> > > I found the sites you mentioned, clicked around a bit and did not find them funny enough to hold my interest for too long. Some of the captions were amusing, and I wasn't offended by the sites (I'm pretty open-minded, so it takes a lot to offend me), but something still bothered me. At first, I couldn't quite figure out what it was, but I think part of it is the fact that people spend time on this stuff. Maybe I'm also uncomfortable because it wasn't so long ago that someone took time to doctor a photo of me and post it for people to see. The most painful part was the fact that someone went to so much trouble to hurt me, and he didn't even know me. I was just left wondering what on earth I could have done to deserve such treatment.
>
> Yeah. This is one of the aspects of it that makes me uneasy too. I ought to make it clear that I would *never* either approve or laugh at a photo that was altered (or just posted) with genuine malicious intent towards that person, as happened to you.
>
> Naming the person, or giving information that could otherwise identify them, is a pretty good indication of evil intent. I never get the impression from Cliff Yablonski or Fat Chicks that there's any real malice towards the people themselves, but of course many of the people who get featured say there is. So I still don't know. Maybe I should send my photo to both those sites, see what they do with it, and then I'll have a right to an opinion one way or the other. Hmm...nah.

I've thought about submitting my photo to Cliff Yablonski, for those same reasons. Instead, I just stopped going. Like you, I found the site (well, that section) quite funny, but like Elly, I always felt very uneasy when I was there--sort of a guilty pleasure. So I stopped going. I don't really miss it now that I'm gone.

Don "Not sure if this post really has a point, other than 'DON'T SEND MY PICTURE TO CLIFF YABLONSKI WITHOUT MY PERMISSION'. Yeah, that's the one." Monkey