4 ms·
Cut the "offended" bit. It's either a fake or it isn't. This is a factual question. To claim to be offended is to say that you consider certain areas of thought
by kevinpet 13y ago
Cut the "offended" bit. It's either a fake or it isn't. This is a factual question. To claim to be offended is to say that you consider certain areas of thought morally off limits.
- adamnemecek 13y agoIt's mostly about the fact that the author makes somewhat serious accusations while his proof is rather underwhelming.
- photoJ 13y agoAlso he has a history of making strong claims that are disproved by other experts. See: http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-world-press-photo-winner-a-fake-photographer-responds/ http://petapixel.com/2013/05/14/forensics-expert-claims-worl...
- adamnemecek 13y agoWow. He seems like an all-around shithead especially considering the fact that he's been proven wrong before yet that does not prevent him prevent him from doing the same thing again.
- auctiontheory 13y agoTo claim to be offended is to say that you consider certain areas of thought morally off limits. Thought isn't the issue. It's the public expression of that thought. When people claim to have been victims of a serious crime, for a third party to jump in with a pompous "analysis," in a faux dispassionate tone ... is offensive. Similarly, it's offensive when the male judge asks a rape victim "why didn't we hear more screams?" It's offensive to Holocaust victims (and, frankly, most people) when Holocaust deniers launch into a lengthy analysis of the chemical properties of Zyklon B. If you don't see this, then I can't help you. (And yes, claims of crime and attack should be open to examination. Who does the examination, and in what manner, determines whether it is offensive.)