The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995) • Hacker News Board

Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)

#11

Post by ternaryoperator » Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 8:56 PM UTC

So in lamenting this weird, invasive study, the author decides to publish several of the nude photographs? How unnecessary was that?

Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)

#12

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 9:12 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #10

dsugarman wrote: post #5

>But if you ever see a black and white nude photograph like this floating around at a flea market, you know what to do. maybe I missed this part. what do I do?

Check to see if it's Hillary Clinton. Also, why are we linking to this blogspam rather than the original?

[deleted]

Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)

#13

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 9:18 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #12

Alex3917 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check to see if it's Hillary Clinton. Also, why are we linking to this blogspam rather than the original?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)

#14

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 9:18 PM UTC

ternaryoperator wrote: post #11

So in lamenting this weird, invasive study, the author decides to publish several of the nude photographs? How unnecessary was that?

Fox News and other agencies do the same thing any time they're reporting that something controversial or offensive took place. It's not because they actually consider it bad, it's that they know it's inflammatory and gets viewership.

Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)

#15

Post by magnet_ball » Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 9:21 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #7

tlrobinson wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...in America.

Not even most places in America. This is not obscene in any way, there's just a bit of nudity.

There is one penis.

And some medical looking photos of men, all easily explainable so long as your workplace permits you to browse HN.

Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)

#16

Post by dec0dedab0de » Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 9:24 PM UTC

Did the title, and the link just change?

Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)

#17

Post by L_Rahman » Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 9:32 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #16

Did the title, and the link just change?

Looks like it.

In this case, it makes complete sense. The original was intentionally inflammatory leading with a line about nude pictures of Hilary Clinton, and was based on the NYT article to begin with.

Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)

#18

Post by kevinpet » Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 9:35 PM UTC

TallGuyShort wrote: post #14

ternaryoperator wrote: post #11

So in lamenting this weird, invasive study, the author decides to publish several of the nude photographs? How unnecessary was that?

Fox News and other agencies do the same thing any time they're reporting that something controversial or offensive took place. It's not because they actually consider it bad, it's that they know it's inflammatory and gets viewership.

What does Fox News have to do with anything?

Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)

#19

Post by seiji » Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 9:35 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #16

Did the title, and the link just change?

Somebody changed the "Soylent has rats and mold" title and link to "Soylent is awesome!" with a link to a less hostile article. (Well, the original article the first post was referencing.)

Re: The Great Ivy League Nude Posture Photo Scandal (1995)

#20

Post by TallGuyShort » Tue, Nov 12, 2013, 9:38 PM UTC

kevinpet wrote: post #18

TallGuyShort wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fox News and other agencies do the same thing any time they're reporting that something controversial or offensive took place. It's not because they actually consider it bad, it's that they know it's inflammatory and gets viewership.

What does Fox News have to do with anything?

Are you kidding? My response was 2 sentences about how I've seen them especially, and TV news in general, replay things they were saying were so "edgy" for TV, _on TV_. Just like the re-distribution of these images in an article about how inappropriate the taking of these images was. I don't know how to explain that more clearly?