Re: Fibber McGee's Closet

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005, Sandy King wrote:

> Dave,
>
> There is no doubt in my mind as to your good intentions. However, the nature
> of your intervention was such that it clearly took sides. You might have
> chosen to emphasize other communications, such as how unseemly it was for
> Judy Seigel to stomp all over a list lurker Mr. Ptak. But you did not.

Sandy, you're doing it again. Who's the listminder today ??? Tell this man
he's got to STOP his campaign !

A couple of days ago Sandy said, "List minders Dave Soemarko and Bob
Schramm stood by and said nothing in response to Judy Seigel's nasty
personal attack on Mr. Ptak. In fact, they gave tacit approval to her
attack by their on-list expression of full support for Seigel. I would
suggest, and request, that they also resign as list minders, as I have
done."

Dave & Bob's supposed "taking sides" and "full support" was simply noting
that I hadn't done anything wrong.... Sandy is BOUND and determined to
justify his abuse.

Clearly, in this miserable affair, anyone who disagrees with him is
"taking sides." And since his idea of "stomping all over" is my reply to
Ptak (Sandy himself said he agreed that I hadn't "disparaged" Jewelia),
what would we call his persistent, repeated, much nastier attacks on me?
I never even told anyone "shut your mouth" -- I spoke cogently and to the
point, with argument, and explanation, not insults.

(Of course I'm still wondering who appointed Ptak ayatollah of the list,
but who am I to wonder about things like that?)

Day before yesterday, Sandy said,"Persons who have obviously lost the
ability to be impartial in matters of list protocol should not serve in
the capacity as list minders." I agree. Sandy should be sacked... I note,
howwever, that Dave and Bob are now slightly martyred, even a tad heroic,
attacked for defending truth as well as a damsel in distress. Sorry guys,
but thanks !

Meanwhile, despite, again, word from Gord as well as Dave, that such
complaints should be offlist, Sandy continues onlist -- attacking me and
those who defend me. So this onlist response -- still baffled by his
strange escalation of my annoyance at Ptak's fantasy of my meaning and
presumption in declaring it. It really wasn't such a big deal. If I can
find it I'll resend it.

I also note that, protected by SANDY's campaign, Ptak never did respond to
my request that he explain his reasons, that simply re-asserting my
badness was not an explanation.

Even so, the thing was, mercifully, dying down-- until despite all that's
been said in the interval, Sandy repeats his attack on me... (Otherwise
known as self-justification. He REALLY can't bear to be wrong, at least
not vis-a-vis a woman.) And again he claims to Dave:

> you chose to initiate your message with support for Judy.

Clearly "support for Judy" is BAD ! And Sandy's idea of "support for Judy"
is anything that doesn't launch an attack or support his. That the sense
of the list has not been with him on this is probably galling as well.

Whichever, Sandy!, I urgently suggest that you give this up. Complain
about me all you like OFFLIST, so I won't have to reply. Meanwhile, the
beam is in your eye, not in ours.

Besides, if you don't stop, Maureen Dowd and I will fly down there on our
broomsticks and put a hex on all your lenses. They will be, every last one
of them, soft focus.

Judy

> the right to do that, of course, but don't be shocked that others might
> disagree with your action, and/or with your sense of priority.
>
> I second your suggestion, made in another message, that any further comments
> about this be taken off-list.
>
> Sandy
>>
>> Sandy,
>>
>> Not that I am fighting for the listminder position, but I don't really
>> understand how you read my earlier post. I only said the I think Judy's
>> original post was factual, at least that was the impression that I got from
>> Jwelia's emails. Actually I didn't know she was a male until I read the
>> email from Steve S. Things seem to be more complicated than I thought, but
>> from Jwelia's emails long time ago, I thought she was female and actually
>> went through a surgery.
>>
>> But reagarding subsequent postings, I said that we could continue to blame
>> one another but that would not get us anywhere, so I suggested that we
>> leave it. Whether people recognized me as a listminder or not, I think most
>> would take it as a gentle reminder that we should not continue fighting on
>> the list. Since I am not everyone's parent, I cannot force anyone to do or
>> not to do anything. All I can do is to suggest not to continue on list. If
>> they continue the argument off list, that is their decision.
>>
>> And it looked like many agree. Some posted nice emails to about
>> celebrating, agreeing and Amen, etc., so I don't understand why you take
>> that email as an "on-list full support for Seigel." You seem to be full of
>> anger. I don't want to argue. I was just trying to calm the list down when
>> things broke out.
>>
>> Dave S
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sandy King" <sanking@clemson.edu>
>> To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
>> Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2005 7:07 PM
>> Subject: Re: Fibber McGee's Closet
>>
>>>
>>> To my previous message I would like to add one further comment.
>>>
>>> List minders Dave Soemarko and Bob Schramm stood by and said nothing
>>> in response to Judy Seigel's nasty personal attack on Mr. Ptak. In
>>> fact, they gave tacit approval to her attack by their on-list
>>> expression of full support for Seigel. I would suggest, and request,
>>> that they also resign as list minders, as I have done, and that
>>> Gordon appoint a new set of list minders from the membership of the
>>> list, using such rationale as he might choose to apply. Persons who
>>> have obviously lost the ability to be impartial in matters of list
>>> protocol should not serve in the capacity as list minders.
>>>
>>> Sandy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>
>>>> Subject: Re: Fibber McGee's Closet
>>>> Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 11:22:31 -0500
>>>>
>>>>> Ryuji should not have called her a cockroach. However, as for more
>>>>> recent comments that have referred to her rudeness, rancor,
>>>>> obnoxious attitude and sexist rants, that is not name calling in my
>>>>> opinion. It is, to be blunt, calling a spade a spade.
>>>>
>>>> Although I never made clarification, when I said cockroach I had in
>>>> mind someone (male) who keeps himself busy with insignificant issues,
>>>> and bring them to me from time to time, not just on this list but on
>>>> other places as well. The real cockroach act is currently dealt with
>>>> by ignoring the bug. I used that word in reply to Judy, but the way I
>>>> wrote was in the context of the "burden" of this list, and the word
>>>> did not refer to Judy.
>>>>
>>>> But she took it that way and I didn't spend one email to deny it; the
>>>> time was already in the ULF era.
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure you can reasonably guess how I feel about the rest, but I
>>>> just thought to post one correction now. My only post to this list
>>>> using "cockroach" is quoted below.
>>>> --
>>>> Ryuji Suzuki
>>>> "Well, believing is all right, just don't let the wrong people know
>>>> what it's all about." (Bob Dylan, Need a Woman, 1982)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Ryuji Suzuki <rs@silvergrain.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: ULF photography
>>>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:43:07 -0500 (EST)
>>>>
>>>>> From: Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com>
>>>>> Subject: Re: ULF photography
>>>>> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:09:25 -0500 (EST)
>>>>>
>>>>> > The point is that the mandate, goal and joy of this list has always
>>>>> > been sharing information.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the burden and pain of this list has always been bullshits,
>>>>> cockroach experts and disputes for trivial issues masking the truly
>>>>> useful information. Well, that seems true of almost any internet forum
>>>>> and mailing lists. Well, I'll limite my irony to one paragraph per
>>>>> post.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Ryuji Suzuki
>>>>> "People seldom do what they believe in. They do what is convenient,
>>>>> then repent." (Bob Dylan, Brownsville Girl, 1986)
>
Received on Tue Mar 15 15:39:14 2005