[youngian]

Yes job done, I was rather gobsmacked at what I was seeing but as you say no need to rub it in.

[Big Vern]

Good to see you back, Vern. Still snapping?

Thanks mate....yeah, still snapping. You never stop really do you?

I haven't been on here much lately as visiting the Mail's website makes my blood pressure soar...and that's genuine.
My wife carried out an experiment...she put the cuff on me 3 days running and took measurements before and after I'd browsed the Mail....Typically, my BP was jumping from 120/80 to around 160/95
At 63 with left sided heart failure I only dare go there once or twice a year now.

[Silkyman]

That could go in the 'stories that won't be found in the Mail' thread..

DAILY MAIL PROVED TO INCREASE BLOOD PRESSURE

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Good to see you back, Vern. Still snapping?

Thanks mate....yeah, still snapping. You never stop really do you?

I haven't been on here much lately as visiting the Mail's website makes my blood pressure soar...and that's genuine.
My wife carried out an experiment...she put the cuff on me 3 days running and took measurements before and after I'd browsed the Mail....Typically, my BP was jumping from 120/80 to around 160/95
At 63 with left sided heart failure I only dare go there once or twice a year now.

Glad to hear your shutters are in constant use.
I must admit I don't often spend time on the Mail's website any more, just dip in for specific articles, but you're right about the blood pressure. We've got fit, young members to do that!

[oboogie]

I'm making a conscious effort to spend less time on both the Mail's site and trolling the far-right as it's skewing and perverting my view of humanity and in danger of turning me into a left-wing cliché. I'm starting to see bigotry everywhere eg I was in a shopping centre on Saturday and overheard someone cursing a family who were blocking the thoroughfare, seemingly indifferent to the nuisance they were causing, in my mind I instantly labelled the cursor a racist on the very tenuous grounds that she was white and the family were Muslims.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

My long and very tedious argument on the Salut Sunderland Facebook page (about di Canio) has led me to a very similar conclusion. Besides which, what the likes of you and I need to do now is get our feet on the pavement for a Labour victory in 2015 to overturn these cynical bastards.

[Big Vern]

In danger of turning me into a left-wing cliché

[Dacre Bleugh]

Boston 'bombers' are brothers from CHECHNYA: One is killed in shoot-out, second still on loose after running gun battle that left cop dead as desperate men hurled more bombs at police cars

Once again, DM has the news, complete with the best pics before anyone else. Amazing. That's why I keep coming back. Thanks DM.
- Sofia, Phoenix, United States, 19/4/2013 7:01
Click to rate Rating 1007

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... shot-dead-" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Big Arnold]

Yep. But it still pixellates nipples.

[Safe_Timber_Man]

What the fuck is the point in putting a graphic content warning on the article but putting the most graphic pictures on the fucking banner?

These are too much in my opinion, even if they were only available to see by choice.

I've blurred out the three dead children myself, but they're there for all to see right at the top of MailOnline, whether you wanted to or not.

[Esqui]

I can see both sides of the argument on this one. Stark, graphic pictures provoke emotion, and might jolt some people into action to stop it. On the other hand, dead children are one of those things which you just do not show photos of, on grounds of taste.

Either way, being on the front page is a poor show.

[Abernathy]

Strange one, this. There is nothing inherently tasteless about images of deceased people. The Victorians were fond of taking pictures of the dead, especially children.

http://io9.com/the-strangest-tradition- ... -472772709

As Esqui says, though, there may be a useful purpose in this particular instance.

[canus insanus]

Strange one, this. There is nothing inherently tasteless about images of deceased people. The Victorians were fond of taking pictures of the dead, especially children.

http://io9.com/the-strangest-tradition- ... -472772709

As Esqui says, though, there may be a useful purpose in this particular instance.

Although I've seen and dealt with more than my fair share of dead bodies, I found some of those pictures incredibly sad. How death didn't seem as taboo as it does today.

[Safe_Timber_Man]

I think people should have the choice, they shouldn't be in your face the second you go onto MailOnline. That said, it's important people know what's going on. If I believed the Mail put them up for the right reasons rather than for shock value, I'd begrudgingly accept it.

[davidjay]

I think people should have the choice, they shouldn't be in your face the second you go onto MailOnline. That said, it's important people know what's going on. If I believed the Mail put them up for the right reasons rather than for shock value, I'd begrudgingly accept it.

I don't think for one second that they put them up for anything other than clicks, with perhaps a side order of Dirty Muzzies.