Re: Fibber McGee's Closet

I've been on the list for maybe 6 months and I have seen nothing but
awesome information, on-topic commentary, opinion, thoughts, show
listings, calls for artists, and in general wonderful creative posts.
I have sucked it all up (sans the stuff I just don't comprehend yet)
and find this to be an awesome and UNIQUE place for technical
conversation on photography and process.

I'd personally really, really hate to killfile people that are
otherwise full of information and ideas just because they got
off-topic. I'd lose on that one bigtime.

So in agreement with David.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 15:33:16 -0800 (PST), David Barker
<dbarker_ca@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>

-- 
Cheers,
Alex Swain (fo)
Burlington, VT
http://www.zoom.sh