Now...allow me to hand you a little piece of education. this one is free of charge. And it won't even be me grammar-bitching about how you misused ';' twice...no, this is going to be REAL education...not a mere missive about how anyone wishing to have their voice heard should at least learn to use their native language properly.

the word 'missile' is defined as follows: An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.

So that is a missile. technically the caption isn't wrong. an artillery shell is a missile. It may not be a GUIDED missile. It may not be a rocket, but it is a missile. A bullet is a missile. An arrow is a missile. Shit a fucking ROCK is a missile as long as you throw it. The New York Times can print a picture of a field of scattered ROCKS and say it's a collection of discarded missiles and do you know what any of us can say about it?

NOTHING!

Because they're RIGHT!

All intentions aside and all recriminations aside, the simple fact is that you are a stupid fuck and should not be here. This also goes for your little friend, Pharaoh...the fucker with the audacity to name himself after a governmental figure and still call himself a punk.

Even if i was going to give the least credence or credibility to this blindly idiotic statement, I would do so merely to point out that the subtext of what you just said is, "because journalism is about exposing truth to the public and therefore has no attraction to conservatives"

Hope you enjoy your stint with the Party of Corruption, asshole. Now get off my forum and take your little boyfriend with you.

You stupid knobhead.
A fake Rolex watch is still a watch but that doesn't mean it's not a fake. If it's presented as a Rolex it's a fake, if it's presented as a copy then it's a copy.
The photograph was presented as a genuine photo of damage from the U.S. airstrike in Pakistan. It's a fake.

And if you know anything about '70s punk you'll know that Punk magazine, which was there at the start, knows what it's talking about.
Link here

Johnny was The Boss of the Ramones - a right-wing conservative who beat up hippies when he worked as a construction worker. Joey was the nice guy of the band who loved rock 'n' roll music more than anything else in the world.

But it even if he wasn't the leader, he was still conservative and that was my point, he was a conservative punk. Get it?

And if you think Iggy Pop was influenced by nothing, then you know absolutely nothing, and you're a total idiot.

Are you even fucking literate? The information contained within the photograph's LABEL is spurious but the photo is still a photo. It is, after all, not a chicken stapled to the new york times which they are trying to pass off as a photograph. it is not a chunk of the mir space station being referred to as a photograph. It is a photograph with an incorrect LABEL!

now please stop being a fucking twit and leave.

From a history of punk rock - http://mt.essortment.com/punkrockhistor_rapl.htm


Like any musical genre, it's hard to pinpoint that time and place where it actually began. But unlike any other musical genre, Punk rock was started as a deliberate reaction to the mass commercialism of music. In the year 2000, it's common to see someone "being A punk," rather than seeing someone "be punk."

In the late 60's and early 70's, the music industry rang eerily familiar in its method of promoting trends over music. The public was being spoon-fed music that corporations simply intended to make a profit from. The backlash to this came to be known internationally as Punk rock.

New York, early 1970's. Young, virtually unknown artists like Patti Smith, the Velvet Underground, and the Dolls of New York(changed later to New York Dolls) brought about a new style of "alternative-bohemian" entertainment, rooted in a "do-it-yourself" attitude. Short, frenetic songs, aggressive, sometimes confrontational stage presence, and angry messages against consumerism hit the stages at venues like New York's CBGB's, starting the movement that would be known as punk rock.

Bands like the Ramones and the Talking Heads would evolve out of the punk rock movement, and become influences for those who shared a similar distaste in what was occurring in the music industry. Some say the underlying roots of punk was the frustration and anger from being treated as sheep, while others say punk stemmed from the "politics of boredom." It was both.



EDIT: Most of the sources I've read list the Stooges as founders of the genre....and the Ramones as coming later.

Only the object being presented as genuine can be said to be fake, the label is the lie that makes the object a fake. The photo is still a photo, but it's not a photo of what the label claims it to be, and that makes it a fake.
Just like copy of a Rolex watch with an incorrect label claiming it to be a genuine Rolex, is a fake Rolex, but still a watch.

As for me having audacity to name myself after a governmental figure and still call myself a punk. Have a look and my profile and you might realise where I got my name from, my favourite punk band is the Dead Boys.

And as for getting off your forum, it's as much my forum or any other member here as yours, you hippie fascist.

FASCISM (MUSIC) FORUM. >:

Listen you fucking jackass,

a fake photograph is a photograph which is faked. A photograph that has been edited in some way after being taken so that what the photograph originally depicted is altered. THAT is a fake photograph. Another possiblity for a faked photograph is a photograph which has been staged, the contents were determined beforehand and whoever took the photograph used, for instance, actors and models and sets in order to depict something that did not happen.

And what you're saying doesn't even make any fucking sense. A fake Rolex may not be a Rolex, but it is stilla watch. It's not a fake watch, it's a fake Rolex. And that shit doesn't even apply here anyay, because we're talking about photographs, and not fake Rolexes. There are different rules for both, dickwad.

Cosmo Electrolux, punk can be traced back to the '60s with garage punk bands like The Sonics, Count 5, The Seeds and The 13th Floor Elevators, and even back to Elvis & Rock 'n' Roll.
The Stooges, MC5 and Velvet Underground came after '60s garage punk and were followed by the New York Dolls, but, as I said, it was the Ramones that started the punk explosion in 1976.Â*

punk77.co.uk is an excellent British punk website by an original '70s punk, there's a good punk history section on it.

Link here

On the whole "fake" thing, the real crux is did the NYT writers and editors make a mistake or perpetrate a fraud.

To use your Rolex analogy, if someone paid $600 for a watch for your Christmas present, and then after you unwrap it, your friend discovers that he was decieved about the item's authenticity, do you then get mad at your friend for buying you a fake Rolex?

No I would be mad at the seller.

And I believe the French agency who sold the photo knew it wasn't really of the US bombing, but presented it as such, and therefore the NYT bought a fake.
Although I accept the NYT may have been innocent, they printed a fake photo.

I just don't see how the French agency could have innocently made such a mistake.

It is a fake photograph, adveritisng it as an unexploded part of the missile that hit the target when it is a completely in-tact artillery shell.


I guess on very abstract levels you would be right, but let's not pretend that it is considered as such consistently -- it is splitting hairs and defending absolutely shit journalism.

If I take a photo of a baby and tell people it's a photo of a tank, does that make the photo a fake photo?

just passing along info, dude. looks to me that the wave was already rolling when the Ramones decided to surf.

Agreed, but they were the only ones surfing it by 1976, they showed that anybody could surf and they were followed by dozens of other surfers who saw how much fun it was.

No, because nobody will be fooled into thinking it's a tank. But if you take a photo of a baby that looks like it could be bin Laden as a baby, and sell it as that then I would say that's a fake.

So if you take a picture of baby bin Laden and say that it's a tank, that's a fake picture?

KittyKat came back after he said he was done with the thread which means he's a liar.

And if you all argue any longer about Punk (even though I started it) you'll turn it into jazz.

I was never punk. BUT I was an adult when it happened. PAST TENSE! Pick a new fucking name, the one your using already got used. Their is no continous revolution. Start your own fucking revolution. OH! YOU CAN'T! Because you haven't got the brains to start anything new so you co-opt something old.

And Conservative punks are Log Cabin Republicans without the dignity to hate themselves.

Yes, if you sell it to blind person.

Who cares if they used a fake photo, anyway. It's not like it had any real effect. If this was, say, a fake picture of george bush giving a rhinoceros a blowjob then I'd agree that they stepped too far. But a mistake like using the wrong picture of debris? Come on. Most pointless thing to complain about.

I'm feeling egotistical...maybe seeing Kulturekampf start a thread about the definition of his own name struck a chord within me...who knows. So I just want to point out that nobody, and i mean NOBODY has tried to argue that it's not a missile...i owned that part of the argument. Go me.

A baby is a fake photo...a photo of the wrong thing is a fakeD photo. If you're going to speak english, you may want to start by learning to speak english.

It's called Nuance, smart guy. NOOOO WANTS! Nuance. Dig that shit.

It is a bad caption, and it is a real photo of some old geezer standing next to an artillery round which is being calld a missile, which in the context of any conversation of modern technology does not equal an artillery shell.

I must admit though the old geezer does look like he's got a serious head injury. Lol.

Hey man, your comment is pretty funny, it made me laugh out loud (they really need to come up with an acronym for when that happens.)

But this isn't a "conversation of modern technology"; it's a news story about things blowing up, and when you're talking about explosives, artillery shells aren't that far from missiles.

I disagree. I think most children know the difference between a missile and a round you put into a giant gun.