Get real. These folks are expressing how they feel. No one is saying that
because life is inherently unfair that one should go out of their way to
exclude people. On the other hand, what kind of person denies another a
chance to occasionally revel in something that he has found meaningful to
them? What ever happened to folks who were capable of being joyful with
other people though the joy is not their own, or grieving with others even
though the grief is not their own? If you go to someone else's birthday
party do you insist that everyone receive gifts? I swear, if there was a
funeral, some folks might insist that the memorial service not be held in
their church because not everyone has a casket!
Being absurd doesn't help.
... and this is the issue, by analogy.
Regards,
Bob...
Give blood. Play hockey.
From: "Chris Brogden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, Norman Baugher wrote:
>
> > One of the unfortunate realities of life, is that sometimes it's not
fair.
> > Learn to live with it.
> > Norm
>
> Fine. I propose that we introduce "Snow" and "Prairie" themes. Hell,
> let's go all the way and have a "Canadian landscape" theme. After all,
> life isn't fair, right? Like I said, I don't care either way. There was
> a big stink raised on the list earlier over some non-inclusive themes, so
> I'm playing the Devil's Advocate and pointing out (as someone already did
> earlier) that these particular themes are exculsionary, where the others
> are not. There are only two questions to think about here.
>
> (1) Are PUG themes supposed to be inclusive or not? That is, provided
> that someone has the interest and ability to submit an entry, should the
> themes themselves be such that anyone can submit, or is it okay to have
> themes like "Landscapes in Canada" and "Short telephoto (pictures made
> with lenses in the 70mm to 150mm range)" that would seem to prevent some
> people from submitting?
>
> And (2) if the PUG is supposed to be inclusive, then are wide angle and
> telephoto themes exclusionary or not? I'm not saying that they are or are
> not. I'm just suggesting the possibility that they are and am waiting to
> see how people feel about it. So far no one has put forth any arguments,
> intelligent or not, to say that they are not exclusionary. All I've seen
> so far are posts saying that life is exclusionary and unfair and that we
> should shut up and accept it. If you feel like that, then you obviously
> don't feel that the regular PUG *themes* are supposed to be inclusive.
> Fine. Personally, it doesn't matter to me if the PUG is inclusive or not.
> It's not like I've been submitting photos for the past 10 years to it.
> :) But if it's not going to be inclusive, I want some snow themes,
> dang it. *L*
>
> P.S. If anyone has any reasons why the lens-specific themes are not
> exclusionary, I'd love to hear it. But please, no more "life is
> unfair" responses that don't address the issue.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
