Photographing children

Owamanga wrote:
An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...4&fpart=1&vc=1

or he

http://tinyurl.com/6tqes

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
just don't photograph them or you'll be arrested in this era of
pedophile mania

Alan

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:
I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
about it.

In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
speaking to him.

That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.

--
Ken Tough

retoohs wrote:
Owamanga wrote:

An interesting discussion, may be of interest to anyone who ever
photographs medium to large groups of 5 year-olds:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...4&fpart=1&vc=1


or he

http://tinyurl.com/6tqes

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga

just don't photograph them or you'll be arrested in this era of
pedophile mania

Alan

That is possible. State law here only requires that a picture be
'provocative' in order to be classified as child pornography. So what,
exactly, IS provocative? What I consider 'cute' may be 'provocative' to
someone else. The classic nude baby on the bearskin rug is DEFINITELY
illegal here. sigh.


--
Ron Hunter

"Ken Tough" wrote in message
...
Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:
I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
about it.

In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
speaking to him.

That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.

There's really only one way to find out for sure, but you have to take the
answer secretly to the grave...
....Any volunteers???

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
Mark² wrote:
"Toni" wrote in message
oups.com...
Like wondering how
many milliseconds of vision and cognitive awareness you could
maintain as
your head falls after having it lopped off by a gillotine...

LOL, I thought I was the only person who ever wondered that. Also,
would you recognize your body over there and would you have time to
be horrified?

I'm not alone after all!!


I also wonder whether if the blade stopped immediately...keeping your
severed head pressed against the blade after detachment...whether the
pressing blade might briefly curb the bleeding enough to maintain a
bit more blood pressure...which might allow a few full seconds of
awareness.
II get the death penalty someday I think I'll ask for this, and then
try and devise a way to signal someone like you with my eyes one way
or the other...
Deal?

So, you were saying about IQ...?


The IQ comment was more regarding the lack of insight conveyed regarding the
kiddie-brawl question more than the question itself... I note that some
here actually are using their brains to think this goulish quandry through a
bit...

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:42:00 +0200, Ken Tough
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:
I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
about it.

In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
speaking to him.

That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.

Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?
-Rich

In article ,
RichA wrote:

Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?

If it could, it would sort of imply that the executioner had goofed, because
the lungs would still be attached...

"RichA" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:42:00 +0200, Ken Tough
wrote:

Mxsmanic wrote:

Ron Hunter writes:
I have read that some beheaded people were conscious for up to 8
seconds. NOt sure how this was determined. Don't want to think much
about it.

In the case of guillotine executions, they simply observed the person's
head. He couldn't speak, but he turn his eyes to look at someone
speaking to him.

That doesn't necessarily imply consciousness. The same works with
people dreaming in REM sleep, though their eyelids are closed.
I don't think 18th century medical research on consciousness is
going to be all that reliable. I'll grant that brain activity
won't stop instantly, but doubt it involves consciousness.

Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?
-Rich

Hmmm...
No vocal cords...no lungs...no blood pressure...
Talking would be quite a trick indeed!

Ron Hunter wrote:


That is possible. State law here only requires that a picture be
'provocative' in order to be classified as child pornography. So what,
exactly, IS provocative? What I consider 'cute' may be 'provocative' to
someone else. The classic nude baby on the bearskin rug is DEFINITELY
illegal here. sigh.

Following some notorious cases like the lady down in Texas a couple
years ago, I would expect (or hope) that law enforcement are standing
back and giving it a re-think.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

RichA wrote:

Why? You don't need a spine to think. For all we know, the
head could be alive and thinking for about 1-2 minutes.
Wouldn't it be a kick if it talked?

If you quickly supply an air hose, he might ba able to... gotta slice
below the vocal cords, however.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.