Further to the Under Mars site - which showcases photographs of dead Iraqis captioned disrespectfully - I received this comment which is worth posting - my reply below:
I'll stay anonymous on this because I fear for the hatchet job you'll try to do on me for daring to disagree with you, but....
You've got to wade through an awful lot of pictures on 'Under Mars' to find even one disrespectful caption. Most are pretty bland, so I'd venture to suggest the site's compiler is simply captioning the pictures as they were captioned to him, possibly by the person who took the picture.
If so, that speaks volumes about the mindset of the photographer, and not necessarily about the mindset of the site owner. A few minutes spent researching before launching a spittle-flecked rant would have shown you that - if nothing else - the site owner/author/compiler can spell. Is he *really* going to spell 'charades' wrong in a caption? While that's hardly conclusive proof, you would have thought someone going for the pithy wit of a 'charades' punchline wouldn't spell it in such a way as to make the critical word almost indecipherable.
'Under Mars' may have disrespectful captions under some of the pictures. Sadly, that's pretty common on the internet - no, really, you should check some other sites out to see. If you didn't agree with the site's premise, why launch into a muddle-headed ad hominem attack on the possible author based on (apparently) chuff-all research.
Do get a grip, Mme Arcati.
Thank you Anonymous. Shannon Larratt, who runs Under Mars, must take full responsibility for the content of his site: I do not think that his mastery of the English language indicates necessarily a good intent. He may simply be well educated. It is also unfortunate in context that Larratt is a hardcore body modification freak: inevitably one is suspicious that his interest in publishing pictures of butchered corpses is bound up in some way with his aesthetic occupation. Perhaps he would do better to reveal himself on the site and explain its purpose.
I do not think that the low standards of the internet - on which any old rubbish can be put up - should be used to measure the offence or otherwise of Under Mars. The site stands alone as offensive. You also ignore the feelings of Iraqis and others and the effect this site may have on them (see the Baghdad Chronicles site): I don't recall seeing any dead Americans or Brits in this gallery of morbidity - not that I wish to - but the point is made.