From: Rich Holton rich_holton@yahoo.com
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Okay. So, let us set a consistent policy on this. I totally approved
- picture that is universally considered
offensive -> link
- picture that is considered offensive by some,
not by others -> embed
I'm not sure if you meant this literally, figuratively, or sarcastically. If you really meant that a picture must be "universally considered offensive" before if is moved behind a link, I must disagree. You will never get "universal" agreement on anything. So that policy will end up the equivalent of never putting a picture behind a link.
If the consensus view is that a picture should never be "hidden" behind a link, then let's state that plainly. If we want to allow for variation based on the context, then let's eliminate the "universal" wording.
-------------------- Hi Rich
Figuratively...
You are absolutely correct. This is not a very good phrasing. There is probably no universally offending picture.
Clearly, human genitalia, torture pictures, humiliations, death, body in pieces, people playing with poop...none of this is fully universally offending. And not only is it not universal, but on top of it, some consider these not offending at all. Now, just because it is not "universal", does not mean it is not widely considered "hard to watch". And it is not because newspapers chose to display rudely these pictures that we should do the same. 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.
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.
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.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2'
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Clearly, human genitalia, torture pictures, humiliations, death, body in pieces, people playing with poop...none of this is fully universally offending. And not only is it not universal, but on top of it, some consider these not offending at all. Now, just because it is not "universal", does not mean it is not widely considered "hard to watch". And it is not because newspapers chose to display rudely these pictures that we should do the same. 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.
I generally agree with Anthere.
Let's not forget that the Globe is a for-profit company and will do whatever it needs to do to maximize profits and minimize losses (it's called capitalism). It caters to its audience.
On an aside, my wife abhors the sight of blood and any type of medical procedures. She winces at needles, and averts her eyes at simulated blood in movies. Yet, she is an interpreter, and needs to study medical procedures, because a lot of her work involves them. She is grateful for the images, no matter how gruesome they are, of open sores, abcesses, etc, because of their ability to convey information effectively.
So even thought it turns her stomach to see forceps pulling a ribcage apart, she does not condemn such pictures, since she does understand that some people need it to make good decisions.
===== Christopher Mahan chris_mahan@yahoo.com 818.943.1850 cell http://www.christophermahan.com/
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2' http://movies.yahoo.com/showtimes/movie?mid=1808405861