Mark, I posted the same message in About this site and in the Coffee Corner. That in the CC is available for responses.
You may be right. We shall see. In the meantime, those who don't wish to participate need neither read those threads nor post in them.
Jeremy
Absolutely right, and I see the alternative as being no more civilized than the bulk burning of books.
Others have made points as follows:
1. a wonderful photographer we all admire felt offended, and took a long sabbatical. If we are thinking of the same contributor, he does not read the CC, and the offence was committed in another, supposedly hi-end section of this site;
2. spill-over, or collateral damage: come on, of which sensitive souls do we speak? Anyone drifting here by accident, finding the wealth of photographic information it contains, is not about to do a van Gogh for a section of the site that has little to offer
him, should he be so shrinking a violet. For one, I find it offensive that somebody would imagine me to be so easily upset. And if I were, I'd simply ignore the sections I don't enjoy. For the most part, that was my attitude with the entire Trump saga. It did not at all prevent me enjoying other parts of the CC. That the politically spiced bits are ever going to be manned by acolytes of one side or another is obvious, and thus the pointlessness of the entire threads. But hey, once you realise that... let the others have their jollies. As Two23 wrote, it comes down to political parroting.
This is not a church nor is it a temple of any denomination. Should one seek such an environment, then good luck: few of them offer what LuLa offers. Has it not struck anyone yet that an overdose of saccharine makes one sick? It's exactly the same problem as continued glorification and elevation of everything new to the top of the most-wanted lists. In the end, nobody believes anybody anymore since objectvity has died the death to commercial expediency.
Perhaps the most interesting feature of LuLa, photographic information aside, is to be found in the regular (active) members of the site. Those who read and contribute little, well, contribute little. Period. They remain devoid of identity. If some seek to silence those active participants, then perhaps they should explain exactly why, and then tell us what they, the complainants, are going to offer in place of the lost people. Good intentions mean squat: your participation has to measured in terms of your participation. Good intentions don't create anything to read. Nothing to read means nothing to read, so why even visit?
