Jesus's middle name is Hume! Caution: Some NSFW images within!

[BoomerD]

I've been to Stockton...the sign is true.


I think I found Eits' office...

 

[lytalbayre]

I've been to Stockton...the sign is true.


I think I found Eits' office...

So true about Stockton. I grew up there... glad to be gone.

 

[Barfo]

source please?

 

[OCNewbie]

source please?

Looks like Jersey Shore to me. Mtv logo in bottom right corner

 

[alfa147x]

haha yeah that;s jersey shor e

 

[zinfamous]

lol Stockton.

 

[MH2007]

:thumbsdown:

The truth regarding these photos has been known for years now ...

First of all, even after the obviously biased cropping of the photos and captions, it's clear that they were taken from two different sources (AP and AFP)

Second, even ignoring the obvious inevitability that different people are going to use different words while reporting, wouldn't it be more reasonable to find out if the photographers actually had facts and observations that back up their choice of words rather than jump to conclusions of impropriety?

And third, the facts regarding each of the photographers' choice of words is on record:

Re: Dave Martin, Associated Press
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/01/photo_controversy/index.html

Jack Stokes, AP's director of media relations, confirmed today that Martin says he witnessed the people in his images looting a grocery store. "He saw the person go into the shop and take the goods," Stokes said, "and that's why he wrote 'looting' in the caption."

Re: Chris Graythen, AFP/Getty Images
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=17204

I wrote the caption about the two people who 'found' the items. I believed in my opinion, that they did simply find them, and not 'looted' them in the definition of the word. The people were swimming in chest deep water, and there were other people in the water, both white and black. I looked for the best picture. there were a million items floating in the water - we were right near a grocery store that had 5+ feet of water in it. it had no doors. the water was moving, and the stuff was floating away. These people were not ducking into a store and busting down windows to get electronics. They picked up bread and cokes that were floating in the water. They would have floated away anyhow.

 

[MH2007]

On a lighter note ... this one is really old but I still chuckle when I see it ...

 

[Newbian]

:thumbsdown:

The truth regarding these photos has been known for years now ...
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=17204

Go away killjoy.

 

[eits]

:thumbsdown:

The truth regarding these photos has been known for years now ...

First of all, even after the obviously biased cropping of the photos and captions, it's clear that they were taken from two different sources (AP and AFP)

Second, even ignoring the obvious inevitability that different people are going to use different words while reporting, wouldn't it be more reasonable to find out if the photographers actually had facts and observations that back up their choice of words rather than jump to conclusions of impropriety?

And third, the facts regarding each of the photographers' choice of words is on record:

Re: Dave Martin, Associated Press
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/01/photo_controversy/index.html

Re: Chris Graythen, AFP/Getty Images
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=17204

they both found things that would keep them alive and from going hungry. one found it in a flooded store and one found it out of a flooded store. i'm sure if the one grocery store had doors, it wouldn't have kept people from going in and taking what would have gone to waste in order to feed themselves and their family members.

i don't think, given the circumstance, "looting" was an appropriate term. there's a big difference between taking electronics from a flooded store and taking food from a flooded store.

either way, i don't think people who looted electronics from flooded stores did a bad thing, necessarily. for example, if everyone already took the food that wasn't ruined in the flood, i'd take electronics that went undamaged in order to try and barter food from someone who got some of the unspoiled food.

 

[alkemyst]

:3

just enough of a belly button to collect the deposit.

 

[alkemyst]

they both found things that would keep them alive and from going hungry. one found it in a flooded store and one found it out of a flooded store. i'm sure if the one grocery store had doors, it wouldn't have kept people from going in and taking what would have gone to waste in order to feed themselves and their family members.

i don't think, given the circumstance, "looting" was an appropriate term. there's a big difference between taking electronics from a flooded store and taking food from a flooded store.

either way, i don't think people who looted electronics from flooded stores did a bad thing, necessarily. for example, if everyone already took the food that wasn't ruined in the flood, i'd take electronics that went undamaged in order to try and barter food from someone who got some of the unspoiled food.

Unfortunately this was more about proving it's not about race more than anything.

IMHO it's more about social status and how the media portrays you.

People tend to hit that mark time and time again.

 

[MH2007]

Go away killjoy.

no

 

[MH2007]

they both found things that would keep them alive and from going hungry. one found it in a flooded store and one found it out of a flooded store. i'm sure if the one grocery store had doors, it wouldn't have kept people from going in and taking what would have gone to waste in order to feed themselves and their family members.

Not that I'm claiming that they wouldn't (I mean, how would I know, really?) but it's a bit ironic that you're making assumptions about what those people would have done in a different situation. After all, wasn't a component of the outrage over the photo mash-up was the incorrect claim that the media was making assumptions about how those people got what was in their arms?

i don't think, given the circumstance, "looting" was an appropriate term. there's a big difference between taking electronics from a flooded store and taking food from a flooded store.

I'm not sure how you can claim that. The press certainly has the freedom to report what they observe, and the photographer of the first photo actually observed the individual looting. Besides, the picture clearly shows him with a case of soda in one arm and a garbage bag with indiscernible contents in the other arm. The dubious claim that the term "looting" is inappropriate is doubly dubious in that case because it would be making assumptions about what was in the garbage bag.

either way, i don't think people who looted electronics from flooded stores did a bad thing, necessarily. for example, if everyone already took the food that wasn't ruined in the flood, i'd take electronics that went undamaged in order to try and barter food from someone who got some of the unspoiled food.

Your bartering rationalization is a bit of a stretch, to say the least, but regardless I have not and would not try to condemn people for looting to survive in that kind of situation. Also as far as I know nobody was prosecuting for looting things like electronics or shoes during the Katrina aftermath, much less food. Whether the authorities either could not or would not prosecute, I am, in general, in agreement with that outcome. (Three people did end up getting convicted for looting a large quantity of alcohol.)

 

[MH2007]

Unfortunately this was more about proving it's not about race more than anything.

Not sure if that's targeted at me but if so how is it unfortunate that I responded to a posting of a biased and uninformed mash-up of photos with the actual facts?

IMHO it's more about social status and how the media portrays you.

Extremely ironic since the actual issue with that mash-up IMO is how it incorrectly characterizes how the media was portraying the subjects of those photos.

People tend to hit that mark time and time again.

Not sure what that is supposed to mean.

 

[MH2007]

Back on a lighter note ... another really old one ...

 

[preslove]

:thumbsdown:

The truth regarding these photos has been known for years now ...

First of all, even after the obviously biased cropping of the photos and captions, it's clear that they were taken from two different sources (AP and AFP)

Second, even ignoring the obvious inevitability that different people are going to use different words while reporting, wouldn't it be more reasonable to find out if the photographers actually had facts and observations that back up their choice of words rather than jump to conclusions of impropriety?

And third, the facts regarding each of the photographers' choice of words is on record:

Re: Dave Martin, Associated Press
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/09/01/photo_controversy/index.html

Re: Chris Graythen, AFP/Getty Images
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=17204

Uh... so both instances involved people going into a grocery store and taking food without paying for them.

 

[preslove]

Not sure if that's targeted at me but if so how is it unfortunate that I responded to a posting of a biased and uninformed mash-up of photos with the actual facts?



Extremely ironic since the actual issue with that mash-up IMO is how it incorrectly characterizes how the media was portraying the subjects of those photos.

No, you are just ignoring the fucking facts. I don't know what weird agenda you have, but there was no difference in the facts, just in the interpretation of those facts by the photographers. They all went into the grocery stores and took food.

 

[BoomerD]

We don't need no stinkin treadmill!

 

[MH2007]

Uh... so both instances involved people going into a grocery store and taking food without paying for them.

Seriously? You might want to try reading it again ... on second thought, I'll go ahead and quote it again and even bold the most relevant parts because I can't help but suspect that you're either incapable of or unwilling to read and comprehend without assistance:

Re: Chris Graythen, AFP/Getty Images
http://www.sportsshooter.com/message...html?tid=17204

I wrote the caption about the two people who 'found' the items. I believed in my opinion, that they did simply find them, and not 'looted' them in the definition of the word. The people were swimming in chest deep water, and there were other people in the water, both white and black. I looked for the best picture. there were a million items floating in the water - we were right near a grocery store that had 5+ feet of water in it. it had no doors. the water was moving, and the stuff was floating away. These people were not ducking into a store and busting down windows to get electronics. They picked up bread and cokes that were floating in the water. They would have floated away anyhow.

 

[MH2007]

No, you are just ignoring the fucking facts. I don't know what weird agenda you have, but there was no difference in the facts, just in the interpretation of those facts by the photographers. They all went into the grocery stores and took food.

You're the one ignoring facts ... or are simply incapable of understanding them. As for an agenda, I suppose by your logic that you have one? Since you are doing exactly what you falsely accused me of doing. The second photographer clearly stated that the subjects of his photo did not enter the grocery store while he was observing them.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Between Boomer's lame GIFs and MH2007's boring equivocations this has officially become the lamest funny picture thread ever. Thanks guys.

 

[Andy22]

Between Boomer's lame GIFs and MH2007's boring equivocations this has officially become the lamest funny picture thread ever. Thanks guys.

QFT :-/

 

[PlasmaBomb]

It isn't that obvious. But watch enough vehicles getting hit by trains and you'll see the difference.
It does not look like this

You are aware that what you posted is fake too...?

 

[Zee]