On 8/10/06, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Your lack of science training is showing.
Not sure what that means....but OK. I have no formal training in photography. My "bias" is for facts, not for conjecture, supposition, and faulty > analysis. I'm not defending anyone or anything, I'm pointing out the > facts and therefore implicit errors in your analysis. If you consider > facts to be a bias then you're living in the right state. The facts > are: Ok, I know I live in Kansas, where evolution ceases and wheat begins...that's hitting below the belt :) 1.) We have no idea if this was staged. Ok, true. 2.) If it was staged we have no idea what the motivation was. IF it was stage, motivation wouldn't matter one iota. Don't...stage...your...pictures. Period. 3.) Even if was staged to fool media customers (your factless > assumption and worst case scenario), it doesn't change the material > point of the story: civilians are dying. If it was staged, I wouldn't give two shits about the "material point of the story". In summary this photo is proof of nothing. It's one data point that > may or may not indicate a trend. But a trend one data point does not > make. This photo is proof of nothing, but the photographer was fired by Reuters, so their investigation showed some sort of impropriety on the part of the photographer. That is proof of something, isn't it? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:212897 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
