hey, MZ, I ain't no girl!
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@...> wrote: > > Judy: thank you for the tip on the gender of feste37. It seems to me I recall > responding to feste37 near the beginning of posting on FFL. *He* wrote in > appreciation of a number of my posts. At that time I pegged *him* to be a > her. There. We are entirely out of the realm of the subjective and squarely > facing the objective. Feste is a man not a woman. Good to know that, since > with someone as conscientious as I am for getting things right, to assume I > am talking about a woman not a man when it fact it is a man, could skew, even > unconsciously, my point of view. I guess I am more deferential towards women > than men. So that counts. As for our argument here I think with my last post > I am done with it. And I hope I have not let my subjectivity drive you away > from the objective possibility of a friendship. I am sure I have not. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > Robin, I don't see anything in my exchange with feste for > > either of us to prevail about. We're each expressing our > > opinions and explaining our subjective reactions. (I'm > > pretty sure feste's a guy, BTW.) If he's offended and > > disgusted, he's offended and disgusted; that's his > > subjective truth. Mine is different. Big whoop! > > > > And I can't think of anything less productive than to > > argue about what the Benneton people "unconsciously felt" > > about the campaign. Maybe if they'd been posting on this > > forum for years on a regular basis, we'd have some > > basis for intuiting their unconscious processes, but it's > > pretty futile speculation otherwise. > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > Believe it or not, Judy, I think feste37's reaction goes deeper than > > > this. For you to prevail here would mean feste37 being able to > > > experience, in reading your comments, something which would explain her > > > spontaneous response to these photos. And if she is unable to alter or > > > modify that original experience then it must mean that either she is > > > stubborn and prideful, or else that you have not been able to persuade > > > her where she had her experience that you have addressed that > > > perception/judgment. I think when she reads this, she says to herself: > > > "Judy, she doesn't understand. She can't understand." > > > > > > Then what do you say to *that*? > > > > > > Now of course the consideration comes in that I too am narrow-minded and > > > uptight; but for that to be true would mean, somehow, I am on the > > > defensive here. And I don't feel this is true. I think, therefore, Judy, > > > that feste37 has the right to know that her view of this Benneton ad > > > campaign is valid. It is a matter of what one's consciousness focuses on. > > > I think feste37 saw something consciously that the Benneton people only > > > unconsciously felt. > > > > > > That said, of course you make your case with your usual authoritative > > > common sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I think you have an odd idea of "cute," but that is your > > > > > business. > > > > > > > > There's something inherently cute about people puckering > > > > up for a smooch, as far as I'm concerned. > > > > > > > > > I don't see this as having a "positive message" embedded in > > > > > it all. It's deliberately, cynically designed to be offensive. > > > > > > > > If the campaign were deliberately designed to be offensive, > > > > it wouldn't be a very good one, because many if not most of > > > > the people in Benneton's market aren't going to be offended > > > > by it. > > > > > > > > I could understand how, if the photos showed sexy kisses, > > > > folks who were uncomfortable with homosexuality would be > > > > offended (except for the one with Merkel and Sarkozy, > > > > obviously). But they aren't sexy kisses. > > > > > > > > The only remotely legitimate basis for offense, as far as > > > > I can see, would be political, in that the notion of a > > > > positive rapprochement between the two leaders would be > > > > viewed by one or the other or both parties as unthinkable. > > > > > > > > But that's the positive message, to suggest that it's maybe > > > > not so unthinkable after all that world leaders could > > > > overcome their mutual antipathies. > > > > > > > > The earlier "United Colors of Benneton" campaign had some > > > > photos that were genuinely offensive and/or upsetting. > > > > This campaign is PG compared to that one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the pictures are disgusting at all. They're > > > > > > just *smooches*, for pete's sake, not passionate soul-kisses. > > > > > > They might as well be air-kisses for all the sexuality they > > > > > > convey. > > > > > > > > > > > > And if the world leaders and their flacks find the photos > > > > > > offensive, that's kind of their problem. I think they're cute. > > > > > > > > > > > > As to whether the campaign is solely for sales purposes, sure > > > > > > it is, but it's fine by me to embed a positive message within > > > > > > it. Most sales campaigns don't bother. > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a disgusting picture and the Vatican is right to sue. > > > > > > > Benetton has no message of "unhate" at all; it is just trying to > > > > > > > get attention for itself so it can sell more of its stuff. All > > > > > > > the pictures are disgusting, but most people have been > > > > > > > brainwashed by the liberals into thinking that to protest against > > > > > > > them would be homophobic. But it's really a matter of decency and > > > > > > > fairness. Doctoring photos of world leaders in a way that is > > > > > > > deliberately designed to be offensive is not fair use of the > > > > > > > photo. > > > > > > > > > >
