RE: Fibber McGee's Closet

John,

You're enjoying this, aren't you? Are you Jewellia?

Liam

-----Original Message-----
From: John Ptak [mailto:3legskilled@thesciencebookstore.com]
Sent: 15 March 2005 22:13
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Fibber McGee's Closet

Ms Seigel's calls for off-line off-topic discussion(s) but continues to
engage in on-line personal insults.

I find her personal attacks, again, indecent and unnecessary.

John Ptak
JF Ptak Science Books
&
Longstreet Amtiquarian Maps & Prints
8 Biltmore Ave
Asheville NC 28801

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2005 4:39 PM
Subject: 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 19:01:42 2005