Posted: Aug 28 2010 08:32 pm

Atma wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Fun Fact: This is also what happened to the Taco Bell Chihuahua

Really? Thats amazing/scary all at once.

Fun Fact: Not all fun facts are true.

Posted: Aug 28 2010 08:35 pm

UsaSatsui wrote:

Atma wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Fun Fact: This is also what happened to the Taco Bell Chihuahua

Really? Thats amazing/scary all at once.

Fun Fact: Not all fun facts are true.

So how do I know if this one is true or not? Which would infact make the first one correct but this one wrong!

Posted: Aug 28 2010 09:54 pm

Atma wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Atma wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Fun Fact: This is also what happened to the Taco Bell Chihuahua

Really? Thats amazing/scary all at once.

Fun Fact: Not all fun facts are true.

So how do I know if this one is true or not? Which would infact make the first one correct but this one wrong!

Grrr, and now there is no Erin Esurance to jerk off too, so the situation is completely lost!!

Title: Titlating Joined: Dec 17 2007 Posts: 5042

Ice2SeeYou wrote:

I'm more attracted to:

Run Tel Dat.

Posted: Aug 28 2010 11:52 pm

InvaderDim wrote:

Atma wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Atma wrote:

UsaSatsui wrote:

Fun Fact: This is also what happened to the Taco Bell Chihuahua

Really? Thats amazing/scary all at once.

Fun Fact: Not all fun facts are true.

So how do I know if this one is true or not? Which would infact make the first one correct but this one wrong!

Grrr, and now there is no Erin Esurance to jerk off too, so the situation is completely lost!!

Posted: Aug 29 2010 02:29 am

Sehkmaenzo wrote:

It's the whole idea of rule 34, isn't it? If a character is involved, it gets fucked.

The whole idea of Rule 34 is that no matter what they pic, there's going to be porn of it.

Posted: Aug 29 2010 02:36 am

Let's fax the corporate office with a never ending stream of Rule 34 Erin!

Posted: Aug 29 2010 11:24 am

This won't stop folks from continuing to make Erin Esurance porn.

Posted: Aug 29 2010 01:26 pm

If anything, it will encourage them to make more of it to keep the character alive.

Joined: Jun 29 2010 Posts: 1818

You know, if every company did this, pretty soon there would be no more female mascots anywhere...
The worst part is, it wouldn't even solve anything. it would just lead to yaoi of michelin man, and no one wants that. WHAT!?

Posted: Aug 29 2010 02:40 pm

You say that like it's not already out there somewhere on the net, just waiting to scar your memory forever

Posted: Aug 29 2010 03:53 pm

Black Zarak wrote:

You say that like it's not already out there somewhere on the net, just waiting to scar your memory forever

Old lady from where's the beef?

Posted: Aug 29 2010 04:18 pm

I'd say no, but there probably is. If nothing more than just to prove 34 true.

Posted: Aug 29 2010 06:13 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Sehkmaenzo wrote:

It's the whole idea of rule 34, isn't it? If a character is involved, it gets fucked.

The whole idea of Rule 34 is that no matter what they pic, there's going to be porn of it.

The Rule itself is: If it exists, there is porn of it
Rule 35: to supplement Rule 34, if no porn of it exists, you must create it...

Posted: Aug 29 2010 07:29 pm

I thought Rule 35 was that it doesn't exist if porn of it doesn't.

Posted: Aug 29 2010 07:38 pm

The-Excel wrote:

I thought Rule 35 was that it doesn't exist if porn of it doesn't.

might be rule 36, but once rule 35 is satisfied, rule 36 is obsolete