Why Post An Article on Photos Only To Not Show Them?

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

http://tinyurl.com/4naex

In this case, they found a digital camera near the sight of the tsunami and
it turned out to have been taken by a couple who were later found dead. The
camera's card kept the contents of the photo & were thus rescued.

Now, I know this probably sounds morbid to 95% of you, and I do recognize
that someone died and that the photos were taken by this person & all that,
yet still I ask--why "tease" people? Why post an article like that,
describing very well how revealing & all that the photos were--only to not
then publish them? If that is distasteful, so be it--but in that case, I
say--don't say anything about the whole affair at all. As an enthusiast of
such persons, to me, that amounts to "teasing." That's like a man describing
in very intricate detail of some great photos he has of his 25 year old wife
in the nude, in bikinis, etc, going out of his way to tell you just how
fantastic & wonderful it all is--only to then say "but I can't show them to
you." I'm like "then why bother telling me, getting me all worked up with no
satisfaction at the end of it all?" In other words, why "tease?"

Some may think I'm a jerk here, but I really feel this way--why write-up an
article like this only to not then show the photos, for ANY reason--even
this one.

LRH

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

Larry R Harrison Jr wrote:
> http://tinyurl.com/4naex
>
> In this case, they found a digital camera near the sight of the tsunami and
> it turned out to have been taken by a couple who were later found dead. The
> camera's card kept the contents of the photo & were thus rescued.
>
> Now, I know this probably sounds morbid to 95% of you, and I do recognize
> that someone died and that the photos were taken by this person & all that,
> yet still I ask--why "tease" people? Why post an article like that,
> describing very well how revealing & all that the photos were--only to not
> then publish them? If that is distasteful, so be it--but in that case, I
> say--don't say anything about the whole affair at all. As an enthusiast of
> such persons, to me, that amounts to "teasing." That's like a man describing
> in very intricate detail of some great photos he has of his 25 year old wife
> in the nude, in bikinis, etc, going out of his way to tell you just how
> fantastic & wonderful it all is--only to then say "but I can't show them to
> you." I'm like "then why bother telling me, getting me all worked up with no
> satisfaction at the end of it all?" In other words, why "tease?"
>
> Some may think I'm a jerk here, but I really feel this way--why write-up an
> article like this only to not then show the photos, for ANY reason--even
> this one.
>
> LRH
>
>
I totally agree. However, it seems that writers of articles for
internet sites don't seem to understand that if you discusses an image,
there should be a link to it in the article, or the article should just
not be written. It seems that many articles about space exploration are
the most frequent offenders on this issue.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

"Larry R Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.com> wrote:

> http://tinyurl.com/4naex
>
> In this case, they found a digital camera near the sight of the
> tsunami and it turned out to have been taken by a couple who were
> later found dead. The camera's card kept the contents of the photo &
> were thus rescued.
>
> Now, I know this probably sounds morbid to 95% of you, and I do
> recognize that someone died and that the photos were taken by this
> person & all that, yet still I ask--why "tease" people? Why post an
> article like that, describing very well how revealing & all that the
> photos were--only to not then publish them? If that is distasteful, so
> be it--but in that case, I say--don't say anything about the whole
> affair at all. As an enthusiast of such persons, to me, that amounts
> to "teasing." That's like a man describing in very intricate detail of
> some great photos he has of his 25 year old wife in the nude, in
> bikinis, etc, going out of his way to tell you just how fantastic &
> wonderful it all is--only to then say "but I can't show them to you."
> I'm like "then why bother telling me, getting me all worked up with no
> satisfaction at the end of it all?" In other words, why "tease?"
>
> Some may think I'm a jerk here, but I really feel this way--why
> write-up an article like this only to not then show the photos, for
> ANY reason--even this one.
>
> LRH
>
>
The REAL news sites that ran the same AP dispatch, word for word, had
links to the pictures. Why are you reading Yahoo news? They're
incompetent, at best.

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

Bubbabob wrote:
> "Larry R Harrison Jr" <noone@noone.com> wrote:
>
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4naex
>>
>>In this case, they found a digital camera near the sight of the
>>tsunami and it turned out to have been taken by a couple who were
>>later found dead. The camera's card kept the contents of the photo &
>>were thus rescued.
>>
>>Now, I know this probably sounds morbid to 95% of you, and I do
>>recognize that someone died and that the photos were taken by this
>>person & all that, yet still I ask--why "tease" people? Why post an
>>article like that, describing very well how revealing & all that the
>>photos were--only to not then publish them? If that is distasteful, so
>>be it--but in that case, I say--don't say anything about the whole
>>affair at all. As an enthusiast of such persons, to me, that amounts
>>to "teasing." That's like a man describing in very intricate detail of
>>some great photos he has of his 25 year old wife in the nude, in
>>bikinis, etc, going out of his way to tell you just how fantastic &
>>wonderful it all is--only to then say "but I can't show them to you."
>>I'm like "then why bother telling me, getting me all worked up with no
>>satisfaction at the end of it all?" In other words, why "tease?"
>>
>>Some may think I'm a jerk here, but I really feel this way--why
>>write-up an article like this only to not then show the photos, for
>>ANY reason--even this one.
>>
>>LRH
>>
>>
>
> The REAL news sites that ran the same AP dispatch, word for word, had
> links to the pictures. Why are you reading Yahoo news? They're
> incompetent, at best.
Perhaps you could share with us naive Yahoo readers what a 'real news
site' is. A link, please.
BTW, what you just did is eXACTLY the same as what we were complaining
about....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

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

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

>>
>> The REAL news sites that ran the same AP dispatch, word for word, had
>> links to the pictures. Why are you reading Yahoo news? They're
>> incompetent, at best.
> Perhaps you could share with us naive Yahoo readers what a 'real news
> site' is. A link, please.
> BTW, what you just did is eXACTLY the same as what we were complaining
> about....
>
>

Unfortunately, it's yesterday's news. CNN had all of the pix, so did
several other sites but they're gone today.

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

I've seen them posted and they are completely unremarkable.