ethics and the picture

[john wells]

john wells wrote:

By the way Arne, THANK YOU for magnanimously enduring my flip remarks
below, no offense was intended, and apparently none was taken (by MOST
people anyway). But I just wanted to make sure you knew that it was just
a flip remark, and nothing more.

Thanks
John
> 
> Arne =?UNKNOWN-8BIT?Q?Herl=F8v?= Petersen wrote:
> >
> > My morbid curiosity made me buy the Saturday Times and see the pictrue
> > of Pynchon. He looks more like the baseball cap guy than the
> > distinguished gentleman.
> > I scanned the picture, but the comments on the list made me decide not
> > to post it. I don't want to seem like a vulture.
> > On the other hand it might me more democratic to let the list members
> > decide themselves if they want to see the picture or not. So should we
> > call a vote?
> 
> Oh, show the bloody picture! This is getting like the "SECRET" bombings
> of Cambodia, the people being bombed sure knew about it, all the
> journalists from all the news organizations around the world who were
> there knew about it, and reported it, but it was supposedly kept
> "SECRET" in the States -- and we were the only yahoos on the face of the
> earth who didn't know about it, and our country was doing the bombing!
> 
> I figure if the picture of Pynchon is in the Saturday Times, Pynchon
> knows about it, and he's a big boy now.  ALL the readers of the Saturday
> Times know about it, so what's the big deal?
> 
> Geez. What a bunch of hand-wringing sissies.
> 
> john