"This damn list" as Amanda has affectionately called MoPo needs everyone to participate.
As some members know, I used to post to this list daily. For years. People were sick of it. Long-winded and "uppity" was the gist of the "negatives" I heard.
My posts do not generate much public response anymore (mostly private) and naturally, since it's never been p.c. for MoPo members to publicly support my writings, I knew my 10,000-word dissertations were going down a black hole anyway, a waste of time after so many years of raising hell.
--------------
As I told another member this morning, I left MoPo around a year ago (just after the fires here in CA); and you know, things just change. It was also around the time Donnie's scatalogical "poems/stanzas" began (no offense Donnie; at least you give a damn; I still find your writing to be an acquired taste, just like mine); it was around the time the alternative "style-b" list began and I found myself getting involved (or reading) too many politically tainted comments unrelated to posters. As a poly-sci wonk, I can't resist responding to such mails and I knew w/the impending release of Fahrenheit 9/11, I'd go crazy because of the "natural" debate about partisan politics and film. Meanwhile, as Claude wrote recently, there is a sameness to some topics, and some of us oldsters are disinclined to revisit them, even if they never get old to new members, topics others can chime in with equal effect.
A few weeks ago, I spoke to dear friend/scientist/academic Ph.d. who-go-figure-makes-more-money-making-super-frames than working for the Mayo Clinic (Sue Heim), and she told me what I had missed during the past year, the "players" involved, the return of Bruce, etc. After the elections, I decided while I'm not really in the "hobby" anymore, I'd quietly return for a short time and then leave again (my inbox is too full as it is). Unfortunately, I returned the day I saw Eugene's obscene website the first time, which of course, made me want to quit again. After I wrote my first post in about a year to MoPo about it, I received a few "where have you been?" private e-mails, so I felt better.
--------------
Amanda's posts today struck me funny.
They were preachy, filled w/a scolding kind of finger-pointing contempt of what in her view -- is the snobby gulf between the "have" and "have not" collectors or dealers -- at least how she see it when she reads all of the posts to MoPo.
I wasn't offended by this portion of her "lecture." Some of us are still $10 buyers of contemporary posters (when you have as many Hispanic/Catholic nephews and nieces like I do, it never ends). I've got a good collection, but I don't consider myself one of the "haves" (most of my paper prizes came only as a result of painful installment payments). It's unfair if the words "real" and "serious" as applied to collectors, are defined by the dollar value to their collections. I don't think most disagree.
--------------
But then Amanda got into stuff that was, in my view, a transparent effort to make people feel just plain guilty. It's a misfire to go from a salient discussion about inexpensive vs. expensive posters and who collects them -- to launching into a "give-give-give-you-rich-bastards" screed -- w/violins playing in the background about the nobility of life, helping the afflicted, the poor, furry animals, etc., trying to cast the fun of collecting things we can't take with us when we're dead anyway (regardless of cost) -- into something infected w/people who have a hoarding/greediness/anything-for-a-buck mindset living in dark towers filled with long dining room tables decorated wsilverware.
People give when they want to; it makes them feel good; it's a privilege and an honor and "should" come w/no strings attached. But to compare sufferings, to imply a degree of unfair comfort of well off poster collectors vs. those who aren't -- to infer beneficiaries and benefactors should think the "gift of giving" be mandatory -- well, that's an entitlement/almost socialistic mentality with which I have trouble.
And the suggestion that contributions from the "haves" is woefully poor (even on a gross dollars or percentage basis) -- compared to donations of $$$ and in-kind services from those "less well off" -- well, I don't even want to go down that road. It's difficult to win converts to a cause if you overtly bully people to feel guilty and glum.
--------------
Most of us file 1040s demonstrating how much we give and to whom. We SELECT our causes. No one tells us we have to or that we "should." We feel good about it and we don't go around bragging or reciting a list of beneficiaries of our largesse. Ideally, we let beneficiaries brag about their benefactors. It's unseemly to do it any other way.
What I admire about Amanda is she's obviously filled with good intentions and has a heart as big as Jupiter. If we're able to climb from one rung of the ladder to the next, we hope we don't forget what it was like when we were young. Yet regardless of income, no one -- not even Amanda -- wants to be greeted with a knock on the door from someone demanding or "guilting" you to turn over what you earn.
--------------
Perhaps its time for those silent lurkers to begin participating and for the vocal old-timers to allow them to do so without undue criticism. I know I've said this before, but for the health of a mailing list good member participation is a necessity.
Yeah, I agree w/Scott. The "lurker" factor has always bugged me. So I stopped writing for a while. A lot of people needed a break from my junk. Some people, I never tire of reading. But others, well, as an Austin Powers fan, I'm tired of reading the same members who don't offer much but elitist, "I'm so hip and culturally enlightened" condescension. They don't do it on purpose but sometimes that's how it comes across. I'm guilty of it at times. And yeah, there's only so much of myself I can stand. MoPoer's are lucky. Ask my wife. She's gotta live in same house w/me, putting up w/my daily bull****. How I found anyone at all belongs in my own personal "Ripley's."
David in San Diego
----Original Message Follows----
From: Scott Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Scott Burns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: "Real" Movie Poster Collectors Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 14:13:06 -0500 X-Message-Info: JGTYoYF78jFy8YtZn+ELzq8RkI+mc5LZ
Phillip and Amanda collect movie paper. With that common interest you'd think both would feel at home on MoPo.
But Phillip questions (sarcastically??) what exactly constitutes a poster collector. He wonders if "MOPO is a club of REAL movie poster collectors or just a club of teenage boys collecting $10 posters." Amanda fires back with "So a person who spends 10 dollars on a poster still isn't a real collector? Nice!!!! yet another SMACK in the face on this damn list. It's starting to get annoying some of you uppity ups on here."
It made me stop and wonder....just how many of these so called "uppity ups" are there REALLY on MoPo??
Despite my running this group since 1995, I'm NOT one of them. My finances don't allow $40,000 for a lobby card. I nearly have a heart attack just thinking about it. I'm thrilled when I pick up a nice lobby for 10 bucks. The cheaper the better, I say! I'm definitely a bargain-based collector. But the reality for me is that major auction posters are going to stay beyond my comfort zone perhaps for the rest of my life. My mortgage and food on the table come first.
But I still consider myself a "real" movie poster collector.
"This damn list" as Amanda has affectionately called MoPo needs everyone to participate. With nearly 500 members more than likely the majority do not have the financial means to regularly buy expensive material and are content to build their collections with "$10 posters." Sure its fun to see what the high-rollers will pay for a "Bride of Frankenstein" lobby or another "Breakfast at Tiffany's" overpriced one-sheet. But the reality is most of us will NEVER be able to do this. Maybe once or twice in a lifetime, but NOT regularly.
I believe a lot of Phillip's comments were meant in jest (correct me if I'm wrong Phil...) but Amanda's post seems totally sincere. If she perceives MoPo this way, many other people do to. She shouldn't have this perception, but who's fault is it that she does?
I'd like to see MoPo return to its roots. The early subscribers had a really good time on this list. The first 3 or 4 years were perfect with no flame wars or nit-picking of the "newbies." We were ALL newbies then I guess. Perhaps its time for those silent lurkers to begin participating and for the vocal old-timers to allow them to do so without undue criticism. I know I've said this before, but for the health of a mailing list good member participation is a necessity.
We're coming up on our 10th birthday. Let's make some changes so we can make it another 10.
Scott MoPo List Owner
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-LThe author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
