Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Enrico M on February 20, 2018, 01:53:40 pm
-
This is a forum with the focus on photography.
You delude yourselves.
In the early, pioneering years of digital, LuLa under the expertise and guidance of Michael Reichmann , became known as an 'authority' – so much so that even NatGeo rated it amongst the top 100 sites on the internet.
Those days were marked by informed technical articles, valued reviews (and critiques) of new equipment, 'How-to' and 'Understanding' essays amongst others – not least of which were Michael's personal outlooks and commentary on the industry. A man not afraid to speak his mind , and not one to shy away from controversy.
He took both praise and, at times, not undeserved flak. Who remembers the commotion over his review of the Leica M8 ?
Amongst all this there was a vibrant forum. One where rising participation engulfed the occasional conflict and partisanship. Rather than shy away or close it down he more often than not contributed too. In the same way that the Rob Galbraith site had done before him – (The site and forum closed when Rob left to go into private employment).
Today, with LuLa clearly on a slippery slope to oblivion – the authoritative articles are long gone, the professional participation having dwindled to less than a handful (and they only fitfully), there remain few commendable features.
You'd rather have endless discussions from outright fanboys on the merits of Nikon v Canon, a readership where I doubt the average age is below 60 and an atmosphere more suited to a retirement home than the vibrant place LuLa once was.
And yes – the Coffee Corner was a positive.
But you just had to go and neuter it, didn't you?
In case you hadn't noticed, The Coffee Corner and its political and current affair debates, actually added to general interest in the site (nothing else has) – and you go ahead and not just close down, but delete whole threads, that offended your deluded notion essentially resting on Michael's laurels.
Those deleted threads represented many hours, not to say days and weeks, of mostly informed and interesting posts. They represented serious man-hours of contributions. Sure, at times there was friction and not just in the Coffee Corner section. More or less the only thing Michael drew the line on was profanity and whether or not we crossed the site's etiquette red line by typing 'bullshit' instead of 'BS'.
There was more interest in all those Trump, Brexit and Climate Change threads (and several more) than the whole of the LuLa site in one. I know of several people who logged in just to read Schewe's daily Trump commentary – not something that can be said of any other part of this site. The Brexit thread had more views and contributions than any other thread – that is until Trump came along – and then only in posts, not in views.
Yet, in your wisdom, you chose to not just lock the threads, but delete them – what a novel way to encourage people to post on your forum!
In their place what do you offer ? A review on Capture One 11 – blatantly reproduced verbatim from another web site, with the arrogance to announce that you've just 'published' it – even though it was already freely available to one and all on The Image Alchemist' web site since November last year. A Lens review (Loxia) where the lenses weren't even correctly focused and some post processing articles - more akin to a 'painting by-numbers' how-to – titbits so puffed up, they could have been condensed to a single 80 word paragraph.
So , feel free – delude yourselves all you want.
Be an outpost for your trips and workshops by all means, but still relevant and an informed source ?
Not so much … and not because of any heated discussions in the coffee shop.
Goodnight and good luck!
-
Enrico,
With just two posts in the slightly over two years that you have been a member of LuLa, I don't consider you an expert on the history of LuLa, nor do I see any evidence that you speak for anyone other than yourself. You certainly don't speak for me.
Eric M.
-
Sorry, you feel that way. Seems we have a whole lot of people agree with us in stopping the political discussions. We let it go on as long as we could before it went off the tracks. Thus my decision to keep the focus on photography. That's just the way it's going to be.
As far as content I am wondering if you are mixing our site up with another site. We have not reviewed any Loxia lenses or done any major post-processing articles (paint by the numbers). We have been featuring a very well received Shooting with the Masters video as well as The Leica story. Plus we have also produced numerous reviews and aesthetic articles about photography. The Capture One review was well done and by republishing it on LuLa we gave it a much wider audience. We are fortunate to have a number of contributors who like to share their knowledge in their articles.
Workshops have been a part of LuLa for many years and will continue to be a great place to meet our readers and enjoy photography together. As far as being relevant I believe we are just that.
We are a small team very dedicated to this site and offering good and different content for those interested in photography. Feel free to contribute an article and share your knowledge anytime.
-
... There was more interest in all those Trump, Brexit and Climate Change threads (and several more) than the whole of the LuLa site in one...
But hey, Let's See Your Pets thread is threatening to catch up, with 200+ posts and 18K views so far ;)
-
But hey, Let's See Your Pets thread is threatening to catch up, with 200+ posts and 18K views so far ;)
Yes but lovely photo of pets (key word is photo considering the site) and everyone behaving splendidly.
-
I'm appalled and offended by this website's focus (excuse the pun) on photography rather than politics. I'm seriously considering flouncing off somewhere else. No, really.
-
In their place what do you offer ? A review on Capture One 11 – blatantly reproduced verbatim from another web site, with the arrogance to announce that you've just 'published' it – even though it was already freely available to one and all on The Image Alchemist' web site since November last year.
LuLa posted review written by "Paul Steunebrink" who in fact is that very same "Image Alchemist"... so ? why Paul didn't make it sufficiently better for LuLa ? why shall he ?
-
but still relevant and an informed source ?
just read few selected topics (or rather authors) in the forum, you do not really need to read the site itself ...
-
There’s no doubt that Michael was unique. And there’s no doubt that it is impossible that LULA would not be different without him. But I find the OP’s post offensive in it’s “tone.” There’s no need for recrimination. If you no longer find LULA valuable, there are lots of other options, especially if you’re fond of arguments and ad hominem attacks.
It’s just not so simple. Nothing in life is. I’ve even posted a similar sentiment in the past but only as regards lamenting the loss of “the good old heady days” when things were changing fast. I’ll guess we were all soaking up everything we could to understand, learn, and execute in this new world of digital.
Most cameras on offer today are excellent. Finding meaningful things to differentiate has become more and more a fool’s errand in search of anything one could see in a print. Speaking of prints, printer technology has also matured. The pace of change has slowed a lot. It is now incremental and evolutionary rather than huge leaps and reveolutionary.
As to expertise, there’s no lack of that here. I continue to learn almost every time I visit the site and hit my ‘regular’ pages.
The With the Masters series is really excellent, and very valuable to me in my growth. Other stuff, not as much. As to politics... good bye and good riddance. It served no worthwhile purpose here.
Rand
-
Second post in 2 years, I think we should take the advice from such a loyal contributing member very serious ;)
In the meantime my thought is that if you think anybody here will take your post seriously you delude yourself.
-
Quantity (of posts) is not indicative of Quality.
There are posters with thousands of posts, half of them consisting of: "+1", "this image would look better in B&W", and "Moderator, come and close this thread", whose qualitative output is not worth writing home about. And some low-frequency posters can bring here rare insights and gems.
-
Quantity (of posts) is not indicative of Quality.
There are posters with thousands of posts, half of them consisting of: "+1", "this image would look better in B&W", and "Moderator, come and close this thread", whose qualitative output is not worth writing home about. And some low-frequency posters can bring here rare insights and gems.
+1, but the OP doesn't fall into that category for me :)
-
As to politics... good bye and good riddance. It served no worthwhile purpose here.
I'd agree with much of your post – except for this.
It may have been inadvertent, even unexpected but the political threads of the Coffee Corner attracted interest. It was a part of LuLa that did indeed differ from other sites - interest and new blood is exactly what this site, post-Michael needs, and if the Coffee Corner ended up being a magnet that could attract new blood – so be it.
Chopping it off at the knees doesn't help subscriptions. They're not increasing because LuLa has suddenly become more benign. If anything, the contrary - and deleting whole threads as opposed to simply locking them adds to the damage.
As for vitriol and raised blood pressures – well, there was enough of that on cameras and ICC profiles. 'Pistols-at-dawn' more often than not. Pros having a go at each other in the MF section, often the order of the day. Michael understood the benefits of 'largesse' and benefited as a result. as did Rob Galbraith before him.
Personally, I've got no interest in political discussions – but, based on empirical observation, the downsides of the current policy are plainly evident. The 10 pages of the most 'Recent Posts' are an indication of what's happening. In Michael's time you were lucky if you caught the last 8-hours, first to last post. Lately, it'll probably cover the last 24/36 hours – and 8 threads locked on just the first page of the Coffee Corner doesn't help.
I'd hazard a guess and say that that is no indication of an increasing membership.
Add to that, that I've lost count of the number of posters who no longer frequent this place but are now to be found on Fred Miranda and GetDPI. The only sub-forums with a healthy 'pro'-presence are the 'Motion” and 'Print' sections. At least there one doesn't have to wade through pages and pages of Canon v Nikon repetitions. If there were threads to be closed, the canikon ones are prime candidates.
In the final analysis, only Kevin and the LuLa 'board' know the true subscription figures. I wish them well and hope LuLa survives in a 'post-Michael' world.
In the investment world , one sage piece of advice is 'cut your losses and let your profits run' – I'd suggest that the Coffee Shop was just such a 'profit' – harness it, don't neuter the one part of LuLa that could easily attract new blood – albeit in an unconventional manner.
-
With only 2 previous posts, the OP lacks perspective on the evolution of LuLa.
A seminal post (https://luminous-landscape.com/d30/) by Michael in January 2009 reported on the Canon D30. Previous digital dSLRs from Nikon and Kodak were available but they were very expensive and not practical for most of us. At that time, many of us entered digital by using a 35 mm SLR with Kodachrome or Provia and scanning the transparency. I was using a Polaroid Sprintscan which had a resolution of 4000 ppi with a resulting 65 Mp file. It was hard to believe that the 3.3 MP Canon could produce images competitive with the scanned transparencies, but over a series of articles Michael made us aware of the potential of digital dSLRs.
Today, the technology has matured and it is hardly possible for Kevin and his staff to write such a ground breaking article. Mirrorless is an advance and Kevin reports in it, but many of us find that dSLRs are adequate for our purposes. We all miss Michael, but he was on the ground floor of digital and it was easier for him to post breakthrough articles. LuLa today is less exciting to me, but it still is a valuable source of what is going on in photography.
Regards,
Bill
-
A seminal post (https://luminous-landscape.com/d30/) by Michael in January 2009 reported on the Canon D30. ....
Actually the year 2000/2001. When the site moved over to Member Press, many of the legacy pages were erroneously dated 2009
-
LuLa today is less exciting to me
And is there anything that excites you nowadays at all ?
-
With only 2 previous posts, the OP lacks perspective on the evolution of LuLa.
Why do you say that, Bill? I'm sure there are many folks who have been reading LL in the past, for a long time, without subscribing.
Enrico has expressed his opinion very well. The nature of the title, Coffee Corner, implies its for a discussion in a cafe, over a cup of coffee, by a group of photographers.
Can you imagine, if a group of photographers were to meet in a cafe, there would be a rule that all discussions should only relate to photography? That would seem a bit restrictive to me. ;)
-
How the times have changed!
Were he alive today, there would be marches on the street by today's Über-Puritans and professional outragers, requesting Michale's site to be shoot down as misogynistic, sexist, etc. Remember how many members threatened to cancel (or did) their membership then? Over the Lolita thread?
-
Why do you say that, Bill? I'm sure there are many folks who have been reading LL in the past, for a long time, without subscribing.
Enrico has expressed his opinion very well. The nature of the title, Coffee Corner, implies its for a discussion in a cafe, over a cup of coffee, by a group of photographers.
Can you imagine, if a group of photographers were to meet in a cafe, there would be a rule that all discussions should only relate to photography? That would seem a bit restrictive to me. ;)
Yes, it is obviously restrictive. IMO it is the nature and content of discourse that has changed. This in turn has lead to the restriction on content. I do not believe that the style of moderation has changed but the demand for it certainly has increased markedly.
I have been performing janitorial duty within this forum since its beginnings. It has only been in the past two years or so that the content and manner of heated discussions has become intolerable to many and the demands for Moderator intervention tediously frequent. The Forum used basically to moderate itself. Sic transit...
-
I disagree with most of what the OP said except about the Coffee Corner. The description of the CC forum, which has since been changed, used to invite non-photographic topics. So what if there are political etc. threads? No one has to read them. And deleting them - as opposed to just closing them - smacks of censorship. As long as the focus of Lula stays photographic, what's the harm in having a few off-topic threads?
At least Kevin has spared the Touch of Humor thread that I started long ago <g>!
-
With only 2 previous posts, the OP lacks perspective on the evolution of LuLa.
The assumption that only prolific posters have the perspective on the evolution of Lula is naive and patently wrong. For various reasons, the readers and lurkers exceed significantly the number of writers, and I would bet that there are quite a few Lula longtime lurkers who have followed Lula forum from its inception and have perhaps a better insight than some of the forum contributors with high publicity scores.
-
I disagree with most of what the OP said except about the Coffee Corner. The description of the CC forum, which has since been changed, used to invite non-photographic topics. So what if there are political etc. threads? No one has to read them. And deleting them - as opposed to just closing them - smacks of censorship. As long as the focus of Lula stays photographic, what's the harm in having a few off-topic threads?
This was tried on several occasions with different topics. Ray and I tried to moderate a thread on scientific and policy issues behind climate change. It didn't work. I found a lot of time taken up with reading posts to decide if they were on topic or not as we promised the site moderators that we would try to maintain a civil discussion. In short. it didn't work. I would love to see free ranging discussion on various topics within the CC but I understand the reluctance of Chris and Kevin to let that go forward given the history of the past year.
-
I think its a bit of sticking your head in the sand to ban political comments. The lack of discourse is one reason we have a tyrant in power.
-
Regardless of where LuLa may be headed and one way ticket or not, the layout, style, and structure here, is the best out there... Just no better view IMO.
-
... The lack of discourse is one reason we have a tyrant in power.
We would need to have a discourse on that statement, otherwise it goes unchallenged ;)
And that's the conundrum of the current ban on politics. Someone casually throws in a comment that is surely political, which provokes a debate, which is then locked for responses being political.
If we are to honor hosts' requests to refrain from politics, that we should refrain from inserting causal comments that provoke a political debate.
-
I disagree with most of what the OP said except about the Coffee Corner. The description of the CC forum, which has since been changed, used to invite non-photographic topics. So what if there are political etc. threads? No one has to read them. And deleting them - as opposed to just closing them - smacks of censorship. As long as the focus of Lula stays photographic, what's the harm in having a few off-topic threads?
At least Kevin has spared the Touch of Humor thread that I started long ago <g>!
The harm is people getting offended by one too many cynical or downright offensive replies and going "the hell with this" and leaving after being a reader for many years. There won't be friendship and camaraderie on the Mirrorless thread once the same people get real nasty and unmovable on other hot topics. I'm mostly out myself, and so far it seems others got tired too. At least SharonVL seems to be gone too after the recent lack of empathy and misogyny displayed on equally locked threads. But hey it's just ;) for some, so maybe it's not people leaving but being replaced by a more homogeneous thought crew.
-
...misogyny displayed...
Here we go again.
Another casual accusation thrown, with no proof or justification (other than "that's how I see it") and no opportunity to debate it without being accused of politicizing LuLa.
-
Here we go again.
Another casual accusation thrown, with no proof or justification (other than "that's how I see it") and no opportunity to debate it without being accused of politicizing LuLa.
In reality I agreed with a lot of stuff said on that thread, the business is how it is, yes, it will probably remain the same way, yes, you should know what you're getting in, yes. However remarks like this: Maybe not, but acceptable enough to sleep their way to the top ;)" Or others dismissing personal evidence from a forum member who lost a job for refusing sex like it was something uneventful, dragged the whole thing down, in my opinion.
And I know that women are not saints or even close, but at least you could show some restraint and not blatantly offend the few ones that happen to come here.
-
IMO it is the nature and content of discourse that has changed... It has only been in the past two years or so that the content and manner of heated discussions has become intolerable to many and the demands for Moderator intervention tediously frequent. The Forum used basically to moderate itself. Sic transit...
You've got to be kidding!
DigitalDog v Gary Fong and numerous other 'pro v pro' colourful debates all come to mind.
If the 'nature and content of the discourse has changed' then please show me where and if someone feels it worth appealing to the Moderators, then I see no reason why he/she should or would want to remain anonymous – tag the thread/post with those who've appealed for moderator intervention … that would certainly alleviate the 'burden' on the Moderators, and take us back to, as you said above, a forum that moderates itself.
Anyway, my point was simple: by banning a free discussion you limit participation and thereby lessen interest in LuLa. It wasn't necessary or Michael's policy before and I see little demonstrable justification for it now. Michael was quick to ban, albeit temporarily, offenders and I really can't recall him ever deleting a whole thread on a capricious whim – certainly never in the numbers we've recently witnessed. Locking, yes - deleting, no.
Which in itself raises a different question. I've reposted part of your terms of service below. The parts relevant to this post highlighted in bold.
Given that anyone posting , pro bono, on this forum retains copyright to their posts and that you, the publisher retains the right 'to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame ...' doesn't give you the right to arbitrarily remove posts that aren't, and were not, in breach of your terms of service, retrospectively.
So one has to question whether by deleting whole threads, as opposed to just the offending individual posts, or simply locking a thread in lieu thereof, you were in breach of your own terms of service.
Food for thought ?
You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, inflammatory, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, sexist, racist, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum.
Note that 'trolling' is considered to be a form of abuse and is harassment. Trolls will be banned from posting.
Persistent negativity and unpleasantness which undermine the tone of this forum will lead to the banning of that member.
Note that it is impossible for the staff or the owners of this forum to confirm the validity of posts. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the posted messages, and as such, are not responsible for the content contained within. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information presented. The posted messages express the views of the author, and not necessarily the views of this forum, its staff, its subsidiaries, or this forum's owner. Anyone who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to notify an administrator or moderator of this forum immediately. The staff and the owner of this forum reserve the right to remove objectionable content, within a reasonable time frame, if they determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, please realize that they may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately.
-
Deleting offensive and inappropriate posts in a respectable is a commendable deed, indeed.
However, deleting whole threads, including a wide mix of both, stupid and insightful posts is akin to burning an entire shelf of reference books in a public library.
-
I was not going to reply to this thread, especially since I myself posted a few comments in the past that were not photographically related, some of which I later regretted because of the time that was wasted.
However in some of the recent posts here, the tone seems to be that somehow this web site is required to allow all kinds of topic to be discussed for reasons of free speech. I don't know why people would think this. This is not a public affairs web site. The people who run the show have the right to decide how much time they want to spend moderating forum threads and they have done so. They have done no one any harm in arriving at this decision. There are plenty of other forums to discuss these issues. You also have the freedom to start one of your own.
-
...However remarks like this: Maybe not, but acceptable enough to sleep their way to the top ;)" Or others dismissing personal evidence from a forum member who lost a job for refusing sex like it was something uneventful, dragged the whole thing down, in my opinion.
And I know that women are not saints or even close, but at least you could show some restraint and not blatantly offend the few ones that happen to come here.
I take exception to that characterization. There was nothing in that thread that was blatantly offensive. If someone feels offended by the fact that there are women who sleep their way to the top, that is their problem. Denying its existence is ludicrous. Nobody dismissed "personal evidence." Nobody denied there are jerks who would abuse their authority. Nobody denied there are rapists who use violence. Nobody condoned that, explicitly or implicitly. It wasn't even under discussion, because it goes without saying that is illegal, and unacceptable. The discussion was mostly against one-sided, unique focus on bad men, when the reality is clearly much more nuanced.
You want personal evidence? How about this: I worked for the U.S. government, U.S. and European academic institutions, startup companies in Spain and the U.S., and not one but four major U.S. Fortune 200 companies. I have never practiced, experienced or even heard about quid-pro-quo pressures. Does it mean I am saying such things do not exist? Of course not. Just that in my pretty vast experience, I have not witnessed it in my immediate environment. However, as a boss, I did experience "sexual harassment" by my female employees who were flirting with me or more or less openly expressing desire to sleep with me. Some for pleasure, others for romantic relationship. If someone feels offended by my personal experience, so be it. Note that I put it in quotation marks precisely because I did not see it as harassment, just human nature. None of them asked for anything job related, or gained or lost anything job related.
-
Enrico - you're awfully present for someone who was leaving...
-
I take exception to that characterization. There was nothing in that thread that was blatantly offensive. If someone feels offended by the fact that there are women who sleep their way to the top, that is their problem. Denying its existence is ludicrous. Nobody dismissed "personal evidence." Nobody denied there are jerks who would abuse their authority. Nobody denied there are rapists who use violence. Nobody condoned that, explicitly or implicitly. It wasn't even under discussion, because it goes without saying that is illegal, and unacceptable. The discussion was mostly against one-sided, unique focus on bad men, when the reality is clearly much more nuanced.
How do you explain the fact that several people were offended?
-
How do you explain the fact that several people were offended?
I do not have to explain it. You explain why you are offended (without resorting to cliche labels of racist, misogynist, bigot, etc.) The burden of proof is on those who accuse. And don't get me started on the whole new phenomenon of professional outragers, snowflakes, and people easily offended by different opinions.
-
I do not have to explain it. You explain why you are offended (without resorting to cliche labels of racist, misogynist, bigot, etc.) The burden of proof is on those who accuse. And don't get me started on the whole new phenomenon of professional outragers, snowflakes, and people easily offended by different opinions.
Well, I didn't say that I was offended so I don't have to explain anything. I do disagree with what you said, but I was not offended.
But you made statements that seemed to offend people. And you just implicitly offended them again by asserting that they had no right to be offended and that they should explain themselves, i.e., "whole new phenomenon of professional outragers, snowflakes, and people easily offended by different opinions", which was very thinly veiled. I'm suggesting that you should examine how you phrase things, otherwise people will think you're just trying to bait them.
You're free to not care what I think, that's fair enough, no reason you should.
-
I do not have to explain it. You explain why you are offended (without resorting to cliche labels of racist, misogynist, bigot, etc.) The burden of proof is on those who accuse. And don't get me started on the whole new phenomenon of professional outragers, snowflakes, and people easily offended by different opinions.
Well If you say that women (plural) will sleep their way to the top, you can expect that a woman that lost a job for NOT sleeping with the boss will be offended. I don't think there's anything snowflake about that, it just makes sense.
I could even understand the comment as some sort of locker room comment (after all, our glorious leader tells us that this is OK) but on an open forum, yes it might end up offending somebody, for good reason.
-
I do not have to explain it. You explain why you are offended (without resorting to cliche labels of racist, misogynist, bigot, etc.) The burden of proof is on those who accuse. And don't get me started on the whole new phenomenon of professional outragers, snowflakes, and people easily offended by different opinions.
On this particular issue I will weigh in this one time and you can chose to read my response or not. I read the original post from Rob and was offended as well. In my working career I witnessed both sexual harassment of co-workers and women trading sexual favors for advancement. I also saw men behaving despicably using their position to sleep with co-workers just because they could. Rob made the point that things happened because that's the way it was. Remember the old adage that it takes two to tango. The fact that photographers were enabling of bad behavior should be objectionable on all levels.
Part of the problem with the CC and the closing of threads is that too often people just wanted to post snarky comments because they thought it was cute to do so. I tried to keep the focus on issues related to climate change when Ray and I co-moderated the thread. I was dismayed that people would not stay on topic despite my best efforts to steer things back.
Regarding Enrico M's points about LuLa, there is more than a kernel of truth to what he writes. I've observed a shrinking number of individuals who post on the technical threads. I still see and learn from those who post on the Printer and Color Management threads. I think we all know that some very valued past contributors seem to have left LuLa and we are all poorer for that. As with everything on the Internet things change and perhaps the sun is setting on LuLa.
-
Well If you say that women (plural) will sleep their way to the top, you can expect that a woman that lost a job for NOT sleeping with the boss will be offended. I don't think there's anything snowflake about that, it just makes sense...
Maybe to you. It doesn't make any sense to me, it is a basic logical error of non sequitur. Stating there are women (plural) who sleep their way to the top (undisputable) says nothing about those who were wronged by their boss. Not even close, two completely different categories of events and women.
-
... But you made statements that seemed to offend people...
Let's recap the "offenses." I made one general statement about a certain type of women (which no one disputed so far). Nothing personal about anyone on the forum. In exchange, I was called "bullshitter, sleazy, and misogynist," all personal slurs. Who should be offended more here?
-
Maybe to you. It doesn't make any sense to me, it is a basic logical error of non sequitur. Stating there are women (plural) who sleep their way to the top (undisputable) says nothing about those who were wronged by their boss. Not even close, two completely different categories of events and women.
You hit the nail on the head. Two very different categories and people choose to comment on one or the other.
-
I think its a bit of sticking your head in the sand to ban political comments. The lack of discourse is one reason we have a tyrant in power.
Exactly the kind of assinine brain dead comment I wish to avoid. (Unless, of course, poster lives in North Korea.)
Kent in SD
-
Maybe to you. It doesn't make any sense to me, it is a basic logical error of non sequitur. Stating there are women (plural) who sleep their way to the top (undisputable) says nothing about those who were wronged by their boss. Not even close, two completely different categories of events and women.
You were already generalizing on your statement, maybe it wasn’t meant to include all women but it was all but specific. But besides that, people don’t read into things so cool headed as you apparently say them.
The argument is pointless, I was just using your example to illustrate why someone might leave the forum, which did happen. It’s also pointless because you really don’t seem to care if people leave as long as you hold your undisputed cynical truth.
-
... you really don’t seem to care if people leave...
You called my a misogynist. Not in general terms, but directly. Would you care if I left LuLa because of that? *
* Those of you who started celebrating, settle down, I won't... it was rhetorical ;)
-
You called my a misogynist. Not in general terms, but directly. Would you care if I left LuLa because of that.
Maybe but somehow I don’t think you were offended.
-
It might be a mistake to arrive at any conclusions about how healthy LULA is based on what happens in a few threads in the Coffee Corner. Just sayin'.
-
I was personally totally OK with the discussions that were taking place in the Coffee corner (the more political the better for me), but I respect's Kevin right as owner of this site to set the rules.
As far as the overall evolution of the site, I see interesting contents being posted, probably more so than in the last years when Michael was leading.
On the other hand it is probably true that the level of discussions in the forum isn't as interesting as used to be, but then again, a lot less is to be discovered technically. This never was too much of an art centric forum, so I believe that the character hasn't changed, there is just a lot less to be excited about regarding the technicalities of photography.
Around year 2004, it could be argued that some people were taking better images thanks to better camera, or that some photographs could be messed up by inferior equipment... nowadays it's all too clear that the photographer is the only possible cause of failure. ;)
And as far as the fanboy comments goes, it is clearly misplaced. There hasn't been a Canon fanboy spotting in years... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Around year 2004, it could be argued that some people were taking better images thanks to better camera, or that some photographs could be messed up by inferior equipment... nowadays it's all too clear that the photographer is the only possible cause of failure. ;)
I recall that at that time, some photographers on this forum claimed that they were getting stunning 24"x30" prints from a 6MP camera.
-
... And as far as the fanboy comments goes, it is clearly misplaced. There hasn't been a Canon fanboy spotting in years... ;D
That's a good one, Bernard!
-
I was personally totally OK with the discussions that were taking place in the Coffee corner (the more political the better for me), but I respect's Kevin right as owner of this site to set the rules.
As far as the overall evolution of the site, I see interesting contents being posted, probably more so than in the last years when Michael was leading.
On the other hand it is probably true that the level of discussions in the forum isn't as interesting as used to be, but then again, a lot less is to be discovered technically. This never was too much of an art centric forum, so I believe that the character hasn't changed, there is just a lot less to be excited about regarding the technicalities of photography.
Around year 2004, it could be argued that some people were taking better images thanks to better camera, or that some photographs could be messed up by inferior equipment... nowadays it's all too clear that the photographer is the only possible cause of failure. ;)
And as far as the fanboy comments goes, it is clearly misplaced. There hasn't been a Canon fanboy spotting in years... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
I was ok too, and I have been around since 2001 or 2002, if I remember correctly. Of course all polemic subjects get polarized views and opinions, with a bias towards the views from where the majority of members come from.
Regarding the content, what I miss most were the pieces that Michael wrote based on his travels and experiences. He also often extracted a couple of images from his work to explain what worked (or not) visually speaking. I learned a lot from that.
From the pieces being published today, I learn very little, either because I am not interested in video, or I see no value on superficial camera analysis. A review should be made after many months of use, not rushed just to beat some other site to the finish line. For example, Kevin just published a piece about the new Fuji X-H1, listing specs, saying that he has ordered one, but so what? Will there be a follow-up say 6 months from now?
Regards.
-
On this particular issue I will weigh in this one time and you can chose to read my response or not. I read the original post from Rob and was offended as well. In my working career I witnessed both sexual harassment of co-workers and women trading sexual favors for advancement. I also saw men behaving despicably using their position to sleep with co-workers just because they could. Rob made the point that things happened because that's the way it was. Remember the old adage that it takes two to tango. The fact that photographers were enabling of bad behavior should be objectionable on all levels.
Part of the problem with the CC and the closing of threads is that too often people just wanted to post snarky comments because they thought it was cute to do so. I tried to keep the focus on issues related to climate change when Ray and I co-moderated the thread. I was dismayed that people would not stay on topic despite my best efforts to steer things back.
Regarding Enrico M's points about LuLa, there is more than a kernel of truth to what he writes. I've observed a shrinking number of individuals who post on the technical threads. I still see and learn from those who post on the Printer and Color Management threads. I think we all know that some very valued past contributors seem to have left LuLa and we are all poorer for that. As with everything on the Internet things change and perhaps the sun is setting on LuLa.
I find that interesting, especially from someone who has dated models.
Please do me a favour: quote my "offensive" post in full, and then make bold the parts that you found offensive so that I may reread them and try to imagine why.
You are not an inarticulate person, and I think you will have no difficulty in expressing clearly where you found the problems within my post as in my ways.
Thank you for the courtesy.
Rob
-
Why do you say that, Bill? I'm sure there are many folks who have been reading LL in the past, for a long time, without subscribing.
Enrico has expressed his opinion very well. The nature of the title, Coffee Corner, implies its for a discussion in a cafe, over a cup of coffee, by a group of photographers.
Can you imagine, if a group of photographers were to meet in a cafe, there would be a rule that all discussions should only relate to photography? That would seem a bit restrictive to me. ;)
Absolutely true, with the difference, though, that real conversation is a series of messages magnified and fleshed out by body language, whereas all the we can discover via the written word is whether the writer can actually write well enough to articulate an understandable position.
But, as our own Keith has sometimes stated here, a group of photographers can often be the very last place one would like to find oneself inhabiting, especially if they are all holding cameras and feel intent on making pictures together. I would find that a little perverse, being of the belief that photography is a lonely art best performed without fellow distractions. I have to add that thinking of photography in terms of fun is also somewhat odd; I think that I have sometimes referred to it as fun, too, but my meaning has really been pleasure. Pleasure and fun are not the same things at all, though they may occasionally overlap...
-
... Michael was quick to ban, albeit temporarily, offenders and I really can't recall him ever deleting a whole thread on a capricious whim – certainly never in the numbers we've recently witnessed. Locking, yes - deleting, no. ...
Deleting offensive and inappropriate posts in a respectable is a commendable deed, indeed.
However, deleting whole threads, including a wide mix of both, stupid and insightful posts is akin to burning an entire shelf of reference books in a public library.
The only threads (other than spam) that I have removed from view are in the attached list from the forum moderator's log. All removals occurred on October 8th, 2017.
Arbitrary - yes
Capricious - I don't believe so
Perhaps there is a confusion between topics deleted by the OP and Moderator?
-
The offensive part was in the normalizing glibness. The attitude that "well, it's always been that way, it's human nature, not much can be done about it" coupled to a basically glib handwaving.
While, yes, humans are like that, and it always has been like that, doesn't mean that it's OK. It doesn't mean that it's OK to wave it off. There are many many many examples of human systems that were a) very very human b) had "always" been more or less that way c) were definitely not OK d) are now utterly defunct and good riddance. I am sure that there were many feudal lords who defended their system with exactly the same arguments, and felt earnestly and genuinely that they were right, that they were good men doing their best in a difficult world, and that it was a darn shame so many serfs died so young.
-
I expected better from you, Andrew. Such utterly simplistic reasoning is way below your intellectual abilities.
-
It might be a mistake to arrive at any conclusions about how healthy LULA is based on what happens in a few threads in the Coffee Corner. Just sayin'.
You're probably right, but health is measured in many dfferent ways.
For instance, I would rather have read the little, old British Journal of Photography when it was published weekly, than any of the red-top UK newspapers with their the massive distribution figures. And more than either, I used to enjoy the Sunday Times. Not only was it very informative in a news sense, but it employed many gifted writers on topics far removed from which group is currently winning the battle to eliminate which other. I loved reading about Michael Winner's journeys and holidays, some to places of which I knew through work, and also great to read was the late AA Gill; I never set foot in the restaurants he reviewed, never met "the blonde" but his style and wit was rivetting. Then there was Jeremy Clarkson: that the same man could be so different on paper to the clown persona he adopted for tv...
So really, I would have hoped that LuLa could offer more than just brands, upgrades and stuff like that which can be found everywhere and that, in any final analysis, have very little to do with the ability to produce a good photograph. To retain long-term readers I'd think you have to offer more than cameras and lenses, which is why I feel that a rigid attention to things being or not being totally "on topic" is eventually counterproductive in that folks need more to remain interested or intrigued.
Figures mean little, though, unless felt on the bottom line when you are a commercial entity. Which is a problem. The number of visitors published each day seems to have a fairly low relationship to the number of daily posts, and even less to the number of images that get posted. I think, though I confess that I have never done an analysis, that the threads are kept alive by a very limited number of writers. Indeed there are often little flurries of concentrated interest, waves of people objecting to something or the other, but beyond those messages, what else do they regularly contribute, especially photographically, which is what some of them demand be the limits of Lula?
-
I expected better from you, Andrew. Such utterly simplistic reasoning is way below your intellectual abilities.
I can't add to that - you state it all, as I'm damned sure he recognizes.
;-)
-
Now, now, boys. You all know I'm a leftie.
All we've determined for sure here is that one of us has thought it through more carefully than the other. While each of us is convinced that "it's me" one of us (at least) is wrong. If only we knew for sure which.
-
I expected better from you, Andrew. Such utterly simplistic reasoning is way below your intellectual abilities.
+ at least a couple.
I think it's just fascinating to hear from people who have very strong politically correct opinions about this stuff, but who've never actually been in the situations upon which they're commenting.
-
+ at least a couple.
I think it's just fascinating to hear from people who have very strong politically correct opinions about this stuff, but who've never actually been in the situations upon which they're commenting.
Ok, so here we have a really nice case study.
Russ, I like you. I think you like me. To a degree, we have some mutual respect. So, I'm gonna examine this with as much generosity as I can muster.
You have, essentially, addressed a grown man (me) and not a young one at that. You have asserted, without evidence or without any actual knowledge, that this
person (yes, you weaseled and seem to be referring to an abstract "people" but we all know you mean me) that I have no relevant experience, and am simply
repeated positions that I have, evidently, learned from other sources. Positions which are, in your august opinion, not backed up by my actual life experience.
I genuinely don't think you meant it as insulting, but it was. It is. Am I stung? No, of course not. I'm a grownup, and it's a minor slight, and I don't think
you really meant it as hurtful, so, whatever. I get worse from jamokes on the street every day.
But your position is untenable, its unsupportable, and it's also just plain wrong. I have done a fair bit of living, and my positions are in fact consistent with my
observations. I actually do pay attention.
-
As far as I know he converted from Canonism to Nikonism...
Best regards
Erik
And as far as the fanboy comments goes, it is clearly misplaced. There hasn't been a Canon fanboy spotting in years... ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I find that interesting, especially from someone who has dated models.
I've never dated a model though I did meet one at a benefit where I was an invited speaker (and did have a delightful conversation).
Please do me a favour: quote my "offensive" post in full, and then make bold the parts that you found offensive so that I may reread them and try to imagine why.
Re-read Phil Brown's first response to you back on the Pros behaving normally thread. The problem is not in what you say but the tacit acceptance that this is the way things work/worked. YOu may have been one of the 'good' guys in a profession that had some bad actors. I just finished listening to Marc Maron's interview with the actress Heather Graham this morning where they discussed the prevalence of harassment in the movie industry. Again nothing new with this as it's been all over the news. Look how long it took to bring some of the more egregious players to justice even though it was well known how long some of this had been going on. Sexual harassment or offering sexual favors for career advancement are both wrong and should be called out and deemed unacceptable.
-
I expected better from you, Andrew. Such utterly simplistic reasoning is way below your intellectual abilities.
Aimed for the intended audience! :o
-
... one of us (at least) is wrong. If only we knew for sure which.
Andrew,
I am sure it isn't me. I am never wrong. I thought I was once, but I was mistaken.
-
Aimed for the intended audience! :o
Oh, come on, Andrew! That's the best you can do? I know you can do much better in hurling insults in a debate.
-
Oh, come on, Andrew! That's the best you can do? I know you can do much better in hurling insults in a debate.
Re-read again: Aimed for the intended audience! :o
-
Please, everyone, be sure to keep the Andrews straight. We're different Andrews. I'm the pretty one.
-
But your position is untenable, its unsupportable, and it's also just plain wrong. I have done a fair bit of living, and my positions are in fact consistent with my
observations. I actually do pay attention.
Fine, Andrew. Let's hear about the experience you've gained with Rob's subject from your fair bit of living. Let's also hear about the specific observations you say are consistent with your positions.
-
Please, everyone, be sure to keep the Andrews straight. We're different Andrews. I'm the pretty one.
Of course, and the other is 🐕-ugly. I know. So, who’s confusing you? Not me.
-
Sure. Here's one.
I sailed competitively for several years. Sailing, at least in the areas where I sailed, is a profoundly male dominated sport. Probably less than 10 percent women.
Why?
Everyone involved, basically, wanted more women involved. Almost everyone involved felt that women were as good at or better than men at sailing (women, for some reason, seem to be better drivers in particular, and muscle power is irrelevant because if you're using brute strength on a sailboat you've already lost). So, what the hell?
Basically we couldn't quite stop being boys. We'd just say dumb shit. Not quite wolf-whistles, but on that end of things. It doesn't help that sailing overlaps with drinking, so people's judgement isn't always at the top of the charts. Even as a guy acutely conscious of the problem, I found myself on one occasion, cap in hand, apologizing to a young woman.
The result wasn't that women felt violated as such, or particularly vigorously harassed. It was just that there was this relatively low wall they had to climb over. If you want to sail, as a woman, you're gonna have to put up with a little, pretty much continuous, low-key male bullshit. And, frankly, not that many women want to. It's a big world, with much opportunity, and sailing, while attractive, isn't that attractive. It's not like the male BS is a big deal, it's a small deal. But it is one more damn thing, and you know, photography is pretty appealing too and there's less BS, so.
So we have a situation in which literally everyone in play wants more women involved and it just cannot happen because of a bunch of stuff that seems to be baked in, and that sucks.
I worked in tech for 20+ years, fill in the blanks if you want. I was a mathematician for, between 1 and 10 years, depending on how you count, fill in the blanks if you want. I hang around with photographers who hire models to photograph, fill in the blanks if you want. And I dare say there's a few other bits and pieces here and there. I've been around a while, I've done some things, and often there were women lurking about the place.
-
Sure. Here's one.
I sailed competitively for several years. Sailing, at least in the areas where I sailed, is a profoundly male dominated sport. Probably less than 10 percent women.
Why?
Everyone involved, basically, wanted more women involved. Almost everyone involved felt that women were as good at or better than men at sailing (women, for some reason, seem to be better drivers in particular, and muscle power is irrelevant because if you're using brute strength on a sailboat you've already lost). So, what the hell?
Basically we couldn't quite stop being boys. We'd just say dumb shit. Not quite wolf-whistles, but on that end of things. It doesn't help that sailing overlaps with drinking, so people's judgement isn't always at the top of the charts. Even as a guy acutely conscious of the problem, I found myself on one occasion, cap in hand, apologizing to a young woman.
The result wasn't that women felt violated as such, or particularly vigorously harassed. It was just that there was this relatively low wall they had to climb over. If you want to sail, as a woman, you're gonna have to put up with a little, pretty much continuous, low-key male bullshit. And, frankly, not that many women want to. It's a big world, with much opportunity, and sailing, while attractive, isn't that attractive. It's not like the male BS is a big deal, it's a small deal. But it is one more damn thing, and you know, photography is pretty appealing too and there's less BS, so.
So we have a situation in which literally everyone in play wants more women involved and it just cannot happen because of a bunch of stuff that seems to be baked in, and that sucks.
I worked in tech for 20+ years, fill in the blanks if you want. I was a mathematician for, between 1 and 10 years, depending on how you count, fill in the blanks if you want. I hang around with photographers who hire models to photograph, fill in the blanks if you want. And I dare say there's a few other bits and pieces here and there. I've been around a while, I've done some things, and often there were women lurking about the place.
Now that's touching, Andrew; my women never lurked. They were right up there, in your face. It was up to you to deal with it. No shrinking violets ever got anywhere, to my knowledge, female, male or anything somewhere in-between.
That's what makes the Me2ers etc. come over as a bunch of whited sepulchers. Like I claimed before, you should know the business you want to crash. By the time you are walking red carpets you have probably paid your dues, made your deals with your particular devils - one way or the other.
Unfortunately, perhaps the surprising choice of walking away from situation they didn't like didn't occur to them... or if it did, they survived and got to where they currently are: on that desirable red carpet they suffered to tread. Life is never easy, even for the rich.
-
Sure. Here's one.
I sailed competitively for several years. Sailing, at least in the areas where I sailed, is a profoundly male dominated sport. Probably less than 10 percent women.
Why?
Everyone involved, basically, wanted more women involved. Almost everyone involved felt that women were as good at or better than men at sailing (women, for some reason, seem to be better drivers in particular, and muscle power is irrelevant because if you're using brute strength on a sailboat you've already lost). So, what the hell?
Basically we couldn't quite stop being boys. We'd just say dumb shit. Not quite wolf-whistles, but on that end of things. It doesn't help that sailing overlaps with drinking, so people's judgement isn't always at the top of the charts. Even as a guy acutely conscious of the problem, I found myself on one occasion, cap in hand, apologizing to a young woman.
The result wasn't that women felt violated as such, or particularly vigorously harassed. It was just that there was this relatively low wall they had to climb over. If you want to sail, as a woman, you're gonna have to put up with a little, pretty much continuous, low-key male bullshit. And, frankly, not that many women want to. It's a big world, with much opportunity, and sailing, while attractive, isn't that attractive. It's not like the male BS is a big deal, it's a small deal. But it is one more damn thing, and you know, photography is pretty appealing too and there's less BS, so.
So we have a situation in which literally everyone in play wants more women involved and it just cannot happen because of a bunch of stuff that seems to be baked in, and that sucks.
I worked in tech for 20+ years, fill in the blanks if you want. I was a mathematician for, between 1 and 10 years, depending on how you count, fill in the blanks if you want. I hang around with photographers who hire models to photograph, fill in the blanks if you want. And I dare say there's a few other bits and pieces here and there. I've been around a while, I've done some things, and often there were women lurking about the place.
Okay Andrew. That's quite a confession. I've never sailed competitively, and I've never done fashion photography, but I've spent a few years overseas in the military where the kind of behavior in which you and your buddies were engaging would be considered extremely tame. Here's (http://www.russ-lewis.com/asia/Shorts/S-ditch.html) an example of what I'm talking about. It's one of the short stories I wrote after my last year overseas.
The problem is that you can stand on principle and stamp your feet about the awful things other people do, but unless you've walked in their shoes and learned what they've learned you really haven't a clue, and your foot-stamping comes across as a way to inflate your own ego. I see that too often on LuLa.
-
By "lurking about the place" I mean simply that they were present. Perhaps I have read too much PG Wodehouse for my own good.
-
The result wasn't that women felt violated as such, or particularly vigorously harassed. It was just that there was this relatively low wall they had to climb over. If you want to sail, as a woman, you're gonna have to put up with a little, pretty much continuous, low-key male bullshit. And, frankly, not that many women want to. It's a big world, with much opportunity, and sailing, while attractive, isn't that attractive. It's not like the male BS is a big deal, it's a small deal. But it is one more damn thing, and you know, photography is pretty appealing too and there's less BS, so.
So we have a situation in which literally everyone in play wants more women involved and it just cannot happen because of a bunch of stuff that seems to be baked in, and that sucks.
I worked in tech for 20+ years, fill in the blanks if you want. I was a mathematician for, between 1 and 10 years, depending on how you count, fill in the blanks if you want. I hang around with photographers who hire models to photograph, fill in the blanks if you want. And I dare say there's a few other bits and pieces here and there. I've been around a while, I've done some things, and often there were women lurking about the place.
1. Wow! And you don't imagine that that same bullshit drives men out of their minds too? It's one reason I'd always prefer eating with a couple of women than with a table of men. Pubs, as places to stand and drink, I avoided all my life, and only now, single, I use them for quick, reasonable and relatively inexpensive food that matches my pension. Men talk sport for one good reason: they find that the majority of their fellows have almost no conversation at all beyond probably imaginary conquests or how much they earn. With sport, they find a common, easy subject. What's there to say that really matters a damn about kicking a ball or clubbing a poor old golf ball?
2. What does that mean? What are the blanks one is invited to fill in on that basis of information? Many people hire models for many reasons, some good - some not so much. In exactly the same way there are models and then there are "models".
-
and your foot-stamping comes across as a way to inflate your own ego. I see that too often on LuLa.
Yup, ever looked in the mirror? ;)
-
Yup, ever looked in the mirror? ;)
Russ is not a pretentious know-it-all. I don't always agree with him, but I respect his intelligence, photography, life experience, and self-awareness.
-
Russ is not a pretentious know-it-all. I don't always agree with him, but I respect his intelligence, photography, life experience, and self-awareness.
+1
-
Yup, ever looked in the mirror? ;)
That is too personal, uncalled for, and below your dignity.
-
Yup, ever looked in the mirror? ;)
Thanks, Pieter. You illustrated my point exactly.
-
Russ is not a pretentious know-it-all. I don't always agree with him, but I respect his intelligence, photography, life experience, and self-awareness.
+1, just for the record I never said he was a pretentious know-it-all and I also respect him. I have no idea why you thought any different.
-
That is too personal, uncalled for, and below your dignity.
Isn't that a double standard Slobodan?
Is it OK to say "The problem is that you can stand on principle and stamp your feet about the awful things other people do, but unless you've walked in their shoes and learned what they've learned you really haven't a clue, and your foot-stamping comes across as a way to inflate your own ego. I see that too often on LuLa." but not OK to ask for some self reflection of the person who wrote that (without stating the outcome)?
-
Thanks, Pieter. You illustrated my point exactly.
Glad to be of service, care to share the findings? ;)
-
Like I claimed before, you should know the business you want to crash.
And, again, therein lies the problem. A little (well, a large) dose of exclusivity. This is "our" domain, set by men who then are outraged that someone would complain about them behaving badly "because we've been here from the start, behaving this way, and no one complained before (but of course!)".
You don't get to claim that behaviour is acceptable simply because it is unchanged since the beginning.
Essentially, we have a bunch of spoiled brats who think they are men who insist that anyone who thinks differently to them is weak, wrong, lacking in life experience, and so on.
And whilst we're on the topic of life experience, it doesn't really matter how old you are once you have the capacity for individual thought. Many a fool spends their life doing nothing and learning nothing.
-
Including those who think the word "their" is singular?
-
Including those who think the word "their" is singular?
We changed the meaning – keep up!
-
And, again, therein lies the problem. A little (well, a large) dose of exclusivity. This is "our" domain, set by men who then are outraged that someone would complain about them behaving badly "because we've been here from the start, behaving this way, and no one complained before (but of course!)".
You don't get to claim that behaviour is acceptable simply because it is unchanged since the beginning.
Essentially, we have a bunch of spoiled brats who think they are men who insist that anyone who thinks differently to them is weak, wrong, lacking in life experience, and so on.
And whilst we're on the topic of life experience, it doesn't really matter how old you are once you have the capacity for individual thought. Many a fool spends their life doing nothing and learning nothing.
Here we go again: a massive extrapolation from a handful of visible stars behaving badly because they can, right to the ignoring of the fact that far from being any boys' club, the business of fashion and glamour photography has forever enjoyed a large and successful female contingent.
Oh well, easier to hurl bricks than to lay them.
Rob
-
I've never dated a model though I did meet one at a benefit where I was an invited speaker (and did have a delightful conversation).
Re-read Phil Brown's first response to you back on the Pros behaving normally thread. The problem is not in what you say but the tacit acceptance that this is the way things work/worked. YOu may have been one of the 'good' guys in a profession that had some bad actors. I just finished listening to Marc Maron's interview with the actress Heather Graham this morning where they discussed the prevalence of harassment in the movie industry. Again nothing new with this as it's been all over the news. Look how long it took to bring some of the more egregious players to justice even though it was well known how long some of this had been going on. Sexual harassment or offering sexual favors for career advancement are both wrong and should be called out and deemed unacceptable.
How strange; I had imagined that the picture you posted of you and the model also carried copy claiming it to have been a date...
But here we go again: you cannot quote anything I wrote directly, for obvious reasons, but can extrapolate from it and enjoy a righteous glory in your interpretation of those lines... just as is Farmer doing, probably without for a moment realising that he fights a fight with shadows: I am not his adversary at all! I have attempted, in this thread and associated ones, to underline my adoration of women, for what they are, represent to me, and for the love some have given me. But hey, as I say, it's impossible to whip the fog without losing interest...
-
Including those who think the word "their" is singular?
Ouch!
-
But here we go again: you cannot quote anything I wrote directly, for obvious reasons...
I can quote you. You came to the defence of those ‘visible stars behaving badly’ with talk of ‘willing rape’ and the insistence that ‘it takes two to tango’. You followed this up by saying, ‘if you don’t like the club, stay the fuck away.’ And today you equated the #metoo movement with islamic fundamentalism. Can you not see how alienating these attitudes are to women who might want to participate in this forum?
-
We changed the meaning – keep up!
By "keep up" I guess you mean "join the PC illiterates."
-
I can quote you...
Then why don’t you? Quote words that match your conjecture, instead of inspiring you to it, that is?
-
Then why don’t you?
I did.
And you said the same thing. 'It takes two to tango.'
In the context of the discussion, which was about successful fashion photographers abusing their power to sexually assault their models, that was offensive.
-
But here we go again: you cannot quote anything I wrote directly, for obvious reasons, but can extrapolate from it and enjoy a righteous glory in your interpretation of those lines... just as is Farmer doing, probably without for a moment realising that he fights a fight with shadows: I am not his adversary at all! I have attempted, in this thread and associated ones, to underline my adoration of women, for what they are, represent to me, and for the love some have given me. But hey, as I say, it's impossible to whip the fog without losing interest...
I'll not speak for Phil as he has more than ably made some key points. Any occupation that relies on individuals (fashion, movies, sports to highlight perhaps the three major ones and let us not forget popular music) has seen abuse of various kinds over the years (certainly in the case of movies since its inception with the "casting couch"). Now sometimes egregious behavior is/was tolerated with a wink and a nod; 'boys will be boys and girls will be girls.' What angers me is how long it has taken for some of this behavior to be called out for what it is/was. Look how many years the gymnastics doctor got away with sexually abusing young girls; same for Harvey Weinstein. In the latter case, actresses were told never go into a room with Harvey alone. Yet it was only in 2017 that he was stripped of his corporate power. What we are seeing today is a rapid change in how such behavior is treated. the old status quo is unacceptable and rightfully so. For some of us, this outrageous behavior has to be called out every time it happens as that is the only way it can be stopped.
The female figure has been a center piece of art going back to early times (and there have been many published iconographic studies). Photography, whether it is high fashion or something verging on the prurient, is no different. What I object to is the abuse of subjects and similarly the intentional trading of sexual favors for career advancement (and this applies to many situations outside of the arts). My reading of what you have written, and I apologize if I have misinterpreted, is that you are a little too cavalier in your acceptance of the way things were. I'll leave it at that and let others continue to respond as they see fit. As with many discussion on this forum of LuLa there are strongly held opinions and the Internet has never been a good place to discuss issues such as this one as we all end up talking past one another or engage in snarky repartee which doesn't advance any discussion.
-
I can quote you. You came to the defence of those ‘visible stars behaving badly’ with talk of ‘willing rape’ and the insistence that ‘it takes two to tango’. You followed this up by saying, ‘if you don’t like the club, stay the fuck away.’ And today you equated the #metoo movement with islamic fundamentalism. Can you not see how alienating these attitudes are to women who might want to participate in this forum?
Oh brother! Willing rapes are not news and not reserved to the arts; two to tango is fact, not of someone's imagination. Yes, do stay away if the kitchen is too hot. You can take up cold, vegetarian cuisine instead, if you like. But do not preach to those within, wearing the aprons, on how to cook. And, if you wish to reply to posts addressed at specific correspondents, do the right thing and follow the request made to them and quote in full; cherry-picking is even frowned upon by European politicos, which is saying something!
For your clarification, I equated fundamentalists Christianity with its Islamic equivalents, of which there are several, just as with the Christian versions of same.
The Me2 movement I classify along with the bomb-banners and all the rest of the dreamers. I see them as people who may or may not have experienced the situation, but find it a convenient platform for appearing on the news. Has it escaped you that all the focus is on the bombshells in the cute, black, designer dresses? Miss or Mrs Average is as excluded by the glam set as ever she was. The entire show is a promotion. As for the moguls, they will simply function in different roles, as with all the gang bosses in prison today: their world rolls on.
As for the few women participating in LuLa today: it's up to them to play their card, express their indignation at this horrible little primate who doesn't buy the 21st Century crap so many swallow, hook line and bleedin' sinker. I would, of course, expect them to be accurate with their arrows should they feel the need to fire them. Hysteria doesn't equate with right either, but you know that.
:-)
-
You don't have a monopoly on photographing women. I photograph women too – though with less of an emphasis on their oiled breasts.
You've misunderstood the #metoo movement. It is a ground-up phenomenon of everyday women calling out everyday sexism. There's more to it than what you see on the telly.
-
I'll not speak for Phil as he has more than ably made some key points. Any occupation that relies on individuals (fashion, movies, sports to highlight perhaps the three major ones and let us not forget popular music) has seen abuse of various kinds over the years (certainly in the case of movies since its inception with the "casting couch"). Now sometimes egregious behavior is/was tolerated with a wink and a nod; 'boys will be boys and girls will be girls.' What angers me is how long it has taken for some of this behavior to be called out for what it is/was. Look how many years the gymnastics doctor got away with sexually abusing young girls; same for Harvey Weinstein. In the latter case, actresses were told never go into a room with Harvey alone. Yet it was only in 2017 that he was stripped of his corporate power. What we are seeing today is a rapid change in how such behavior is treated. the old status quo is unacceptable and rightfully so. For some of us, this outrageous behavior has to be called out every time it happens as that is the only way it can be stopped.
The female figure has been a center piece of art going back to early times (and there have been many published iconographic studies). Photography, whether it is high fashion or something verging on the prurient, is no different. What I object to is the abuse of subjects and similarly the intentional trading of sexual favors for career advancement (and this applies to many situations outside of the arts). My reading of what you have written, and I apologize if I have misinterpreted, is that you are a little too cavalier in your acceptance of the way things were. I'll leave it at that and let others continue to respond as they see fit. As with many discussion on this forum of LuLa there are strongly held opinions and the Internet has never been a good place to discuss issues such as this one as we all end up talking past one another or engage in snarky repartee which doesn't advance any discussion.
Hi Alan, and your point is? Stated perhaps in a single sentence?
By the way, I certainly agree that the female figure has been a "center piece" in art.
-
The AP style guide now accepts "they/them/their" as singular pronouns in cases where appropriate.
Language evolves.
-
Let's face it, Andrew, the Associated Press will accept ANYTHING as long as it leans left. I'm not surprised that they'll accept left-imposed, PC corruptions of English grammar.
-
I think it's fascinating hearing how sexually oppressed and put-upon women are, and how they're simply unable to fight back and nail their oppressors. . . guys like the gymnast doctor and Weinstein (and those nasty fashion photographers), all of whom should have been arrested early in their careers, and would have been had the women they oppressed raised hell and gone to the cops. . .
And then, at the same time hearing about how tough women are; how they're perfectly capable of performing normal military duties along with men, and how they even belong in combat units.
Anyone else see at least a mild dichotomy in this?
-
Glad to be of service, care to share the findings? ;)
The "findings" are that you stamped your foot at exactly the right moment.
-
The "findings" are that you stamped your foot at exactly the right moment.
Where did you get I stamped my foot? You got that wrong Russ. I just laughed out loud at the folly of this discussion (on both sides) :)
Btw, I fully agree with Rob, Slobodan and you on the core of the matter, I just am less vocal against people who have a different opinion on it.
Life's too short to get mad about it and arguments like "yours is bigger then mine" (or the reverse) never lead anywhere.
-
... I photograph women too..
Do show us, please.
-
I think it's fascinating hearing how sexually oppressed and put-upon women are, and how they're simply unable to fight back and nail their oppressors. . . guys like the gymnast doctor and Weinstein (and those nasty fashion photographers), all of whom should have been arrested early in their careers, and would have been had the women they oppressed raised hell and gone to the cops. . .
... and there, in full view, is the moral turpitude and, as Andrew Molitor accurately described it, 'normalising glibness'.
The women DID, 'twas the US gymnastics governing body that not only suppressed the reports, but threatened some of the gymnasts too.
Sexual assault under the guise of medical treatment, plain and simple.
The entire board of USA Gymnastics has subsequently resigned, complying with the order of the USOC.
There may well be further criminal charges.
The US House of Representatives, the Senate, the Department of Education and the USOC have all announced further investigations.
-
... and there, in full view, is the moral turpitude and, as Andrew Molitor accurately described it, 'normalising glibness'.
The women DID, 'twas the US gymnastics governing body that not only suppressed the reports, but threatened some of the gymnasts too.
Sexual assault under the guise of medical treatment, plain and simple.
The entire board of USA Gymnastics has subsequently resigned, complying with the order of the USOC.
There may well be further criminal charges.
The US House of Representatives, the Senate, the Department of Education and the USOC have all announced further investigations.
But where, in all of that, features photography, modelling and acting or even showbiz as a whole?
To the fact that abuse of kids, patients and/or anybody else is "an undesirable thing" there seems to be no argument here at all. Where there is argument is when that logic is seamlessly transported into a situation where different rules have and always will apply, for one simple reason: the "victim" has always been free to get up and walk out of the situation. If she or he chooses not to do that, decides it's in his or her best interest to play along, then there really is no case to contest. It is a choice.
Now, let nobody muddy the clarity of this by introducing rape. That denies the victim the opportunity to choose the option of flight, and is a different thing entirely.
But you know what? As has been pointed out, this will run in circles as long as folks want to be blind and/or prepared to chop and change paragraphs and relocate sentences to suit their arguments.
It is simply a waste of my time to continue. I leave it to others now to play on: they have all had time to learn the new rules of debate.
-
Rob, you seem to think coercion falls into two distinct camps. Let us suppose that I have a lovely in a small room with me, which lovely I propose to have some sort of physical encounter with. I could communicate, verbally or non-verbally, a variety of things:
- If you attempt to leave, I will shoot you and your family
- If you attempt to leave, I will punch you in the face
- If you attempt to leave, I will destroy your career
- If you attempt to leave, I will make it more difficult for you to get the good gigs
- If you attempt to leave, this gig is over and you will not be paid
- If you attempt to leave, I will be very upset and sad, why do you want to HURT me?!!!
- If you attempt to leave, I will do nothing whatsoever, no harm, no foul
Everything except the last one is coercive to one degree or another. Even in the first case, the young lovely could certainly make a break for the door and see what happens. It's not even that there is a line somewhere in here between rape/not-rape, the whole damn scenario is lines.
ETA: And, notably, the young lovely has a choice in every scenario.
Chuck in there a few other possibles, like maybe the young lovely is 14 years old, or she barely speaks english, or perhaps we've been doing what *I* think is flirting like mad for the last three days, but what *she* thinks is just being polite to the photographer? Or vice versa?
These are infernally complicated situations, and to pretend that it's simple is flat-out insulting to everyone. The possibilities for horrendous missteps and horrendous abuse are rife. Given that we're often talking about vulnerable young women (young, under-educated, wildly eager for success) and older wiser staff, it's pretty clear that it's incumbent on the older and wiser staff to a) keep their pants zipped up and b) watch out for the kids.
You may have thought of it as just a bunch of pros working together in a sexually exciting environment. But realistically, it also has a lot in common with a high school full of beautiful girls and male teachers.
It's patently clear that there are plenty of fellows who neither watched out for the kids, nor kept their pants zipped up. They were bad, bad, teachers.
-
The women DID, 'twas the US gymnastics governing body that not only suppressed the reports, but threatened some of the gymnasts too.
No kidding, Manoli? So you're saying the women went to the cops with this and the US gymnastics governing body suppressed the reports? Golly. How could they do that? What did they do, bribe the DA or the police?
-
To the fact that abuse of kids, patients and/or anybody else is "an undesirable thing" there seems to be no argument here at all.
The issue is in your choice of words. No, it's not just 'an undesirable thing' - it's a criminal act.
... for one simple reason: the "victim" has always been free to get up and walk out of the situation. If she or he chooses not to do that, decides it's in his or her best interest to play along, then there really is no case to contest. It is a choice.
... except when it's not. And again, that they didn't, has no relevance as to whether or not it was a criminal act
--
Rob,
Before you go - I'm sure that you mean well, but it's plainly evident that the first-hand experiences you speak of are of another era. Times change, laws with them. The world of pro fashion photography has changed with it.
Photographers are no longer the stars, the models are. Photographers survive under the patronage of the top rags. Look at the credits on some of Testino's books and you might twig.
One more thing - when and where was it that you claim you'd worked for Vogue ?
-
No, Russ, they went to the governing body and left with the impression, accurate or not, that if they DID go to the cops that a) their career in gymnastics would be over and that b) it would be jolly touch and go whether they'd get any satisfaction from the cops.
Or, possibly, they left with the inaccurate impression that justice would be served, internally, and were surprised to learn gradually that it was not to be served.
-
No kidding, Manoli? So you're saying the women went to the cops with this and the US gymnastics governing body suppressed the reports? Golly. How could they do that? What did they do, bribe the DA or the police?
Guess you'll need to read your own press, the results of the various investigations and the Senate reports to find out. Were parts of the police complicit ? Dunno - but whether they were or not , doesn't change the culpability of those so far convicted.
-
Rob, you seem to think coercion falls into two distinct camps. Let us suppose that I have a lovely in a small room with me, which lovely I propose to have some sort of physical encounter with. I could communicate, verbally or non-verbally, a variety of things:
- If you attempt to leave, I will shoot you and your family
- If you attempt to leave, I will punch you in the face
- If you attempt to leave, I will destroy your career
- If you attempt to leave, I will make it more difficult for you to get the good gigs
- If you attempt to leave, this gig is over and you will not be paid
- If you attempt to leave, I will be very upset and sad, why do you want to HURT me?!!!
- If you attempt to leave, I will do nothing whatsoever, no harm, no foul
Everything except the last one is coercive to one degree or another. Even in the first case, the young lovely could certainly make a break for the door and see what happens. It's not even that there is a line somewhere in here between rape/not-rape, the whole damn scenario is lines.
Chuck in there a few other possibles, like maybe the young lovely is 14 years old, or she barely speaks english, or perhaps we've been doing what *I* think is flirting like mad for the last three days, but what *she* thinks is just being polite to the photographer? Or vice versa?
These are infernally complicated situations, and to pretend that it's simple is flat-out insulting to everyone. The possibilities for horrendous missteps and horrendous abuse are rife. Given that we're often talking about vulnerable young women (young, under-educated, wildly eager for success) and older wiser staff, it's pretty clear that it's incumbent on the older and wiser staff to a) keep their pants zipped up and b) watch out for the kids.
You may have thought of it as just a bunch of pros working together in a sexually exciting environment. But realistically, it also has a lot in common with a high school full of beautiful girls and male teachers.
It's patently clear that there are plenty of fellows who neither watched out for the kids, nor kept their pants zipped up. They were bad, bad, teachers.
In spite of my better judgement: yes, I am thinking exclusively of an adult situation and I have never, to the best of my knowledge, employed models under seventeen other than the children of friends of my wife, with the mother or my wife around, for "back to school" pix of blazers and school satchels.
There is no place for thirteen-year-old female models in fashion photography, in my opinion, and using them as thin adults because they have better skin is madness. Messing with any child, in any circumstance, should have you jailed for half of your life, at least, because in those cases, one is speaking of perverts, not men with the hots for real women of the age of consent - or refusal.
Regarding your hypothetical school full of beautiful girls: where is it? I married the only one I ever saw in mine! :-)
Here's a snap to show what a pig I must be regarding the ladies:
-
To be honest, Rob, your own testimony suggests that you were absolutely one of those who kept his pants zipped and looked out for the kids, and good for you. I believe you. You never were, nor would have been, part of the problem.
-
No, Russ, they went to the governing body and left with the impression, accurate or not, that if they DID go to the cops that a) their career in gymnastics would be over and that b) it would be jolly touch and go whether they'd get any satisfaction from the cops.
Or, possibly, they left with the inaccurate impression that justice would be served, internally, and were surprised to learn gradually that it was not to be served.
So much for the idea of tough, combat-ready women, eh Andrew? (1) If you're being molested by some cruddy doc it seems to me your career in gymnastics would come in somewhere behind the need to end the molestation. (2) Why would you go to a political agency like the "governing body" with your complaints instead of to the cops? (3) If you complained to the "governing body" and then left with the idea that justice would be served; then discovered (gradually? how does gradual molestation work?) that you're still being molested, why would you ignore the situation and just move on? The whole story is absurd.
-
We're talking about children here, Russ. Little kids who have devoted almost literally their entire lives to one fanatical dream. Little kids who have lived under the thumb of a group of adults who hold the keys to this dream.
We're not talking about some guy who might lose his job at a donut shop, and we're not talking about grownups.
Do I expect my 8 year old to go to the police with her problems? No, she comes either to me, to mom, or to a responsible adult at her school. If she goes to the latter first, and if they impress upon her that Terrible Consequences Will Occur if she tells her parents, well, it would be hard for me to get out of her what the trouble was.
And she's 8, not 14, and she's not a fanatic.
To suggest that these children must have not really minded the sexual abuse all THAT much because, at age 14, they would rather suffer abuse than to smash their *entire* *life* into tiny broken pieces is wildly fucking offensive.
Let's try this out, Russ. I'm gonna hold a gun to one of your loved one's heads now "Suck my cock, Russ, or I will blow her fucking head off, but hey, you've got a choice, so it must just be that you love the dick, right? C'mon, big guy, on your knees!"
Are you offended yet? Maybe just a little? Or is this all cool with ya?
-
And, yeah, I expect that was a bit much, and I expect to be moderated in some fashion or another. But Russ is ex-military, and I assume he's heard worse and lived to tell about it.
-
To be honest, Rob, your own testimony suggests that you were absolutely one of those who kept his pants zipped and looked out for the kids, and good for you. I believe you. You never were, nor would have been, part of the problem.
agreed
-
We're talking about children here, Russ. Little kids who have devoted almost literally their entire lives to one fanatical dream. Little kids who have lived under the thumb of a group of adults who hold the keys to this dream.
We're not talking about some guy who might lose his job at a donut shop, and we're not talking about grownups.
Do I expect my 8 year old to go to the police with her problems? No, she comes either to me, to mom, or to a responsible adult at her school. If she goes to the latter first, and if they impress upon her that Terrible Consequences Will Occur if she tells her parents, well, it would be hard for me to get out of her what the trouble was.
And she's 8, not 14, and she's not a fanatic.
To suggest that these children must have not really minded the sexual abuse all THAT much because, at age 14, they would rather suffer abuse than to smash their *entire* *life* into tiny broken pieces is wildly fucking offensive.
Let's try this out, Russ. I'm gonna hold a gun to one of your loved one's heads now "Suck my cock, Russ, or I will blow her fucking head off, but hey, you've got a choice, so it must just be that you love the dick, right? C'mon, big guy, on your knees!"
Are you offended yet? Maybe just a little? Or is this all cool with ya?
Really? How old were these children? Teenagers? Can you imagine what would happen if these creeps tried this stuff on a few teenage boys? I have four sons and I know exactly what would have happened in that case. The creeps would have been lucky to have survived. You mean to tell me these kids were so driven that they didn't tell their folks about this, as you put it, gradual molestation (whatever that is)? And are you telling me their folks were just hunky-dory with it because their "careers" as gymnasts were too important to bother about some minor thing like molestation?
Oh. Okay. You're telling me that if your eight-year-old gymnast went to the school authorities about molestation and they threatened her she wouldn't tell you about it? Wow! That's quite a family situation.
And if you were to try to raise a gun to one of my kids or grandkids or great-grandkids for any reason, I'd blow your head off before you could get the gun up.
These "children" aren't that young, and if the adults around them aren't protecting them from the kind of crap we're hearing about, then there's something terribly wrong with their parents and the other adults involved. And the Olympic committee. Actually, when it comes to the Olympic committee there's plenty wrong, but that's a different subject.
-
Yes, precisely! There's something very wrong with the Olympic Committee! We agree. They
should bloody well all hang. And it's perfectly possible there are some seriously bad parents involved
as well. I think you could argue that permitting your child to compete in Olympic level gymnastics
at all is horrible parenting, even absent sexual abuse by doctors.
These girls are world champions at ages like 16, they're in the system starting WELL before that. The Olympic doctor
was (allegedly, if you like, but there is a conviction on file) abusing these girls at around age 15. Children. Fanatics.
No need to use masculine bluster on me, You know perfectly well I pose precisely no threat to you or to yours,
for lots of reasons. The point is, I hope, clear.
The presence of a choice does not make it OK. If I offer you a terrible choice, that does not make the result your fault.
-
And, to be blunt, we know exactly what happens when people try this sort of thing out on teenaged boys, thanks to the tender mercies of the Catholic Church. And it's not terribly pretty.
People in positions of power will offer pretty unpleasant choices in their search for sexual gratification, sometimes, and that doesn't always mean that it's the victim's fault.
-
So much for the idea of tough, combat-ready women, eh Andrew? (1) If you're being molested by some cruddy doc it seems to me your career in gymnastics would come in somewhere behind the need to end the molestation. (2) Why would you go to a political agency like the "governing body" with your complaints instead of to the cops? (3) If you complained to the "governing body" and then left with the idea that justice would be served; then discovered (gradually? how does gradual molestation work?) that you're still being molested, why would you ignore the situation and just move on? The whole story is absurd.
It's one thing if the male photographer and female model mutually agree on some extracurricular activities, and a completely different thing if the male boss in any occupation presses a woman against her will into something she'd rather not do.
I don't know the US Army statistics, but here are some from Canada:
Canadian Military Police have received between 134 and 201 sexual assault complaints every year since the year 2000, averaging to 178 per year. It has been further reported that one-in-thirteen women in the Canadian Forces has been sexually assaulted in connection with their military employment. According to Vice Magazine, the Royal Canadian Army Cadets is "plagued with sexual abuse allegations".
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/canadas-first-female-infantry-officer-breaks-silence-on-abuse/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/soldiers-almost-twice-as-likely-to-be-sexually-assaulted-statistics-canada-says/article33066760/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/third-sexual-abuse-class-action-suit-in-works-against-canadian-military/article33256676/
-
... the Royal Canadian Army Cadets is "plagued with sexual abuse allegations"...
Ohm my! And all that in the liberal paradise!?
-
...
- If you attempt to leave, I will shoot you and your family
- If you attempt to leave, I will punch you in the face
- If you attempt to leave, I will destroy your career
- If you attempt to leave, I will make it more difficult for you to get the good gigs
- If you attempt to leave, this gig is over and you will not be paid
- If you attempt to leave, I will be very upset and sad, why do you want to HURT me?!!!
...
Oh.My.Good!!!
Andrew!!!
Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!
If only I knew sooner how easy it is to get laid using one of your magical phrases, I wouldn't have wasted my time (life, really) on all other pick-up lines, flowers, and dinners.
-
It seems so much simpler and cheaper, but sometimes the young lovely exercises her choice, and then there's this body to get rid of.
-
Does it come as a surprise that the ideology that espouses totalitarianism, government control, collectivism, i.e., lack of individual freedom to choose, is the same one denying that people have choice in getting laid?
-
It's one thing if the male photographer and female model mutually agree on some extracurricular activities, and a completely different thing if the male boss in any occupation presses a woman against her will into something she'd rather not do.
I don't know the US Army statistics, but here are some from Canada:
Canadian Military Police have received between 134 and 201 sexual assault complaints every year since the year 2000, averaging to 178 per year. It has been further reported that one-in-thirteen women in the Canadian Forces has been sexually assaulted in connection with their military employment. According to Vice Magazine, the Royal Canadian Army Cadets is "plagued with sexual abuse allegations".
http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/canadas-first-female-infantry-officer-breaks-silence-on-abuse/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/soldiers-almost-twice-as-likely-to-be-sexually-assaulted-statistics-canada-says/article33066760/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/third-sexual-abuse-class-action-suit-in-works-against-canadian-military/article33256676/
Golly. Imagine that! You put boys and girls together in a stressful situation and. . . It's amazing that no one seems to understand that any longer. After all, women are just like men. Aren't they?
-
Ohm my! And all that in the liberal paradise!?
Might be related with proximity to artillery.
-
Golly. Imagine that! You put boys and girls together in a stressful situation and. . . It's amazing that no one seems to understand that any longer. After all, women are just like men. Aren't they?
Yes, in some ways they are like men. For example, playing ice hockey.
-
Honestly, I find it too difficult to have a discussion of any intricacy here. I don't know if things being mentioned are red herrings intended to distract me, responses to other remarks by other people which I may have skimmed over too lightly, or just in-jokes referring to threads I never read. Thus, I mostly end up simply stating my position and reasoning as if into a void, and hoping for the best.
My apologies if I have failed to address anything I ought to have.
-
You know what they say about opinions...
-
Yes, in some ways they are like men. For example, playing ice hockey.
You notice that that was a girl's team, Les. It wasn't -- how shall I say it? -- a mixed bag. When you see a coed team you'll know women have become like men (in some ways).
-
The only things this is about really are harassment and abuse of power.
It hasn’t much to do with politics but it does have a cultural dimension.
But these are very real problems happening daily in front of our noses and we are probably often not reacting the way we should.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The issue is in your choice of words. No, it's not just 'an undesirable thing' - it's a criminal act.
... except when it's not. And again, that they didn't, has no relevance as to whether or not it was a criminal act
--
Rob,
Before you go - I'm sure that you mean well, but it's plainly evident that the first-hand experiences you speak of are of another era. Times change, laws with them. The world of pro fashion photography has changed with it.
Photographers are no longer the stars, the models are. Photographers survive under the patronage of the top rags. Look at the credits on some of Testino's books and you might twig.
One more thing - when and where was it that you claim you'd worked for Vogue ?
I was waiting for that, what took you so long?
From my job books, old and as tattered as they be, the best records of it that I can find today tell me this:
23-30/6/72
Amsterdam, for Vogue and IWS advertorial; I think we were based in the Apollo(?) Hotel.
4-9/7/72
Luxembourg, for Vogue and IWS advertorial - can't remember the hotel so you'll have to 'phone around yourself to find proof.
7-18/12/72
a. Lisbon
b. Algarve
For Vogue with various other clothing organizations; advertorial.
Dom Carlos hotel; Da Balaia Hotel.
11-12/1/73
Malta
Advertorial for Vogue and IWS.
Phoenicia Hotel, Valletta. (Discovered fried ice cream.)
10-18/8/73
For Vogue and IWS. Advertorial.
Cyprus.
Again, can't remember the hotel, but I'm sure you will be able to find it; it was in the south of the island.
10-13/1/74
Vogue and IWS. Advertorial.
Mallorca.
Hotel somewhere in Magalluf.
................................................................................
There may be others, all around that period, but despite being nice for the ego and CV (very!), they brough in no profit - in fact, based on the time they took to shoot and print, quite the opposite.
The irony was, most young guys chased Vogue to get advertising; for me, I was already doing advertising because there were no worthwhile mags in Scotland, and the magazine work came to me, because of the advertising work, rather than the other way around.
Best of all, I didn't once have to step into Hanover Square, doing which would have cost me more in flights than the freakin' work gave me!
If you are unfamiliar with IWS, it's the International Wool Secretariat. Another contributor to fashion trips, that I can remember today, was Monsanto. Few people floated trips without fibre company aid, hotel and airline cooperation too. Calendars, of course, were something else, with beautiful budgets.
The first trip gave me around twenty-seven pages in Vogue, and I think the smallest one gave me about nine.
Happy?
Rob
-
Yes, in some ways they are like men. For example, playing ice hockey.
And in Britain, and probably elsewhere too, they even play rugby!¡!¡
Personally, I never did enjoy touchy-touchy sport; not any kind of sport, come to think of it. Far too dangerous. Swimming was different, but though I did a lot (which I am sure contributed to unsightly, exhausted pectorals...) it never occurred to me to compete with anyone else.
Rob
-
Honestly, I find it too difficult to have a discussion of any intricacy here. I don't know if things being mentioned are red herrings intended to distract me, responses to other remarks by other people which I may have skimmed over too lightly, or just in-jokes referring to threads I never read. Thus, I mostly end up simply stating my position and reasoning as if into a void, and hoping for the best.
My apologies if I have failed to address anything I ought to have.
Of course you are bombarder with red herrings, just as have my own posts been bombarded. And with worse shit than herrings. It's why I am no longer attempting to defend my position anymore: it's pointless because people can either not read, or they can but have an opposite agenda. Add to that my difficulties with hitting the keys I thought that I'd hit, correcting over and over again, and the effort just grows beyond its value to me.
Even my own pro photographic credibilty has just been attacked, but fortunately, I do have some old records of where, what and when still around, though it is a pain in the ass trying to unearth them. One look at my office would tell you why. My late wife refused to dust any part of it, God bless her.
;-)
-
To be honest, Rob, your own testimony suggests that you were absolutely one of those who kept his pants zipped and looked out for the kids, and good for you. I believe you. You never were, nor would have been, part of the problem.
Yes, of course it does, and here part of the problem with all of the public posturing by the Me2 ad infinitum crowd: you only have their word for it, and will never know whether they do or do not speak the truth, the whole truth or only the convenient part of a truth.
The power of the attraction of those fifteen minutes of fame is staggering; you could almost forgive people for falling prey to it at whatever cost it may bring to somebody else.
In the end, you know what you know from your own experiences, and all the statistics, opinions, anecdotes from outside sources remain suspect.
They do say one is born alone and dies alone; maybe one also lives alone even within a crowd.
-
I wish I could just turn the clock back a year or two to a time when I interacted with the folk here on LuLa as fellow photographers and technicians rather than as contributors to social media. I wish I could go back to a time when I respected them for what they did and for their knowledge and could ignore their political, religious and social standpoints. I know, it's never going to happen, it's quite impossible, but there was a time I could just turn a blind eye to the shit and go with the flow.
I wish.
-
Happy?
Neither happy nor unhappy.
I asked you only for a date and place not a blow by blow account.
Edit:
And if you want to know the why - it goes back to the Vogue centenary year when I thought I might have been able to produce a pleasant surprise - I couldn't. Nothing to do with being 'attacked'.
-
To keep things related to photography and to sum up this verbose discussion with something that speaks 1000 words, here is my best visual advice to Hollywood starlets and would-be models:
-
... it's pointless because people can either not read, or they can but have an opposite agenda.
I can read, know nothing of any 'agenda' and dare say my grasp of the English language is every bit as accomplished as yours. These are your own words:
... for one simple reason: the "victim" has always been free to get up and walk out of the situation. If she or he chooses not to do that, decides it's in his or her best interest to play along, then there really is no case to contest. It is a choice.
So you need to understand what's so offensive about that.
The victim is NOT always, as you put it, 'free to walk' - which is why coercion is now classified as a duress crime. Whether or not the victim was free to walk, had other ways out or could have adopted other evasive actions has ZERO bearing on the perpetrator's culpability. Nada.
If you can grasp that, you'll perhaps begin to understand 'the agenda' of those that find your position so unpalatable.
-
... The victim is NOT always, as you put it, 'free to walk' - which is why coercion is now classified as a duress crime....
Ah, those pesky exceptions that prove the rule!
Btw, care to cite a statute about that "duress crime"?
-
The issue is in your choice of words. No, it's not just 'an undesirable thing' - it's a criminal act.
... except when it's not. And again, that they didn't, has no relevance as to whether or not it was a criminal act
--
Rob,
Before you go - I'm sure that you mean well, but it's plainly evident that the first-hand experiences you speak of are of another era. Times change, laws with them. The world of pro fashion photography has changed with it.
Photographers are no longer the stars, the models are. Photographers survive under the patronage of the top rags. Look at the credits on some of Testino's books and you might twig.
One more thing - when and where was it that you claim you'd worked for Vogue ?
Claim?
So, you want me to believe that line was not loaded with grapeshot?
FYI, I stopped buying Vogue when the Scottish fashion industry started to slide, and neither the American fibre folks nor the Australian wooll moguls were able/interested in subsidising advertising for their clients. That coincided with the 70s oil crisis, pretty much, and by the time of the Cyprus invasion in '74 I had already closed my rented studio because of the slowdown in fashion work, and had decided to do nothing but location shoots at home or abroad. (I remember that invasion because it happened a fortnight after our return from Cyprus for our first big calendar production.)
Even worse than the overall economy, was the fact that surviving clients were lured to buy from London, where PR ladies could provide manufacturers in Scotland with perfectly good studio photography for very little money, certainly for far less than floating a trip anywhere.
As luck would have it, a little flurry of new clients came along after a few months, and I was obliged to build a studio alongside our house or have to refuse the work. At that time we had no ideas about leaving the UK to live abroad. The only Vogue I paid for after the mid-70s was the first-edition of Spanish Vogue which came out during our early years here. I still have it, along with a first-edition of the short-lived, revived Nova magazine, which it did not surprise me was short-lived: nothing but Tracey Emin, swearing, and some German photographer whose name I can't remember. Neither a Feurer nor a Peccinotti in sight.
Anyway, if I misunderstood your intent, then I apologise.
-
Anyway, if I misunderstood your intent, then I apologise.
No, you're quite right that was a poor choice of words, as 'her indoors' was quick to point out this morning. By then it was too late to correct.
You have my apology, and my assurance that no malice was intended.
-
I can read, know nothing of any 'agenda' and dare say my grasp of the English language is every bit as accomplished as yours. These are your own words:
So you need to understand what's so offensive about that.
1. The victim is NOT always, as you put it, 'free to walk' - which is why coercion is now classified as a duress crime. Whether or not the victim was free to walk, had other ways out or could have adopted other evasive actions has ZERO bearing on the perpetrator's culpability. Nada.
2. If you can grasp that, you'll perhaps begin to understand 'the agenda' of those that find your position so unpalatable.
1. Oh yes, that's not a difficult idea to grasp at all; what's difficult to grasp is that some, yourself clearly included, fail to understand that the extreme situation you cite, where the person is not able to vanish of her own will, is not flirtation or trying it on: it is rape. I don't think we are speaking about obvious crimes like that at all; at least, I'm not, even if you are willing to lump nearly all possible male/female relationships into that bag. And if, indeed, they really are all legally lumped together in that way, then yet again, the law is proved an ass.
As I have never seen any of your work, I have no idea if you are a pro photographer or not, or even have any experience with model work. If you have, you will already know that one part of the technique of getting the best out of a female model is via flattery, often some verbal flirtation and the doing of whatever it takes to make her think she is wonderful and the best thing to have graced your camera, ever. The trick, simply, is to give her the confidence to do her thing as well as she can, and to take chances and try new things. You need to create an electricity, and an undertone of mild, unspoken and unrealised sexuality is often what it talkes to motivate. I'm told there are photographers who work the opposite way: they shout and curse at the poor girl. I never met such a snapper (no pun etc,) but would not be surprised if they exist.
I have very little experience of working with male models. Whenever I had to, I found it tedious and boring, and had no idea how to get anything out of them. Most appeared to be very dull individuals, and I probably struck them in the same way. Could be that some photographers found the same problem and thought to resolve it in some other way (one they might have imagined was something the model might think was a nice way...)
2. I thought you'd just said there was no agenda? Alice? You hear me? Come back through at once; it's time for tea!
Now I really have closed the door on this thread. Locked it, no; anyone who sees any remote chance of finding a compromise, or just has nothing better to do can carry on, and with my very best wishes.
-
No, you're quite right that was a poor choice of words, as 'her indoors' was quick to point out this morning. By then it was too late to correct.
You have my apology, and my assurance that no malice was intended.
Let's both be cool with that!
;-)
-
No comment.
-
No comment.
Pleading the 5th? ;)
-
I feel the need to point out the irony that no females are participating in this discussion. So basically, a bunch of upper middle class white-haired guys are talking amongst themselves about something that most probably don't have first-hand knowledge of, several of whom maintain that it doesn't really exist, because, well, they say so. I suppose that if some women did join this discussion and tried to tell you that your experience was incorrect, that you'd feel the need to tell them they were wrong. :)
-
Oh, there was a woman. But she left. For reasons some members cannot fathom. I hesitate to speculate what their theories are.
-
To keep things related to photography and to sum up this verbose discussion with something that speaks 1000 words, here is my best visual advice to Hollywood starlets and would-be models:
<sarc_on>
So, I guess we just tolerate sharks, then. It's okay to be one. They're a part of life. People just have to learn when and how to run. Serves 'em right for being there.
<sarc_off>
-
... So, I guess we just tolerate sharks, then. It's okay to be one. They're a part of life. People just have to learn when and how to run. Serves 'em right for being there...
You lefties of all people should know that sharks belong to endangered species. So, all of the above is perfectly true.
-
... most probably don't have first-hand knowledge of...
Glad to hear a modicum of self-criticism in this thread.
-
Oh, there was a woman. But she left. For reasons some members cannot fathom. I hesitate to speculate what their theories are.
Oh, yes, we can.
-
You lefties of all people should know that sharks belong to endangered species. So, all of the above is perfectly true.
I get a big kick out the way you keep calling people "lefties" (whatever that means these days) when you don't agree with them and want to somehow make fun of them. You even managed to get in a dig at "lefty paradise" Canada above, an unwarranted remark in the context I thought, since no one else brought it up. In fact, many of your thread entries are snide remarks directed at others. This comes across as trollish baiting. Why do you do it? What reaction are you attempting to provoke?
-
Oh, there was a woman. But she left. ...
Only after providing significant contribution to the discussion: righteous indignation, cursing, and name calling.
-
...In fact, many of your thread entries are snide remarks directed at others. This comes across as trollish baiting. Why do you do it? What reaction are you attempting to provoke?
-
... I suppose that if some women did join this discussion and tried to tell you that your experience was incorrect, that you'd feel the need to tell them they were wrong. :)
Not necessarily. But I would tell them, as i did, that it is not so one-sided.
For example, Sharon stated:
You don't know what it's like to lose your job... because you wouldn't sleep with your boss.
I do know.
I once lost my teaching job because a student (not a kid, btw, middle-aged) felt spurned that I did not respond to her advances and complained to the college. In these Kafkaesque times, I never learned what the complaint was about. When I asked, they said not to worry about it. Except when the contract-renewal time arrived, they didn't renew it.
At this is the crust of my views on the matter: no due process, no presumption of innocence, not even a chance to hear the other side. A complaint, true or not, done as a revenge, or limelight seeking, or copycat, one-sided, historical revisionism of what happened 10-15 years ago, is these days enough to ruin lives and careers. Because, you know, "why would women lie?"
-
I get a big kick out the way you keep calling people "lefties" (whatever that means these days) when you don't agree with them and want to somehow make fun of them. You even managed to get in a dig at "lefty paradise" Canada above, an unwarranted remark in the context I thought, since no one else brought it up. In fact, many of your thread entries are snide remarks directed at others. This comes across as trollish baiting. Why do you do it? What reaction are you attempting to provoke?
Precisely, Robert. Thank you.
-
Oh brother! Willing rapes are not news and not reserved to the arts; two to tango is fact, not of someone's imagination. Yes, do stay away if the kitchen is too hot.
Apologist, much? "Everything's fine from my perspective so if you have a problem it must be you". Sheesh.
-
Really? How old were these children? Teenagers? Can you imagine what would happen if these creeps tried this stuff on a few teenage boys?
Do you actually believe that teenage boys are never sexually assaulted or molested by coaches or priests or other men in positions of authority or power? Are you really blaming the victims?
-
I get a big kick out the way you keep calling people "lefties" ....
Now, now, boys. if you call yourself so, I can't?
Now, now, boys. You all know I'm a leftie...
-
I feel the need to point out the irony that no females are participating in this discussion. So basically, a bunch of upper middle class white-haired guys are talking amongst themselves about something that most probably don't have first-hand knowledge of, several of whom maintain that it doesn't really exist, because, well, they say so. I suppose that if some women did join this discussion and tried to tell you that your experience was incorrect, that you'd feel the need to tell them they were wrong. :)
The Canadian readers will remember the Gian Gomeshi trial from a few years ago. The international readers may want to look at the story:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Jian_Ghomeshi
He was a bad enough guy (who hired a brilliant and an attractive female lawyer), but at the end of the trial his accusers (three younger women) were lying so much and consequently were proven less credible than him (based on the factual contents of recovered emails) and he was acquited. Regrettably, as Slobodan mentioned, it's not that uncommon, that sometimes it's the accusers who lie. Had they just told the truth without any embelishments, the outcome would have been most probably diffferent and more just.
-
He was a bad enough guy (who hired a brilliant and an attractive female lawyer), but at the end of the trial his accusers (three younger women) were lying so much and consequently were proven less credible than him (based on the factual contents of recovered emails) and he was acquited. Regrettably, as Slobodan mentioned, it's not that uncommon, that sometimes it's the accusers who lie. Had they just told the truth without any embelishments, the outcome would have been most probably diffferent and more just.
There are certainly exceptions, but a vast majority of harassement is conducted by man on woman.
How do I know? Because all of the woman I asked the question to told me they had been harassed tens of times, with various degrees of improper behaviors, while none of the man I asked had ever been harassed a single time (although most of them thought they would have liked to be harassed by some superb lady).
The fact that man think that being harassed would be cool reveals the obvious fact that harassement is significantly worsened when there is some form of "authority", such as physical strength. Man think it would be cool because they assume that they could, in last resort, leverage their superior strength to get rid of the offender.
Just saying.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Do you actually believe that teenage boys are never sexually assaulted or molested by coaches or priests or other men in positions of authority or power? Are you really blaming the victims?
Ya' know what's darn tootin' hard to tell when you're a young teenager is how to spot mental illness in an authority figure you trust. What's mental illness? mmh, it's the decisions they make that don't make sense to what we've been taught to be normal behavior among our brethren. A sense that we all care about one another and not just scheming to get something for nothing. Soul robbers, I call them. Just lacking basic human decency.
After graduating from high school in '78 I went showing my portfolio around offering my services as a graphic artist and bumped into a retired Marine drill sargeant at my local barbershop by the name of Columbo now working then as a public relations official for the March Of Dimes. He offered to view my portfolio at his home.
In the interview Columbo slowly directed the conversation toward personal matters regarding whether I was gay which as he pointed out as someone with experience dealing with people insisted he detects homosexual tendencies in me. I don't know what gave him that idea, maybe the cut of my jib or something. Who knows. I insisted I wasn't gay.
Columbo insisted that I watch porno films in the next room which was his bedroom to prove that I wasn't gay. This is when I soon realized I was dealing with a mentally ill person who could overpower me since he was bigger and more muscular and since being in the military knew how to take me down without a problem. I mean he had the respect and trust of the community working for the March Of Dimes and it would be my word against his if he wound up raping me or whatever.
Hell, I was just a wet behind the ears skinny teenager wanting a job as a graphic artist. I wasn't looking to get laid by a man! And so I slowly stood up and backed my way out of his home while he followed trying to convince me to watch the porno films while I kept assuring him I wasn't gay. He kept telling me that he's disappointed in me in my not being honest with myself. Ya' know the typical psycho-babble bullshit that he's learned smart, educated person who knows the ways of the world.
I kept slowly backing out all the way to my car with him following closely pleading with me to come back inside and talk it over so we can get some work done.
I got the hell out of there and when I got home told my parents. They were shocked and said I made the right decision getting out of there. Then the phone rang and my Dad answered and handed me the phone saying it's Colombo. The big military drill sargeant was balling his eyes out apologizing to me. I told him he was mentally ill for what he was attempting to do and to get some help. Work is for work and pleasure is for some other time at a mutual agreed upon place. He agreed and I hung up the phone. Never heard from him since.
Ten years later on a visit at my folks house now around age 29 my mom read me a news article in our local paper indicating Columbo had been found in his car stabbed to death by a 13 year old hispanic boy out on a huge remote sugar cane farm called Monte Cristo Ranch (where I had previously worked hauling irrigation pipe as a summer job as a kid). Columbo must've changed his mind on my mental illness diagnosis and didn't get the help he needed. He became the victim of his victimization of young boys. I'm sure in those ten years there were more he'ld victimized.
Those here who think it's the victims responsibility to get out of situations made bad because those of authority think they're entitled to act as such I have to say are just as mentally ill, out of touch with humanity and have no empathy for others.
God help ya'.
-
God help ya'.
It's a telling story and there are many around. Unfortunately they are very hard to verify (not that I don't believe you) but the problem is they get all thrown into one big bag without too much critical investigation, true or not and thereby too easily extrapolated to "that's how it is".
However it's my belief that we would really need God's help if we lose due process, presumption of innocence and a chance to hear the other side. In my mind one sided stories should never be taken for the full truth at face value.
-
It's a telling story and there are many around. Unfortunately they are very hard to verify (not that I don't believe you) but the problem is they get all thrown into one big bag without too much critical investigation, true or not and thereby too easily extrapolated to "that's how it is".
However it's my belief that we would really need God's help if we lose due process, presumption of innocence and a chance to hear the other side. In my mind one sided stories should never be taken for the full truth at face value.
Amen!
Just look at the damage, without any form of trial other than unregulated, mass-media hysteria on chat channels etc. that has already ruined so many prominent figures without any formal trial whatsoever. That some may be found guilty is beyond the point, which is that so far, until tried and convicted, according to our own laws, they must be presumed innocent.
Britian is currently awash with various humanitarian aid charities being spotlighted for a variety of sex offences, some of which are said to include the hiring of prostitutes and the abuse of people (presumably victims of disaster) by some employees out on the locations they cover.
1. Now, the hiring of prostitutes is, in my opinon, not a crime but a sorry and dangerous choice when there is always the strong right (or left, or both in severe extremis) hand to offer a safer and healthier form of "satisfaction" if the urge strikes. Why should anyone give a toss - oops - about somebody else paying for his jollies instead?
2. The abuse or coercion of the people you are supposed to be helping out there, well, that should get you into deep shit. You deserve it. Can that include a professional lady of the night? I hardly think so, for that's what a prostitute is deemed to be; it's her job description. (I appreciate that this service is not gender specific.)
3. But, unless the top brass at company HQ were aware of the coercion, did nothing to stop it, it seems absurd that they should be forced, again by the uninformed media and equally uninformed public opinion, to resign for something they did not do, assist happen, or know about. It is a fantasy to imagine that top management knows about everything that happens within an organization; that requires the KGB, though even they may not know everything that goes down. That crazy media frenzy can remove from the agencies the very talents they need to keep them working and in funds to do so.
We live not only in an age of massively wide media, much if not most of it based on some idiot's imagination, but in a fantasy world of expectations where millions seem to believe they will be rich tomorrow, if not today; will get everything they crave in life for little or no effort; believe that everybody is as talented as everybody else in every way and that only unfair play is holding them back from whatever they feel to be their right. And worst of all, they demand to be judge, jury and executioner at every mock tial they decide to hold.
Of course villains need penalty. But prove the case against them first.
-
Do you actually believe that teenage boys are never sexually assaulted or molested by coaches or priests or other men in positions of authority or power? Are you really blaming the victims?
Right, Farmer, there are boys who act a lot like girls. Then there are boys whou'd knock the coaches' or priests' blocks off. THOSE are BOYS!
-
Right, Farmer, there are boys who act a lot like girls. Then there are boys whou'd knock the coaches' or priests' blocks off. THOSE are BOYS!
Too bas odds are that the next Einstein may not fall in that category.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What the hell does that have to do with anything? Something tells me Einstein wasn't molested by a Roman priest.
-
Right, Farmer, there are boys who act a lot like girls. Then there are boys whou'd knock the coaches' or priests' blocks off. THOSE are BOYS!
Yeah, sure, that's the right path, teach 'em to beat the fucking crap out of them there perverts. Sure-fire way to produce balanced and caring boys.
-
Balanced and caring? How about unmolested? How about locking up the molesters? Seems to me "balanced and caring" (whatever that is) ought to include getting rid of perverts.
-
Now I really have closed the door on this thread. Locked it, no; anyone who [...] just has nothing better to do can carry on, and with my very best wishes.
What happened there, Rob ? quick U-turn! [/larfing-yellow-face]
-
What happened there, Rob ? quick U-turn! [/larfing-yellow-face]
Nope, just the realisation that a sensible point of view should not remain a cry in the wilderness; rather should it be acknowledged and given support.
However, that is not to imply that I have any intention of further argument regarding my own earlier posts which, I realised a while back, is a pointless business since few listen or read in depth, but many perpetuate their versions of same, which are then accepted blindly by even more, as the reality of my voice.
:-)
-
Amen!
Just look at the damage, without any form of trial other than unregulated, mass-media hysteria on chat channels etc. that has already ruined so many prominent figures without any formal trial whatsoever. That some may be found guilty is beyond the point, which is that so far, until tried and convicted, according to our own laws, they must be presumed innocent.
Max Clifford, famous PR publicist, passed into the next world from cardiac arrest whilst serving an 8 year prison term. DaveLeeTravis, a BBC DJ, was convicted of indecent assault in September 2014 for an incident dating back to 1995, but was found not guilty of the other 12 charges against him.
Operation Yewtree , instigated as a result of the Jimmy Saville revelations, woefully ill-prepared to deal with the avalanche of abuse cases and cover-ups.
True, Jimmy Saville wasn't tried - but he's do-do dead so that's probably a good enough reason why.
Sepp Blatter, the now disgraced head of FIFA, didn’t escape either - amongst his many crimes, he was also accused of sexual assault by Hope Solo, the US women’s national soccer team goalkeeper (Solo claimed that Blatter grabbed her butt during FIFA’s Ballon d’Or awards ceremony in January 2013) [/true] snd, since he was a quintessential alt-right Nazi, was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment without parole .. [/not-true.. :)]
Add the likes of Ken Dodd , Gary Glitter, Stewart Hall et al - reputations on the scrap heap and even the octogenarian is also doing 'time'
I could go on, and on, and on ...
Of course villains need penalty. But prove the case against them first.
Yup, and no reason at all for them to 'resign' if innocent. None.
Yet many, including a couple of Government ministers, did rather than face an investigation, much less a trial.
So mass-media hysteria ? Not so much.
And, if it wasn't for the media would the 'survivors' ever have had a voice ?
-
Max Clifford, famous PR publicist, passed into the next world from cardiac arrest whilst serving an 8 year prison term. DaveLeeTravis, a BBC DJ, was convicted of indecent assault in September 2014 for an incident dating back to 1995, but was found not guilty of the other 12 charges against him.
Operation Yewtree , instigated as a result of the Jimmy Saville revelations, woefully ill-prepared to deal with the avalanche of abuse cases and cover-ups.
True, Jimmy Saville wasn't tried - but he's do-do dead so that's probably a good enough reason why.
Sepp Blatter, the now disgraced head of FIFA, didn’t escape either - amongst his many crimes, he was also accused of sexual assault by Hope Solo, the US women’s national soccer team goalkeeper (Solo claimed that Blatter grabbed her butt during FIFA’s Ballon d’Or awards ceremony in January 2013) [/true] snd, since he was a quintessential alt-right Nazi, was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment without parole .. [/not-true.. :)]
Add the likes of Ken Dodd , Gary Glitter, Stewart Hall et al - reputations on the scrap heap and even the octogenarian is also doing 'time'
I could go on, and on, and on ...
Yup, and no reason at all for them to 'resign' if innocent. None.
Yet many, including a couple of Government ministers, did rather than face an investigation, much less a trial.
So mass-media hysteria ? Not so much.
And, if it wasn't for the media would the 'survivors' ever have had a voice ?
I knew Max.
Rob
-
Max Clifford, famous PR publicist, passed into the next world from cardiac arrest whilst serving an 8 year prison term. DaveLeeTravis, a BBC DJ, was convicted of indecent assault in September 2014 for an incident dating back to 1995, but was found not guilty of the other 12 charges against him.
Operation Yewtree , instigated as a result of the Jimmy Saville revelations, woefully ill-prepared to deal with the avalanche of abuse cases and cover-ups.
True, Jimmy Saville wasn't tried - but he's do-do dead so that's probably a good enough reason why.
Sepp Blatter, the now disgraced head of FIFA, didn’t escape either - amongst his many crimes, he was also accused of sexual assault by Hope Solo, the US women’s national soccer team goalkeeper (Solo claimed that Blatter grabbed her butt during FIFA’s Ballon d’Or awards ceremony in January 2013) [/true] snd, since he was a quintessential alt-right Nazi, was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment without parole .. [/not-true.. :)]
Add the likes of Ken Dodd , Gary Glitter, Stewart Hall et al - reputations on the scrap heap and even the octogenarian is also doing 'time'
I could go on, and on, and on ...
Yup, and no reason at all for them to 'resign' if innocent. None.
Yet many, including a couple of Government ministers, did rather than face an investigation, much less a trial.
So mass-media hysteria ? Not so much.
And, if it wasn't for the media would the 'survivors' ever have had a voice ?
I have no problems with any of these examples, if people get convicted after a fair process, examining the evidence and hearing both sides I'll be the first to applaud and cheer their way to prison. It's the flipside that we need to be careful about, the people damaged by false and/or unproven claims, the 100.000 or more "me too" claims that are based on a one sided story of disgrunted people who regret their behaviour of the past but did so willingly at the time.
If you can't look at both sides of this coin you're fooling yourself.
-
I have no problems with any of these examples, if people get convicted after a fair process, examining the evidence and hearing both sides I'll be the first to applaud and cheer their way to prison. It's the flipside that we need to be careful about, the people damaged by false and/or unproven claims, the 100.000 or more "me too" claims that are based on a one sided story of disgrunted people who regret their behaviour of the past but did so willingly at the time.
If you can't look at both sides of this coin you're fooling yourself.
Yep, revisionary history is popular in some circles.
Never mind a few/a zillion women; think the Middle East and how geography and history "improve" with every brick that gets laid.
(You know what I absolutely hate about my iPad? Just like some people, it tries to force me into words other than my own. Quite why brick turned into brickbat I have no idea; it cost me another damned correction that I found myself pushed into making.)
:-)
-
Rob, let me throw this into the ring.
Yes, there are without a doubt #metoo-ers who are just plain collecting men's scalps because they are awful. Others are merely describing bad dates in which nobody did much wrong, but they had regrets the next morning. Others were surely outright raped.
What's interesting is the middle zone where there were crossed signals, mixed communications. That grey area where HE thinks that she's having a great time, and SHE thinks that she's going along because he's powerful, even though to one degree or another she's not interested. In some of those cases, HE kinda sorta knows, but presses on anyways, because he's a jerk, and because he knows he can, and anyways he has the excuse that she hasn't started yelling yet.
You gotta know that in a big world all these things have happened.
The hell of it is that there's no way to sort out which is which, especially when we're dealing with people's memories from 20 years later.
As for why it's so asymmetrical, well, so it has always been. Women are the gatekeepers to sex, 99% of the time. It's hard to coerce a man, because he's on the other end of that, and is generally willing. And, yeah, part of #metoo exists, politically, to re-assert and maintain women's control of access to sex. #metoo is many
things, a game, a power play, and a genuine campaign for justice, and more besides.
There's a plenty of unsavoury to go around in #metoo, but some of it belongs to powerful men who have made a habit of ignoring non-verbal cues and pressed on anyways. Those guys, eh, I don't have much sympathy for those guys.
-
Balanced and caring? How about unmolested? How about locking up the molesters? Seems to me "balanced and caring" (whatever that is) ought to include getting rid of perverts.
I was raised in the East End of London and on a tough council estate. I've known many hard men who were taught to use their fists to dispense justice. Some did time and others dispensed abuse themselves.
I'm all for bringing those who abuse others to justice but using fists is no answer.
-
I have no problems with any of these examples, if people get convicted after a fair process, examining the evidence and hearing both sides I'll be the first to applaud and cheer their way to prison. It's the flipside that we need to be careful about, the people damaged by false and/or unproven claims, the 100.000 or more "me too" claims that are based on a one sided story of disgrunted people who regret their behaviour of the past but did so willingly at the time.
If you can't look at both sides of this coin you're fooling yourself.
+1
-
...I'm all for bringing those who abuse others to justice but using fists is no answer.
We are not talking here about “dispensing justice” but about self-defense. In which case, fists, or anything else close to hand, is very much the answer.
-
We are not talking here about “dispensing justice” but about self-defense. In which case, fists, or anything else close to hand, is very much the answer.
You're advocating vunerable children hitting adults? You think that's wise?
-
Hey, a balanced post from Andrew M.! :)
-
I'm off my meds. Sorry.
-
I was raised in the East End of London and on a tough council estate. I've known many hard men who were taught to use their fists to dispense justice. Some did time and others dispensed abuse themselves.
I'm all for bringing those who abuse others to justice but using fists is no answer.
I'm not suggesting they use their fists to do anything but get out of there, Keith. After that, I'd expect them to report the attempted violation to authorities -- maybe parents, maybe cops, and have the balls to put up with the crap that follows while the molester is brought to justice.
-
I'm not suggesting they use their fists to do anything but get out of there, Keith. After that, I'd expect them to report the attempted violation to authorities -- maybe parents, maybe cops, and have the balls to put up with the crap that follows while the molester is brought to justice.
Well, congratulations. That is exactly what the #MeToo movement is doing.
-
Bullshit! The #MeToo movement is a left-wing political activity. It's objective is to bring down people the accusers don't like, without the necessity to prove anything. It sounds a lot like the Salem witch trials.
-
To ascribe a single motivation goal to a thing like #metoo is, well, it's a little naive. Literally anyone can use the hashtag to talk about, well, anything.
-
It would certainly help the cause more has the leader of the movement been slightly less batshit crazy.
-
Bullshit! The #MeToo movement is a left-wing political activity. It's objective is to bring down people the accusers don't like, without the necessity to prove anything. It sounds a lot like the Salem witch trials.
I guess they're girls who act like boys, eh?
To ascribe a single motivation goal to a thing like #metoo is, well, it's a little naive. Literally anyone can use the hashtag to talk about, well, anything.
Like, really?
-
It's a telling story and there are many around. Unfortunately they are very hard to verify (not that I don't believe you) but the problem is they get all thrown into one big bag without too much critical investigation, true or not and thereby too easily extrapolated to "that's how it is".
However it's my belief that we would really need God's help if we lose due process, presumption of innocence and a chance to hear the other side. In my mind one sided stories should never be taken for the full truth at face value.
So you still have second thoughts on believing someone, a young person or female adult, who would risk all the crap they'ld have to go through in court to prove such claims as not being believable because there is no evidence?
Of course there's no evidence because these bastards do it where there are no witnesses. Why do you think the police had that model record Weinstein to prove he sexually harasses women as some type of payola to get in da' biz. He actually dismisses the model verbally complaining to him that this is how he does business. Do you think Weinstein would talk and act like that right out in public? Are you that naive? Or are you using your intellectualism to bury your head in the sand so you can still feel good and fool yourself into thinking you're a "smart but caring person"?
Your POV can be applied to the mafia. The mafia claims there is no mafia. There's no evidence that a group of men collude to control certain sectors of business society using strong arm tactics and threats to collect protection fees from business owners.
There's no evidence that the mafia conducts murders out in plain sight as recorded by magazines and newspaper photos in the past and currently in some parts of the world.
With your belief system I think what's going to have to happen is those that don't have as much power and authority should start doing what the 13 year old hispanic boy did to Columbo, stab the bastards and let the courts sort it out.
-
We live not only in an age of massively wide media, much if not most of it based on some idiot's imagination, but in a fantasy world of expectations where millions seem to believe they will be rich tomorrow, if not today; will get everything they crave in life for little or no effort; believe that everybody is as talented as everybody else in every way and that only unfair play is holding them back from whatever they feel to be their right. And worst of all, they demand to be judge, jury and executioner at every mock tial they decide to hold.
You have no evidence to support those claims, Rob.
-
Balanced and caring? How about unmolested? How about locking up the molesters? Seems to me "balanced and caring" (whatever that is) ought to include getting rid of perverts.
Because there is no evidence that any abuse occured. It's all done in secret. No one would believe a boy's motivation to beating the shit out of a priest as justified if they're not going to believe that the priest is a pedophile.
Hey Russ, how the hell did you get so old saying such stupid shit?
-
Hey, Tim. Don't hold back. Let it all hang out. Tell us what you really think.
-
Hey, Tim. Don't hold back. Let it all hang out. Tell us what you really think.
It's funny what I have to say to get your attention.
-
Bullshit! The #MeToo movement is a left-wing political activity. It's objective is to bring down people the accusers don't like, without the necessity to prove anything. It sounds a lot like the Salem witch trials.
Good grief, maybe I should've read through this thread more thoroughly. Not only do people say stupid shit here, but they also don't put much faith that society by and large is made up of good and kind people unless they have a certain political view.
-
I'll spell it out for ya'
The MeToo movement is likened to what the civil rights movement had to do to to bring attention that 12% of American society (African Americans) were systematically being abused because of race.
How does a small group of people who aren't being believed or heard that their claims of abuse are real? They have to form their own gang to fight and bring attention to a much larger gang who couldn't possibly believe that good, god fearing white people would be so cruel to a whole race of people because by and large white people just didn't want to hang around and co-mingle with these dark skinned people, so there are no facts to go on because out of sight, out of mind.
The MeToo movement is applying the same tactics to put the fear of god in these bastards who sexually abuse people in secret leaving no evidence and then knowingly use their position of authority and respectability to cast doubt that they could do such a thing.
No evidence, so out of sight, out of mind. More people believe in ghosts and UFO's than believe the claims from those that they've been sexually harassed or abused by people hiding behind the public trust of respectability and social stature.
-
... Hey Russ, how the hell did you get so old saying such stupid shit?
The moment someone starts using curses, foul language, personal attacks, is the moment they lost the power of argument and resorted to the argument of power (e.g. verbal abuse).
-
So you still have second thoughts on believing someone, a young person or female adult, who would risk all the crap they'ld have to go through in court to prove such claims as not being believable because there is no evidence?
Of course there's no evidence because these bastards do it where there are no witnesses. Why do you think the police had that model record Weinstein to prove he sexually harasses women as some type of payola to get in da' biz. He actually dismisses the model verbally complaining to him that this is how he does business. Do you think Weinstein would talk and act like that right out in public? Are you that naive? Or are you using your intellectualism to bury your head in the sand so you can still feel good and fool yourself into thinking you're a "smart but caring person"?
Your POV can be applied to the mafia. The mafia claims there is no mafia. There's no evidence that a group of men collude to control certain sectors of business society using strong arm tactics and threats to collect protection fees from business owners.
There's no evidence that the mafia conducts murders out in plain sight as recorded by magazines and newspaper photos in the past and currently in some parts of the world.
With your belief system I think what's going to have to happen is those that don't have as much power and authority should start doing what the 13 year old hispanic boy did to Columbo, stab the bastards and let the courts sort it out.
Utter bullshit, see my later posts, plenty people tried and convicted which I applaud so your defense that it "can't be done" doesn't hold water in my mind.
I think your POV is many times used by populist dictators: spin a story, make the masses believe it through a media hype and then lock up all who go against you without any critical examination and no fair trial or right to defend themselves.
-
... Your POV can be applied to the mafia. The mafia claims there is no mafia. There's no evidence that a group of men collude to control certain sectors of business society using strong arm tactics and threats to collect protection fees from business owners.
There's no evidence that the mafia conducts murders out in plain sight as recorded by magazines and newspaper photos in the past and currently in some parts of the world...
You should be more careful in selecting your parallels/metaphors, as this one works directly against you. No mafia was ever brought to justice and put in jail by mere accusations of the wronged or the media. Instead, they went to police and it took years of careful application of legal system to provide EVIDENCE and jail them.
-
The moment someone starts using curses, foul language, personal attacks, is the moment they lost the power of argument and resorted to the argument of power (e.g. verbal abuse).
But I got your attention, didn't I.
Is it sinking in what people have to do to be believed?
-
... Why do you think the police had that model record Weinstein to prove he sexually harasses women...
This is what we have been saying all along:GO TO THE POLICE. Let them do their job, collect evidence. Get out of the situation, go to the police and file your complaint. It still would be he-said-she-said situation, but multiple complains WOULD trigger the investigation and bring perps to justice. Just do not do it 10-15 years later.
-
Right, Farmer, there are boys who act a lot like girls. Then there are boys whou'd knock the coaches' or priests' blocks off. THOSE are BOYS!
Wow! Boys who get sexually abused are girls. That's what you've just implied. Just, wow.
-
But I got your attention, didn't I.
Not sure that's the kind of attention you want. You come across the same as the leader of the m2 movement.
-
Wow! Boys who get sexually abused are girls. That's what you've just implied. Just, wow.
To quote Schwarzenegger: those are girly boys ;)
-
You should be more careful in selecting your parallels/metaphors, as this one works directly against you. No mafia was ever brought to justice and put in jail by mere accusations of the wronged or the media. Instead, they went to police and it took years of careful application of legal system to provide EVIDENCE and jail them.
And a lot of people were murdered until everyone believed there really was a mafia. I guess circumstantial evidence doesn't apply here, right?
So with that logic you don't believe sexual abuse claims unless you see what? a dead body? What else is there but circumstantial evidence. No one is going to sexually abuse someone and leave evidence. So how do you stop this? Any solutions? It's one person's word against another's.
-
The moment someone starts using curses, foul language, personal attacks, is the moment they lost the power of argument and resorted to the argument of power (e.g. verbal abuse).
As opposed to Russ' position of might makes right and those who can't are girls? On the one hand, it's fine for Russ to recommend just settling things ~like men~, but not for Tim to use strong language? It's OK to use the term "lefties" (just because a single person directly called themselves that, and then you used that as the basis for any use of it) as a label, meant clearly as a derogative term, but not for Tim to drop a minor bit of swearing?
The hypocrisy is utterly rank.
-
Not sure that's the kind of attention you want. You come across the same as the leader of the m2 movement.
I don't believe you know what you're talking about. There's no evidence.
-
To quote Schwarzenegger: those are girly boys ;)
Presumably the kind that some folks like, eh? The ones they can "beat" to make themselves feel more manly? I'm getting a better sense of how to recognise those sorts of cowards.
-
So with that logic you don't believe sexual abuse claims unless you see what? a dead body? What else is there but circumstantial evidence. No one is going to sexually abuse someone and leave evidence. So how do you stop this? Any solutions? It's one person's word against another's.
How do you then explain all the convictions Manoli reported on in post 171? He even says he can go "on and on" (which is all good stuff). Your assumption that the sinners cannot be tried fairly and get their deserved punishment is overly simplistic.
But as soon as a society drops the presumption of innocence you're living under a dictatorship rule.
-
How do you then explain all the convictions Manoli reported on in post 171? He even says he can go "on and on" (which is all good stuff). Your assumption that the sinners cannot be tried fairly and get their deserved punishment is overly simplistic.
But as soon as a society drops the presumption of innocence you're living under a dictatorship rule.
What is with this "we're headed toward a dictatorship"? How do you go from a group of people trying to be heard that they're not going to take anymore abuse from those that abuse in secret to calling that a dictatorship? Did the civil rights movement turn our country into a dictatorship?
You're the one being over simplistic and hyperbolic. I don't hear you coming up with solutions to get these bastards to stop abusing people in secret.
-
Slobodan, Russ, I'm just gonna say it straight out here.
You guys are a fuckin' problem. You keep sniping, dragging out red herrings, and generally stamping around saying the same dumb
shit over and over again until you get people riled up and cussing at you. Especially you, Slobodan.
-
As opposed to Russ' position of might makes right and those who can't are girls? On the one hand, it's fine for Russ to recommend just settling things ~like men~, but not for Tim to use strong language? It's OK to use the term "lefties" (just because a single person directly called themselves that, and then you used that as the basis for any use of it) as a label, meant clearly as a derogative term, but not for Tim to drop a minor bit of swearing?
The hypocrisy is utterly rank.
That wasn't "a bit of swearing." There is a huge difference between personal attacks using foul language and expressing a general opinion you may not like.
The left and the right, ultra-left and ultra-right, are all legitimate political terms, among others. Would it make you happier if I would use "the left" instead of "lefties"? Though I use "lefties" as a term of endearment, as one should, when talking to immature kids.
-
Slobodan, Russ, I'm just gonna say it straight out here.
You guys are a fuckin' problem. You keep sniping, dragging out red herrings, and generally stamping around saying the same dumb
shit over and over again until you get people riled up and cussing at you. Especially you, Slobodan.
I am actually glad when people start cussing at me. That means they lost the argument.
-
I am actually glad when people start cussing at me. That means they lost the argument.
Sometimes it just means your friend is tired of you ignoring their carefully constructed arguments and returning only smug belittlement, and
are desperate to actually get you, their friend, to engage in something resembling a serious conversation about a serious topic.
-
What is with this "we're headed toward a dictatorship"? How do you go from a group of people trying to be heard that they're not going to take anymore abuse from those that abuse in secret to calling that a dictatorship? Did the civil rights movement turn our country into a dictatorship?
You're the one being over simplistic and hyperbolic. I don't hear you coming up with solutions to get these bastards to stop abusing people in secret.
You're not answering my question and fail to look at the data I (and others who are on your side) provide.
The comparison with the civil rights movement is false, MeToo is by far not as honorable because they're crusading against a minority of bad people by accusing many good people of things they never did.
Also the civil rights movement never went against the presumption of innocence, so that's another false equivalence.
I also never said that the MeToo movement would lead to a dictatorship, I said a society that drops the presumption of innocence is moving there, but fortunately the MeToo movement is not in power and as far as I can tell too erratic and hyperbolic to ever get there.
It's not my job to come up with a solution, but I know for sure that your solution by calling out names without proper review and hearing both sides will hurt more then it can ever dream to heal.
-
Though I use "lefties" as a term of endearment, as one should, when talking to immature kids.
Could you please come up with a more original and intelligent zing? You sound like George Costanza from a Seinfeld episode.
-
You're not answering my question and fail to look at the data I (and others who are on your side) provide.
The comparison with the civil rights movement is false, MeToo is by far not as honorable because they're crusading against a minority of bad people by accusing many good people of things they never did.
Where are you getting this data that proves there's a minority of bad people being accused of something they never did? And why would you refer to them as bad if they never did anything bad? How can you tell the bad ones from the good ones?
-
Sometimes it just means your friend is tired of you ignoring their carefully constructed arguments and returning only smug belittlement, and
are desperate to actually get you, their friend, to engage in something resembling a serious conversation about a serious topic.
I think I stated my serious position quite clearly, occasional joking notwithstanding, throughout these 10+ pages. If someone comes late to the party, and starts seeing only parts of it, I can't be responsible for it. Me agreeing with your balanced post constitutes a statement of position too.
Btw. being tired does not excuse you or anybody else from becoming vulgar. In spite of the cussing coming at me, I have not once returned the favor, however tired I might get from it.
Also, if one's "carefully constructed argument" can be so easily dismissed with a single snipe, it wasn't much of an argument then.
-
And that will be the last post in this particular thread.