RE: poster printing

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005, Sandy King wrote:

> 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.

The phrase itself is a cliche, and for you to say, oooh, I can't possibly
read people's minds, is comical, or would be if it weren't so dishonest.

> 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

Except when you use those issues to slam me... then they're fine, basic in
fact.

> 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.

What "polarizes" people on this list, my dear fellow, insofar as it has
occurred, is that I have not accepted the gratuitous abuse that some 3 or
4 honchos cannot resist dishing out -- for the fun of it -- because they
know they can without suffering ONE WORD OF REPROACH, and that I will be
blamed for their abuse. We call that "blame the victim."

Since now you cast blame away from the blameworthy, let me refresh your
memory. Several months ago, someone asked the list what happened to
jewellia. With no thought except to be helpful, I replied that s/he had
had a sex change operation and gone on probably to several other
personalities. This was the simple factual truth -- even *on topic,* since
the inquirer wanted the contact for jewellia's knowledge of paper.

That should have been the end of it (as a word of reproach to Kerik
instead of this bizarre denial should have been the end of this one),
except a hitherto unknown lurker popped up to chastise *me* -- I shouldn't
have said what I said, for reasons he never even attempted to explain. But
clearly, by your definition above of trouble-making by offtopic remarks --
HE was the trouble maker. Still, you trashed me.

As for "those who have insisted
> on engaging in these type of off-topic discussions that inevitably
> polarize people and often lead to long-term animosities.

Lurker exactly. However, I dared defend my remarks, pointing out that what
I'd said was simple truth. Then Lurker said my remarks were discriminatory
of *him* -- as well as jewellia.

At which point, you, valiant and vigilant listminder, rudely told *me* to
"shut my mouth" -- and *apologize* to lurker (though both together would
of course be impossible) -- Wasn't this offtopic and polarizing? Or only
me for defending myself? (As if I didn't know.)

>From there things degenerated. The fact that the two other list minders
(Schramm & Soemarko) both came onlist to say that what I said was simple
truth and nothing wrong with it (which couldn't have been easy for them,
given the tenor of this list) simply cut no ice. As in other cases (mostly
offlist, mercifully) you, valiant and vigilant, were unable to simply say
-- oops, and apologize, or stand corrected yourself, or even JUST LET IT
DROP !

What you did instead was launch a wild, seemingly unhinged, attack on
*ME*, including a tirade about my *politics* (whatever you take them to
be, which, aside from a fairly widespread position on Wal-Mart, I doubt
I've aired here -- unless you think a line or two after 9/11 about US gas
guzzlers funding Saudi Arabia was "weird" -- what in fact seems by now to
be fairly standard information, even reaching the reaches of the US
senate!)

During the "animosity" this spring, Citizen George took the opportunity to
say:

QUOTE:
This is indeed an unusual message for me to send but, for the first time,
I have to side with Judy. Someone asked a question and Judy answered it
concisely, apparently factually and without her usual rudeness, rancor,
obnoxious, sexist rant that we have all come to expect.
END QUOTE

Nothing rude or obnoxious in that, of course, which was why it too passed
without reproach. And now, I suppose it's another obnoxious sexist rant to
say that your saying you can't possibly know what a common vulgarism means
is pure baloney. Especially from a guy so exquisitely sensitive he was
upset by my relatively restrained response to Lurker (yet consistently
blind to far uglier attacks on me -- an interesting case of situational
blindness).

Last spring, however, after your rant about *my* politics you were so
rattled (by yourself ?), you resigned as listminder. (Tho that seems to
have been retractable.)

Now again, Sir Kerik sees fit to say what a bad person *I* am... in clear
English. It's well established that on this list, as a woman who dares
criticize a man AND THEN DOESN'T BACK DOWN -- I may be safely demonized by
a group of, oh I'd say, four boyos, a cadre who set the tone of nastiness
and defend each other. Other women, no matter what their feelings, know
better than to speak up. I am clearly a trouble maker by declining to be
abused *entirely* without protest -- and of course, the final insult -- by
being right.

Judy
Received on Wed Aug 31 11:49:06 2005