Interspersed
Jostein wrote:
Speaking of assumptions, could you (or anyone else) answer the questions I have interspersed below? I'm quite certain that there's a fundamental discrepancy between intention and perception here, and it would make an interesting lesson for me, I think.
If you feel it more appropriate to send it off list, please do.
thanks, Jostein
I'm the first to admit that Shel's reply to your post puzzled me extremely. If he had not thanked you for the scanning tip, I would have been prepared to stake my life [or at least a few desirable appendages 8-)] that he had replied to the wrong post. It is of course possible that he replied to two posts in one.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
You look but you do not see ... tis a shame you are so jaded and
cynical.
Ok... maybe I didn't make it clear that it was this particular photo that failed to induce any feelings? Did I really come across as a complete cynic in all questions related to poverty?
It seemed clear to me.
She's smiling, there's direct eye contact, and she's not the least
bit
"grumpy" with my presence.
This an obvious mistake on my part.
Agreed. She looked quite contented - bizarrely so in my opinion, for reasons previously stated.
Your comments are worthless since you've made them based on unwarranted assumptions and lack of observation. In addition, apart from being totally mistaken about the photograph,
you're
attempting to point a negative finger at me personally. Well, I
won't take
it quietly like I did with the last pic I put up.
I would really like to know what I'm accusing Shel of here...
Not clear to me.
My comments were not to evoke sympathy, but to show a similarity
between
two extreme segments of the population. Both can enjoy a pleasant
morning
breakfast in bed regardless of social and economic class or their
physical
situation. It's sad you only perceive the negative.
I don't get it... Is the photo posted to show this person's pleasure?
I believe that is the case. Someone whose material circumstances are not so good, who can still get pleasure out of the simple, good things in life. A counterpoint to the previous picture of young, comparatively healthy people who were possibly not so happy.
To judge someone and their life as you've done is just a load of
crap.
How, exactly, am I passing judgement on anything but the photo?!?
Maybe your phrasing is not of the kindest turn but I believe you meant that in regard to the photographic subject. I would have said "It's" (meaning the photographic subject) rather than "She's".
Consider yourself fortunate that you don't have the problems that
put this
woman on the sidewalk that morning. Consider that you're not
mentally ill,
that you have some form of socialized medicine to help you when you
need
attention, that you may have family or friends which she may not
have, and
you have other resources, both financial and social, to help you
should you
have the problems that this woman has.
Excuse me, but this is exactly the kind of normative patronising I don't like when posted to PDML. For one simple reason; it has nothing to do with the photograph. Whose problem is it? Shel's or mine?
It is easy to look down on someone, but, perhaps more difficult to
show
empathy and understanding until you've experienced some of what
they've
experienced. Clearly you have not, or, if you have, you have a
short
memory.
Whoa... Am I the only one making assumptions today?
Both of the above paragraphs are classic email misjudgments, I think. Even when carefully phrased and clearly written, the wrong attribution can be allocated to someone's utterings because of myriad factors.
Thanks for the scanning tip.
Pleasure! I'll make sure to look carefully at facial expressions hereafter.
Jostein
Shel
[Original Message] From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Portraits of the Less Fortunate, as Shel calls them, can be interesting. With Shel's intro it seems like we're supposed to
feel
sorry for this lady, for all the obvious social reasons.This photo fails to provoke such emotions with me. She's just an obese woman, smoking and munching junk food on the pavement. There's no eye contact, and the lady looks grumpy. Possibly with the
photographer's
presence?
I hope:
a. Shel has not left the list in high dudgeon over a (I am sure) perceived slight.
b. Jostein does not cease from commenting on other peoples' output.
Both of them are persons whose photographic skills I hold in high regard (and am deadly jealous of) and whose input to this list is of the highest value.
mike
