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=img1...uumiita4ft.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


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.