A truly HORRIFIC tsunami picture

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!]

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

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.

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
ups.com...

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.

EXACTLY!!!!!!
He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely ignored
the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed "sensitivities"
on total irrelevant BS.
I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my
kill-file.
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.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number 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.

"Mxsmanic"
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number 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.

"Mxsmanic"
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number 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.

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.

EXACTLY!!!!!!
He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely
ignored
the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed
"sensitivities"
on total irrelevant BS.
I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my
kill-file.
Thank you for posting this image.

You fail to understand my point. I will try again (but now that I'm
kill-filed...).

My point wasn't that the photo shouldn't be shown. I think the opposite in
fact. But it detracts greatly from the tragedy to put it in the context of
being "rated" as a good-or-bad photo. You're trying way too hard to to find
offending examples of censorship & political correctness that you're missing
my point. Context *is* relevant.

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

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

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.

EXACTLY!!!!!!
He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely
ignored
the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed
"sensitivities"
on total irrelevant BS.
I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my
kill-file.
Thank you for posting this image.


You fail to understand my point. I will try again (but now that I'm
kill-filed...).

My point wasn't that the photo shouldn't be shown. I think the opposite in
fact. But it detracts greatly from the tragedy to put it in the context of
being "rated" as a good-or-bad photo. You're trying way too hard to to find
offending examples of censorship & political correctness that you're missing
my point. Context *is* relevant.

Whereas you seem to just be trying too hard to be easily offended.

Personally, the first thing I thought when I saw the "rating" thing and
the advertising is that it was just something inherant to the site that
the photographer (or whoever posted the image) used, and that he
probably uses that site on a regular basis, if not exclusively, and so
naturally placed that photo there as well.

Some people just seem to have to FIND things to complain about, I guess...

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

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.

EXACTLY!!!!!!
He was so busy looking for ways to get offended, that he completely
ignored
the horror of that image, and instead focussed his supposed
"sensitivities"
on total irrelevant BS.
I'm so sick of his kind of "sensitivity" that he now resides in my
kill-file.
Thank you for posting this image.


You fail to understand my point. I will try again (but now that I'm
kill-filed...).

My point wasn't that the photo shouldn't be shown. I think the opposite in
fact. But it detracts greatly from the tragedy to put it in the context of
being "rated" as a good-or-bad photo. You're trying way too hard to to find
offending examples of censorship & political correctness that you're missing
my point. Context *is* relevant.

Whereas you seem to just be trying too hard to be easily offended.

Personally, the first thing I thought when I saw the "rating" thing and
the advertising is that it was just something inherant to the site that
the photographer (or whoever posted the image) used, and that he
probably uses that site on a regular basis, if not exclusively, and so
naturally placed that photo there as well.

Some people just seem to have to FIND things to complain about, I guess...