Would you go picnicking on this area of grass you can see in this picture? http://oi62.tinypic.com/1zlfwie.jpg Also, would you propose to your lover at this spot?
If not to either the picnicking or the proposing, why not?
No. and also no.
Also. WTF?
It’s his shtick.
Look up some of his other OP’s. There all equally “WTF?”
No.
I’m married and I don’t picnic.
Fenced off? No.
(I actually have picnicked on the little areas of grass inside the circular loops of highway ramps – the kind you can access legally without running across traffic lanes. It still ain’t kosher, but it isn’t dangerous, nor fenced off, nor were there signs forbidding it.)
I sometimes find his shtick amusing, though I don’t understand it. It’s pretty much orthogonal to anyone else’s shtick on the Dope.
That’s totally been photoshopped. Nowhere is that depressing.
If it happened to be a little green oasis that had become a favorite meeting spot for lunch then I might but probably not.
We didn’t get a 360… The other side might be heaven
Even though it’s photoshopped, that’s no reason not to propose to your lover there.
On the other hand, I’d never have a picnic in such as place–there isn’t a duck in sight, real or photoshopped.
As zoid says, it’s what he does, and I’ll ask you, CJ, again, WHY??
It’s not the grass he’s concerend about, it’s the silos in the background.
Here’s some links…
I’d take a sandwich down there, if it were close enough for convenience. It’s not romantic enough to go out of my way to propose there.
A little bit of googling will show that these sites are all involved in civil litigation regarding industrial contamination. This is one way that counsel susses out possible jury reactions to the photos which get presented as evidence.
One of them is pictures of the inside of a department store, the other is just an interior door from a school or church
I.A.I.C. or Industrial/Architectural Inferiority Complex. I have a touch of it myself though I’m only effected by small out-buildings and sheds. 
They must be other kinds of lawsuits, then. The department store was brainwashing its employees, and the church was selling its parishioners pirated Bibles.
If CJ is doing research for legal cases he’s involved in, personally, I’d rather he left us out of it. I’d hate to find out comments we’re tossing around are getting used in court. Especially without our consent or knowledge that that’s even what it’s for, considering most times these threads pop up someone asks him what it’s about. Has he ever actually answered?
How are you googling that? It’s a great explanation if true.
I suspect that, if this is true, our comment are used to select which photographs to present or how to phrase arguments referencing them.
I don’t think it’s terribly immoral to use a focus group to test an argument.
I do think it is really deceitful, immoral, and all around reprehensible to do so without informing us (s)he is doing so.
guizot, I would also ask how you are running your queries.
Pretty sure that would be regarded as an off-board project.