I work with JPG compression all the time, and the purple doesn’t look like JPG artefact. Nor does the picture at Ananova.
The Grapist strikes again! 
Well that first photo still looks like a cheesy fark photoshop.
I’d never seen anybody titrate a bear before.
So what is the going titrate these days?
So which is it? Real or JPG artifact? You can’t have it both ways.
Huh? I think you are confused. can you explain the question?
sailor: In the first quote, you say the bear wasn’t photoshopped. In the second quote, it sounds like you’re arguing that the bear has been photoshopped because of the purple on the bars. I don’t know about Q.E.D., but I know I’m confused.
Yup. sailor was far from saying the purple on the bars indicated Photoshop. High JPEG compression can fudge details, and colour-bleeding is common. A shape that is coloured in sharp contrast to the background will often have a sort of irregular halo around it.
Personally, I don’t think that’s what’s happening, though.
(“I believe in purple bars.”) Rubbed off. Ya know.
sailor is suggesting that the bear is actually purple, but that JPEG compression is responsible for the purple appearance of the bars. Which isn’t unreasonable.
That makes sense, then.