Once again I find myself perusing the paper only to be faced with a picture of bloodied dead bodies on the front page {May 21}. I find this very disturbing.

The Post has been doing this for years, and it's appalling. Your readers have the option of reading an article about murder, rape and other acts of violence simply by glancing at the headlines first. That is not the case with pictures. Once you've seen it, the image is with you regardless of how upsetting it may be. Why is this practice favored so by The Post?

-- Renee Hammond

The photograph of the dangling corpse of a burn victim {Metro, May 27} shocked me profoundly. This was because of my surprise at your bad taste and bad judgment, not because of the revulsion I experienced from such a horrible image.

I never expected that The Post would lower its high standards to satisfy the sick appetites of a morbid few.

-- Sandy Lewis

What should have been one of the best memories in the life of a bright New Jersey boy has been marred by your picture of him in tears on the front page of your Metro section {May 25}. I'm sure this young man worked very hard and was very excited to be one of the chosen few in the National Geography Bee. What possible purpose was served by showing him at a moment when he already felt his worst?

A 13-year-old is extremely sensitive to such things, and you only added to his embarrassment. It would have been preferable to print a group picture of all the participants. Then each could have returned home with a picture to share with his family.

-- Carol M. Le Strange