Re: Alt List correspondence on "Nabble'

Oh good heavenly days, Katharine, give it a rest. The point was in
reference to Nabble that yes, as Camden said people can falsify who they are
on the list very easily, as well as falsify their credentials. But I don't
agree that this point supports Nabble using our list. I was making the
point, obviously poorly, that time tells all and in time we either meet each
other, see each other's work, get to know each other via years on the list,
and the fakers don't last long. Take a chill pill and don't extrapolate
from my statements more than I meant.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katharine Thayer" <kthayer@pacifier.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 2:39 PM
Subject: Re: Alt List correspondence on "Nabble'

> >
>> Subject: RE: Alt List correspondence on "Nabble'
>>
>>
>>
>>> DEAR CHRISTINA,
>>> My name, Bob Kiss, is not among those that you feel assured are "real
>>> people". I am not sure if I am not sufficiently significant to be
>>> mentioned
>>> or if my name is "...just too clever". Well, Eric Neilsen has met me
>>> as has
>>> Steve Shapiro so, indeed, I am that I am. Also I have gone to the
>>> trouble
>>> of building a web site in my name. Kiss is a VERY common name in
>>> Eastern
>>> Europe (my Dad was from Moravia).
>>> Believe me, my name has cost me dearly as an adolescent (viz the song
>>> "A Boy
>>> Named Sue") and many of my e-mails wind up on my friend's spam boxes
>>> labeled
>>> "sexual content". I WISH!!!
>>> In summary, "Just remember this...a Kiss is just a Kiss...a sigh is
>>> just a
>>> sigh...the fundamental things remain..." etc., etc.
>>> CHEERS!
>>> BOB
>>>
>>> Please check my website: http://www.bobkiss.com/
>
>
> Bob and All:
> This reminds me of a time when I was teaching statistics, when I
> announced, just before students started taking the final, that I had
> their term papers graded and ready to pick up when they handed in the
> final, rather than taking time out of the test period to hand them out
> before the test. To reassure them (I thought) I said that the papers were
> great, with only one exception. It didn't occur to me that all the good
> students would assume that they must be the one exception, and would
> suffer anxiety over it the whole time they were taking the test. (The
> one exception probably couldn't have cared less). One learns from one's
> mistakes, and needless to say I never did that again.
>
> But this kind of blanket innuendo is exactly the kind of thing that makes
> this list weird sometimes; someone throws out that kind of backhanded
> anonymous accusation, and everyone else is left to think, what does she
> mean by that? Who does she mean by that? Does she mean me? Probably many
> people on the list who weren't included in the roster of names that were
> specifically excluded from the accusation, have wondered, does she mean
> me? And if so, why me?
>
> The other thing I object to in that rather inflammatory, uncollegial and
> elitist statement, other than the fact that it was made at all, is the
> suggestion that anyone on the list who hasn't been personally met by
> Chris is somehow suspect, or that only people who frequent APIS and
> educators' conferences are assumed to be legitimate members of the list.
>
> And about the credentials --- who here has ever made a deal of their
> credentials? I can't think of anyone who has, in fact one thing I like
> about this list, and some other photo lists I have belonged to like the
> large format list, is that people don't make a fuss over their
> credentials. You know that some people are academics, and others are
> professional gallery artists, and others are hobbyists, and others are
> well-known photographers, but it doesn't matter which are which; in my
> experience expertise is not highly correlated with credentials (as a
> matter of fact some of the most unadulterated nincompoops I've ever run
> across are Ph.D.s, and I can say that because I have a Ph.D. myself.) But
> please, let's not start making an artificial distinction between
> "credentialed" and "not-credentialed" people. To my mind, the only
> credentials required here are: do you know your stuff, or not. If you do,
> it doesn't matter if you don't have a degree in the subject; your
> expertise will speak for itself. If you don't, the degree won't help you
> here. My 2cents,
>
> Katharine (My name IS Katharine Thayer, and I have no credentials other
> than the prints themselves and a small regional following. I haven't
> been to APIS, although I tried to get there twice, but that doesn't make
> me any less real.)
>
>
Received on 07/01/06-03:50:03 PM Z