Mpprh Posted October 1, 2005 Share Posted October 1, 2005 This is shamelessly copied from another board. It was originally titled "A MORAL VIEW" :MORAL QUESTION This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally. The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and give due consideration to each line. =============================================== THE SITUATION You are in Florida, Miami to be specific. There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding. This is a flood of biblical proportions. You are a photojournalist working for a major newspaper, and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are houses and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing all of its destructive fury. =============================================== THE TEST Suddenly you see a man in the water. He is fighting for his life, trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer. Somehow the man looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's George W. Bush! At the same time you notice that the raging waters are about to take him under forever. You have two options--you can save the life of GeorgeW.Bush, or you can shoot a dramatic Pulitzer Prize-winning photo, documenting the death of one of the world's most powerful politicians. =============================================== THE QUESTION Here's the question, and please give an honest answer: Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with the classic simplicity of black and white? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamedup Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantine<br><br><br><br>Susie Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Oh quite definitely the high contrast colour film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 I'm with Fantine on this one - absolutely color Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Riff-Raff Element Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Grief - this is why one should never think for a second on these moral questions! I mean, the high contrast colour is going to look great in National Geographic, but will it have the durability of B&W when it comes to long-term storage for posterity? Poor Old Dubbya. Has there ever been a president so poorly regarded by the outside World? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iceni Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 If you truly have the interest of yr fellow man at heart you should forget the photos and drown the ****** yourself - just in case !!Johnnot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RayB Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 [quote]This is shamelessly copied from another board. It was originally titled "A MORAL VIEW" : MORAL QUESTION This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By giving an honest answer,...[/quote]The last time I saw this one it was 'Hillary Clinton' and before that it was 'Bill' and before that it was . . . . . ! Yawn! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 But the answer is always the same - black and white for impact - always impresses the Pulitzer committee. In fact I'd go so far as to say Tri-X developed in D76 through a Nikon optic...Come back, Weegee, all is forgiven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tag Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 I admire the courage of the initiator of this thread. Under current proposed UK legislation this kind of post would surely be a crime of some sort - perhaps that of "having an opinion which runs counter to current government thinking or that of a friendly government", and those who agree with it will be guilty of " encouragement of an opinion ......." . On the other hand if the drowning Bush was making a political speech at the time and you mentioned the word " Rubbish" or something less polite, then you would be picked up by a SWAT squad and dumped in the deepest current of the raging flood - or lifted to safety and not allowed back into the area again until Bubblaya had issued an abject and deeply unfelt apology, for which to happen someone would have to save his life....On the other hand, the CRS might just take over the ferry if their parachutes opened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 "Under current proposed UK legislation this kind of post would surely be a crime of some sort"Utter bilge and probably trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Wasn't CRS something to do with the Co - op ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamedup Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 You took me aback a bit there with the little 'joke' about the CRS, OK so I have seen jokes about them, but these people are sinister really and make me nervous. They are after all the police to protect the french state and from what I have seen to protect the state from the french themselves. I have always warned my kids who were rather fond of manifs at one time to get the hell out of it if the CRS ever turned up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tag Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Oh Dick, your faith in the "powers that be" is touching, particularly in the light of an 84 year old man being held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act for uttering the word "rubbish". Surely we are only a very short step from being controlled by thought police when our society has to be based on "respect" - for whom one might ask? Remember too that there has been an act of Parliament to stop one anti-war protester outside the Palace of Westminster. But then, first they came for someone on the other side of town, then they came for someone down the road, then they came for my neighbours....The criticism of an insecure and unpopular leader, or even religion, might well come under the terms of an act of some sort. From whence we started in the early 1930's."Trolling" by the way means hunting trolls? If so, it is my hobby and I even have a licence. "Trawling" means hunting various kinds of victims, in its alternative form - bit like a sect (cant remember their name) used to do some time ago? Which Anthony Burgess variation do you have in mind.PS: Have you changed your foto? Preferred the other.Fondness! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackT Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Well said Taq, you're spot on with those comments. It's getting more like the USSR every day here in the UK. But just watch what happens to free speech when the dour Marxist Scot-Brit chancellor is declared PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miki Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 [quote]Well said Taq, you're spot on with those comments. It's getting more like the USSR every day here in the UK. But just watch what happens to free speech when the dour Marxist Scot-Brit chancellor is d...[/quote]No..................please don't tell me, we will all have to talk .............Scottish and with the right accent............oh hells bells !And I have only just started talking like De Villepin, after perfecting Raffarin's accent.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Sorry Taq and Jack T - I've had a nice day and I can't be arsed to engage with people who are either deluded paranoics or trolls. GB getting like the USSR? What are you on? What threats to free speech have you seen? On second thoughts, don't answer, it'll be as much a fantasy as previous posts from you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deimos Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 A funny “Moral Question”.Other issues raised by subsequent posts are (in my opinion) important and valid. The issue of an 82 year old man representing no threat being detained under the “Prevention of Terrorism Act” is a major concern. Clearly the police were using the act for the convenience of the Labour party. This is far from the first time this act has been blatantly mis-used for political convenience yet nothing has been done about it. Maybe it is a bit much to start the “police state” bit but moving from “freedom of speech” to “police state” can be achieved in small steps rather than by revolution.The issues about mis-use of this act are (to me) important as, when the act is used those affected have no redress, and even when mis-used, they can do nothing to have their record corrected (i.e. the false detention being removed). There is no “come back” against the police, etc. I would comment that, as there have now been several blatant mis-uses of the act, the police have maybe been given too much power and aspects the act (or those using the act) need some reviewing and modification.Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 I fully agree Deimos,years ago this man would have been arrested for a Breach of the peace at best and that would have been stretching it a bit I know, but terrorism!?I am blatantly quoting some one else here but would members of the opposition [ yes I know, what opposition?] be similarly detained if they were to shout 'rubbish' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 I fully agree Deimos,years ago this man would have been arrested for a Breach of the peace at best and that would have been stretching it a bit I know, but terrorism!?I am blatantly quoting some one else here but would members of the opposition [ yes I know, what opposition?] be similarly detained if they were to shout 'rubbish' ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Was he actually arrested ? I thought he was detained under the powers invested in the police by the terrorism act.Isn't that different ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miki Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 According to one tabloid, I believe Walter was dragged out by a jack booted thug, flogged and tarred, then slung in a pit to calm down but I can't be sure of the facts To a cry of "rubbish" the opposition would stand up and see if Eric Morecambe had returned David Davis is almost home and hosed now, will he do better than the others, well the fact is, he can't do worse, so yes, the worst that can happen to the next Tory leader is that he will do better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viv Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 No he wasn't arrested but the police did use the terrorism powers to prevent him from re-entering.Eric Morcambe ... if only. And Tommy Cooper could implement policies 'Just like that!' .Now that would be worth watching:David Davies...is he the chap that used to be on central news and then worked for the FA?: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Just hope someone asks David Cameron to join the team - he looks as if he has some potential politically..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Smith Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 According to one report (possibly in The Times) the police, when mentioning the Terrorism Act were falling about laughing, so possibly some constabularic irony there. And of course Our Walter and friends have no reason to hype the story up, do they?I liked the bit where he was asked if any Labour politicians since 1948 had suited him and he said basically no, except for Hilary Benn who seemed a nice chap but couldn't do anything because of 'the system'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ty Korrigan Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 It all started as a joke this thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now