I was thinking of the diatribe resulting from a couple of photos I posted recently, of the comments made towards me, about the people in the photos, and about the relevance and appropriateness of the posted photos Of course my post was facetious, but it was also a bit sarcastic and angry, for I'm still bitter about some things that were said. I probably should have held off pressing the send button with this post, but the anger and frustration I felt then has not subsided or dissipated very much.
Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > There are some great shots here, and some very ordinary ones. I don't > know that I find the blurry shots particularly interesting. The blur > doesn't seem to contribute to the message. As far as people on the list > objecting to shots of those in distress, I can't recall that ever > happening. Thus, I don't understand the purpose of Shel's obviously > facetious message. > Paul > On Nov 12, 2004, at 4:10 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Really! Putting up pictures of people in distress and suffering has no > > place on the pentax list. Are you trying to push your political or > > social > > agenda here. It's been determined by a "minority consensus" that > > photos of > > this sort are unwelcome and out of place on this list. Please stick to > > landscapes, pictures of flowers, or those of pets.
