A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.


[WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]

http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=im [...] ita4ft.jpg
[WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
> I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
> difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
> a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.
> [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>
> http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=im [...] ita4ft.jpg
> [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]


Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on
a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic
merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.*

I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very
disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted)
just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the heels
of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to
ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No
ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to not
post would imply censorship.

But again, I'm not taking to task the OP for posting it here. After all, I
apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the link and see
what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the newsgroup. But to
display the photo on a page with advertising, and with this caption
underneath the photo-

"Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average rating
is 3.88."...

Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would have
taken to get a higher rating.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:SsrBd.4475$wZ2.710@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
> > I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
> > difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
> > a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.
> > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
> >
> > http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=im [...] ita4ft.jpg
> > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>
>
> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted
on
> a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
> regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and
artistic
> merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.*
>
> I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very
> disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted)
> just seems way-wrong to me.

I'll tell you what is offensive, Mr. Mike Jacoubowsky.
YOU...were more upset that there were ratings offered by default on this
particular web-site, than you apparently were to the horrific image of
death.

Don't start THIS AGAIN!!

Most people...UNLIKE YOU...were too busy being floored by the enormity of
the tragedy to notice something as petty as you have, least of all to stop
and whine about something so totally unrelated.

UNBELIEVABLE that one cannot post an image without
someone...somewhere...taking offense.

I am so sick of this politically-correct BS that I could just spit.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mike Jacoubowsky writes:

> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on
> a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
> regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and artistic
> merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.*

It was probably posted there just to give it wider exposure, since it
probably won't ever be published by the media.

> I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very
> disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted)
> just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the heels
> of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to
> ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No
> ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to not
> post would imply censorship.

Exactly. I'm totally opposed to censorship. If you don't want to see
the photo, don't look. But withholding information just to avoid
offending your delicate sensibilities is not acceptable. If you must
censor content, do it at the entrance to your PC, not at the exit of
someone else's PC.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:

> Thank you for posting this image.
> People need to understand the enormity of this tragedy, and if even it is
> posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because
> people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the
> candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist upon.
>
> Thank you again for this link.

I agree. This sort of image makes the magnitude of the disaster much
easier to grasp.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:%ttBd.67897$QR1.37651@fed1read04...
>
> "Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:SsrBd.4475$wZ2.710@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > > I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for
publication.
> > > I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
> > > difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
> > > a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.
> > > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
> > >
> > > http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=im [...] ita4ft.jpg
> > > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
> >
> >
> > Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one,
posted
> on
> > a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
> > regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and
> artistic
> > merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.*
> >
> > I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very
> > disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted)
> > just seems way-wrong to me.
>
> I'll tell you what is offensive, Mr. Mike Jacoubowsky.
> YOU...were more upset that there were ratings offered by default on this
> particular web-site, than you apparently were to the horrific image of
> death.
>
> Don't start THIS AGAIN!!
>
> Most people...UNLIKE YOU...were too busy being floored by the enormity of
> the tragedy to notice something as petty as you have, least of all to stop
> and whine about something so totally unrelated.


Well why don't people get 'floored by the enormity of the tragedy' in Iraq ?

Tens of thousands of innocent women and children killed by
occupying forces, but no-one gives a toss, cos photos of their
dead bodies aren't being shown in the media.

JK.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:SsrBd.4475$wZ2.710@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> > I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
> > I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
> > difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
> > a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.
> > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
> >
> > http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=im [...] ita4ft.jpg
> > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>
>
> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted
on
> a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
> regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and
artistic
> merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.*

Good point, asking for a aesthetic rating on something so awful
is pretty tasteless.

JK.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> We were floored. Also floored that nobody else cared to take Sadddam out,
> even though he murdered **countless** thousands.
> -Which is one of MANY reasons we are now there.
> Oh.....
> You mean you didn't notice the DELIBERATE tragedy under Saddam, but we
> should now object to tragedies which come in spite of attempts to avoid,
> right?
> Interesting.
>
> >
> > Tens of thousands of innocent women and children killed by
> > occupying forces, but no-one gives a toss, cos photos of their
> > dead bodies aren't being shown in the media.
>
> Yes they are.
> Tens of thousands (assuming that's accurate) is very very sad, and
actively
> avoided by "occupying forces" with a few exceptions. Still, that is a
> comparatively tiny number compared with the horror Saddam unleashed there
> during his many years in power. I find it interesting that you're not
upset
> by hundreds of thousands of deaths under Saddam.
> Try to keep a bit of perspective.
>

Hi all, I also think the photo was disturbing indeed but needed to be seen,
by adult people at least.
We all try to imagine the vastness of the distruction there but I think
noone without preceding experiences in disasters can truly come near the
real situation. So a photo does help.
As for the point made in the last message, here are my two cents.
As a long-term human rights activist I've come across discussions like these
many times. Every part has its reasons and fierce patrioctical feelings or
equally felt pacifist ideas can flame the discussion. I have long ago, in my
conscience, settled on a practical way to take part on such arguments. I've
taken the Human Rights Declarations as a non-trespassable line against which
to check every action. If it agrees with HRD, it's ok, if it doesn't agree,
it is questionable (not absolutely wrong, look, but surely questionable...)
So I wouldn't see killing thousands of people *better* than killing tens of
thousands, or object to the latter more in perspective than object to the
former... Every single life and every single person counts and has to be
preserved, no matter the effort it may take on our part. That's my thought,
anyway. Now we should all do what we can to help those unfortunate people,
and not forget all the others in so many countries (not counting our own
neighborood...) whose tragedies we do not know from the media.
Best wishes to all.
Sergio La Marca
Italy

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

Mike Henley writes:

> This was Banda Aceh?

That's what the info on the JPEG says.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

You know ... I saw the first news report on the TV and it claimed the death
toll may be as high as 1,000. Each day it has gone up by tens of thousands
and yet any video that is shown only shows some resort area where video
cameras were running as people watch the waves in awe.

Yes, you see a few people floating by and wonder if they made it, hoping
that they did, however until I saw this photo I can only imagine the "real"
devastation that occured to kill this huge amount of people. I don't have a
strong stomach for photos like this and will not need to look a second time
but it did touch me in many more ways than I thought it would but I do
partially understand the tradgedy a lot more now that I have seen such
graphic proof.

Bless those souls!


"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2c0dt052rd3r4mf0947in9pek81q9i5arr@4ax.com...
> Mike Henley writes:
>
> > Hi. I didn't post it on that site. I saw the link on some news forum
> > and it shocked me, so i shared it here. In fact, it shocked me enough
> > that i didn't notice the rating thing you mention.
>
> Why did it shock you? The media have been talking for days about
> 135,000 people dead, and mass graves and cremations. Does it surprise
> you that thousands of bodies would be floating near the beach?
>
> Perhaps these photos should be more widely distributed, as it sounds
> like people don't reflect very much on the texts they read. A photo is
> harder to ignore, I think.
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mxsmanic"
> "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> writes:
>
> > Thank you for posting this image.
> > People need to understand the enormity of this tragedy, and if even it is
> > posted on the cover of PLAYBOY...I would appreciate it, simply because
> > people need to be confronted with REALity these days, rather than the
> > candy-coated versions so many of these quasi-sensitive phonies insist upon.
> >
> > Thank you again for this link.
>
> I agree. This sort of image makes the magnitude of the disaster much
> easier to grasp.


If someone needs a photo to grasp 120 thousand plus people dying
something is missing.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

I don't think so, most people have no way to relate to that much death and
destruction. It is one thing to "know" something and quite another to truly
absorb it and make it a part of you.

I have been avoiding this sort of post because I didn't want to participate
in some sort of juvenile, voyeuristic thrill seeking. But in a moment of
weakness I looked at the photo. It was a good thing that I did I DO now
understand just how pervasive the death and destruction has been, until now,
it has been just a number and a terrible story on the news.

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:10tdfqi2u8na808@corp.supernews.com...
>
> If someone needs a photo to grasp 120 thousand plus people dying
> something is missing.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

On 1 Jan 2005 07:45:51 -0800, "Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 12:08:24 -0000, "Zico" <zsdgsdr@syyy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>> >news:SsrBd.4475$wZ2.710@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> > I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for
>publication.
>> >> > I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll
>seemed
>> >> > difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is
>worth
>> >> > a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death
>toll.
>> >> > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>> >> >
>> >> > http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=im [...] ita4ft.jpg
>> >> > [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one,
>posted
>> >on
>> >> a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
>> >> regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical
>and
>> >artistic
>> >> merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you
>*should.*
>> >
>> >Good point, asking for a aesthetic rating on something so awful
>> >is pretty tasteless.
>> >
>> >JK.
>> >
>> I have to wonder if the rating thing isn't something added to all
>> pics? I'm not familiar with ImageShack, so I don't know.
>>
>> --
>> Bill Funk
>> Change "g" to "a"
>
>It is added to all pictures.

Which sort of means that the complaints about it are kinda pointless.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

John EO writes:

> You know ... I saw the first news report on the TV and it claimed the death
> toll may be as high as 1,000. Each day it has gone up by tens of thousands
> and yet any video that is shown only shows some resort area where video
> cameras were running as people watch the waves in awe.

Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are only so
many to go around, so you see the same images over and over. Dead
people don't move, so showing images of the dead isn't as exciting as
showing images of a moving wave.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:SsrBd.4475$wZ2.710@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>> I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.
>> I've read papers and websites, and the ~130,000 death toll seemed
>> difficult to comprehend, but I guess it's true that one image is worth
>> a thousand words, or more. Now I can imagine the massive death toll.
>> [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>>
>> http://img145.exs.cx/my.php?loc=im [...] ita4ft.jpg
>> [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>
>
> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted
> on a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
> regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and
> artistic merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you
> *should.*
>
> I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very
> disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted)
> just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the
> heels of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time
> to ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No
> ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to
> not post would imply censorship.
>
> But again, I'm not taking to task the OP for posting it here. After all, I
> apparently found it interesting enough to want to follow the link and see
> what it was all about, so there's some relevance to the newsgroup. But to
> display the photo on a page with advertising, and with this caption
> underneath the photo-
>
> "Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average
> rating is 3.88."...
>
> Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would have
> taken to get a higher rating.
>
> --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
> www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>
Well, one can always hope that posting such images will incite some people
to send money to the area relief funds. - In this respect, it is better to
post them sooner, than later......

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:380dt0tq8rpt1dtv3vsbp963u3kpg9kqop@4ax.com...
> Mike Jacoubowsky writes:
>
>> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted
>> on
>> a site that asks you to "rate this image?" Yes, I understand that,
>> regardless of subject, one can analyze a photo on its technical and
>> artistic
>> merits, but just because you *can* do that doesn't mean you *should.*
>
> It was probably posted there just to give it wider exposure, since it
> probably won't ever be published by the media.
>
>> I don't fault the original poster, who did warn that it was a very
>> disturbing thing to view. But the context (the site where it was posted)
>> just seems way-wrong to me. Way way wrong. Expecially so close on the
>> heels
>> of the tragedy. Ah, the wonders of the age of the Internet. No time to
>> ponder responsibility, just post it quick before somebody else does. No
>> ethics involved, because ethics are to be decided by the viewer, and to
>> not
>> post would imply censorship.
>
> Exactly. I'm totally opposed to censorship. If you don't want to see
> the photo, don't look. But withholding information just to avoid
> offending your delicate sensibilities is not acceptable. If you must
> censor content, do it at the entrance to your PC, not at the exit of
> someone else's PC.
>
Yes.....The main excuse of all censurers throughout history was, "It's just
for the good of the people." It's amazing that, in this late day and age,
they are still using that excuse........

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <SsrBd.4475$wZ2.710@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Is it just me, or do others have issues with photos like this one, posted on
> a site that asks you to "rate this image?"

I'm sure it's not JUST you, but I suspect your reaction may be shared by a
minority of those that viewed the disturbing image.

I admit that I was SLIGHTLY disgusted that the image was accompanied by an
invitation to RATE the photo. I quickly dismissed that fact by my assumption
that the "rating" thing accompanies all images on that site.

I read only a few replies prior to adding my own, so who knows what I'll read
next. I do, however, take exception to the insensitive clod that proudly
announced he'd "killfiled" you for your VERY understandable reaction - some of
which I share.

JR

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

In article <33nhj7FjjeijU1@individual.net>, "Zico" <zsdgsdr@syyy.com> wrote:

> why don't people get 'floored by the enormity of the tragedy' in Iraq ?

Because it is not an ENORMOUS tragedy. I am mostly convinced that it isn't
even a TRAGEDY. ...certainly not as enormous as the "tragedy" that went on
there for YEARS before our arrival.

> Tens of thousands of innocent women and children killed by
> occupying forces

Tens of thousands? Only in your prejudiced, closed mind.


JR

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> Big Bill wrote:
> >> >Good point, asking for a aesthetic rating on something so awful
> >> >is pretty tasteless.
> >> >
> >> I have to wonder if the rating thing isn't something added to all
> >> pics? I'm not familiar with ImageShack, so I don't know.
> >>
> > It is added to all pictures.
>
> Which sort of means that the complaints about it are kinda pointless.

I agree that it is tasteless in this case, and when I noticed I rolled
my eyes when I saw it, then went back to the picture itself. But, I
also understood that it was probably loaded up to an automatic website
of some kind that has that on every picture, and no person reviews them
for this kind of thing. Tasteless, yes, but not intentionally so, in
my eyes.

--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption (an added level of freedom that
I could never get for any business I might operate), there is a public
trust and public interest involved. Basically, they owe me... and every
other responsible taxpayer and citizen. If they want complete freedom
to maximize profits as they wish, that's fine, but only if they finance
their own stadiums, and operate under the same rules and laws that the
rest of us have to.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> Mxsmanic wrote:
> > You know ... I saw the first news report on the TV and it claimed
> > the death toll may be as high as 1,000. Each day it has gone up by
> > tens of thousands and yet any video that is shown only shows some
> > resort area where video cameras were running as people watch the
> > waves in awe.
>
> Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are only
> so many to go around, so you see the same images over and over. Dead
> people don't move, so showing images of the dead isn't as exciting as
> showing images of a moving wave.

I don't think it's just that. In the US we're (unjustly, in my mind)
sheltered from reality like that. There were plenty of pictures of
people jumping from the WTC on 9-11, yet people in the US didn't see
that. Even afterward, it's rare to see the imigaes of the planes
flying into the buildings anymore. It's a value-judgement on the part
of the media, and this situation was probably similar.

--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption (an added level of freedom that
I could never get for any business I might operate), there is a public
trust and public interest involved. Basically, they owe me... and every
other responsible taxpayer and citizen. If they want complete freedom
to maximize profits as they wish, that's fine, but only if they finance
their own stadiums, and operate under the same rules and laws that the
rest of us have to.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in
news:wtwBd.67908$QR1.24474@fed1read04:

> Tens of thousands (assuming that's accurate) is very very sad, and
> actively avoided by "occupying forces" with a few exceptions. Still,
> that is a comparatively tiny number compared with the horror Saddam
> unleashed there during his many years in power.

You cannot use Saddam as a motivation for occuping Iraq.
Saddam is not there any more. You have got him.


/Roland

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> Roland Karlsson wrote:
> > Tens of thousands (assuming that's accurate) is very very sad, and
> > actively avoided by "occupying forces" with a few exceptions.
> > Still, that is a comparatively tiny number compared with the
> > horror Saddam unleashed there during his many years in power.
>
> You cannot use Saddam as a motivation for occuping Iraq.
> Saddam is not there any more. You have got him.

So, now that we've got him, are you suggesting that a full pull-out is
in order so that their society can sink into utter chaos and civil war
would be in order? How many people die then, and for what reason?

--
As long as Major League Baseball expects public funding for their
facilities, and as long as they enjoy an added level of freedom of
operation from an anti-trust exemption, then there is a public trust
and public interest involved. IOW, they owe me.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"The Dave©" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:mMEBd.1843$Mp7.774@news01.roc.ny...
>> Mxsmanic wrote:
>> > You know ... I saw the first news report on the TV and it claimed
>> > the death toll may be as high as 1,000. Each day it has gone up by
>> > tens of thousands and yet any video that is shown only shows some
>> > resort area where video cameras were running as people watch the
>> > waves in awe.
>>
>> Television needs moving images of reasonable quality. There are only
>> so many to go around, so you see the same images over and over. Dead
>> people don't move, so showing images of the dead isn't as exciting as
>> showing images of a moving wave.
>
> I don't think it's just that. In the US we're (unjustly, in my mind)
> sheltered from reality like that. There were plenty of pictures of
> people jumping from the WTC on 9-11, yet people in the US didn't see
> that.

We didn't? I still have the NY Times from 9-12 that showed people
jumping/falling.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"The Dave©" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:9oFBd.1852$8j7.589@news01.roc.ny...
>> William Graham wrote:
>> > You cannot use Saddam as a motivation for occuping Iraq.
>> > Saddam is not there any more. You have got him.
>>
>> You're kidding......Right? - You think we should have just walked
>> away the day we found Saddam in that hole in the ground? I've got
>> news for you: Saddam Hussein is my excuse for attacking, occupying,
>> and staying in Iraq until they have a stable democratic government,
>> and are back on their feet with adequate desalination plants, sewage
>> treatment plants, health clinics, operating pipelines and oil
>> refineries, and electric power services. That's what that 80 Billion
>> dollars is for. All of this should have happened back in 1991, but
>> better late than never........
>
> I agree with you in sentiment, but I don't see all the good stuff
> happening that you hope for. I believe we should stay until some kind
> of government stability is achieved and some kind of base for
> infrastructure is in place, but I also believe we will have to make a
> judgement call at some point that it's the best we're gonna get and
> then get out. For right or for wrong, alot of the final stuff they're
> going have to do themselves according to their own wants and needs.
> "America Jr." it ain't gonna be. We have Canada for that.

> The Canada quip was a joke, for you overly-sensitive types who didn't
> get it.

Of course....Exactly when we should leave is a judgment call....the people
whose opinions I like the best have "guesstimated" in around 18
months......But to say that there is no justification for staying now that
Saddam Hussein has been deactivated is ludicrous.......

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

> I'll tell you what is offensive, Mr. Mike Jacoubowsky.
> YOU...were more upset that there were ratings offered by default on this
> particular web-site, than you apparently were to the horrific image of
> death.
>
> Don't start THIS AGAIN!!
>
> Most people...UNLIKE YOU...were too busy being floored by the enormity of
> the tragedy to notice something as petty as you have, least of all to stop
> and whine about something so totally unrelated.
>
> UNBELIEVABLE that one cannot post an image without
> someone...somewhere...taking offense.
>
> I am so sick of this politically-correct BS that I could just spit.

I'm supposed to apologize for being offended that the photo was used in a
commercial for-profit setting where people are making money by having it
seen? That somebody should have the guts or whatever to recognize that the
massive destruction and death deserve better than that?

Even the "evil" network TV folk ran the 9/11 coverage for probably a day
solid without commercial interruption. And no, that wasn't because no
advertiser would pay to be associated with it.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

>> "Rate this image! 3697 people have rated this image, and the average
>> rating is 3.88."...
>>
>> Makes you wonder what people were rating it for, and what it would
>> have taken to get a higher rating.
>
> Are you blaming the site, or the OP?

Definitely not blaming the OP. The photo needs to be seen. It's a tragedy of
epic proportions, and there's no reason to hide from it. Viewing the photos
helps us to understand the magnitude of human suffering, the need to provide
aid and work on how such things might be mitigated (you can't prevent a
Tsunami, but you can certainly minimize the loss of life).

And I'll admit, I over-reacted. Ideally, there should be a site where such
photos can be viewed without advertising or something asking for a rating.
Maybe I should have been offended only by the fact that many *had* taken the
opportunity to rate the photo?

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com