Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 12:15:58 AM

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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
[WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:19:51 AM

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

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
> > 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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
> > [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


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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 8:11:48 AM

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

Mxsmanic wrote:
> Mike Henley writes:
>
> > I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for
publication.
>
> There are zillions of images like this that are never used by the
media.
> All disasters produce some pretty horrific images, but only the most
> inoffensive among them are usually published. This one apparently was
> taken by Darren Whiteside for Reuters in Banda Aceh on December 29
> (according to the file information).

This was Banda Aceh?

Wow, Banda Aceh was badly hit, as it was so close to the epicenter.

I just saw a video from Banda Aceh on the 26th! Very heart-wrenching.
The violence of the water in the video if you look closely at it is
staggering. There's what I think is a child crying and a woman calming
him. I think he lost his parents; I don't know indonesian but he said
what sounded like "mama, papa" while watching the water :-(

(links all same video - just different mirror)
http://steelerdirtfreak.com/videos/KATC.wmv
http://gloubinet.free.fr/tsunami/03.katc.wmv
http://www.kba-solutions.ru/ThaiVideo/KATC.wmv

And here's a PDF of satellite images of the before and after the
tusnami in Banda Aceh
http://www.digitalglobe.com/images/tsunami/Banda_Aceh_T...

And here's an image of the grand mosque that appears in the satellite
photos
http://tinypic.com/159dlk

>
> For those who'd like to know what the image contains before viewing
it,
> it's a portrait-oriented color photo of the beach, with innumerable
> human cadavers crowded together amongst debris from buildings,
floating
> in the water. Most are somewhat bloated and blackened by advancing
> decomposition (remember, this is 4 days after the tsunami) and
floating
> face-down in the water. Presumably they mainly drowned or died of
> internal injuries after being stuck by debris, as very few of them
show
> any signs of gross injury externally.
>
> I'm sure this type of image won't make it to most media outlets, but
I
> think it's very important that photojournalists take such pictures
for
> information and reference.
>
> From a technical standpoint, the photo is unremarkable; clearly, it's
> just intended as documentation.
>
> --
> Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me
directly.
Related resources
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 9:31:14 AM

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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
> [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
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 9:31:15 AM

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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
> > [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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:45:51 AM

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

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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
> >> > [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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 12:34:56 PM

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

A very historic, and horrific, post of reality Mike. Thank you for making
it available. The amount of censorship in the U.S. media theses days, too
often shelters us from the reality of the times we live in. I immediately
showed this to my wife, and son. I also sent it to everyone on my mailing
list (with the appropriate warning). This leaves it up to their discretion,
as to viewing it, or not...just like you did.

I'm quite certain that those of us who viewed the 9/11 tragedy, as well as
Iraq, though the eyes of the media, have no concept of the reality there
either.

Bill Crocker


"Mike Henley" <casioculture@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1104556558.778828.228480@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
> [WARNING : VERY, VERY DISTURBING!]
>
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 12:36:07 PM

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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
>> >> > [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"
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:52:38 PM

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

Mike Henley writes:

> I guess ths is the type of images that were unsuitable for publication.

There are zillions of images like this that are never used by the media.
All disasters produce some pretty horrific images, but only the most
inoffensive among them are usually published. This one apparently was
taken by Darren Whiteside for Reuters in Banda Aceh on December 29
(according to the file information).

For those who'd like to know what the image contains before viewing it,
it's a portrait-oriented color photo of the beach, with innumerable
human cadavers crowded together amongst debris from buildings, floating
in the water. Most are somewhat bloated and blackened by advancing
decomposition (remember, this is 4 days after the tsunami) and floating
face-down in the water. Presumably they mainly drowned or died of
internal injuries after being stuck by debris, as very few of them show
any signs of gross injury externally.

I'm sure this type of image won't make it to most media outlets, but I
think it's very important that photojournalists take such pictures for
information and reference.

From a technical standpoint, the photo is unremarkable; clearly, it's
just intended as documentation.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:54:47 PM

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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:56:35 PM

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

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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:56:36 PM

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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:57:27 PM

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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:57:28 PM

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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:57:54 PM

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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
> > > [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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:57:55 PM

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

"Zico" <zsdgsdr@syyy.com> wrote in message
news:33nhj7FjjeijU1@individual.net...
>
> "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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
> > > > [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
?

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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:08:24 PM

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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
> > [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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:08:25 PM

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

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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
>> > [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"
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:58:33 PM

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
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 4:07:06 PM

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

Zico writes:

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

Because a lot of information about Iraq is being withheld from them,
including the horrific pictures.

> 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.

Right.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:19:43 PM

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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:22:24 PM

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
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:27:43 PM

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

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> writes:

>> 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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
>> [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.*

Doesn't mean anything; in particular, it just means that that's the
photo hosting service the photographer uses. You can't turn those
features off on any of the systems I've known. He probably has
nowhere else to post the picture.

I find many people, including you based on only a small amount of
information, to be weirdly over-sensitive on this issue.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:32:54 PM

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
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:49:01 PM

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

"Deeyenda Maddick"
> On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 04:13:17 -0800, Mark² wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> No matter how many deaths are claimed to have occurred under Saddam, it
> still was an Iraqi internal affair, quite different than an invading force
> from half a world away who went there under the false pretext of WMD, and
> has since taken countless many more lives in collateral damage, and
> destroyed the infrastructure for all.


Germany was an internal affair before WWII as well. No one
wanted to intervene and about 50 million died as a result. If Saddam
was left to develope nuclear or biological weapons the way he wanted
the death figures now, however sad, would be a welcome alternative.
Perspective is unfortunantly diminished by political motives.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 7:09:25 PM

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.
>
>
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 7:21:16 PM

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

I believe this picture or one very similar was used in a full (single) page
spread in one of the UK tabloids - possibly the Daily Mirror

I agree with your sentiments - the media has a duty to inform us of world
events and neither sensationalise or censor what is happening - Er in an
ideal world that is :-(

Thanks to the OP for the link

Tim

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5svct09bfiqtjbhsqmrpeik52dv8jbrb8i@4ax.com...
> Mike Henley writes:
<snip>
> I'm sure this type of image won't make it to most media outlets, but I
> think it's very important that photojournalists take such pictures for
> information and reference.
<snip>
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 9:02:52 PM

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

Fletis Humplebacker writes:

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

Yes: experience. But a photo is less traumatic.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 9:04:12 PM

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.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:15:27 PM

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

Thanks for posting the image/link.

Sitting here in my safe air-conditioned room listening to reports on my TV,
I thought "OH how terrible". This image has just brought the magnitude of
the disaster to me..

I have been going to donate when things open up after the new year. I have
just doubled that donation.

Thanks for bring the reality to cosy room. The media do shelter us from the
reality of this sort of thing..
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:25:40 PM

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

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:10tdfqi2u8na808@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "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.

The experience ? ;-)
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:25:41 PM

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

"Zico"
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
> news:10tdfqi2u8na808@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "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.
>
> The experience ? ;-)


No. If you need to experience a tsunami to understand 120+
thousand dead is truely horrible you are missing a soul.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:56:28 PM

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=img145&image=ruumiita4f...
>> [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......
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:01:41 PM

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

"Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
news:10tdfqi2u8na808@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "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.
>
>
But the photos can make it more real....When I was 10 years old, I went to
the movies and saw a Movietone News clip of bull dozers pushing
skeleton-like bodies into an open trench at a Nazi death camp.....That clip
is still burned into my memory, and I am 69 years old today. No amount of
words could ever replace that newsclip in my memory.......
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:01:42 PM

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

"William Graham"
>
> "Fletis Humplebacker"

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

> But the photos can make it more real....When I was 10 years old, I went to
> the movies and saw a Movietone News clip of bull dozers pushing
> skeleton-like bodies into an open trench at a Nazi death camp.....That clip
> is still burned into my memory, and I am 69 years old today. No amount of
> words could ever replace that newsclip in my memory.......


I agree with that but unless someone lives in a cage they've
seen the video clips of the tsunami. I see the lesson
about man's inhumanity to man a bit different than the
unfortunant outcome of a natural disaster. The only thing
learned here is that the world needs to get together with a
warning system of some type.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:34:54 PM

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........
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:58:52 PM

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

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
> "Zico"
> >
> > "Fletis Humplebacker" <!> wrote in message
> > news:10tdfqi2u8na808@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "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.
> >
> > The experience ? ;-)
>
>
> No. If you need to experience a tsunami to understand 120+
> thousand dead is truely horrible you are missing a soul.

And you, Mr. 21 grams, have one?

This holier-than-thou talk is nonsense. Given my humanistic experience,
I've almost certainly seen more dead and dying people than you have; It
never ceased to cause me pain and leave me upset for a while
afterwards. A figure like "135,000" is horrible enough without seeing
an image, but it remains nonetheless simply that, a figure, impersonal
and abstract, and it gains a further credence of horror when an image
is seen the exemplify that, that the initial 'grasp' of it pales in
comparison.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:06:37 AM

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

William Graham wrote:
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9ojet0545vlgisr2ijouj21amntppioq4f@4ax.com...
> > Fletis Humplebacker writes:
> >
> >> I agree with that but unless someone lives in a cage they've
> >> seen the video clips of the tsunami. I see the lesson
> >> about man's inhumanity to man a bit different than the
> >> unfortunant outcome of a natural disaster. The only thing
> >> learned here is that the world needs to get together with a
> >> warning system of some type.
> >
> > Tsunami are so rare in the Indian Ocean that it is difficult to
justify
> > a warning system. It wasn't until 1965 that someone thought of
setting
> > one up for the Pacific, and the Pacific has several tsunami a year.
> > It's important not to overreact.
> >
> Yes, but it would be nice if there was warning enough so all the
tourists
> could go to the high ground, and all the dumb rubberneckers could
rush down
> to the beach and get drowned.....There is no law that says we can't
help
> Darwin out a little bit.......


This is unfair.

1) you should've said "tourists and natives"; tourists are not the only
humans in that locale.
2) "dumb rubberneckers" is unacceptable. There's no precedent for this
tsunami in the lifetime experience of most people. This is especially
so since, as mark said, the tsuanmi videos showed how deceptive the
waves were; they seemed small and leisurely at a distance, and gained
height as they approached the shore.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:21:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>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
>
>

The photo should be seen by those who can handle viewing it. This is a terrible
tragedy and as awful as it may be, this photo shows how terrible things really
were, and gives you a real understanding of how so many thousands of good
people lost their lives. It's the worst single human tragedy that I know of
that has taken place in my 41 years on the planet, but these things do happen
as much as we all wish that they never would. Steering clear of all such images
will not make it go away, and only makes it easier to wipe away from our
memories in a few days and go back to life as usual.

So far as the "rating" at the bottom of the screen goes, I'm sure it's not a
sick attempt at humour, but most likely a standard component used for all
photos uploaded to that particular website.

The world needs to pull together and give these poor people anything, and
everything that they might need in the coming weeks and years. Just think, even
people who may have big the "big wigs," successful, and pillars of society, if
lucky enough to be alive, have probably lost everything and are as poor if they
have been homeless for their entire lives. It isn't likely that many of them
had any sort of insurance or safety net to help them in the time of such an
unforseeable event.

Take care,
JD
Let's all do something, anything to help.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:39:29 AM

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

> William Graham wrote:
> 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........

Well, truth be told, they use that tired old excuse for one reason
only... it still works. There are enough people who still believe it.

--
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.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:39:30 AM

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.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:39:30 AM

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

> Deeyenda Maddick wrote:
> No matter how many deaths are claimed to have occurred under Saddam,
> it still was an Iraqi internal affair, quite different than an
> invading force from half a world away who went there under the false
> pretext of WMD, and has since taken countless many more lives in
> collateral damage, and destroyed the infrastructure for all.

It's acceptbale if somebody else does it way far away? How repugnant.

--
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.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:39:30 AM

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.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:39:31 AM

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

> Mike Jacoubowsky 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?" 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.

Are you blaming the site, or the OP?

--
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.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:39:31 AM

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.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:05:24 AM

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
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:05:25 AM

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

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D1EAE0720E4klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "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.

Perhaps you would prefer we remove him, and then disappear?
Interesting strategy.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:14:15 AM

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

"Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95D1EAE0720E4klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
> "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.

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........
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:16:46 AM

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.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:21:57 AM

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

> 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.
    • 1 / 13
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!