RE: Off-Topic, New Orleans Images

Gerry,

The list is not wide open territory for whatever. It exists as a
forum for us to discuss alternative photography and related issues.
 From time to time people introduce other issues, say politics, into
the discussions and these discussions often get out of hand. However,
unless these discussions degenerate into name callings sessions and
vulgarities they generally are allowed to run their course.

This particular thread has clearly degenerated to that point, and as
one of the list minders I request that no more posts be made on this
topic.

Finally, I remind everyone that the one absolute is that Gordon does
not allow profanity and vulgarities. Heated discussions are fine but
if you must resort to vulgarities please do so off-list in a private
email.

Sandy

>Hmmm. I took a while to respond to all this hate mail. First off I like this
>list a lot and have learned so much from it--Christine, I respect you and
>your work tremendously and you can bit my nect any time -I'm still trying to
>get my POP times and toning consistent. So I apologize to the list for
>creating such a problem. But in my neighborhood we have people from that
>disaster. I've seen the reaction up close to this type of pictorial
>reproduction and it's not easy thing--the whole family breaks down. The
>photos only reinforce the fact that they only have strangers, prayer and
>maybe a few relatives to help them with their homelessness. So maybe I've
>been too close to it lately and over reacted. As far as the list goes, those
>few of you who I've shown next to (Dan included) or who have been in group
>shows that I've curated know I never restrict imagery. My impression was
>this list had rules so I followed them. Off list should be off list. Why
>even say it? I never used bad language or intentionally defamed anyone on
>this list. But I don't want the list to change or have anyone intervene to
>change it--especially now. Now I understand the parameters.
>
>That said, to quote Judy Seigel's thread about the list and her response to
>Dave:
>
>"You of course have the right to your opinion. It is (or used to be) a "free
>country." But you do not, as far as I know, have the authority to make the
>list, the country, the world, or even your immediate neighbors watch every
>word they say for fear of your wrath."
>
>Well then I guess from reading that and the other responses on this list
>that it is indeed wide-open territory: photography, politics, whatever,
>whatever. I'm OK with that. Now I know. But there are those I won't
>apologize to. Particular that f***ing bitch Pam Niedemayer who purposely
>insulted me out of ignorant hate. Pam, go f*** yourself, if you haven't been
>doing that on a daily basis already.
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pam Niedermayer [mailto:pam@pinehill.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 5:04 PM
>To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>Subject: Re: Off-Topic, New Orleans Images
>
>
>Oooh, little bully wants to kick the girl around and then take his balls
>and go home. Shock and awe, Gerry. You alone made this an issue.
>
>Pam
>
>Gerry Giliberti wrote:
>
>>Look, rather make this an issue I believe that this was off topic and
>>shouldn't have been put on the list. It's that simple. Anyone who disputes
>>this as a personal issue with me, Pam, can meet me after school at the flag
>>pole at 3 o'clock and we'll settle it there. That's it. I think the person
>>managing the list should get involved now and make a decision. I'm done
>with
>>it.
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Pam Niedermayer [mailto:pam@pinehill.com]
>>Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:19 AM
>>To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>>Subject: Re: Off-Topic, New Orleans Images
>>
>>
>>What? Now you're taking it on yourself to attribute motivation? Not that
>>I think motivation matters all that much, all we as photograpers have
>>are the images. Do the images themselves offend you? If you were in New
>>Orleans wouldn't you take photos?
>>
>>Pam
>>
>>Gerry Giliberti wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Well Mark there are photographers who dedicate their lives to this
> >>type of humanitarian work like Salgato. If that were the same in this
>>>case I'd agree with you. I think our collective consciousness has been
>>>raised significantly with this disaster already. Sorry I just don't
>>>buy it.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> *From:* Ender100@aol.com [mailto:Ender100@aol.com]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, April 24, 2006 6:04 PM
>>> *To:* alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca
>>> *Subject:* Re: Off-Topic, New Orleans Images
>>>
>>> Gerry,
>>>
>>> I don't know that Dan mentioned anything about offering the images
>>> for sale, but I think he has a right to show his work, just as you
>>> have a right not to look at it, and even not like it.
>>>
>>> Not long ago I saw an incredible exhibit of war photographs by
>>> James Nachtway-oddly enough, in spite of the subject matter, there
>>> was an eery beauty to many of the photographs and in some cases
>>> such irony that the images were very powerful-I am glad I saw them
>>> and I am glad Mr. Nachtway was there to photograph the scenes. I
>>> think it would have been a loss to humanity had he not done so.
>>> Do I think he was taking advantage of the pain and suffering of
>>> others? No, I think he was trying to raise our level of
>>> consciousness regarding the horrible outcome of war-any war.
>>>
>>> Also, remember that some photographers might use any income from
>>> such images to help the victims.
>>>
>>> Best Wishes,
>>> Mark Nelson
>>> Precision Digital Negatives--The Book
>>> <http://www.precisiondigitalnegatives.com/>
>>> PDNPrint Forum at Yahoo Groups
>>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PDNPrint/>
>>> www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com <http://www.markinelsonphoto.com/>
>>>
>>>
>>> In a message dated 4/24/06 4:41:27 PM, GGILIBERTI@controlotron.com
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I'd have to say this is way off topic. The HDR thing is intesting
>>>> but to
>>>> make images of devestation and then eventually sell these images
>>>> in an
>>>> exhibition is just vampirism for me. Sorry list. I'm not with
>>>> this at all.
>>>> Keep this stuff to yourself.
>>>>
>>>> Gerry G
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
Received on Wed Apr 26 13:51:03 2006