DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 
Challenge Entries
Portfolio Images
This image is not part of a public portfolio.
Placebo
Placebo
meyers


Photograph Information Photographer's Comments
Challenge: Alternative Medicine (Basic Editing)
Camera: Canon EOS-5D
Lens: Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM
Location: Chicago, IL
Date: Mar 5, 2007
Aperture: f/8
ISO: 100
Shutter: 15s
Galleries: Still Life
Date Uploaded: Mar 5, 2007

Finally got the stick out of the woody's rear end, and he's much more relaxed about everything now. I had a light to the right, and one above and in front, bouncing light off of a silver reflector on the floor. The side light was basically just for the shadow on the book.

Processing: in Photoshop, adjusted curves to darken the background a bit, resized, wrapped a border around it.

Statistics
Place: 64 out of 131
Avg (all users): 5.2441
Avg (commenters): 5.8333
Avg (participants): 4.5400
Avg (non-participants): 5.4167
Views since voting: 1574
Views during voting: 395
Votes: 254
Comments: 48
Favorites: 3 (view)


Please log in or register to add your comments!

AuthorThread
04/22/2007 05:45:43 PM
I love the idea. Technically - it's a shame you cut off the woody's toe, and I think there might be a tad too much negative space at the top (even though it does work with the message of the image, but I'd maybe cut off slightly more).

Hmm, yes, I see how this might offend the more religious... It genuinely took me a minute to figure out why it would offend anyone.

The bits of spirituality I can personally make sense of do not involve interventionist deities. And I don't think I that makes me that different from a lot of Christians. And the argument goes as follows:

The definition of a placebo is something like 'a substance that has no physical effect, but is given to patients because the belief in it helps them heal.' Now, this is still compatible with a religious person's point of view. The prayer doesn't have to have a physical effect, rather, it's the power of belief that helps people heal. I don't think that's a radical statement. Maybe some people do believe that God physically alters their body and heals them when they pray to him, and they would indeed be offended, but I would've thought the bulk of religious people were less literal-minded, and willing to concede that prayer and belief works in a more roundabout way than that - it's the belief rather than a genuine physical interaction that makes it work. Therefore it's a classic placebo, whether God exists or not.

Hmm, except I suppose it does depend on your starting definition of a placebo. But starting with the one above, the photo is only really countering the beliefs of a minority (people who believe in an interventionist god), and even then should be considered insightful rather than hateful - it could be used as a starting point for a discussion on the nature of God. Does God literally help you? Or does he help you help yourself?

But then, as an atheist scientist, I'm gonna say that...
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/18/2007 01:24:03 PM
Originally posted by OmanOtter:

Meyers: Good idea. But you started it with your attack. You got what you asked for.


I'd move this to an email discussion, but apparently OO doesn't feel like it and I think this'll probably be the last post anyway.

Originally posted by OmanOtter:

PDF: I'm not questioning homosexuality. Nor am I questioning evolution. I'm questioning your arrogant characterization of over 2 billion people of this Earth as ignorant and stupid. You're arrogant and bigoted.


Ah. I wasn't sure what you were referring to. Thanks for clearing that up.

PS. I said ignorant OR stupid. Very important detail.

Message edited by author 2007-03-18 13:25:40.
03/18/2007 12:48:40 PM
PDF: I'm not questioning homosexuality. Nor am I questioning evolution. I'm questioning your arrogant characterization of over 2 billion people of this Earth as ignorant and stupid. You're arrogant and bigoted.
03/18/2007 12:46:34 PM
Meyers: Good idea. But you started it with your attack. You got what you asked for.
03/18/2007 12:34:09 PM
PDF and OmanOtter, how about the two of you move this to an email disucssion or a forum.
03/18/2007 12:32:17 PM
Originally posted by OmanOtter:

PDF: You need to think about what you say. Those kinds of comments make you sound arrogant and bigoted.


People are entitled to their own opinions (such as whether a photograph is good or not), but not their own facts. The world is round whether you're christian, muslim, or hindu, and evolution is a fact. There IS a scientific consensus that homosexuality is not a choice and is something you're born with. If you want to debate any of those facts then fine, I can cite a statement signed by hundreds of pediatric, psychological, psychiatric, and other associations saying that, and some of the evidence that led them to that conclusion. Or we can talk about transitional fossils, molecular and structural evidence, nested hierarchies, etc... However, Your ad hominem attack really doesn't get us anywhere. And if you think I sound arrogant and bigoted simply because I'm saying that religion doesn't give you a free pass to believe anything regardless of the evidence, then fine. I'll be arrogant and bigoted.
03/18/2007 05:22:35 AM
PDF: You need to think about what you say. Those kinds of comments make you sound arrogant and bigoted.

Message edited by author 2007-03-18 07:32:20.
03/17/2007 02:52:04 PM
If two billion muslims are creationists, they they ARE ignorant or just plain stupid. I don't care how many people there are or if they are divided by religious or cultural lines, anyone who does not accept evolution either does not know about the overwhelming evidence, or is just plain stupid. It's like believing the world is flat. Religion doesn't give you a free pass to believing flagrant lies.

I haven't heard about the uproar over the general's comments... I'll have to search.

There IS a scientific consensus that homosexuality is something you're born with. Look it up- all the major psychiatric, psychological, etc. associations all take the position that it is not a choice and is not "curable". Talk to biologists, and pretty much all of them will tell you it's a choice, etc. If you want we can continue the homosexuality debate (or any other debate :P) in e-mails.

As for the crossdressing entry... I rated it a 1 because I simply don't like it, and because I don't get the point it is trying to make. Maybe it is an attack, I don't know.
03/17/2007 04:40:56 AM
By the way, did you notice the crossdressing entry of the topless female doll with some sort of feathery loincloth thing hanging on the cross? Tell me THAT's not an attack. Probably brought on by my own comments here, though. But, if you tried that with Islam, you'd end up like Salman Rushdie. Try it with Judaeism and you're an anti-Semite. Try it with ... You get the point.
03/17/2007 03:42:55 AM
PDF: Evolution is an example, just a f&*%ing example. I chose it because it's in the news a lot lately because of the Kansas School Board. But, just so you know, you just called about 2 billion Muslims "ignorant or just plain stupid." Islam categorically does not accept evolution; some Christian sects do accept it, others do not. And there are a lot of really smart people among evolution's detractors (even if I disagree with them).

The point of including homosexuality in there among the other protected categories is ONLY that it's one of those very delicate subjects that can get you into trouble if you publicly espouse a controversial view. (Look at the current uproar over General Peter Pace's recent comments.) Now, the view you just espoused about it being something you're born with is socially safe, and might even be true. But you state it as if it has been scientifically-proven, which it has not. (And yet you call yourself "scientifically-minded.") But my point is, and has been, that there is an inequality over who and what can and cannot be criticized. And, in the U.S., it seems to me, Christianity is a very safe target.

I don't think I'm nitpicking; I think I'm pointing out duplicity.

I think we both talk too much, though. I'm sure the rest of the members of DPChallenge would love it if we would both just shut up and have this discussion on emails.
03/17/2007 02:19:59 AM
lol. I'm very glad you accept evolution, but that doesn't really mean you're "very" scientific-minded. Only an ignorant or just plain stupid person would deny evolution. Not trying to argue about your scientific-mindedness or anything, I just think it's funny you chose that example :P.

I doubt I'd think twice before doing something similar with symbols of beliefs, but homosexuality is not a belief. It's not a choice, it's something you're born with. Criticizing homosexuality itself (not specific beliefs or acts) is a completely different matter, and WOULD be attacking the people themselves (it'd be like attacking "blackness" or "hispanicness") and I'd be against that.

Again, just nitpicking. I don't mean to imply you meant it that way, I just can't refrain from my rants :P
03/17/2007 01:53:18 AM
Sandstrider: Sorry about the Hippie comment, but that whole "judge like a child" comment was a bit too much. I've made the comment in other contexts that I will never buy into the idea that "art" is somehow above reproach. If someone posted a photo of child porn on the site, would you really judge it on its technical merits? I hope not. Did you know that Hitler and Saddam Hussein were artists? You probably know that "Al Rub al Khali" means "the Empty Quarter" in Arabic. It's called that because there's nothing there but sand and is very inhospitable to life. You'll find a few bedouins roaming it, but they're just passing through. You can't live there without tremendous support equipment (nor can I imagine why you'd want to); but it's worth a camping trip. India would be a cool trip. Everyone I know who's been there tells me that's its wonderful and horrible at the same time. Terribly filthy, but wonderfully exotic. The Middle East in general is not as bad as is shown on television, but it's not the kind of place you come to with a light-hearted approach, either.

PDF: I don't think we actually disagree on much. Criticize all the ideas you want. Go ahead and question the idea that prayer does anything more than act as a placebo. But I maintain my belief that this photo was directed specifically at Christians. Only Meyers knows what he was thinking when he took it. But I know what it looks like to me. I'm also very scientific-minded. For example, I accept evolution as a fact.

Meyers: Ok, I concede the point on the "stick in the rear end" thing. And I agree that not everyone will feel cultural attachment or identification with a religion whose beliefs they no longer share. There are certainly a lot of atheist Jews who do, though. And you might be surprised what connection you might feel if you left the West and came to a Muslim country where you do not have the freedoms you have in the West.

Everyone: I stand on this: I think you'd think twice before doing something similar with a symbol of, for example, Judaeism, Islam, Homosexuality or Kwaanza.

Everyone: I think we've beat this horse to death.
03/16/2007 09:04:15 PM
Originally posted by OmanOtter:


Sandstrider: You sound like a 60's hippie with the "judge like a child" stuff. Think about the implications of what you're saying: As long as it's done in a photographically-excellent way, the message doesn't matter. So, a photo that intentionally attacks or mocks a culture or group of people is just fine as long as it's well-executed or esthetically-pleasing?! Christians are certainly not "a known majority" in the country where I live, or any country anywhere near where I live. Do you ever get out of the United States?


Well, thanks for calling me a hippie, I like the 60's, but I missed them by being born 20 years late of '69. It's sad. This is a photography site, we are judging photography not religious beliefs. Yes I have been out of the U.S., sadly mostly to Europe though. I am planning on going to China though. I've always wanted to go to the middle east, or to India, but my parents won't let me. I love deserts. My reference to Christianity was not meant to be regionally-offending though, and for that I apologize. I meant on earth in general, and I didn't mean the majority, i meant a majority, as in one of the major faiths on earth. I can safely assume most of the people viewing this are Earth-borne, I cannot assume the are all residents of Oman.
On a lighter note, what's Rub' al-Khali like? It's near you and I've considered living there for a while.
03/16/2007 10:27:18 AM
Interesting. Personally I am very scientifically minded, and love people to criticize (that's what I meant by "attack", for some reason I couldn't come up with the right word then) all ideas because criticism is what drives progress and stops stupidity. I realize a photograph isn't going to convey a very well thought out, point by point argument, but as you can see from the comments it does promote discussion :)... and it is EXACTLY for the reasons you have mentioned (some religious groups not wanting medical treatment but instead resort to prayer only) and things like them that ideas SHOULD be criticized. I think it's amoral NOT to criticize ideas that can lead to harm.

... but like I said, criticizing a whole group of people is another story...

Sometimes yes, religion is very deeply entwined with the culture and the people practicing it, but I don't think that's a valid argument for not criticizing the ideas. If we all impose censorship on ourselves just because people might feel a cultural attachment to certain ideas, then what CAN we criticize? people form groups and cultures around pretty much every political and other belief. Maybe not as strong as religious beliefs, but they're still there anyway.

I'm an atheist who was born in an extremely catholic country (Mexico), raised as a catholic, went to catholic school (it was terrible), and all my friends were catholic, but I don't feel at all culturally a member of that religious group.
03/16/2007 07:11:09 AM
Originally posted by OmanOtter:

An atheist who was raised in almost any religion you can name may still feel culturally a member of that religious group.


As an athiest raised by Christians, I can tell you that is not always true. As for the stick in my woody's rear, please take a look at the image below; I was referring to the base, which attaches to the woody in a seeemingly uncomfortable location.

03/16/2007 02:52:24 AM
PDF: It's the word "attacking" that bothers me; I guess it all depends on how its done. What's clearly unobjectionable to me is someone criticizing religion in general. At some point it could become hateful, though, and I don't like that. I mean, if someone criticizes you too much, you're not going to like it, right? At some point, you'll become mad.

I have absolutely no problem with the position that prayer is a placebo. It's a valid theory. No one knows for a fact that God exists, they just believe it -- or want to believe it. So, for a person who doubts God's existence, the idea that prayer can heal is a placebo. And, either way, prayer can definitely be viewed as an alternative medicine. Some religions (Jehova's Witnesses?) don't even allow the use of medicines; but demand only faith and prayer for healing. I disagree with them in the strongest terms.

I regret having used the term hate speech at all, because "hate speech" gets legislated against in the U.S. and I am absolutely against making hate speech, or any speech, illegal unless it advocates the overthrow of the government, incites violence, urges the commission of crimes, etc... If someone hates a particular group and wants to say unkind things about them, I think that should be his or her LEGAL right just as it is the legal right of the victim to respond in kind. So, I'd NEVER want legislation against this photo; but that doesn't mean I can't take issue with the person who did it.

As for attacking a specific belief system. I guess it all comes down to what you mean by "attacking." And I don't know how you separate the belief from the people. Religion is culture. It's emotional and deep and intertwined with one's sense of identity. It's not as simple as believing something to be true or not. An atheist who was raised in almost any religion you can name may still feel culturally a member of that religious group.

03/16/2007 12:33:52 AM
Just curious... would you think that "attacking" religion in general (not a specific belief such as "prayer works") would be hatespeech? What about "attacking" a specific belief system (christianity, islam, whatever) if it's not attacking the PEOPLE but the beliefs?
03/16/2007 12:05:51 AM
PDF: I disagree with your last point because I was just using Yarmulkas, beards and feathers to help demonstrate what I was getting at. A Torah, Qur'an and peyote bud with a Woody in the appropriate prayer position for the religion referred-to would suffice, in my opinion.

To everyone, I'd like to say that, as pissed-off as I was when I made my first post on this, I've said my peace and am no longer angry. IF the photo was only intended to say that prayer in-general is a placebo, then I have no issue with the message. I simply don't believe that that was what this picture was about -- not JUST that anyway (reference "stick in Woody's rear end" photographer comment above.)

03/15/2007 09:32:56 PM
incidentally, I think you were making a straw man argument when you said "a Jewish Woody with a yarmulka or Torah, a Muslim Woody with a beard and a Qur'an, a Native American Woody with feathers and a bud of peyote." in your original post. The woody in the picture wasn't wearing a christian cross, or the robes of a christian priest, or anything else that would say that the woody is a christian. Doing so IMO would imply that it WAS an attack on those people, (not that I'd want it censored or anything) but I think the way the photograph was set up implies that he was attacking the BELIEF (in prayer), and not the PEOPLE. That is a HUGE detail. It's one thing to attack a group of people, and a completely different thing to attack a specific belief.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/15/2007 09:26:38 PM
OmanOtter, courage was ONE of the reasons I gave this a ten. Not the only one. Just like people give points for creativity whatnot, I think that the amount of courage it took is a perfectly fine way of rating a photograph.

about it being an attack... yes, I do think it WAS an attack- It was an attack on the power of prayer. I don't think it was an attack in christianity in general, the bible, or religion in general. Just prayer.

Something doesn't need to be an attack to require courage. Most people are very sensitive when it comes to religion, and something doesn't have to be an attack to offend people. For example, coming out as being homosexual (or an atheist for that matter) might offend many people, but it is not an attack and it takes courage.

I don't think the "same basic picture" wich used the torah or the koran or whatever would be hate speech either.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/15/2007 02:54:55 PM
If you'd titled it "The Power of Prayer", there would be no controversy. Or would there? And yet the picture still represents a valid "alternative medicine" choice - many do choose the power of prayer, regardless of their religion. Whether or not it works, well, that's not for the photograph to say. Or is it? Nicely done!
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/15/2007 02:25:15 PM
I think Meyers and I have buried the hatchet. But I'll still address a few of the comments below.

Sandstrider: You sound like a 60's hippie with the "judge like a child" stuff. Think about the implications of what you're saying: As long as it's done in a photographically-excellent way, the message doesn't matter. So, a photo that intentionally attacks or mocks a culture or group of people is just fine as long as it's well-executed or esthetically-pleasing?! Christians are certainly not "a known majority" in the country where I live, or any country anywhere near where I live. Do you ever get out of the United States?

PDF: If "courage" was a reason you gave this a 10, then you must have known that it was an attack. Whether you agree with the message is irrelevant to whether it's acceptable.

Poonaka: While "the Holy Bible" contains Jewish sacred scriptures in what Christians refer to as "the Old Testament," I do not believe that Jewish people commonly refer to their sacred scriptures as "the Holy Bible." A Jewish person can correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Everyone: Here's the test: Ask yourself if the same basic picture would be socially acceptable if it mocked Jews, Muslims, Native American religion, or the African American spiritual/cultural celebration of Kwaanza. If you would think twice before presenting such a picture, you understand what I'm getting at.

While I've called this "Hate Speech," I don't think Meyers is a hateful person. But the picture is intentionally insulting and inflammatory, culturally insensitive and provoking. It was an intentional jab; and I answered back.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/14/2007 11:32:43 PM
Originally posted by OmanOtter:

I got pissed because you singled-out one group for ridicule


Actually I believe the bible is used in Judaism as well. So that's two groups.

To be honest I can't see how you can call this hateful. The photo is in good taste.

Being an atheist doesn't make you hateful.

Message edited by author 2007-03-14 23:33:16.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/14/2007 10:03:51 PM
I rated this a 10.
points for simplicity, composition, courage, and humorous elements.
I don't think this is hate speech at all, I completely agree with the statement this picture makes, and I hope you keep up the good job.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/14/2007 06:06:20 PM
Originally posted by OmanOtter:

Had this photo included symbols of other religions alongside the Bible (e.g. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist and Hindu symbols together) it would have communicated the inoffensive opinion that religion is a placebo without singling-out a particular group.

It also would have been horribly cluttered and lacked the emphasis it had, I think it is trying to show prayer and the most generally seen view of prayer is Christianity, which is a known majority. This picture should be judged purely on composition, lighting, and such. It should not be judged by your personal political standpoint, and even if it does offend you, doesn't that make it all the more powerful. We should not hide what we disagree with, but see it with open eyes, judge it fairly as a child would, and then reflect on it.

Despite what other people say I think lighting is good, the subject is clear, and the book is more of a background to set the mood and augment the overall meaning of the image. This one was my favorite in the challenge. The shadow on the Bible adds a beautiful finishing effect.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/14/2007 02:47:35 PM
I'm not here to argue whether prayer is a placebo or not, but I will say that THAT message would not have been so offensive and could have been communicated by including other religious symbols in the picture as well. I got pissed because you singled-out one group for ridicule. It strikes me as hateful. Trying the same with some of the others I mentioned would bring a powerful social condemnation that I think you fear. You might not be gutless, but you sure picked the easy target.

You have an America-centric bias. The world is full of Christians. Ann Coulter and the American Republican Party do not speak for or represent us all. There are also many American Democrats who are Christians and lot's of people who are neither Republicans, Democrats, conservatives or Americans either.

I've said enough. You're probably a decent person who I'd regret arguing with if I met. But you sure pissed me off. I'll try to keep further argument/debate between you and me by private message.

Message edited by author 2007-03-14 15:55:35.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/14/2007 09:16:28 AM
I'd like to respond to OmanOtter's accusations that my image constitutes "hate speech."

The subject, and title, refer to prayer being a placebo. Studies, such as the one by the American Heart Journal have shown at best there is no correlation between a patient knowing others are praying for them and a speedy recovery, and at worse some found that those patients fare worse on average. A common response to this finding is "God helps those who help themselves," thus giving further support to prayer not being a substitute for actual medical care.

The idea that using a Christian book is gutless, as opposed to attacking one of the other groups Mr OmarOtter lists, is laughable. It would be gutless to attack a group which does not have the power to defend itself. Christians, in the western world, have incredible political power. For example, the House of Representatives passed bill HR 2679, which does not allow a plaintiff to recover their legal costs when attempting to stop government displays of Christianity. Ann Coulter, in front of the Conservative Political Action Conference, called John Edwards a faggot, and received applause. This behavior was not out of character for her, and she will continue to be a prominent part of Republican punditry. Clearly, this shows it is acceptable to attack gay people. There are still parts of this country where being openly gay can get you beaten to death.

On to the specific charge that this image, by not including references to several religions, is "hate speech." In the context of the challenge, "Alternative Medicine," I express the idea that prayer is not an effective substitute for real medical care. It can make some people feel better though, just like a placebo. In a larger sense, however, it is important to note that criticism by itself is not intolerance. My image does nothing to expressly or implicitly imply violence or prejudicial action against Christians.

I have no problem with the fact that some people, Mr OmanOtter included, found this image offensive. I do take issue with some of his comments directed at me.
03/14/2007 02:09:11 AM
Had this photo included symbols of other religions alongside the Bible (e.g. Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddist and Hindu symbols together) it would have communicated the inoffensive opinion that religion is a placebo without singling-out a particular group. But, by singling-out one specific group, the photographer has submitted hate speech. Imagine the uproar had he used a symbol of another religion instead of the Bible -- a Jewish Woody with a yarmulka or Torah, a Muslim Woody with a beard and a Qur'an, a Native American Woody with feathers and a bud of peyote. I called this cowardly because this photo singles-out the only group that one can safely single-out in the Western world. It's safe to single-out Christians for ridicule. Try it with someone else and you'll lose your job, or worse. Finally, Christians are not synonymous with Bible Thumpers.

Message edited by author 2007-03-14 02:50:07.
 Comments Made During the Challenge
03/13/2007 09:13:32 PM
interesting choice of title. A rare instance (for dpc, at least, imo) where the title improves the photo.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/13/2007 03:33:36 PM
maybe, maybe not.

because it is a black book on a black background, it took me minute to distinguish exactly what I was looking at -- i thought the woody was begging for something. maybe a touch more light on the Bible would make the message a bit more distinguishable, quicker.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/12/2007 11:42:42 AM
nice title i agree
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/11/2007 10:40:23 PM
I don't care for the woodie's anymore.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/11/2007 09:28:17 PM
Now thats funny. Very nice lighting and love the shadow. However, there is just something about this image that isn't as crystal clear as I would have liked to see. There is a missing element, But very nice.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/11/2007 09:20:35 PM
I get your message, I'm not sure that prayer falls under alternative medicine. Interesting shot, I like the shadow on the cover of the Bible.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/11/2007 03:46:20 PM
Snake oil for the soul? Nice idea :)
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/11/2007 12:39:40 AM
10 for the cojones.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/10/2007 06:17:08 PM
ohhh thats a bit topical, lol Nice Idea and well done. You just cut off his foot. Good Luck
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/10/2007 11:03:30 AM
Haha, perfectly fits with the title. Maybe the strongest placebo ever ?
Cool idea, well composed.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/10/2007 01:21:07 AM
Good point, it won't work well with the Bible thumpers.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/09/2007 01:16:12 PM
someone feeling controvertial here?
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/08/2007 08:05:47 PM
Too dark.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/08/2007 04:40:32 PM
great use of shadow! You might get some angry comments on this.
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/08/2007 06:38:55 AM
Usualy I doesn't like woody pictures and vote low for them
9 for this

but I realy like the humour in this picture and the title
I suppose that it's not very DPC/North America compaticle

I'm currious to see other voters comments and scoring
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/08/2007 02:15:35 AM
simplicity of the picture: +3
shadow of the title: -1
cut the toe: -1
use of woody: -1
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/08/2007 02:05:07 AM
Great emotion from such a wooden figure - Nice capture
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/07/2007 03:53:54 PM
Love it! I hope this is getting the religious types all riled up!
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/07/2007 12:09:03 PM
Ok, this one made me chuckle........and that is "alternative medicine" for me! Love it!
  Photographer found comment helpful.
03/07/2007 08:54:52 AM
How very rude of you! I dare you to do the same with Jews, Muslims, gays or some other target that it wouldn't be "PC" to attack. You have no guts.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 08:02:27 AM EDT.