<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">
<P><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.<BR><BR>It was meant figuratively rather than literally. I am talking about 95- <BR>100% agreement. If I added a photo of the decapitated hostage, Nick Berg, <BR>to an article and insisted on voting on it, I'm sure that's pretty much <BR>what we would get - 95-100% in favor of removing the image or replacing it <BR>with one just showing the hostage when he was still alive.</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>If I dare say... I think we also said "display image that hold an interest". <BR><BR>Now, the picture of Nick decapitated is interesting (but gross).<BR>But why would his picture "before decapitation" be interesting ? After all, he is just a human being, with nothing special but to be unfortunately one of the numerous victim of a war.</P>
<P>I see not well why Nick with a head is more interesting than any of the picture of those people who died in the towers. People who were put in sept11, because they are "no one special".</P>
<P>Again, please, no double standards. </P><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>