I do need to answer publicly. (My apologies to the list)
>What is it with these lurkers? Asks Luis Nadeau. Well my answer is, just
>one "lurker". I signed my letter with MY name. I am well and alive, and I
>don't need defenders, alter egos, wherever. Please don't assume that I
>write in the name or the sake of others; don't distort the facts. Perhaps
>many just lurk because they don't want to deal w/ a fire storm--a form of
>censorship in itself.
>Contrary to Terry King, who at one point had no less that five consecutive
>posts luring people to his Hands On Workshops, I have not offered workshops
>on alt-photo processes since the 80s and my contribution here is a pure
>subsidy from my part.
No, but do I recall having heard advice (on more than one occasion) about
looking it up in someone's encyclopedia? And I quite agree w/ you about
Terry--for this reason I mentioned workshops. This is why I separate
myself from the forum--not to prove my own ignorance, but to demonstrate a
lack of political involvement, and to question the political involvement of
those instrumental in his expulsion. Or was he expelled from the list
because he didn't know anything? That, clearly stated, doesn't make me
Terry's alter ego or anyone else's. I speak for myself, period. If you want
to restore *civility* behave as a civilized person.
>
>I did what I did when I saw the underdog being attacked again. The minute
>rave reviews of Judy's publication started to pour in I knew that Terry was
>squirming. Sure enough (he is so predictable) without even seeing Judy's
>new publication he tried to jump on it with both feet. I knew right away we
>were on a collosion course.You know the rest: Terry hanged himself. If you
>can't see this I suggest you consult with your seeing-eye dog.
Terry criticized Judy without seeing her magazine, but you and
others who have flamed me, ad hominem, w/o even knowing me, do the same.
Why is it that chivalric behavior was necessary in one instance but not in
others? Consult with your seeing-eye dog.
>The same free speech that advocates spamming and neonazism. You have as
>much free speech as you need here. Tell us that you and Terry want to start
>your own mailing list and we'll be happy to inform listmembers where they
>can reach you.
After over two years lurking, ONE earnest post is a neo-nazi spam?
I have free speech but you try to tell me what to do? **Or are you going to
allow my voice only through your permission? To silence me entirely?** Oh,
please, if I emphasize my outsider outlook at things, it was because I was
not commenting about technicalities -that was not the issue-- but the open
political subtexts of all of this. You use the tactic of disqualifying or
*butchering* my argument without really addressing it. If you are
interested in the issues stick to them and avoid the adjectives.
And this WAS an issue we were ASKED to address just last week. Sorry I"m
late. Please don't try to intimidate me or patronize me. You wanted to get
rid of Terry for precisly this attitude -according to the official record-
why is it used with me now?
>
>I told Terry several times that he should start his own list if he believes
>he has as many friends as he says he does.
And if he had as few friends as you imply he does, one could simply
ignore him and let him express his views. The delete button is so easy to
push.
>IMO, a list is like a schoolroom, except this room has 525, oops sorry, 524
>students in it. If it were up to me there would be a lot more discipline.
>Look at the Conservation Dist List with some 1,300 subscribers. Everything
>is moderated and you get one "journal" once or twice a week. Those who need
>a list as an answer to an inferiority complex don't stay very long. A
>list's success is not measured by the large number of its freeloaders and
>troublemakers. It's measured by the quality of its participants and their
>exchanges on the topic for which it was created, which happens to be
>Alt-photo stuff on this one. Not free speech, abortion, the civil war in
>Algeria, whatever.
If I had the "audacity" to voice an opinion about Terry's
departure, it was based on my long standing in the list as an acute
observer of your quotidian quarrels. My subscription to the list for more
than two years now, provides me with the insight that it is more than
exchanges in alternative processes what goes on there. I didn't mean to be
a troublemaker, but now I understand that any voice of dissent is trouble.
It has other names too.
>
>What I don't understand is why lurkers who profit from everything without
>giving anything back are the only ones who need these explanations.
>
So far I have not profited from anything, and in this raw truth
resides the precariousness of my claim and, paradoxically, my strength. I
don't win anything, I don't loose anything; this is very different from
some out there. For your information Luis, I write, which doesn't make me
an expert nor an ignorant. My trade is words, the more I read about it - I
have some of your books--the better. Would you deny the seeking of
knowledge wherever I see it fit? Or should you choose who is fit to be in
this list based in your assumptions of "knowledgeable" interest? You may be
surprised to discover that what I am discussing doesn't require your
indisputable knowledge to be followed by a non-beginner, as you called me.
As far as I am concerned the *melodrama* of this soap-opera has
ended --or should I demand an apology like some others have when they felt
that they have been insulted?-- Good-by. I go back to the ignorant, fool,
audacious lurk mode of an uppity reader.
:) love you'll,
Lety Mora