From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 03/23/02-02:27:49 PM Z
On Fri, 22 Mar 2002, garimo wrote:
> I DON'T GET IT!
> SO WHAT if it is some kind of a cult of group! If they have a product
> and you want it... why not buy it? Are they breaking laws? When you
> decided to not do business with Catholics because so many of their
> "leaders" are breaking laws... then perhaps I will better understand
> slander from the self-righteous.
> garimo
========================================================================
Uh oh ... speaking of "slander from the self-righteous" ... ! ! !
My stating in nearly subzero cool what I'd read in a respected publication
with my own decision to abstain, then Jim's observation of an actual
dealing, equally matter of fact, hardly come near, or even hint of, either
slander or self-righteous. Tho for a text-book case, say on your SATs, we
might cite the lines above. But on second thought not -- too loose, no
actual connection.
But folks, we communicate here only by "text." Can we please grant words
their meanings? Since when do "cult" and "group" mean the same thing? If a
group is a cult, then a classroom, a committee, even a line at the
supermarket is a cult. True, we use the word metaphorically, as in "[group
of your choice, say, pinhole] photographers are something of a cult," but
my statement hardly suggested even that small extension.
As for
"If they have a product
> and you want it... why not buy it? "
I assume then you would never honor a picket line or a boycott. That is
your privilege of course, but would you fulminate upon those who did?
Nestle's and grapes come to mind, but there have been dozens. Were they
"self-righteous" -- or were they ***high minded*** ?
If a "group" turned out to be a front for terrorists, or the Mafia, or
drug dealers, polluters, or in this case perhaps the best analogy would be
slave labor, would you still buy their merchandise and jump up and down on
those who demurred?
But the string of associations comes further unstrung with ....
" ...When you
> decided to not do business with Catholics because so many of their
> "leaders" are breaking laws... then perhaps I will better understand
> slander from the self-righteous."
Is there someone around here who "decided to not do business with
Catholics"? Or would dare even contemplate same? If I, for instance,
decided not to do business with Catholics, not only might I starve to
death (living as I do in little Italy), I would have to stop dealing with
"best friends," neighbors and students, not to mention assorted relatives
(oh those Catholics, they really are insidious -- around here they're
EVERYWHERE!)
Tho actually, that analogy is more awful verbal goup. If the "Catholic"
reference is to pedophiles, in the news and presumably source of the
(weird) association, figures suggest that the incidence of pedophiles
among Catholic clergy is no greater than among clergy at large. Not to
mention that it's unclear if the *cult* at issue is breaking actual law,
which pedophiles do.
If one gains power over another person through psychological means and
group pressure, this is not necessarily against the law... or sororities &
fraternities would be against the law, maybe for that matter high school
itself. There have been periods when cults were ominous and prevalent,
with many young people in their toils -- part of the problem was that much
of it was NOT against the law. Some of those reading this, perhaps even
Garimo, may be too young to recall the anguish and despair as families
resorted to kidnapping their own children and hiring "deprogrammers" in
hopes of releasing them.
Would you support THOSE cults with your business?
Of course we're amused by the definition of "religions" of all kinds as
"cults." I suppose some of that would depend on size and age of the
"group." It's hardly news that Christianity (among others) began as a
cult. I suppose "bad" cult is a matter of degree and means of control.
Perhaps also the goals of the "cult" and its role in the person's own
"self-realization" (cult term!). As I recall (it was long ago & memory
fails), early Christian "cults" were not dominated by a single resident
personality or master, but rather by extrinsic figures and ideas, also
they recruited among functioning adults, not troubled children.
Now I'm really sorry that in a futile attempt to deal with the information
overload around here, not more than a month ago I finally jettisoned that
article. It was very long, compelling, detailed and graphic, well written
and fully reported, making it amply clear that the operation was NOT in
the best interests of the cultees. Whereupon -- as stated -- I myself
declined to entrench the sinister figure at the helm further just to save
a few dollars. I also removed the listing from the Post-Factory Sources &
Services pages.
If the picture given wasn't essentially true, do you suppose a mainstream
publication (unlike an email list where anything goes) would have dared
print it? And if we can't inform our actions by the press, what use is any
of it besides lining the bird cage?
I was extremely grateful to Matthew Hoffman for sending me that article --
a generous and public spirited act. And as we see now, possibly at some
personal risk ! Without his kindness I would have continued in ignorance
to promote what I deplored. I would assume that now, better informed,
there are folks on this list equally grateful. This doesn't stop anyone
from continuing to do business.... but if we are going to excoriate the
messenger we'll have precious few messages that could by remotest
possibility "offend" anyone.
Moral: Ask for details before flying into mach-9 rage. And even then,
don't.
Judy
>
> jamesromeo wrote:
> >
> > on 3/22/02 12:13 AM, Judy Seigel at jseigel@panix.com wrote:
> >
> > Judy is right it is a cult. I used to help out a dealer at the Medowland
> > show. Most dealers would not buy from them. Before the show opened the
> > deales would bargain among each other. They would have to call the leader to
> > check if some one made a offer. The leader was never there only members
> > James
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2002, jamesromeo wrote:
> > >
> > >> on 3/20/02 4:57 PM, Richard M. Koolish at koolish@bbn.com wrote:
> > >> They are listed in Sutterbug classified April page 186
> > >> I ust ti see them at the camera fle sales.I have never bought from them.
> > >>
> > >> email info@sg-photo.com homepage www.sq-photo.com
> > >>
> > >> 618 s62nd st po box19895 philadelphia pa 19143 phone 215-474-7663
> > >> I get the info from the ad
> > >> James
> > >>
> > >
> > > A colleague who lived in the area sent me an article about two years ago
> > > from Philadelphia magazine establishing in great (and painful) detail that
> > > S&G is the operation of a cult. He thought knowing same might cool one's
> > > enthusiasm for dealing with them. It cooled mine.
> > >
> > >
> > > Judy
> > >
> > >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/02-09:28:55 AM Z CST