From: Katharine Thayer (kthayer@pacifier.com)
Date: 06/23/01-05:04:39 AM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
>
>
> Meanwhile, WELCOME CALLIE, WELCOME PAM, WELCOME SHANNON, WELCOME
> KATHARINE.
>
Gee, what about GALINA, CHRISTINA, SARAH? I'd rather my name hadn't
been invoked here, but since it has been, a couple thoughts:
> It was much lonelier in 1997. I don't mean that all or even any of these
> women will agree with me now,
On the contrary, may I remind you that we found common ground in the
spelling of the possessive of "its." But you're right, other than that
there's not a lot we agree on. For example, the idea that the
disagreements on this list are about sexism. To me, it's more about ego,
which isn't a gender-specific quality. There are more men than women
here so perhaps there are more male egos, but there are also female
egos that take no quarter, or at least manage to hold their own in any
debate. I'd bet an analysis of posts would show the percentage of posts
by women way out of proportion to the percentage of women on the list. I
don't feel that I've ever been disrespected by a man on this list simply
because I was a woman or even an outspoken woman. This has happened to
me on other lists, but I can't think of a time it's happened here. I've
disagreed strongly with men sometimes but always on the merits of the
argument; the fact that I was a woman and my worthy opponent was a man
was irrelevant from my point of view, and I've always assumed that was
the case for them as well.
In the interest of complete accuracy, now that I think of it there was
one fellow who took it upon himself to point out to me, in a kindly
way, that women don't belong in landscape photography, because only
guys can properly understand and interpet the landscape. He was the kind
of guy who always takes a nude model with him to photograph among the
cactus and chiggers; apparently women have a place in landscape
photography but that place isn't behind the lens. But I don't remember
his name and it doesn't matter, because it was just one guy, this is not
an attitude I have encountered here as a rule.
I don't know anything about Terry King's website but I was a participant
on his mailing list for its brief active life, and I don't remember Judy
Seigel's name ever coming up; the discussion on that list was about
pictures and technique. (That was a really cool setup because you could
send pictures to illustrate your point or if someone had a specific
technique question, they could show the problem right on the list, and
another benefit was that you could see people's work and draw your own
conclusions about how much credence to give their opinions. I was sorry
that list died. But I digress.) And I've watched the Bostick & Sullivan
site off and on, and, while I can't say I've taken the trouble to read
all of Livick's ramblings carefully, except for that one remark about
the PF, which I don't remember the context for, I didn't see another
mention. It would be very unsettling to think that the other lists were
hotbeds of hatred aimed at you personally, but that's not what I've
observed. Not that I'm any great friend of Terry King or of Stephen
Livick (my copy of Livick's manual says "nonsense" in the margin at
least twice on each page) but just trying to offer some perspective
here. I'd say let it go, get some sleep, don't be hashing over all this
stuff again, please.
Katharine
but that in 1997 the voice of an
> authoritative ("uppity") woman was ipso facto beyond the pale -- at least
> on this list, which was essentially all male, all the time. There was also
> the fact that I didn't (summer of '98) let Dick Sullivan take
> subscriptions for the brand new Post-Factory on his web site as he urged,
> coaxed and insisted (mostly offlist) I must do for weeks. Unable to annex
> me, he thereupon set out to ruin me, via a series of great ruckuses...
> about which more later.
>
> It seems to be well known that Terry King ran a web site which did nothing
> for weeks, maybe months, but rant about evil Seigel. One fellow said he
> hated me too, but the poor schnook apparently didn't hate me the RIGHT
> WAY, because he got trounced. (Friends who found it all more amusing than
> I did forwarded this highminded discourse. When it got to death threats,
> others were alarmed and also forwarded.)
>
> My hunch is that even if folks didn't actually believe I hacked into the
> computer of anyone who disagreed with me and threatened them (some days I
> can hardly hack into my own computer), or that I had ways to manipulate
> the list and intimidate Gord, & managed to fake all that (incredible!!!
> wild!!! nutsoid!!!) libel about me in the archive, I was clearly a baddie.
> >From what Callie says now, ultimately more than a few folks applied
> reason, common sense, evidence, and logic -- and bought into it.
>
> So I surmise (chilling thought tho it is), that like any kind of (nazi,
> commie, fill in the blank) ongoing propaganda the litany affected people's
> minds... And/or the idea of bad Judy was just too much fun, & finally
> became reflexive. So I point out (futilely perhaps, but don't say no one
> ever told you) my sin is that from time to time I have defended myself.
> The rest is courtesy of the boys in the band.
>
> And here is a perfect example. This ruckus has gone on all day entirely
> without my participation -- as have years of defamation -- while I'm
> accused (by Sullivan & apparently Callie's offlist correspondents) of
> making trouble. (Hey, maybe *I'M* the one who doesn't exist !!)
>
> Meanwhile, I am deeply indebted to Callie/Deb for what I had been unaware
> of -- that this was ALSO going on on Sullivan's board. It actually solves
> a problem for me (as I'll explain later), but for now, let me assure
> everyone, including the loyal, perhaps too loyal, Sullivan troops (so
> loyal he doesn't get a reality check) :
>
> 1. If I have anything to say, I don't need a fake name to say it. In fact
> whatever my faults and sins, subterfuge and lying aren't two of them. I'm
> quite willing and able to speak directly, which I daresay is the root of
> the trouble, and as I shall do more of shortly.
>
> 2. I have an overly busy and demanding life, partly my circumstances,
> partly my nature. If I were going to hack into computers or hang out on a
> web board under an assumed name, well, that's not me, but if it WERE,
> they wouldn't be the ones at issue.
>
> 3. While it's true, Dick has been gunning for me AGAIN this month, I felt,
> perhaps mistakenly, that I dealt adequately with the items as they arose
> -- though I fully understand Callie's reponse to the fulsome
> congratulations.
>
> 4. But isn't it a shame that Dick's moment of glory is to some extent
> compromised by another ruckus? (He & host in England can have more Hate-
> Seigel days. But isn't it time they all got a life ?)
>
> PS: I know for SURE two other people on this list who write under assumed
> names. Not obviously fake like Callie Type, but real SOUNDING, which makes
> them actually more devious, wouldn't you say?
>
> More to follow,
>
> Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:41:55 AM Z CST