<DIV>From: Rich Holton <<A href="http://us.f418.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=rich_holton@yahoo.com&YY=56709&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b">rich_holton@yahoo.com</A>><BR><BR>--- Anthere <<A href="http://us.f418.mail.yahoo.com/ym/Compose?To=anthere9@yahoo.com&YY=56709&order=down&sort=date&pos=0&view=a&head=b">anthere9@yahoo.com</A>> wrote:<BR>> <BR>> Okay. So, let us set a consistent policy on this.<BR>> I totally approved<BR>> > * picture that is universally considered<BR>> offensive -> link<BR>> > * picture that is considered offensive by some,<BR>> not by others -> embed<BR> <BR>>I'm not sure if you meant this literally,<BR>>figuratively, or sarcastically. If you really meant<BR>>that a picture must be "universally considered<BR>>offensive" before if is moved behind a link, I must<BR>>disagree. You will never get "universal" agreement
on<BR>>anything. So that policy will end up the equivalent of<BR>>never putting a picture behind a link.<BR><BR>>If the consensus view is that a picture should never<BR>>be "hidden" behind a link, then let's state that<BR>>plainly. If we want to allow for variation based on<BR>>the context, then let's eliminate the "universal"<BR>>wording.<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<P>--------------------<BR>Hi Rich<BR><BR>Figuratively...<BR></P>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>You are absolutely correct. This is not a very good phrasing. There is probably no universally offending picture.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR>Clearly, human genitalia, torture pictures, humiliations, death, body in pieces, people playing with poop...none of this is fully universally offending.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And not only is it not universal, but on top of it, some consider these not offending at all.</FONT></DIV>Now, just because it is not "universal", does not mean it is not widely considered "hard to watch".</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And it is not because newspapers chose to display rudely these pictures that we should do the same.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And it is not because Boston Globe does not display female genitalia but displays tortured bodies, that we should do the same, because it is only the Globe pov to do so.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We thrive on giving all points of view in article. I think we should a least try to do that a bit with regards to displaying tough pictures.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We can't define "universally" and we will probably always fight over what is supposingly really offensive and what is supposingly not really offensive, and we will probably never fully agree on this, because it is our education and sensibility that makes us see something offensive or not. There is no measure possible, and no "truth". It is just reality, and opinion on that reality.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><p>
<hr size=1><font face=arial size=-1>Do you Yahoo!?<br>Yahoo! Movies - <a href="http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861">Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' </a>