For Chris Sanderson

[RSL]

I would regard this kind of post as unnecessary baiting, the very thing that helped get those other threads closed and deleted. Do you think these questions served any purpose?

You bet your sweet bippy, Robert. And if you don't think they served any purpose you're not paying attention. If you check you'll see that Erik agrees that the comment served a purpose.

[petermfiore]

You bet your sweet bippy, Robert.

You bet your sweet bippy! Now that's one that goes back a bit..."Laugh In"rides again.

Peter

[Rob C]

You bet your sweet bippy! Now that's one that goes back a bit..."Laugh In"rides again.

Peter

"Interesting, but dumb."

Yep, it sounded better from behind a potted palm! I never missed the Rowan and Martin show if I could help it - they were so quick at the time, and the humour wasn't dirty.

Rob

[BobDavid]

You bet your sweet bippy! Now that's one that goes back a bit..."Laugh In"rides again.

Peter

Sock it to me!

[Two23]

Really, Erik? How about the kid who just murdered 17 of his classmates? Do you respect him? What, exactly, do you mean by "respect?"

I'll offer some insight on this.  I once worked as a therapist (OT) inside Lincoln Regional Center (LRC) in Lincoln, Nebraska--the state hospital for the criminally insane.  Have also worked at my local Veteran's Administration hospital as an OT in the mental health unit, and let's add a lifetime of experience plus seven years of university education.  Yes, the kid might well have been helped by respect.  From what I read coupled with my own clinical experience, most if not all of these cases involve a very frustrated, angry, and alienated human being who ends up turning violent.  They all were outcasts and either bullied or shunned by their peers.  Add to this they are teenagers racked with hormones they are little prepared for.  My thinking is if they had been given appropriate attention from adults (virtually all grew up without a father in the home, something the media will not report) and yes, basic respect from their peers in their developing years, most if not all of these problems would have had a much more positive outcome.


Kent in SD

[BobDavid]

Both responses are credible.

For example, Is Edward Snowden a traitor to his country or a hero?

I think he's both.

Irony.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

That is a good question. Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer to all questions of life, except 42, of course, but you still need to interpret that number.

But, I would say that this thread is not about wanton killing or terrorism, but about practices in visual art that have been around a long time but should perhaps never be existed?

Best regards
Erik

and judges are ?

[Two23]

Thank you very much, Tony; it is good to feel one is not shouting into the wind. It's difficult to continue writing in a space without knowing whether it means anything to anyone other than the self.

I think every well rounded forum needs its resident iconoclastic curmudgeon.


Kent in SD,
curmudgeon in training

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Respect can only be earned, it is not a birth right or entitlement (sorry, Erik).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...practices in visual art that have been around a long time but should perhaps never be existed?

Yes, we should have had unicorns and rainbows instead (sorry again).

[RSL]

You bet your sweet bippy! Now that's one that goes back a bit..."Laugh In"rides again.

Peter

Let's face it: I go back a bit, Peter.

[Rob C]

Hi,

That is a good question. Unfortunately, I don't have a good answer to all questions of life, except 42, of course, but you still need to interpret that number.

But, I would say that this thread is not about wanton killing or terrorism, but about practices in visual art that have been around a long time but should perhaps never be existed?

Best regards
Erik

Almost,  but not quite as exclusively.

What the entire kerfuffle has been about is male/female relationships (aka female/male relationships too, for those who see problems everywhere). These extend to everything in life except to the actual act of having babies and the plumbing status that leads there. Though yes, it could be argued - as can anything - that it is some man's fault that the plumbing is not different. Maybe Phase makes a superior system? Or a local locksmith?

Anyway, we might well have progressed from the days of the Flintstones, but I'm not sure: I believe that some men still do not hand over an unopened pay packet and do persist in doing their own banking. I think we should wear a purple ribbon (if that colour has not already been reserved for another movement) on our lapels to celebrate the emasculation of man. Everthing these days is to be "celebrated". I'm lost: does anyone any longer remember, know, what the word celebration used to mean?

While at it, we could start yet another movement, nay, another branch of sociology to observe and then investigate (or even celebrate?) the conundrum of the wearer of the neat, provocatively abbreviated pelmet-style miniskirt and ever so slightly unbuttoned blouse who believes, concurrently if oddly, that she does not want anyone to notice her success at what she is inspiring.

Obviously, the only possible solution is for men to be trained from an early age not to look. There! Everyone will be happy to have been ignored, and a truly moving intersexual experience be enjoyed by all. The asylums can close, the shrinks go home to watch tv or get retrained as camera salesmen - their old job will obviously give them an advantage, and an uneven chance to be salesperson of the month... everybody wins!

I always knew Utopia was but one law and ribbon away.  Better yet, Erik, you now have the answers to 43.

[degrub]

i'll dip a toe in the water.
In my opinion, i think it is not that we (for both sexes) should not look or should not display, it is that when we do and we objectify and manipulate the person for our own desires and ego that the behavior becomes repugnant.  i do not recall a single species with more than one sex and  with vision that does not use a visual display to attract a mate to complete the imperative of the DNA.

[Ray]

Some criticism has been directed at at Chris Sanderson for deleting whole threads after blocking further comments.
Locking a thread might be justified if the thread is deteriorating into off-topic and ad hominem attacks. But deleting the entire thread, which might include some very rational and sensible comments, and interesting links to other sites, seems too extreme to me, and also to others.

I am therefore very pleased that Chris Sanderson has reinstated the deleted thread on 'Skepticism about Climate Change' which I started in April 2017. Thank you Chris.

Here's the link to the reinstated thread.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=117612.0

I'd forgotten the thread was so long. 72 bloody pages!

I've just skipped through the first 40 pages, re-reading my very rational and thoughtful posts. 

There are also a few historical photographic images that new readers might find interesting.

[Rob C]

Actually, Chris has an unenviable task.

I don't think it is good policy to delete complete threads, but I do think that offensive posts within threads should be removed. That instantly raises the question: by whose definition of offensive? The reasonable answer has to be: by the definition of LuLa's management. It's their site they want to protect. As I'm sure there are those who object to almost everything, life will be a busy one for a Mod. regardless!

Equally, they have to stand firm and not just automatically bow to pressure from the "book burner" contingent which appears to be growing in its activity here. The site is going to be faced with a stark choice: does it want to encourage people who have a point of view, can express and defend it reasonably, and possibly expand the perceived value of LuLa by embracing subjects a little beyond the happy snap one of Mother Nature blushing her way through her annual wardrobe?

Or is the choice to reduce the site to an anodyne place to which few will feel compelled to return?

It should not be overlooked that nobody is under any contractual arrangement whereby they are obliged to read anything, or anyone, with which or with whom they do not agree.

Beige is ever beige. It suits carpets, but we walk all over those...

[degrub]

sometimes this forum reminds me of some of the scenes you  see in various parliaments where they resort to fisticuffs  on contentious issues.

sometimes this forum reminds me of the UK House in Parliament

sometimes this forum reminds me of the US Senate.

i vastly prefer the latter two.

if we can hold ourselves to the decorum of those, then the mod's task is much easier and needed less.