Big Bill wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 12:08:24 -0000, "Zico" wrote:


"Mike Jacoubowsky" wrote in message
m...
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.*

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.