RE: poster printing

Yes, madame, you are always right, at least in your own mind.

However, before you ride your self-anointed pony of righteousness too
far on the road of gratuitous self-justification you might want to
know that the person about whose personality you had so much to say
last spring was described to me by her partner as quite ill and in
"serious distress" from your comments about her, which somehow came
to her attention. And I see that even now you don't have the common
decency to leave her name out of the discussion, even though she has
not participated here in some years. But I am sure you could care
less about any of this because *you" know you have right on your
side.

As for the rest of your rant I won't dignify it with a comment. I
will say, however, that in my opinion you have abused this list for
years and should be removed from it.

Sandy

>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 13:45:58 2005