Re: Off-Topic, New Orleans Images

Sandy,

You are a very sorry excuse for a "list minder".

If you cannot understand how your following comment is so totally off-topic
and inappropriate, then you should definitely excuse yourself from this
imaginary "list minder" role.

And if the only thing you can find wrong with Judy Seigel's posting (also
copied below) is a minor statitisical error, then you are truly unfit for
any supervisory role on this list.

Best regards,
Dave in Wyoming

Quoted:

Diana,

Just a minor correction to Judy's post. Dick Cheney's job approval
rating as of 4.24.06 was 18%, not 28%.

Sandy

>Hi Judy,
>
>This is my second post in about 3 years, I think. But I gotta tell
>you--I just loved this. I even read it out loud. We all enjoyed
>it. I especially love this part: "The latest polls show that
>Cheney has only a 28% "approval" rate, possibly the lowest in
>history, except for the Boston strangler." But this is great.
>Speaking of t-shirts, I gave my sister one for Christmas, and it's
>her favorite. She wears it a lot. It says, "Who needs brains with
>boobs like these?" And just below, it has a picture of Cheney and
>Bush on it, on the front. Anyway, thanks!
>>Dear Dave in Wyoming,
>>
>>I admit I've been kind of busy lately and haven't given the list
>>the attention it deserves, but if you were appointed list censor,
>>or giver of permissions, arbiter of proper discourse and/or
>>defender of Republicans with particular attention to Dick Cheney, I
>>missed it.
>>
>>Of course you live in Wyoming, a very special state, and I gather
>>from internal evidence that your information is limited. So, from
>>the kindness of my heart I take this opportunity to share some
>>information, which might save you shock in the future:
>>
>>Dick Cheney is possibly the most hated man in America today. He is
>>generally considered the deus ex machina, or source of some of
>>America's worst woes. More hated even than the Bush-haters hate
>>Bush, who some folks still regard as "a nice guy," even while
>>deploring his effects on the country and the world.
>>
>>I may have mentioned that I'm working on a book of political
>>T-shirts, or maybe not -- it's a non-partisan project, showing the
>>shirts I found during the REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION in NYC,
>>2004.... The text describes my extraordinary efforts to find and
>>photograph Republican shirts, of which, even during the convention
>>very few could be found. (The chapter is titled "Desperately
>>Seeking Republican T-shirts.") But of the Democratic shirts I
>>found and photographed (on their people) I'd say approximately 30%
>>castigated Cheney (and that was BEFORE he shot his buddy)... For
>>instance, "Meet the F***ers," "Asses of Evil," and "Bush/Cheney for
>>2004" showing the pair in manacles and prison garb, the "No-CARB
>>Diet," (that's No Cheney, No Ashcroft, No Rumsfeld, and No Bush,
>>with usually a PS: And ABSOLUTELY NO RICE.)
>>
>>Etc. Etc. Etc. In other words, this is a common form of
>>communication today, both public and private, although possibly
>>rare in cactus country. But for your own good, you should try to
>>take the opportunity to learn, to broaden your perspective, and
>>cultivate tolerance for other points of view. (The latest polls
>>show that Cheney has only a 28% "approval" rate, possibly the
>>lowest in history, except for the Boston strangler.) And, sensitive
>>as you are, you could suffer serious shock if you leave Wyoming.
>>Dan does you a favor, a familiar, respected, friendly, professional
>>colleague starting the desensitization process...
>>
>>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.
>>
>>MOST IMPORTANT, it seems fairly obvious that YOUR out-of-proportion
>>fury, YOUR imperious attack on Dan, was far worse than his rather
>>jocular comment -- aimed at no one in particular. It seems to me
>>that you're very tightly wound and the least little breeze pulls
>>the trigge -- OK, that's a mixed metaphor but I'm late & don't
>>think of another. Anyway, perhaps you could get som help in anger
>>management.
>>
>>I remember your furious attack on Susan Huber for her casual aside
>>about "capitalism" -- not to mention your hysterical attack on me
>>when I reported from nearly ground zero after 9/11 that oil money
>>ultimately financed Al Quaida. (Of course if you've been in a
>>burrow in Wyoming since then, you may retain those feelings, but
>>you're now in a minority of possibly 2, as the realities are a
>>matter of record.)
>>
>>In other words, you might consider broadening your horizons, and
>>learning a bit more about the world. You could, for instance,
>>subscribe to a more balanced news source than you seem to be
>>getting.... or if your anger at contrary opinion is too precious to
>>give up.... don't savage the list with it.
>>
>>Control begins with the self.
>>
>>fondly,
>>
>>Judy
>>
>>PS. Sainted Husband informs me that today, this very day, he heard
>>on the news that President Bush announced that we have to conserve
>>oil.
>>What next !!!???

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sandy King" <sanking@clemson.edu>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 1:49 PM
Subject: 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***ng 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 22:34:02 2006