Forum Moderators: open
I guess the news guys want to make sure that nobody thinks that any animals were injured during the making of this news story...
.
When I first read this story, the first thing I thought was, what a jerk, throwing that poor mouse onto the fire.
But whenever we get a mouse in the house, I'm the first one to go buy mouse traps, call the exterminator, throw the mouse on the burning pile of leaves (ok not that one because I don't have a burning pile of leaves)... but you get the idea.
I was trying to point out in the post above about how POWERFUL an image can be to the psyche. Really, truly, I believe you and I (and many other readers) were first put in that "oh poor mouse" frame of mind by that damn photo. The text of the article was plain and factual, certainly not sympathetic to the mouse. It was the photo!
There is a BIG lesson to be learned here by many of us webmasters. We are often so focused on making sure our page is set up with all the right code and text for search engines... don't forget the power of images on your users' psyche.
.
An image is worth a thousand words
......... and the viewer does not have to take our 'word' for it since he'll make up his own.
Just saw on the news where fire investigators now believe that there was no mouse. The burning pile of leaves caused the fire.
Thank god the mouse is ok. :)
Seriously... even a shovel or a pot would have been a better demise!
I say YOU GO little mouse, go out in a blaze of glory... literally :)
Just saw on the news where fire investigators now believe that there was no mouse.
No mouse? How can they say that. We saw the picture of the little mouse - it was there as plain as day! You saw it didn't you? Did the old man in the story imagine it? It sounds like a cover-up to me. I bet the 'authorities' have the poor little critter under lock and key somewhere... never to be seen again!
;-)
Syzygy
No mouse? How can they say that. We saw the picture of the little mouse - it was there as plain as day!
That picture is likely a stock photo... there's not even a hair singed - pretty unlikely if that was the mouse on fire. ( unless it made a really rapid recovery ). :)
hehehe, I wonder what he'll put on his insurance claim form. Sounds like an opportunity for a Foo thread on insuarnce quotes. ;)
hehehe, I wonder what he'll put on his insurance claim form. Sounds like an opportunity for a Foo thread on insuarnce quotes. ;)
I was watching the bonus material for the indiana jones box I got for Christmas and I guess on Temple of Doom the filed a good sized insurance claim for the red dress worn in the nightclub. the reason for the claim was that it was eaten by an elephant.
(And if the fire was very hot at all, the mouse wouldn't have lived but a few seconds anyway - probably less time than it would take to kill it in other "more humane" ways. But no, I wouldn't throw living creature into a fire either, no matter how hot it was.)
Am I the only one deeply disturbed that someone would take a live animal and let it be burned to death? :(
No I think it's revolting too. (Assuming there was a mouse).
A mousetrap will kill a mouse instantly. Having the creature burn alive in excruciating heat and pain is pretty nasty whatever the justification.
there's not even a hair singed - pretty unlikely if that was the mouse on fire
The only time my house had a mouse (it got into my cellar via a ventilation brick that connected with the next-door cellar, then ran along a gas-pipe and so into the kitchen) my cat mounted a vigil in the room for 18 hours until it caught it. Now, that is what I call a mouse-trap. Humane, too, unlike the b*stard in the article.
