Talk:Ogrish.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] ogrish

Harsh criticism of ogrish needs to be balanced by an honest veiw of the media as a whole. I am certainly more disgusted by the the JonBenet Ramsey phenomenon than I am by ogrish as a whole. Many- maybe most- of the "decent folk" so outraged by ogrish are really just more subtle versions of John Karr. How else could you explain the hugely popular morbid fascination with the molestation and murder of a pre-pubescent "beauty queen" by the same public that is repulsed by sites like ogrish? As if people crave a taste of the sickest, most unusual things imaginable, but yet absolutely reject the idea of looking at regular life in more than the most superficial of ways. Ogrish presents regular life in all of its beautifull and grotesque hues. It does not exploit the weird and perverse in any way but rather simply reveals what is hidden in plain sight. Instead of being a medium for escapism via the pathological and strange (mainstream media), ogrish shows the ordinary in its entirety, and in this way is more sobering than anything else. -Tom Raginhari

I think Ogrish appeals to more than than just individuals with a morbid fascination for death. It's an uncensored news and media website. As the slogan asks, "can you handle life?" Apparently some of you can not. --Jeffrey 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Yeah, the people who run this site should get lives and be like people who complain on the internet about petty issuses(I'm being sarcastic by the way). Banning ogrish would be censorship and have a snowball effect and lead to other censorships and nobody has the right to tell me what I can or cannot view. Its my life and I do whatever I want with it. The main reason I view the content of that site is merely out of human curiosity. By the way, no one is forced to view the images and videos.


What kind of people enjoy watching such horrendous magazines?

Human garbage, that's who. I feel very sorry for the families of the victims who are shown in the images and movie files shown on that site. The proprietors of ogrish.com and the people who view it for pleasure are filth of the lowest order.
Human garbage and a LOT of photoshopers.168.243.218.8

Yes Some posters on ogrish forums are... strange.

they make a HUGE fuss over some kitten that got tortured + killed, yet they are completely insensitive about people getting beheaded or whatnot.

Sigh... something should be done about this goddamn site... I don't give a shit if it's legally protected or not. MAJOR props to all the hackers that attacked Ogrish, keep it up.

So instead of simply not viewing the website and leaving it be, you know, that whole 1st Ammendment freedom of speech thing, you all come here bitching and moaning on a wikipedia TALK page? Amazing. I bet you all are part of the group trying to ban the DaVinci Code too, huh? --JOK3R 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, this site is living proof that Freedom of Speech is the most abused thing ever. - Luminarie 01:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Should this really be classified as a "shock site"? it's not really shocking if there are warnings everywhere before you actually enter the site


Can someone tell me why the fuck this site is still on the Internet? People who take pleasure in looking at the pictures, and worse, making this crap in Photoshop, all deserve to die a slow death. These people are right down there with people who make and look at kiddie porn.

Come on, this can't be legal...-14:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to be discussion, not random swearing and using the f*** word? You are complaining about a site then making yourself look just as bad by your language. The site is legal as it is the internet and as yet (and never will be) uncensored. That is the whole point in the internet. --drmike 01:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that was pretty immature of me. What I meant to say is, can a site like this, intended solely to humiliate people (in an extreme way, often without families' consent), really be considered legal?

I think Orgish is a good site. Especialy when about things like war or starvation. With mainstream media all you get is a souless statistic. But as seen in ogrish those are real people and you see that death isn't like a video game but a horrible thing... For example it has pictures of US interrorgation rooms that destroy Limbaughs argument that they were "no worse than Skull and Bone initiation" But that's my view, alot of Ogrish users are freaks.

Surely this is exactly why Ogrish should be illegal?


[edit] What Ogrish means to me

When I first observed the mayhem on ogrish.com I was appalled at what humans could do to each other. Burnings at the stake, Impaling a person through the rectum and out the shoulder in front of a cheering crowd, tying a soldiers arms to 2 jeeps and pulling him apart, beheadings. These acts when described verbally sound very bad but not very real, they are just stories. When you see it with your own eyes it becomes more believable,less abstract, and truly gut wrenching. You see how bad some people realy are. You see how bad people in cetain situations can get. I feel I was naive before I saw the content of ogrish.com (and Faces of Death video).

I read comments on this site stating that ogrish should be shut down and that people who enjoy the site are just sick. Picture a group of young men who are viewing the site and reacting insesitively about the victims condition. These kids will become mature adults and eventually and grow out of there insensitivity as we all do. Others who truly enjoy the mayhem are sick, we need to keep an eye on them. I believe these people to be few in number. If ogrish was not around these weirdos would still be weird. I am glad ogrish exists. To those who don't like.... don't go there....


Does anybody know why they cancelled the membership deal and are the videos in the archives the videos you would have gotten access to if they hadnt cancelled the membership?


Well, ALL this could have been avoided if someone left my warning on the page, because it is NOT a "false U.S law", it specifically states exactly what I wrote, and this is the main reason why people leave wikipedia, they should really fix this...

There is no US law that requires age verification to access gore/shock content. This type of content does not fall under the same rules as pornography. That is why I removed your erroneous statement. Your lengthy legal warning simply does not belong in an encyclopedia. Furthermore there is no legal requirement for Wikipedia to carry such a statement, and no benefit gained from it. Quatloo 12:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

In the "good old days" the typical American male had to join the military or wait to be drafted to all those torn-up bodies and gore. With sites such as Ogrish those scenes can be viewed at home. Thus, expect the USA federal government to ban the site to prompt a few more cannon-fodder-bodies-for-the-elite-class to enlist and see the "good stuff."

I would assume they took off the subscriptions because if they were profitting from the images, they could be sued by the families of those in their videos. You cannot profit from someone else's image without their consent, afaik.

[edit] All of this crying!!!!

Learn to face reality, You people sound like children or are very scared to even get a glimpse at what the world has to offer in some countries. I'd bet half of these cry babies are anti-war activists, A bunch of commies. I'm tired of hearing all the bitching and moaning from these people. But I should'nt even be saying that cause I'd be lowering myself to your levels. It's an example of what you people do, If I don't like the contents of the site then I do not enter. As for hackers.... They have no life at all and seem to get off on stealing your personal information or just ruining your computer in some sort of manner. Hackers are criminals so if you're willing to give props to a criminal then you're a bunch of fucking pigs and hipocrates. You people disgust me, All this crying and yet you'd stand for the similar shit in your own country and if someone was shot in the face in front of you you'd be the first to tell your whole neighborhood, Why not let the site do it... They'd inform the world alot better. The Media out here and our government hides so much from us. All we do is hear lies from the media and government. We don't know what's going on out there, If it were'nt for sites that present this form of reality, It'd still be a lie, We're living a lie in the states. I feel some of you In the fact that if it were one of our family members out there or one of us.... We'd be pissed, So then I would not enter the site. If I'm dead then of course I won't be able to do a thing. I don't really support the site but I respect them in some way. It's just hippocritical people with silly comments.

[edit] =

I am not really sure anyone gets the concept of Free Speech. And I think that the images, albeit used for the most part by teenage boys to gross each other out, and content are of genuine value. They show the unarguable truth of the human condition. I refer to Ogrish many times (with warning) when describing causes of death due to accident, homicide or other. There is no need to be Pollyannaish or a misdirected militant (see previous post). Death, in all its various causes, is real and is part of life.

As for the debate on the privacy of the victims or some argument of a victim’s dignity, this argument doesn't hold a lot of water. How could you prove any loss? How could you prove harm? Who could make the argument? You can't and neither can I.

You should be happy this site exist, to know what the real world is like.

[edit] =

I completely agree. I go to ogrish a few times a week to see scenes from Iraq. I don't enjoy seeing people get beheaded, but it lets me see what humans can actually do to other humans. Ogrish is a very valuable site to me. Some of the people on the forums may be a bit...weird, but that doesn't mean everyone there is messed up. The only reason I go there is to see what it really looks like in Iraq and other places where violence occurs, I don't take pleasure in viewing the images at all, but I like to see what stuff really looks like. Stop crying about it, if you people don't want to go there, then don't go. Also, it has warnings all over the site. If you are underage, or are afraid of violence, JUST DON'T GO IN. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Hopefully Ogrish will be a credible uncensored news source one day. A lot of people here just can't handle reality.--Mimbster 16:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I only visit this site about once a month. It doesn't make me a creep i just like to have view pictures which i learn from in an informative sort of way. I don't get 'pleasure' in looking at the photos. But i am completely sensitive about animal abuses. I avoid those kinds of pictures, being a strong animal activist myself.

'i am completely sensitive about animal abuses': Why do you think a beheading is more harmless than animal cruelty?

Why did they discontiune the membership? Why did they discontiune the membership? Why did they discontiune the membership?

The article says for unknown reasons. Why don't you contact ogrish and ask them yourself?--Mimbster 11:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Tried but there has been no reply, no suprise.
No suprise? I find that the admin over there is pretty friendly and helpful. That's a good question. Keep trying and I'll also ask and see why they did. Later.--Mimbster 10:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, not surprised they didnt respond because I know they are very busy.
Why was the defintion of what Ogrish means taken down? People will want to know what it means and not know becuase it was taken down.
Who took it down and why? It was taken out without explanation--Mimbster 21:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, arent you a mod? Cant you find out?
If we are talking about the definition in this wiki, it wasn't taken down. It was just moved to the end of the article -- Nobrn 22:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Those amongst us who would wish this site and its content be forcibly destroyed due to the horrors contained within, are the same among us who would stumble blindly into a world of such horror on a far larger and less visible scale. For shame. --TheGreatFoo 23:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] =

A word to these who think, Ogrish is doing a good job with showing, that reality is cruel: (1) First, it is a selection, not a complete view of reality, so its wrenching reality. (2) Second, these who need to watch over and over again videos in which humans get mutilated to understand that this is gruesome are a little outside of this, what defines "being human" - using the mind and think. For the most people this is a good way to avoid unpleasent experiences: If you know a knife is sharp, you don't have to cut of a finger to get to know it will hurt and the best to avoid. You also will not have to watch somebody doing this to know, that you will not try it yourself. (3) Giving themselves the excuse of "freedom of speech" is a little perverted: First because they focuse on the shock, while explanation would be necessary, second, because they filter the things they show too. Just as an example, with this argumentation it would be totally legal to exhibit child porn and - killing as well. An unpleasent aspect of reality? You bet! Cruel? Hell yeah! The rights of the children wouldn't be violated more than anyone elses who is exhibited there. - So, to lead their own excuse to the absurde: "If" they were dedicated to the "freedom of speech"-thing and thought it to be necessary therefor to show all this cruelty, so they would without question have the duty of showing cruelty against children. But as they aren't doing this they act against their own "ideal", what shows that the argument of "freedom of speech" is nothing more than an excuse for showing cruelty, and no other intention. (4) It is wrong, thinking, that watching cruelty over and over again would make people more friendly, feeling more engaged against violence - the opposite! People who act against war- and civil-brutality don't have to become hurt and hurt again. Those who do this, and do this themselves - are seriously mentally sick - the opposite part to these who mutilate their own body. --German User 14:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Podcast service

They started their Podcast service today. I never expected it to be as good as it was.

[edit] Ogrish & Poland

Just wanted to state, im now in Poland, and i can and could access ogrish, since i was told of their existence. the article states that Poland is blocked by German bareer. Kshinji 14:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Live Leak

Does anyone know the story behind why ogrish changed to liveleak.com? I appreciate the change actually, I went there just to see the combat videos from places like Iraq and Chechnya and never watched any of the gore content. But it would be nice to know what exactly brought about the change. Also is that Financial Times link really just a preview? I dont see any statement saying you need registration to see the full article and reading it, it seems like the complete thing. DarthJesus 05:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have just figured that out, DarthJesus (snicker--funny name). Also, LiveLeak seems to have labels for mature content, and has more family-friendly videos and things that don't show the "harsh reality". Perhaps Ogrish got banned and was redirected to this already existing site.....--DeadGuy 17:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • According to some posters on Ogrish forums, although I will need to check again, Ogrish was sold to the owner of LiveLeak. However, I cannot verify this claim without going and checking back, but that's what I've heard. 赤鈴姫
It is indeed true that the owner of Ogrish had sold the site-- just search the Ogrish forums, and you'll find a message from the administration about it. Unconscious 20:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid it is not "indeed true" that Ogrish was sold to LiveLeak, and the admins on the Ogrish forum made no such claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.198.133 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Orgishlogo.PNG

Image:Orgishlogo.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

sucks that ogrish is gone, liveleak sucks


Why do you not just vote for erasing this entry? You must never forget that this is Wikipedia, the largest encyclopedia in the internet world. Have you ever thought about this?

[edit] Content

"Such images' origins are questionable, as in order for a gory image to be taken, there must first be a gory event."

Well, obviously; if you want a picture of a train wreck, a train has to actually wreck first. It seems that the implication (I'm guessing) is that sometimes scenes were "set up" (some kid thinks he's a badass if he tortures a cat so he can send the tape in), thus not being true to the original motivations behind Ogrish, but then why doesn't it simply *say that*? What *are* we trying to say here? intooblv (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)