RE: poster printing

Judy,

I did not see any explicit vulgarity in the statement and it is not
my practice to attempt to read people's minds to understand what they
meant. I can see that you think you know what Kerik meant, and
perhaps you are right, but in the absence of explicit use of language
I personally don't find what Kerik said to be vulgar.

Be that as it may, the purpose of this list is to provide a forum for
people to talk about alternative photography, not to discuss issues
such as politics, sexism, racism or what have you. The persons who
have done the most to abuse the list, and caused the most acrimony,
are those who have insisted on engaging in these type of off-topic
discussions that inevitably polarize people and often lead to
long-term animosities.

Sandy

>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Baird, Darryl wrote:
>
>>... the newest
>>phenomenon to emerge on the Internet is just this type of unethical
>>usage known as "comment spam" which seeks to drive page ranking stats
>>higher on a given site in order to appear nearer the top of Google
>>(and other's) search list. It has become the latest bad boy (& girl)
>>behaviour on the web and it mostly seen on BLOG sites. One of my
>>favorites (film and culture) BLOG sites has suffered recently from
>>these innocuous comments which ALWAYS have links to other sites, which
>>ALWAYS are unrelated in any way to the BLOG content.
>>
>>Unless the original poster returns to clarify, I would have to be very
>>suspicious of this post. HELL, I'M JUST VERY SUSPICIOUS OF
>>EVERYTHING...
>
>What I found inappropriate, the part that provoked me to protest,
>wasn't so much the suspicion (though I admit that was a surprise,
>and given the later info becomes more plausible) as the vulgarity
>that came with it....
>
>QUOTE:
>
>>>Well John, since you asked, I can think of a much better place for
>>you to
>>>stick this message...
>
>Sandy, Peter, Darryl, et al... Doesn't that abuse, or degrade, the
>entire list -- whether or not the suspicion is correct? There have
>been plenty of times when someone was out of line (ahem, not to name
>names, but it *does* happen). Or let's say, what if *I* had said
>those words, or even "shove it"? There would be calls coast to
>coast for the EMS... In fact, if memory serves, as recently as
>Spring, 2005, I was told to "shut my mouth" for explaining in
>polite, logical terms in standard English (I like to think even
>*educated* English) that I'd been misinterpreted.
>
>Yet you fellas rush to defend the suspicion, not address the
>vulgarity. I repeat: rush to defend the suspicion, not address the
>gratuitous vulgarity.
>
>Maybe this *is* the "boy" mind? AKA "double standard" -- or .... what?
>
>Judy
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>Darryl Baird
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Judy Seigel [mailto:jseigel@panix.com]
>>Sent: Sat 8/27/2005 11:11 PM
>>To: Kerik
>>Cc: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca;
>>alt-photo-process-error@sask.usask.ca
>>Subject: RE: poster printing
>>
>>
>>The following is uncalled for and mistaken, not to mention
>>gratuitously
>>vulgar. It does no credit to either the writer or the list, in fact is
>>
>>degrading to both.
>>
>>The e-mail was not Spam, but a polite and honest question,
>>even if naive and/or misplaced.
>>
>>Where are the vigilant & valiant "list minders" and other concerned
>>list
>>citizens so energetic in defending the list from "the left"? What
>>about
>>from "left field"?
>>
>>What is kerik@kerik smoking?
>>
>>J.
>>
>>On Sat, 27 Aug 2005, Kerik wrote:
>>
>>>Great. Now we get spam to the listserve.
>>>
>>>Well John, since you asked, I can think of a much better place for
>>you to
>>>stick this message...
>>>
>>>
>>>From: john stone [mailto:johnstone1001@yahoo.com]
>>>Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 11:15 AM
>>>To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
>>>Subject: poster printing
>>>
>>>
>>>Hi all,
>>>
>>> I just bought a new camera 8MP and I am so excited to start
>>shooting
>>>photos. Now that I have enough pixels I want to make posters out of
>>the good
>>>ones and I have looked at http://www.printrates.com for prices for
>>20X30
>>>prints and I see it varies from like $10 to almost $30 - what a
>>difference!
>>>any suggestions for a which of the cheaper services is also good
>>quality?
>>>lilke pephoto.com is cheapest at around $10 but any experience with
>>them?
>>>
>>> I hope this is the right forum for this if not i'd like to know
>>where a
>>>better place is.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>>Start <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
>>your
>>>day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Received on Sun Aug 28 17:20:48 2005