Re: Fibber McGee's Closet

jeez, I'm signing off, I'll be back in a month to
check if this flame war is over

--- Judy Seigel <jseigel@panix.com> wrote:

>
> 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)
> >
>

                
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Received on Tue Mar 15 17:33:27 2005