In a message dated 7/20/2006 6:32:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No one has expressed any objection to the photo or its content. Only to the absence of an indication of what is about to appear on one's monitor. No vitriol. Just the normal concern of people who have to deal with the real world of a suspicious society. Paul ======== I'll chime in.
About four years ago someone put up a fairly graphic photo of a nude male. I protested not being warned before I opened it. Not a child, a man. At that time people told me I had the right to want a warning. Over the years people have also asked for warnings of shots of nude females. It can be sort of a shock when you are not expecting it. And some of us aren't that interested in viewing nude females (especially if you are a female ;-)). I see no reason the general consensual rules we've had in the past can't apply to nude children as well. For all the good reasons given in this thread, that some people are at work, that someone could look over their shoulder and see what is on their screen. That they could get in trouble. Possibly even serious trouble. For them, it's not about content at all really, it's about just common courtesy in considering their situations as human beings. For me, it was about content, and no one objected to me being asked to be warned. I looked at Dag's picture and enjoyed it. However, in the future I am not going to look at his pictures at all, unless he extents to others the same common courtesy that was once extended to me. Marnie -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
