Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rob C on February 20, 2018, 05:24:55 am
-
Chris, I'm very sorry you chose to close the "Photographers behaving" thread down.
There was absolutely no justification for that act. There was no anti-woman rhetoric whatsoever, if you care to reread, and the problem lay simply in the inability of some minds to grasp what was being communicated rather than listen to their own version of it playing out between their ears.
It is incomprehensible to me that a nation like the States can permit its children to be slaughtered, time after time, simply for the sin of going to school, will espouse an excuse such as "guns don't kill; people do" without taking in mind that indeed, people squeeze the triggers, but without those triggers to squeeze it would not, could not, happen.
Sure the nutters will always exist, but a knife against a class filled with chairs and folks willing to use them to overpower one asshole? Yet, this same society will do nothing to stop the source of the death: the gun. Do they imagine those "founding fathers", were they around in today's world, would have given carte blanche to the weaponry available? To think so indicates one must imagine them imbeciles.
Yet, in a conversation about male/female relationships, far more complex than any open and shut case such as the right to kill your neighbour at a few hundred yards, or right up in his face, voices scream from the roof and even down from the underbelly of Australia! Horrors! The realities of life must be denied and a fantasy version of it preserved and propagated instead, with any revelations of its falseness but a heresy most foul!
This, Chris, has turned into a very sad day. If LuLa is to be considered a playpen for the under-sixes, then please state so on the wrapper and one can choose or not choose to participate on that level. I am 80 years old, have lived this profession, photography, since 1960 and know on which side of the slice lies the jam. I see no point in attempting to share some of those experiences with a bunch of children, find and pass on links to photographic websites and books that I imagine could open the minds of many readers here who have not had my inevitably wider range of photographic experiences; in fact it would be quite inappropriate so to do. I am old and my time runs short. I do not want to waste more of it if I can avoid doing so.
I think this marks a moment for clarification.
-
I fully support Chris on this. No other photography forum allows topics like this. I have said it before and I'll say it again. This is a forum with the focus on photography. Any other type of debate must be taken elsewhere. Rob, I respect you, your work, your experience and especially your contributions to this site. But the topic is a sensitive one and got off track and for the most part was not photo related. I am a firm believer in the amazing contributions that women have made in the field of photography. The first influential photographer that set me on my way was a woman, Barbara Blondeau . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Blondeau
I hope you continue to be part of our forum. However, I received too many emails about this topic and we made a choice to close it even after we asked to use some moderation.
Let's stay focused on photography.
-
Chris, I'm very sorry you chose to close the "Photographers behaving" thread down.
There was absolutely no justification for that act.
....
I think this marks a moment for clarification.
Rob, the fact that I agree with you and hoped for more reasoned responses to your posts, still leaves the overriding reason for my having locked the thread:
sadly, discussions such as this are apparently now outside the possiblity of reasoned debate on this forum and elsewhere.
An outside observer might only have to spend 24 hours looking at American television to understand how the deep polarization of opinions and the subsequent inability to find logical and respectful disagreement have poisoned public discourse. This cuts to both sides of the political spectrum.
-
Rob, the fact that I agree with you and hoped for more reasoned responses to your posts, still leaves the overriding reason for my having locked the thread:
sadly, discussions such as this are apparently now outside the possiblity of reasoned debate on this forum and elsewhere.
An outside observer might only have to spend 24 hours looking at American television to understand how the deep polarization of opinions and the subsequent inability to find logical and respectful disagreement have poisoned public discourse. This cuts to both sides of the political spectrum.
Nevermind...I'm out of this boys club.
-
Hey Rob
Please stick with it! That you "find and pass on links to photographic websites and books" and just as important, links to music, is what I look for most in this Forum. I for one appreciate hugely what you write.
Best regards
Tony
-
As one who "tried" to moderate a reasoned discussion of climate change on LuLa, I have to agree with Chris's comments above. It's almost impossible to maintain an even keel discussion about controversial issues. The particular one that was recently started goes beyond male/female relationships whether coerced or not as recently there were at least three cases I read about where male models were abused by male photographers. Any inappropriate behavior is wrong and we should just leave it at that.
-
Hey Rob
Please stick with it! That you "find and pass on links to photographic websites and books" and just as important, links to music, is what I look for most in this Forum. I for one appreciate hugely what you write.
Best regards
Tony
+1
-
Sad to see one of the few women posters (the only one?) driven out of this forum.
-
Sad to see one of the few women posters (the only one?) driven out of this forum.
? ? ?
-
? ? ?
+1
-
I will also regret the departure of Sharon.
-
I'd hate to see Sharon go too, but let's face it, Rob didn't insult Sharon. He gave his views on the subject, views I might add that are based on an awful lot of experience with that particular subject. Sharon may not agree, but that's up to her.
-
It's pretty simple why there are no female posters on LuLa.
Respect,
-
It's pretty simple why there are no female posters on LuLa.
Respect,
Absolutely.
-
That some people feel that Sharon wasn't insulted by those comments is exactly the problem.
-
And as for a "playpen for the under 60's", apart from the underlying insult that anyone under 60 is just a kid (a "playpen") my father and my father in law, both peers of the 80+ members, most certainly wouldn't find the descriptions used for women and the attitudes displayed as being acceptable, so don't kid yourself that it's an issue of age.
-
I think those posting in high dudgeon may benefit from a closer reading of posts and not just this one:
... If LuLa is to be considered a playpen for the under-sixes, then please state so on the wrapper
-
There are way too many places on the internet to find pointless arguing. Yahoo thrives on it. HuffPo & AOL are so bad about bringing out the worst in people that I deleted all links. There was a time after the fall of the Soviet Union that I thought maybe their media such as Pravda would become more balanced like those in the West. Instead our media became more like Pravda--ideological, deceptive, and constantly sowing dissension. The media and politicians wish to divide us back into "tribes," something they greatly profit from. Our hobbies are the one thing they don't yet control, and are our greatest hope for reversing the damage the polarizers* are doing to civilization in general. I too back Chris in his efforts to weed out needless provocation. It seems silly for this forum in particular to engage in political poppycock because it's international. All in all I enjoy everyone one here, even those who have not yet come to their senses and shoot Nikon. The fact that not everyone here owns a Nikon disturbs me greatly, but that's a topic for another time.
Kent in SD
*Or for Rob, "polarisation." :)
-
That some people feel that Sharon wasn't insulted by those comments is exactly the problem.
That people are insulted by a different opinion is exactly the problem.
-
There are way too many places on the internet to find pointless arguing...
I wrote this on another thread recently, but still quite valid:
Where else [but here] can I discuss such things not with total, mostly anonymous strangers, but with real people who I got to know over the years reasonably well, from their photography, to their musings and writings about photography, from their professional history to their family history, forming a pretty good idea of who they are, and forming a respect for what they did in their life and with their life? Those are the people I am willing to listen to, engage with, exchange opinions, even if we disagree (especially if we disagree). And stay friends even if we politely disagree. Those who can not disagree politely, should be banned and the offending post removed. Not the thread.
-
I wrote this on another thread recently, but still quite valid:
Where else [but here] can I discuss such things not with total, mostly anonymous strangers, but with real people who I got to know over the years reasonably well, from their photography, to their musings and writings about photography, from their professional history to their family history, forming a pretty good idea of who they are, and forming a respect for what they did in their life and with their life? Those are the people I am willing to listen to, engage with, exchange opinions, even if we disagree (especially if we disagree). And stay friends even if we politely disagree. Those who can not disagree politely, should be banned and the offending post removed. Not the thread.
Ahh! A volunteer moderator?
-
I think those posting in high dudgeon may benefit from a closer reading of posts and not just this one:
Fair enough, Chris. My point still stands that Rob was suggesting that at 80+ his views stand above others who he is comparing with children (even more so with the comment actually being under 6 and not 60!).
Experience is valuable, but so is recognising that something is wrong and should be changed.
As to the other posts which I consider were inappropriate and out dated, I read them with care and in context (and they are the same story we've read from Rob for as long as I can remember him posting here - which is quite some portion of the 11 years I've been reading).
To each their own, of course, but I think the overreaction and dudgeon are more apparent in the feeling that expressing such views as BS is somehow offensive. I think that folks needs to understand that ad hominem is a reliance on personal observations to prove a point, and not simply an exclamation of exasperation.
-
That people are insulted by a different opinion is exactly the problem.
Not an opinion, mate. An entire lifetime of being subjected to such behaviour and the attitude of "you're a child if you don't see I'm right" as a means of debate (talk about ad hominem!).
-
Ahh! A volunteer moderator?
Because that worked so well before?
Moderating (having done it on a political forum based around gamers) for over a decade, is bloody hard, and mostly thankless. You also have to be prepared to actually be moderate and to moderate.
-
... An entire lifetime of being subjected to... "you're a child...
Time to grow up, Phil? ;)
-
Time to grow up, Phil? ;)
I hope not! :-)
-
Ahh! A volunteer moderator?
Hehe... But you surely wouldn't want someone who was called on this forum by a (former) member "the rudest, nastiest person that's ever posted on LuLa" ;)
-
Rob, the fact that I agree with you and hoped for more reasoned responses to your posts, still leaves the overriding reason for my having locked the thread:
sadly, discussions such as this are apparently now outside the possiblity of reasoned debate on this forum and elsewhere.
An outside observer might only have to spend 24 hours looking at American television to understand how the deep polarization of opinions and the subsequent inability to find logical and respectful disagreement have poisoned public discourse. This cuts to both sides of the political spectrum.
Chris,
Sorry for the delay in response; I spent time yesterday in hospìtal in discussion with my cardio. and have three more tests set up - for whenever they can fit me in - which left attending to LuLa correspondence a little lower down my to do list!
I imagined that you might have been a little unwilling to close the thread; however, reading what you wrote does illustrate that you have allowed your decision to be made against your better judgement, and solely to the bleat of those who think that life is a simple + or - situation, with identical behavioural rules applying across the board, and the fact that some sections of the population do not live within those tight parameters has to be stopped at all costs, by any means possible. This really is a reversion to nothing other than Puritanical Absolutism.
I can tell you this (and fortunately for me, Farmer, I was older than six when it happened): I spent about five years of my young life stuck in a boarding school in India, an establishment run by a motley selection of American, Canadian and Australian-powered missionary followers whose antics and rules were to reveal to me, many decades later, that puritanical thought, coming from "Christian" denominations of all kinds, taken to extremes, share absolutely everything with the excesses of any Islamic totalitarianism we see today. No, heads were physically left intact - if bums not (I mean by canes), but minds...
Yes, Chris, I understand your point about US tv and what it breeds; the same is daily fare in British newspapers, and if you ever watch Sky News, you may be left wondering: whither the news?
Now, Sharon and I do not know one another at all, but I will not forget that she commented on my website's professional pictures (mostly calendar girls because I had none of the fashion stuff left) in a very positive manner, pleased that they did not represent an objectification of women, but rather treated femininity in a holistic manner. She was right then, and still is: I have always respected the girls I worked with, even if some, at times, were absolutey not the ones I might have chosen for the gigs had the casting been left in my remit. (I even make reference to this in my website.) What I will say, to Sharon as to any other woman reading this is: have you ever considered the power of diffusing a difficult situation by the simple act of just laughing out loud in the person's face? Derision is a very strong weapon, and that some woman thinks your advances are laughable will crush any erection to zero. Physical attack is something entirely else, and I would imagine far more rare than hopeful flirtation. Which is exactly where Bardot and Deneuve came to the argument. Deny and demonise flirtation and you end up with today's situation where people are scared of making a direct, person-to-person approach: they end up spending their salaries on dating web sites. How bloody tragic; is that what the feminists wanted? You have to advertise you are available instead of doing the reseach in a normal manner? Yuck! How reminiscent of the call girl racket, whose listing are published openly and legally over entire pages of some Mallorcan newspapers.
Photography of models is not just about how they look; even more than that it is about what they are able to give to you, and what the photographer is able to extract from their offering. That is interpersonal chemistry, and it is not interchangeable, which is borne out by the way some people right at the top can work well together and others equally placed, not.
If you are away somewhere on assignment, there is a helluva lot of money riding on the back of you coming home with good photographs. Anyone but an idiot understands that creating a bad atmosphere on the job will not produce good work, and that all it will produce is your last gig for that client footing the bill. So, what to do? How can you tell what's desired by your model companion(s)? You are not making pictures with her/them 24/24; there is a lot of time together doing nothing photographic. Exactly as Slobodan wrote, there are all sorts of women with whom you have to interface professionally. There is the girl who will sulk if she thinks you don't want to bed her; there is the one who counts photographer and celebrity scalps and the other, "normal" one who just gets on with the job and gives you her best work. As in many cases you never meet the girl until you invite her to the casting, you have as little idea what you are jetting away with as has she. You both work on trust, but as I outlined above, what are the expectations? You have to figure it out pretty damned quickly at the start of the artificial relationship away from base.
My solution? To run away from the problem by making it impossible to surface: as soon as the gigs became big enough budget-wise, I made my wife a partner in the business and she was able to come with me on foreign shoots both to assist physically on the job, but more importantly, to keep temptation out of the way and to moderate model mindsets. In one case, it was the model's husband who refused to allow his wife to go on trips if the snapper was single. (Note the word "allow"...)
Perhaps model photography is no country for old married men; perhaps female models should only go on assignment with gay male snappers; perhaps male models should only work with lesbian photograhers. There! at a stroke, all of LuLa's bleeding hearts will be happy at last! Until the next excuse arises.
On a more general note, Chris, reference to the age of six does not imply an absolute; there are those as dumb when they die as old people as there those wise beyond their years at twenty. What the reference was supposed to be applying to was the mindset that never grows up; that thinks life is a set of golden rules, that perfect equilibriuim is attainable, that there exists, anywhere, a standard of spiritual and moral perfection. No, it does not exist and it never will, because in truth, humans instinctively do not desire it. Were it ever attained, it would be the end of the species as we know it and signal the creation of the human cypher.
Why some cannot differentiate the difference between approving of bad intersexual behaviour and understanding why it does and will ever exist, defeats me. As I said, it's a problem playing out between their own ears.
-
Chris,
Sorry for the delay in response; I spent time yesterday in hospìtal in discussion with my cardio. and have three more tests set up - for whenever they can fit me in -
Hope everything checks out OK for you. By coincidence, I have an annual check up with a cardiologist tomorrow. A year ago I was nearly dead! Since then I've climbed to ~10,000 ft. on Mt. Ranier, rode my bicycle 42 miles in the mountains, and gone pheasant hunting when it was 15F below zero. It's been an amazing year for me. I hope you get a good report.
Kent in SD
-
Hope everything checks out OK for you. By coincidence, I have an annual check up with a cardiologist tomorrow. A year ago I was nearly dead! Since then I've climbed to ~10,000 ft. on Mt. Ranier, rode my bicycle 42 miles in the mountains, and gone pheasant hunting when it was 15F below zero. It's been an amazing year for me. I hope you get a good report.
Kent in SD
Thank you; it's a long-running combination of two heart-attacks, two stents and God knows how many more wanting to find a home within! Combinations of beta blockers for the heart treatment and eye-drops containing more of the same mean that the addition is often not helpful. Finally (?) the drops have been changed for others not containing betas, so we shall see what we hope we shall continue to be able to see. The heart betas are currently supended, and so I am running relatively free of additives other than aspirin, pills to protect the stomach from them, and another pill to keep cholesterol down.
I hope your own tests prove to show good results! None of us needs enemies inside.
;-)
-
Hey Rob
Please stick with it! That you "find and pass on links to photographic websites and books" and just as important, links to music, is what I look for most in this Forum. I for one appreciate hugely what you write.
Best regards
Tony
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.
For example, and to illustrate what people's posts can mean to me: I miss Cooter's appearances, now almost never except within the moving image zones, where I have little interest and of which I have even less knowledge. I can understand why he seems to have given up trying, though I do hope the reality may be he just has too much work to do to spend more time on the forums.
Rob
-
I echo Tony's compliments.
Rob, it's always a delight to read your posts, which are often more interesting and more insightful than some of the articles on the front page.
-
Hi Kevin,
I am with you and Chris on this, all the way. Women belong as well behind the camera as in front of it.
But any human on the planet, weather a photographer, a model, a shuttle commander, Kiowa Warrior pilot or inventor of Kevlar deserves one thing in common and that is respect.
Best regards
Erik
I fully support Chris on this. No other photography forum allows topics like this. I have said it before and I'll say it again. This is a forum with the focus on photography. Any other type of debate must be taken elsewhere. Rob, I respect you, your work, your experience and especially your contributions to this site. But the topic is a sensitive one and got off track and for the most part was not photo related. I am a firm believer in the amazing contributions that women have made in the field of photography. The first influential photographer that set me on my way was a woman, Barbara Blondeau . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Blondeau
I hope you continue to be part of our forum. However, I received too many emails about this topic and we made a choice to close it even after we asked to use some moderation.
Let's stay focused on photography.
-
But any human on the planet, weather a photographer, a model, a shuttle commander, Kiowa Warrior pilot or inventor of Kevlar deserves one thing in common and that is respect.
Really, Erik? How about the kid who just murdered 17 of his classmates? Do you respect him? What, exactly, do you mean by "respect?"
-
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 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?
-
Really, Erik? How about the kid who just murdered 17 of his classmates? Do you respect him? What, exactly, do you mean by "respect?"
Exactly; it's just a catch-all phrase often without meaning. Black gangsters as well as the Mafia espouse its use to what purpose, really, that approaches anything to do with good behaviour?
Everybody not totally insane understands that one can't go around lifting skirts and otherwise making a general pest of oneself; that needs no clarification nor does it need constant repetition. I have not read a single poster in this thread suggest that unwanted attentions are okay; the general idea is that you understand a no for a no. Yet, despite the clear lack of evidence, some continue to wallow in this belief that others are saying yes, go for it, rape and pillage to your heart's content! How absurd.
It's not what you say nor even the way you say it; what it seems that it is is what others want you to have said.
Incidentally, rather than folks whimper for the locking of threads, why not simply exercise their divine right to ignore them and the writers they hate, and leave the field to those with something to contribute? Of course, I do understand that for many that's not enough: they crave the satisfaction of saying to themselves, look what I did, I made a difference and spoiled something all by myself!
-
Hi Russ,
Mea culpa, I did not mention the proper context.
Let's put it this way, every human deserves respects by birth, but may also forfeit it by action or inaction under circumstances.
Best regards
Erik
Really, Erik? How about the kid who just murdered 17 of his classmates? Do you respect him? What, exactly, do you mean by "respect?"
-
may also forfeit it by action or inaction under circumstances.
and judges are ?
-
and judges are ?
The members of Lula, of course. :D
-
I echo Tony's compliments.
Rob, it's always a delight to read your posts, which are often more interesting and more insightful than some of the articles on the front page.
Thanks; if that's true, then it may be because I don't care much about cameras and lenses, knowing that only two or three ever made a huge difference to my life; I would name them as the Exaka Varex lla, the Nikon F and the Hassy 500 series. They made the basic, practical aspects of work more easy to handle. What I do care about a geat deal is pictures and special photographers, whom I find fascinating if only because they have the gift of doing what they do appear easy and natural. Easy it cannot be, but natural (to them) decidedly!
;-)
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
You bet your sweet bippy! Now that's one that goes back a bit..."Laugh In"rides again.
Peter
Sock it to me!
-
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
-
Both responses are credible.
For example, Is Edward Snowden a traitor to his country or a hero?
I think he's both.
Irony.
-
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 ?
-
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
-
Respect can only be earned, it is not a birth right or entitlement (sorry, Erik).
-
...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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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! ;D
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.
-
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...
-
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.