# People, NY FBI bribing you



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2012)




----------



## MLeeK (Sep 20, 2012)

O... K....
Yep. There's now a New York FBI and they're rich as Croesus bribing the general public to keep the country in recession. They've planted bombing devices in our bodies, detonated them and then are paying more to bribe the hospitals to fake the tests that would tell the truth.

And.... Now you know. 

probably should GTFO of this country ASAP.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 20, 2012)

i smell....CRAAAAAZY!


----------



## 12sndsgood (Sep 20, 2012)

but he's willing to pay 450 million dollars to get the case in the news


----------



## Derrel (Sep 20, 2012)

I LOVE the dour expressions of every person in the shot!!! Good one Lew!


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2012)

The point of this picture for me is that beneath the surface of people who just look average and normal there is often a completely different world.
This is a sad situation; a man who is perhaps severely ill and yet seems to be able function well enough.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 20, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> The point of this picture for me is that beneath the surface of people who just look average and normal there is often a completely different world.
> This is a sad situation; a man who is perhaps severely ill and yet seems to be able function well enough.



if that's whats considered functioning "well enough" then sure. It is a very sad situation indeed, and I wonder if he has seen any doctors or been prescribed any treatments.  also interesting is the fact that the Political commentary was deleted, but the the F-bomb clearly visible in the photo is ok. 
I am offended.. my son almost saw that.. Personally, I think the commentary that had accompanied that photo was a great look into that persons mindset and possible illness. It isn't often we get that kind of view into someones thought process in that manner. thank you The_Traveler, I am glad I got to see and read this before it got censured.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2012)

For those who don't understand what pixmedic is referring to, let me explain that a set of writings from the website of the subject in the image above were included with the picture.

I am surprised that his writings were removed as I think that was an important part of this image.
It was no more political commentary than if he believed he was Adolf Hitler or Santa Claus.

That was a high-handed and poorly made decision by the mod

For those adults who would like to read what this man wrote, I refer you to this link (which should be open access)


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2012)

I'm still irked about KMH's removing the material with an explanatory text saying what it was.
He could have taken the extra 30 seconds, done a web search, found the originals and put a link to them to attempt to preserve the integrity of the post but no....

He chose to be the MOD and just delete what was an important part of this.
Yet there are other statements made purposefully for political intent, which this was not, that remain still.

I don't think anyone would have complained about this, it was text quoted for an editorial purpose; why is KMH the sole arbiter of what is appropriate in art?


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 20, 2012)

I highly recommend reading the article on that guy. in my job, I transport a lot of patients from several mental institutions (to and from the hospital) 
most of the time, they are very reluctant to really tell you what is going on. If you are at all interested in a look inside the mind of a very probable paranoid schizophrenic, and/or Bipolar (probably both) it is a great read. thanks again The_traveler for sharing that. most of the people with that type of illness look very normal. and many carry on semi-normal lives without many people knowing they are sick.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Sep 20, 2012)

They're just going to Starbucks with their parents credit card. 

Its good to be a SBUX shareholder


----------



## jhodges10 (Sep 20, 2012)

Wow that guy is bats**t crazy. Totally see your point traveler, the photo is great but only half the story. Remove the signs and I'd never give that guy a second glance. Thanks for adding the link, reading the text gives a lot more perspective than what the signs could give. Sad to see someone so delusional.


----------



## MLeeK (Sep 20, 2012)

I think the removal of the writing is more a copyright issue than anything else. Not sure, but it's an educated guess. Maybe? Or maybe it's my half full day this week.


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2012)

The quoted text might be for editorial purposes, however with the original text in the post (which was just a copy/paste of the text on the guys website) and with no introduction/leader/mention from the photographer the whole post appeared like something a spambot would leave. 

The political aspects along with the copyright and the lack of any context provided by the photographer might have all been contributing factors in the removal of the original text from the photo. Honestly I would have thought a simple link to provide context along with some introduction by the photographer would have been enough.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 20, 2012)

Overread said:


> The quoted text might be for editorial purposes, however with the original text in the post (which was just a copy/paste of the text on the guys website) and with no introduction/leader/mention from the photographer the whole post appeared like something a spambot would leave.
> 
> The political aspects along with the copyright and the lack of any context provided by the photographer might have all been contributing factors in the removal of the original text from the photo. Honestly I would have thought a simple link to provide context along with some introduction by the photographer would have been enough.



  that's because you are rational and not bat$#!$ crazy  :mrgreen:

and seriously...whos believing that The_Traveler is a spambot? I think that's a stretch. that was not a political statement. at all.  did you read that article? It was a sick mans account of what he perceives is being done to him, and by whom. the guy is mentally ill, and he was not making those statements to vilify a party based on his political beliefs, but based on his illness, and paranoia.  It is a lesson in appearances. The article does not stir emotions of hatred towards the FBI for what they are doing to this man, but rather stirs emotions of pity and concern for the terror the man must be feeling believing he is part of a vast FBI conspiracy against him. 
the reason stated for deletion was "political commentary", and that is incorrect. it is , in fact, medical and psychological  commentary.


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2012)

I never said he was a spambot - I'm saying that the original post looked just like a spambot post.  

As for where the line becomes between political statements and medical and psychological commentary that is an area I'm not even going to try and draw a line between. But I still repeat that it likely would have gone a lot smoother if there had been an introduction by the photographer in this situation as opposed to simply the copy/paste from the persons website.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 20, 2012)

Overread said:
			
		

> I never said he was a spambot - I'm saying that the original post looked just like a spambot post.
> 
> As for where the line becomes between political statements and medical and psychological commentary that is an area I'm not even going to try and draw a line between. But I still repeat that it likely would have gone a lot smoother if there had been an introduction by the photographer in this situation as opposed to simply the copy/paste from the persons website.



I still miss the husky...the owl is cool though.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2012)

It was my choice not to put any 'explanation'.
In thriller movies, there isn't usually a subtitle that says 'scary thing coming'
I wanted the viewer to see the picture, then read the text and make the connection.

I quoted his site as 'editorial comment' and it was clearly within the fair use doctrine allowed by copyright.
Taking away the text without any explanation beyond the incorrect 'political commentary' was wrong.

How would the mods respond to these images?












If you can't distinguish between the deleted text, these images and inappropriate political rages, then you haven't got your stuff together - and you should.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 20, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> It was my choice not to put any 'explanation'.
> In thriller movies, there isn't usually a subtitle that says 'scary thing coming'
> I wanted the viewer to see the picture, then read the text and make the connection.
> 
> ...



AAAAAHHHH Political and Religious context!! QUICK! DELETE THEM! AGAINST FORUM RULES!
im obviously jumping to conclusions but...I dont want to actually have to...*GASP*..."THINK" before i do something.


----------



## KmH (Sep 20, 2012)

Political and religious discussions are both considered 'hot topics'. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/130259-tpf-guidelines-hot-button-topics.html

In the event a post is borderline or questionable as it relates to the 'hot topics' it gets moderated, or even moved entirely out of sight as happened to 2 recent gun discussion threads.

The moderators are usually not able to please everyone, particularly when the moderation of 'hot'topic' issues are involved.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 20, 2012)

KmH said:


> Political and religious discussions are both considered 'hot topics'. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/130259-tpf-guidelines-hot-button-topics.html
> 
> In the event a post is borderline or questionable as it relates to the 'hot topics' it gets moderated, or even moved entirely out of sight as happened to 2 recent gun discussion threads.
> 
> The moderators are usually not able to please everyone, particularly when the moderation of 'hot'topic' issues are involved.



so what about the gun threads that didn't get censured or deleted because they "didn't get ugly"?  couldn't this thread have been left alone under the same assertion? I'm just trying to understand the process (or lack of one) because "we cant please everyone" and "we're people too" seems to be the generic battle cry lately for "don't ask why we do what we do..just accept it and move on"


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2012)

KmH said:


> Political and religious discussions are both considered 'hot topics'. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/130259-tpf-guidelines-hot-button-topics.html
> 
> In the event a post is borderline or questionable as it relates to the 'hot topics' it gets moderated, or even moved entirely out of sight as happened to 2 recent gun discussion threads.
> 
> The moderators are usually not able to please everyone, particularly when the moderation of 'hot'topic' issues are involved.



This was not a political discussion.
This was quoted to enlarge an understanding of the image.

Who was this attempting to please?


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2012)

pixmedic said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Political and religious discussions are both considered 'hot topics'. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/off-topic-chat/130259-tpf-guidelines-hot-button-topics.html
> ...



When a hotbutton topic is made (or indeed any potential problem thread is brought to moderator attention) the mods do have a period of pre-emptive action. Sometimes you look at a thread and, eh, you just know its going to go bad. Maybe from the original post or maybe a couple of early posts that indicate the very likely direction of the remaining thread. At this point sometimes innocent threads are moderated (content adjusted/removed) in order to attempt to prevent a later fall out. 
Sometimes this works and sometimes it fails. In general the intent is to limit/prevent a problem situation occurring before it actually happens or to stop it way before it gets more heated.


----------



## pixmedic (Sep 20, 2012)

Overread said:
			
		

> When a hotbutton topic is made (or indeed any potential problem thread is brought to moderator attention) the mods do have a period of pre-emptive action. Sometimes you look at a thread and, eh, you just know its going to go bad. Maybe from the original post or maybe a couple of early posts that indicate the very likely direction of the remaining thread. At this point sometimes innocent threads are moderated (content adjusted/removed) in order to attempt to prevent a later fall out.
> Sometimes this works and sometimes it fails. In general the intent is to limit/prevent a problem situation occurring before it actually happens or to stop it way before it gets more heated.



I think this is haphazardly enforced, but i appreciate your candor, and i appreciate the explanation.


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 20, 2012)

OK, this time it was a clear failure.
There was no arguement.
There was no impending arguement.
The moderation removed an important part of the post. 

Return the text.


----------

