From: Callie Type (kallitype@hotmail.com)
Date: 05/02/01-03:14:05 PM Z
My apology concerned the mention of our president, which was reckless,
stupid, and not at all serious or even in keeping with my own political
beliefs. I don't know why I said it, and again, I apologize to him, to the
list, to those that have commented privately.
>From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: Bostick & Sullivan Circle Jerk
>Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 16:16:24 -0400 (EDT)
>
>
>On Wed, 2 May 2001, Callie Type wrote:
>
> > Sorry about that last post. I was kidding, and it was in poor taste.
>
>Actually Callie, what was "in poor taste" was the assumption that boys do
>girl "nudes," and/or the implication that "nude" means naked lady. (Unless
>the question about "first time" assumes male nude, which somehow I doubt.)
>In any event, by drawing attention to the issue you do some folks a favor.
>There are probably a bunch who don't know that the premise is, well, let's
>call it an idea whose time has gone. Of course they may bull on through,
>which is their privilege. Others, however, giving the matter some thought
>might appreciate a heads-up, so to speak: in more sophisticated circles,
>the convention is, um, declasse'.
>
>Asking about the "first time", not to mention the leering tone, surely
>admits that the practice is charged... whatever the claims of innocence.
>We can but hope that this is not the Bostick & Sullivan Circle at its
>best. Happily, the answers that arrived on alt-photo were quite a few cuts
>above.
>
>And no, I'm not going to enter into the argument again, but only say as
>I've said before, I have no objection to porn, soft soft, hard hard, or
>medium, just truth in labelling please.
>
>Judy
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST