I too have pulled back from this list. Awhile back I totally lost my
cool and posted a flame at guess who???...yep, Terry., It was a theory
thingy. Terry's big-time pet peeve.
Anyway, I was embarrased by my venomous reply, controlled as it was. It
was still inappropriate for this or any list.
I too have seen this senario develop time and time again. It's unhealthy
for the list's growth and for the potential of this list to mean
something beyond a great technical club. I've already seen that there is
a geniune possibilty of a world-wide convergence of alt-phot practices
and a united global community. I'd hate to see that blown by a dominant
player's demeanor like bullying or repeated condescension. We've seen
lurkers howl about poor treatment and jump-ship like rats. Tha't a
constant problem with having experts and beginners sharing the same
"bus."
Now, it's the members that are howling. Are they whiners, babys, or is
there something really wrong here. You probably already know how I feel,
but here are a few gems from the past (it's in the archives!) that may
lend a little support for what Judy, Ron, Klaus and I have said:
=======================
> That conclusion is so confused in terms of its semantics that it is meaningless.
>
> Please go back and define you terms clearly and not just within the narrow
> confines of critical theory.
----------
> Is it unacademic to think for oneself ?
>
> I have read enough of critical theory in relation to photography to know that I
> have better things to do with my time than to become embroiled in discussions on
> the subject.
---------------
> I took a broader perspective. It is surprising that you did not recognise that.
--------------------
> If giving two meanings to one word and thus confusing the issue is not
> doubletalk then. to quote an eminent editor, I am a banana.
------------------
> have explained my purposes but you have not noticed.
>
> I do not need 'sources' to make an analysis. That analysed is the source.
------------------
> if you cannot make that differentiation then this whole discussion is
> pointless. There is a difference. And it is this difference that invalidates
> your premise and thus your whole argument. That difference makes the whole
> concept of a ... deeply silly.
>
> As they say in Yorkshire " Think on't "
------------------
> I come from outside teaching where my experience is to take a wider and
> objective view based upon facts and logic.
------------------
> It was interesting to see, however, that when one treats the' theorists' in the
> manner in which they condescend to 'photographers', how upset they get.
------------------
> It is a commonplace of the NET that misunderstandings can arise as expessions
> cannot be seen or tones of voice heard.
...Amen.
Yeah, it's a bore, but it's too important to dismiss. I also believe
this is the most democratic approach available.
Thanks to Klaus for giving me a little nudge to speak out.
> Terry, be careful: All what you said could also be turned against you.
Maybe I'm thin-skinned. And maybe it's contagious.
Later.
Darryl Baird