[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[merudanda]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:



 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
 
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
  
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
 
  Here I have to disagree with Judy, feste37, because once I caught
the quality
 of experience that made you say what you said here, I found myself in
 agreement—at least so far as this: your perception/judgment goes
deeper than
 Judy's perception/judgment—even though of course I can entirely
understand the
 'truth' of what she say—it certainly is real for her. But what you
say here,
 just touches upon something I think almost everyone will miss. I felt
the same
 way about your comments about the segregation of women and men in the
TMO. I
 don't say I don't understand the extreme views of Mike D, I only say
that you
 have an honest and true experience, and it obviously gets at a truth
that I
 think Judy (and more obviously Mike D) miss. For Judy to be
objectively correct
 would mean your experience was false, imagined, purely subjectively.
This
 certainly it is not. It is subtle and real. Thank you for speaking up,
feste37.

 Judy: I really don't get your definitions of objective and
 subjective, Robin. Seems to me both feste and I are
 reporting our subjective reactions.

 I mean, if we could somehow force the Benneton people
 to tell us honestly whether they did or did not intend
 to be offensive, we might get at one genuinely objective
 truth about the campaign. (And even then, if they denied
 they were trying to offend, we couldn't be positive they
 were being honest.)

 But other than that, it's all purely subjective, as far
 as I can see. Objective correctness just doesn't enter
 into it.

 Robin: Well, Judy, is *this* determination you have made that my
categories of objective and subjective doesn't enter into it an
objective one?

 Objective and subjective get differentiated against the background of
reality. Reality being the way things really are. Now if you will permit
me to bring in the metaphor of God, objective versus subjective would
mean that where God favours one point of view over another, that point
of view would have the value of being more objective than the other
point of view which did not meet with God's favour (remember, we are/I
am using God as a metaphor for some omniscient vantage point from which
to see reality—since this vantage point created that reality).

 If someone's point of view about the Benneton ads can only be
subjective, then what is the point of arguing one way or the other? Are
you not, in the very act of arguing for the validity of your own take on
these ads, implying that your point of view is more 'objective' than
feste37's point of view? After all, if one can marshall a whole series
of arguments in support of one's 'subjective' point of view, does that
not add something more objective to that subjective point of view, and
therefore makes it more subjectively objective (if I can use that term)?

 I think that we all come at everything from our own subjective point
of view, granted. However the degree to which we feel the realness, the
oughtness, the rightness of that point of view surely has something to
do with our sense of what kind of purchase it is making on reality.
Reality being what really is the case.

 Feste37 did not express her point of view with the absolute notion it
was merely subjective. If she did this, she would have already realized
there really is no issue here, since it is just one person's
subjectivity versus another person's subjectivity.

 Now you chose to explain how your own point of view seemed more
reasonable, more in line with the facts, more what the Benneton people
were up to, than was feste37s point of view. Is this not in some sense
then putting the issue into a context where fact and truth mean
something? These are hardly concerns that are subjective.

 Whether in the final analysis your point of view and  feste37's point
of view amount to what is purely subjective, the very need you felt to
buttress your case, to argue on behalf of its validity, must mean that
you deemed your point of view to be, at the very least, more
subjectively objective than feste37's point of view was subjectively
objective.

 If it is all a matter of pure subjectivity, and we can never establish
any standard of objective truth in discussing a matter like this, then
why was anything said for or against these different points of view?

 I sense that the very decisiveness, authoritativeness, and certainty
of what you have just told me borders on the subjective, and therefore I
am going to say this: Your peremptory assessment that there is nothing
that can be said in defence of my notion of degrees of objectivity
within a subjective point of view, is itself unbeknownst to you, a
subjective point of view.

 But I do not wish you become your enemy, Judy!

 And if one can 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[feste37]

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 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[maskedzebra]

Yes, now I know, feste37. It is too complicated to explain here, but consider 
my mistake a compliment to you. As in a certain kind of sensitivity and grace 
that I associate with a woman. That you are one of us, that makes it even more 
interesting. Refinement of nervous system? Something like that. I am writing my 
way here into the knowledge you are of the masculine gender. And it has taken. 
I apologize for the false projection. And I remember that earlier post: for it 
demonstrated you could hold East and West together, something I am unable to 
do. I'll kick a rugby ball in your direction. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote:

 
 
 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 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[Bob Price]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgCpkduEQ7Ufeature=related



From: maskedzebra no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 4:26:29 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE  :-)



Yes, now I know, feste37. It is too complicated to explain here, but consider 
my mistake a compliment to you. As in a certain kind of sensitivity and grace 
that I associate with a woman. That you are one of us, that makes it even more 
interesting. Refinement of nervous system? Something like that. I am writing my 
way here into the knowledge you are of the masculine gender. And it has taken. 
I apologize for the false projection. And I remember that earlier post: for it 
demonstrated you could hold East and West together, something I am unable to 
do. I'll kick a rugby ball in your direction. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote:

 
 
 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

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:

 Score one for the Fest.  Case closed.

Wrongaroonie. Only way the case could have been
closed and feste could have scored would be if his
question had put me in a tough spot. Obviously, it
didn't (as you now know, if you read my response).
If that's what he intended, he failed miserably.

If he asked just out of curiosity, it was a good
question, one I was happy to be asked and to
answer. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and
responded as if he'd asked out of curiosity.

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
 
  If I were to cobble together an image of you
  kissing Sal Sunshine, or Barry Wright, would
  you find that cute, too?

And just as a P.S. to what I told feste, I wouldn't
expect that the leaders in the photos would find
them cute, and I wouldn't blame them one bit.
But the cuteness or otherwise of the photos was
the least important aspect of my exchange with 
feste, as you would have known if you were paying
attention.

The important part was the intention of the people
who made the photos. feste thought it was evil; I
disagreed. And my response to his question was
entirely consistent with my opinion on that point.
If feste thought I'd react to photos of me and
Barry and me and Sal the way feste reacted to the
world leader photos, he was wrong.

As are you. But of course you'll never admit it.

*Now* the case is closed.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[seventhray1]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 As are you. But of course you'll never admit it.

 *Now* the case is closed.

Technical wins are you specialty.  I think your record is unblemished
after 20 years.  But that untwisting out of a pretzel sometimes.  How
long does that take?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  As are you. But of course you'll never admit it.
 
  *Now* the case is closed.
 
 Technical wins are you specialty.  I think your record is
 unblemished after 20 years.  But that untwisting out of a
 pretzel sometimes.  How long does that take?

Which pretzel was that? The one you imagined?

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[feste37]

I'm afraid you're wrong on that, authfriend. I never used the word evil to 
describe the intentions of the people who made the ad. I said they just wanted 
to sell their stuff. 

As you might say, don't put words in my mouth! Pay more attention! Read what I 
wrote! 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote:
 
  Score one for the Fest.  Case closed.
 
 Wrongaroonie. Only way the case could have been
 closed and feste could have scored would be if his
 question had put me in a tough spot. Obviously, it
 didn't (as you now know, if you read my response).
 If that's what he intended, he failed miserably.
 
 If he asked just out of curiosity, it was a good
 question, one I was happy to be asked and to
 answer. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and
 responded as if he'd asked out of curiosity.
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
  
   If I were to cobble together an image of you
   kissing Sal Sunshine, or Barry Wright, would
   you find that cute, too?
 
 And just as a P.S. to what I told feste, I wouldn't
 expect that the leaders in the photos would find
 them cute, and I wouldn't blame them one bit.
 But the cuteness or otherwise of the photos was
 the least important aspect of my exchange with 
 feste, as you would have known if you were paying
 attention.
 
 The important part was the intention of the people
 who made the photos. feste thought it was evil; I
 disagreed. And my response to his question was
 entirely consistent with my opinion on that point.
 If feste thought I'd react to photos of me and
 Barry and me and Sal the way feste reacted to the
 world leader photos, he was wrong.
 
 As are you. But of course you'll never admit it.
 
 *Now* the case is closed.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@...
wrote:

 Technical wins are you specialty.  I think your record is unblemished
 after 20 years.  But that untwisting out of a pretzel sometimes.  How
 long does that take?

 
[http://img2.lln.crunchyroll.com/i/spire4/1876855fd5a1903e01d971993ecebd\
911225005304_full.jpg]

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote:

 I'm afraid you're wrong on that, authfriend. I never used the 
 word evil to describe the intentions of the people who made
 the ad.

No, you didn't, but I didn't put it in quotes, either.

 I said they just wanted to sell their stuff. 

And that the ads were deliberately, cynically designed
to be offensive. That sounds pretty evil to me. But
I'm glad you've clarified that you don't consider it evil.



 
 As you might say, don't put words in my mouth! Pay more attention! Read what 
 I wrote! 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
 
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote:
  
   Score one for the Fest.  Case closed.
  
  Wrongaroonie. Only way the case could have been
  closed and feste could have scored would be if his
  question had put me in a tough spot. Obviously, it
  didn't (as you now know, if you read my response).
  If that's what he intended, he failed miserably.
  
  If he asked just out of curiosity, it was a good
  question, one I was happy to be asked and to
  answer. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and
  responded as if he'd asked out of curiosity.
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
   
If I were to cobble together an image of you
kissing Sal Sunshine, or Barry Wright, would
you find that cute, too?
  
  And just as a P.S. to what I told feste, I wouldn't
  expect that the leaders in the photos would find
  them cute, and I wouldn't blame them one bit.
  But the cuteness or otherwise of the photos was
  the least important aspect of my exchange with 
  feste, as you would have known if you were paying
  attention.
  
  The important part was the intention of the people
  who made the photos. feste thought it was evil; I
  disagreed. And my response to his question was
  entirely consistent with my opinion on that point.
  If feste thought I'd react to photos of me and
  Barry and me and Sal the way feste reacted to the
  world leader photos, he was wrong.
  
  As are you. But of course you'll never admit it.
  
  *Now* the case is closed.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[feste37]

I don't consider evil to be the correct word in this context, which is why I 
didn't use it. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:
 
  I'm afraid you're wrong on that, authfriend. I never used the 
  word evil to describe the intentions of the people who made
  the ad.
 
 No, you didn't, but I didn't put it in quotes, either.
 
  I said they just wanted to sell their stuff. 
 
 And that the ads were deliberately, cynically designed
 to be offensive. That sounds pretty evil to me. But
 I'm glad you've clarified that you don't consider it evil.
 
 
 
  
  As you might say, don't put words in my mouth! Pay more attention! Read 
  what I wrote! 
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote:
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, seventhray1 steve.sundur@ wrote:
   
Score one for the Fest.  Case closed.
   
   Wrongaroonie. Only way the case could have been
   closed and feste could have scored would be if his
   question had put me in a tough spot. Obviously, it
   didn't (as you now know, if you read my response).
   If that's what he intended, he failed miserably.
   
   If he asked just out of curiosity, it was a good
   question, one I was happy to be asked and to
   answer. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and
   responded as if he'd asked out of curiosity.
   
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote:

 If I were to cobble together an image of you
 kissing Sal Sunshine, or Barry Wright, would
 you find that cute, too?
   
   And just as a P.S. to what I told feste, I wouldn't
   expect that the leaders in the photos would find
   them cute, and I wouldn't blame them one bit.
   But the cuteness or otherwise of the photos was
   the least important aspect of my exchange with 
   feste, as you would have known if you were paying
   attention.
   
   The important part was the intention of the people
   who made the photos. feste thought it was evil; I
   disagreed. And my response to his question was
   entirely consistent with my opinion on that point.
   If feste thought I'd react to photos of me and
   Barry and me and Sal the way feste reacted to the
   world leader photos, he was wrong.
   
   As are you. But of course you'll never admit it.
   
   *Now* the case is closed.
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
snip
 Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the
 overreaction here on FFL yesterday by deadender cultists
 to the suggestion that they...uh...might belong to a cult.  :-)

Let's just squash this bug every time Barry lets it
loose. Nobody overreacted yesterday to that
suggestion.

This is a *tactic* Barry uses to inflate his own
self-importance, one of the many ways he cheats: he
characterizes *any* reaction--other than complete
agreement--to what he says as an overreaction.

He was *hoping* for a genuine overreaction. He
didn't get it. All he got was a few people calmly
disagreeing with him about whether TM is a cult.

That was deflating. But Barry can't tolerate being
deflated; he has to maintain his self-image as the
daring provocateur who pushes people's buttons and
makes them all upset. If they don't get upset, that
self-image suffers, and he has to try to repair it
with fantasies.

The fantasy that people overreacted wasn't quite
enough to reinflate his self-image, so he had to
create yet another fantasy:

 It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum
 goes bat-shit crazy every time someone suggests (not
 unreasonably) that she might just have...uh...hidden reasons
 for stalking a few of her male victims for decades.  Can't
 have that. Hate is hate and love is love, and never the twain
 shall meet.  :-)

You feeling better now, Barry? Got that hole in your
self-image all pasted over and patched up? Think you
might have overreacted just a bit to the fact that
nobody freaked out about your cult suggestion?

(Two ...uhs... in two consecutive paragraphs. Ever
have the sense that the older he gets, the more limited
and less creative his means of expression become? As Sal
might say, it would be funny if it weren't so sad.)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
anThe clothing line Benetton has long indulged in...uh...provocative 
advertising. This time they've hit the jackpot, because the UNHATE campaign 
showed images of world leaders getting over their hatred of each other and 
actually kissing. You can see the complete set of images -- the Pope kissing 
Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb, imam of the al-Azhar mosque in Egypt; Obama kissing 
Hugo Chavez; Benjamin Netanyahu kissing the leader of the Palestinian Authority 
Mahmoud Abbas; North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il kissing South Korean President 
Lee Myung-bak; German Chancellor Angela Merkel kissing French President Nicolas 
Sarkozy; and Obama (again) kissing Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the following 
link (slideshow about halfway down the page).

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_1097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
 
What makes this newsworthy, and interesting, is that Benetton has withdrawn at 
least one of the campaign photos after protests from an organization 
representing one of the people shown. Who, you might ask? Could it be noted 
crazy persons Kim Jong-Il or Netanyahu? Or maybe Obama, possibly feeling as if 
being portrayed kissing two world leaders might make him 
seem...uh...promiscuous? 

Nope. The protest came from the Vatican, ironically defending the most 
obviously closeted gay Pope in recent history. Protesting at the mocked-up 
picture, Federico Lombard, a spokesman for the Pope said: 'We must express the 
firmest protest for this absolutely unacceptable use of the image of the Holy 
Father, manipulated and exploited in a publicity campaign with commercial ends. 
This shows a grave lack of respect for the pope, an offence to the feelings of 
believers, a clear demonstration of how publicity can violate the basic rules 
of respect for people by attracting attention with provocation.'



Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the overreaction here on 
FFL yesterday by deadender cultists to the suggestion that they...uh...might 
belong to a cult.  :-)

It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum goes bat-shit crazy 
every time someone suggests (not unreasonably) that she might just 
have...uh...hidden reasons for stalking a few of her male victims for decades.  
Can't have that. Hate is hate and love is love, and never the twain shall meet. 
 :-)


Barry, Sweet Man That You Are:

On the Bat-Shit Crazy meter (I have one here in Canada; very reliable) I have 
failed to register anything beyond ZERO with regard to the person [and her 
posts] to which you refer. But my Bat-Shit Crazy Meter did register something—I 
keep the quantifying of this confidential—when you made this assertion about 
this person. Now why would that be? 

Benedict I am sure isn't gay like me, Barry. Fags know fags. He's no Gregory 
the Great, but he's harmless, I believe.

And brainy.

I am trying to get Benetton to investigate the possibility of doing an ad 
campaign on the theme of: Can Dish It Out [Well, there's some dispute about the 
definition being minimally realized in this instance; however, the intention to 
have dished it out applies here anyway] But Can't Take It.

I have recommended that you use you as their subject. Why is it you never 
fight, Barry? Look: you characterize someone on FFL as beside themselves, 
berserk in their persecution of their enemies [victimsyou even call them], 
lacking any self-control; and yet in every post, counter-post I have seen 
[since coming onto FFL] this person is the palmary instance of someone in total 
command of their emotions, and unable to not use their intelligence and their 
objectivity to expose the exact syndrome of Bat-Shit Craziness in others.

In fact this person you have selected out could be the personification of my 
BSC Meter; because I notice that the reading I get from my BSC Meter always 
seems to bear a most uncanny correspondence to the person who is the subject of 
your slight bat-shit craziness of today. As in: she could *be* my BSC Meter!

Barry: I need your help. You have allowed me to eviscerate you and turned the 
other cheek. Yet you continue to throw your brickbats, and I keep waiting for 
them to strike the target.

Not a one. But the seething [but repressed] Bat-Shit Craziness that determines 
the interior context within which you toss your grenades, that definitely is 
exhibited to all at FFL who are willing to have mercy upon you.

I have told the good Pope personally to ignore you; and I hope he will.

Barry: here is the one thing you have not mastered at all: When you lash out  
you must not, in this act, carry with you evidence of a form of self-ignorance 
and bitterness which upstages you the very moment you begin to express your 
judgment of another human being.

It is terribly embarrassing. Why embarrassing? Because you pray that the person 
who keeps doing this will suddenly become aware of the 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[Bob Price]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5IQnQhzMSI



From: authfriend jst...@panix.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 8:26:38 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE  :-)



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:
snip
 Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the
 overreaction here on FFL yesterday by deadender cultists
 to the suggestion that they...uh...might belong to a cult.  :-)

Let's just squash this bug every time Barry lets it
loose. Nobody overreacted yesterday to that
suggestion.

This is a *tactic* Barry uses to inflate his own
self-importance, one of the many ways he cheats: he
characterizes *any* reaction--other than complete
agreement--to what he says as an overreaction.

He was *hoping* for a genuine overreaction. He
didn't get it. All he got was a few people calmly
disagreeing with him about whether TM is a cult.

That was deflating. But Barry can't tolerate being
deflated; he has to maintain his self-image as the
daring provocateur who pushes people's buttons and
makes them all upset. If they don't get upset, that
self-image suffers, and he has to try to repair it
with fantasies.

The fantasy that people overreacted wasn't quite
enough to reinflate his self-image, so he had to
create yet another fantasy:

 It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum
 goes bat-shit crazy every time someone suggests (not
 unreasonably) that she might just have...uh...hidden reasons
 for stalking a few of her male victims for decades.  Can't
 have that. Hate is hate and love is love, and never the twain
 shall meet.  :-)

You feeling better now, Barry? Got that hole in your
self-image all pasted over and patched up? Think you
might have overreacted just a bit to the fact that
nobody freaked out about your cult suggestion?

(Two ...uhs... in two consecutive paragraphs. Ever
have the sense that the older he gets, the more limited
and less creative his means of expression become? As Sal
might say, it would be funny if it weren't so sad.)


   

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[feste37]

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.  

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 The clothing line Benetton has long indulged in...uh...provocative
 advertising. This time they've hit the jackpot, because the UNHATE
 campaign showed images of world leaders getting over their hatred of
 each other and actually kissing. You can see the complete set of images
 -- the Pope kissing Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb, imam of the al-Azhar mosque
 in Egypt; Obama kissing Hugo Chavez; Benjamin Netanyahu kissing the
 leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas; North Korean dictator
 Kim Jong-Il kissing South Korean President Lee Myung-bak; German
 Chancellor Angela Merkel kissing French President Nicolas Sarkozy; and 
 Obama (again) kissing Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the following link
 (slideshow about halfway down the page).
 
 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_1\
 097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
  
 http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_\
 1097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
 What makes this newsworthy, and interesting, is that Benetton has
 withdrawn at least one of the campaign photos after protests from an
 organization representing one of the people shown. Who, you might ask?
 Could it be noted crazy persons Kim Jong-Il or Netanyahu? Or maybe
 Obama, possibly feeling as if being portrayed kissing two world leaders
 might make him seem...uh...promiscuous?
 
 Nope. The protest came from the Vatican, ironically defending the most
 obviously closeted gay Pope in recent history. Protesting at the
 mocked-up picture, Federico Lombard, a spokesman  for the Pope said: 'We
 must express the firmest protest for this  absolutely unacceptable use
 of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated  and exploited in a
 publicity campaign with commercial ends. This shows a grave lack of
 respect for the pope, an offence to the  feelings of believers, a clear
 demonstration of how publicity can  violate the basic rules of respect
 for people by attracting attention  with provocation.'
 
  
 [http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/197241/slide_197241_477307_lar\
 ge.jpg?1321442898]
 
 Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the overreaction 
 here on FFL yesterday by deadender cultists to the suggestion that 
 they...uh...might belong to a cult.  :-)
 
 It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum goes
 bat-shit crazy every time someone suggests (not unreasonably) that she
 might just have...uh...hidden reasons for stalking a few of her male
 victims for decades.  Can't have that. Hate is hate and love is love,
 and never the twain shall meet.  :-)

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[authfriend]

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.  
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  The clothing line Benetton has long indulged in...uh...provocative
  advertising. This time they've hit the jackpot, because the UNHATE
  campaign showed images of world leaders getting over their hatred of
  each other and actually kissing. You can see the complete set of images
  -- the Pope kissing Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb, imam of the al-Azhar mosque
  in Egypt; Obama kissing Hugo Chavez; Benjamin Netanyahu kissing the
  leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas; North Korean dictator
  Kim Jong-Il kissing South Korean President Lee Myung-bak; German
  Chancellor Angela Merkel kissing French President Nicolas Sarkozy; and 
  Obama (again) kissing Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the following link
  (slideshow about halfway down the page).
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_1\
  097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
   
  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_\
  1097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
  What makes this newsworthy, and interesting, is that Benetton has
  withdrawn at least one of the campaign photos after protests from an
  organization representing one of the people shown. Who, you might ask?
  Could it be noted crazy persons Kim Jong-Il or Netanyahu? Or maybe
  Obama, possibly feeling as if being portrayed kissing two world leaders
  might make him seem...uh...promiscuous?
  
  Nope. The protest came from the Vatican, ironically defending the most
  obviously closeted gay Pope in recent history. Protesting at the
  mocked-up picture, Federico Lombard, a spokesman  for the Pope said: 'We
  must express the firmest protest for this  absolutely unacceptable use
  of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated  and exploited in a
  publicity campaign with commercial ends. This shows a grave lack of
  respect for the pope, an offence to the  feelings of believers, a clear
  demonstration of how publicity can  violate the basic rules of respect
  for people by attracting attention  with provocation.'
  
   
  [http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/197241/slide_197241_477307_lar\
  ge.jpg?1321442898]
  
  Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the overreaction 
  here on FFL yesterday by deadender cultists to the suggestion that 
  they...uh...might belong to a cult.  :-)
  
  It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum goes
  bat-shit crazy every time someone suggests (not unreasonably) that she
  might just have...uh...hidden reasons for stalking a few of her male
  victims for decades.  Can't have that. Hate is hate and love is love,
  and never the twain shall meet.  :-)
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[Bob Price]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKdF-IP7rE0



From: authfriend jst...@panix.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 10:03:22 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE  :-)



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. 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  The clothing line Benetton has long indulged in...uh...provocative
  advertising. This time they've hit the jackpot, because the UNHATE
  campaign showed images of world leaders getting over their hatred of
  each other and actually kissing. You can see the complete set of images
  -- the Pope kissing Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb, imam of the al-Azhar mosque
  in Egypt; Obama kissing Hugo Chavez; Benjamin Netanyahu kissing the
  leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas; North Korean dictator
  Kim Jong-Il kissing South Korean President Lee Myung-bak; German
  Chancellor Angela Merkel kissing French President Nicolas Sarkozy; and 
  Obama (again) kissing Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the following link
  (slideshow about halfway down the page).
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_1\;
  097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_\;
  1097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
  What makes this newsworthy, and interesting, is that Benetton has
  withdrawn at least one of the campaign photos after protests from an
  organization representing one of the people shown. Who, you might ask?
  Could it be noted crazy persons Kim Jong-Il or Netanyahu? Or maybe
  Obama, possibly feeling as if being portrayed kissing two world leaders
  might make him seem...uh...promiscuous?
  
  Nope. The protest came from the Vatican, ironically defending the most
  obviously closeted gay Pope in recent history. Protesting at the
  mocked-up picture, Federico Lombard, a spokesman  for the Pope said: 'We
  must express the firmest protest for this  absolutely unacceptable use
  of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated  and exploited in a
  publicity campaign with commercial ends. This shows a grave lack of
  respect for the pope, an offence to the  feelings of believers, a clear
  demonstration of how publicity can  violate the basic rules of respect
  for people by attracting attention  with provocation.'
  
  
  [http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/197241/slide_197241_477307_lar\;
  ge.jpg?1321442898]
  
  Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the overreaction 
  here on FFL yesterday by deadender cultists to the suggestion that 
  they...uh...might belong to a cult.  :-)
  
  It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum goes
  bat-shit crazy every time someone suggests (not unreasonably) that she
  might just have...uh...hidden reasons for stalking a few of her male
  victims for decades.  Can't have that. Hate is hate and love is love,
  and never the twain shall meet.  :-)
 



   

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[feste37]

I think you have an odd idea of cute, but that is your business. I don't see 
this as having a positive message embedded in it all. It's deliberately, 
cynically designed to be offensive. 

--- 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.  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   The clothing line Benetton has long indulged in...uh...provocative
   advertising. This time they've hit the jackpot, because the UNHATE
   campaign showed images of world leaders getting over their hatred of
   each other and actually kissing. You can see the complete set of images
   -- the Pope kissing Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb, imam of the al-Azhar mosque
   in Egypt; Obama kissing Hugo Chavez; Benjamin Netanyahu kissing the
   leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas; North Korean dictator
   Kim Jong-Il kissing South Korean President Lee Myung-bak; German
   Chancellor Angela Merkel kissing French President Nicolas Sarkozy; and 
   Obama (again) kissing Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the following link
   (slideshow about halfway down the page).
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_1\
   097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and

   http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_\
   1097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
   What makes this newsworthy, and interesting, is that Benetton has
   withdrawn at least one of the campaign photos after protests from an
   organization representing one of the people shown. Who, you might ask?
   Could it be noted crazy persons Kim Jong-Il or Netanyahu? Or maybe
   Obama, possibly feeling as if being portrayed kissing two world leaders
   might make him seem...uh...promiscuous?
   
   Nope. The protest came from the Vatican, ironically defending the most
   obviously closeted gay Pope in recent history. Protesting at the
   mocked-up picture, Federico Lombard, a spokesman  for the Pope said: 'We
   must express the firmest protest for this  absolutely unacceptable use
   of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated  and exploited in a
   publicity campaign with commercial ends. This shows a grave lack of
   respect for the pope, an offence to the  feelings of believers, a clear
   demonstration of how publicity can  violate the basic rules of respect
   for people by attracting attention  with provocation.'
   

   [http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/197241/slide_197241_477307_lar\
   ge.jpg?1321442898]
   
   Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the overreaction 
   here on FFL yesterday by deadender cultists to the suggestion that 
   they...uh...might belong to a cult.  :-)
   
   It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum goes
   bat-shit crazy every time someone suggests (not unreasonably) that she
   might just have...uh...hidden reasons for stalking a few of her male
   victims for decades.  Can't have that. Hate is hate and love is love,
   and never the twain shall meet.  :-)
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[turquoiseb]

--- 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.

Well, duh. It's an ad campaign. I thought it was a witty one.

For the record, as to the current Pope's sexual identity, I have no
clue. The vibe *I* get off of him is repressed homosexual, probably not
active. Always have, since I saw my first photos of him. I found that
sentiment echoed among many gay friends in Paris and in Sitges; all of
them spoke of him as one of us.

As to having respect for him, that is a different matter. I know too
much about him. I find him fascinating, but I don't respect him terribly
much. In speaking of Pope Benedict XVI, born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger,
you have to bear in mind that his job, pre-Pope, was as leader of the
Inquisition. Seriously. He was the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation
for the Doctrine of the Faith (the modern name of the historical
Inquisition) from 1981 to 2005. He has also been IMO a horrific
influence on the Catholic Church, moving it many steps backwards in the
direction of its, and civilization's, dark ages.

Although I am not Catholic, there was a time when I was hanging out with
a number of priests. They were scholars, and we had a common interest in
the Medieval period. When the former Pope died, all agreed long before
the conclave of Cardinals met that he would be the next Pope, because in
their words, No one would dare to vote against him. They know what
would happen to them if they did. These priests said that Ratzinger was
openly referred to as the J. Edgar Hoover of the Catholic Church,
referring to his use of, and consistent abuse of, power.

Having seen the trailers for the new Clint Eastwood movie, this parallel
may be deeper than they knew. Strangely like Hoover's many-year close
relationship with his protege Clyde Tolson, Ratzinger has had a 15-year
relationship with Monsignor Georg Gänswein (called Bel Giorgio or
Beautiful George within the Church for his good looks). He became
Ratzinger's private secretary when he was head of the Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith (the Inquisition), and is now private
secretary to the Pope. His fashion sense is such that Versace based a
line of clothing on it. You can't make this stuff up:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1768381/posts
  ttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1768381/posts

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[maskedzebra]

Here I have to disagree with Judy, feste37, because once I caught the quality 
of experience that made you say what you said here, I found myself in 
agreement—at least so far as this: your perception/judgment goes deeper than 
Judy's perception/judgment—even though of course I can entirely understand the 
'truth' of what she say—it certainly is real for her. But what you say here, 
just touches upon something I think almost everyone will miss. I felt the same 
way about your comments about the segregation of women and men in the TMO. I 
don't say I don't understand the extreme views of Mike D, I only say that you 
have an honest and true experience, and it obviously gets at a truth that I 
think Judy (and more obviously Mike D) miss. For Judy to be objectively correct 
would mean your experience was false, imagined, purely subjectively. This 
certainly it is not. It is subtle and real. Thank you for speaking up, feste37.

--- 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.  
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
 
  The clothing line Benetton has long indulged in...uh...provocative
  advertising. This time they've hit the jackpot, because the UNHATE
  campaign showed images of world leaders getting over their hatred of
  each other and actually kissing. You can see the complete set of images
  -- the Pope kissing Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb, imam of the al-Azhar mosque
  in Egypt; Obama kissing Hugo Chavez; Benjamin Netanyahu kissing the
  leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas; North Korean dictator
  Kim Jong-Il kissing South Korean President Lee Myung-bak; German
  Chancellor Angela Merkel kissing French President Nicolas Sarkozy; and 
  Obama (again) kissing Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the following link
  (slideshow about halfway down the page).
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_1\
  097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
   
  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_\
  1097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
  What makes this newsworthy, and interesting, is that Benetton has
  withdrawn at least one of the campaign photos after protests from an
  organization representing one of the people shown. Who, you might ask?
  Could it be noted crazy persons Kim Jong-Il or Netanyahu? Or maybe
  Obama, possibly feeling as if being portrayed kissing two world leaders
  might make him seem...uh...promiscuous?
  
  Nope. The protest came from the Vatican, ironically defending the most
  obviously closeted gay Pope in recent history. Protesting at the
  mocked-up picture, Federico Lombard, a spokesman  for the Pope said: 'We
  must express the firmest protest for this  absolutely unacceptable use
  of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated  and exploited in a
  publicity campaign with commercial ends. This shows a grave lack of
  respect for the pope, an offence to the  feelings of believers, a clear
  demonstration of how publicity can  violate the basic rules of respect
  for people by attracting attention  with provocation.'
  
   
  [http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/197241/slide_197241_477307_lar\
  ge.jpg?1321442898]
  
  Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the overreaction 
  here on FFL yesterday by deadender cultists to the suggestion that 
  they...uh...might belong to a cult.  :-)
  
  It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum goes
  bat-shit crazy every time someone suggests (not unreasonably) that she
  might just have...uh...hidden reasons for stalking a few of her male
  victims for decades.  Can't have that. Hate is hate and love is love,
  and never the twain shall meet.  :-)
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[Bob Price]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6E547V188Mfeature=related



From: turquoiseb no_re...@yahoogroups.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 10:36:48 AM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE  :-)



--- 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. 

Well, duh. It's an ad campaign. I thought it was a witty one. 

For the record, as to the current Pope's sexual identity, I have no clue. The 
vibe *I* get off of him is repressed homosexual, probably not active. Always 
have, since I saw my first photos of him. I found that sentiment echoed among 
many gay friends in Paris and in Sitges; all of them spoke of him as one of 
us. 

As to having respect for him, that is a different matter. I know too much about 
him. I find him fascinating, but I don't respect him terribly much. In speaking 
of Pope Benedict XVI, born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger, you have to bear in mind 
that his job, pre-Pope, was as leader of the Inquisition. Seriously. He was the 
Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the modern 
name of the historical Inquisition) from 1981 to 2005. He has also been IMO a 
horrific influence on the Catholic Church, moving it many steps backwards in 
the direction of its, and civilization's, dark ages. 

Although I am not Catholic, there was a time when I was hanging out with a 
number of priests. They were scholars, and we had a common interest in the 
Medieval period. When the former Pope died, all agreed long before the conclave 
of Cardinals met that he would be the next Pope, because in their words, No 
one would dare to vote against him. They know what would happen to them if they 
did. These priests said that Ratzinger was openly referred to as the J. Edgar 
Hoover of the Catholic Church, referring to his use of, and consistent abuse 
of, power.

Having seen the trailers for the new Clint Eastwood movie, this parallel may be 
deeper than they knew. Strangely like Hoover's many-year close relationship 
with his protege Clyde Tolson, Ratzinger has had a 15-year relationship with 
Monsignor Georg Gänswein (called Bel Giorgio or Beautiful George within the 
Church for his good looks). He became Ratzinger's private secretary when he was 
head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Inquisition), and 
is now private secretary to the Pope. His fashion sense is such that Versace 
based a line of clothing on it. You can't make this stuff up: 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1768381/posts



    

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[maskedzebra]

Interesting, thoughtful comments here, Barry. Don't step outside of this 
context and you'll be fine. And I won't have anything to say. I don't say I 
agree with all your reflections here, but at least you are being reasonable and 
keeping the hate out. This makes for the right kind of experience. Now how 
about sending some brickbats my way? I am kind of missing getting my buttons 
pressed. If you keep writing posts like this I will be able to return to my 
knitting.
Robin 


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote:

 --- 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.
 
 Well, duh. It's an ad campaign. I thought it was a witty one.
 
 For the record, as to the current Pope's sexual identity, I have no
 clue. The vibe *I* get off of him is repressed homosexual, probably not
 active. Always have, since I saw my first photos of him. I found that
 sentiment echoed among many gay friends in Paris and in Sitges; all of
 them spoke of him as one of us.
 
 As to having respect for him, that is a different matter. I know too
 much about him. I find him fascinating, but I don't respect him terribly
 much. In speaking of Pope Benedict XVI, born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger,
 you have to bear in mind that his job, pre-Pope, was as leader of the
 Inquisition. Seriously. He was the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation
 for the Doctrine of the Faith (the modern name of the historical
 Inquisition) from 1981 to 2005. He has also been IMO a horrific
 influence on the Catholic Church, moving it many steps backwards in the
 direction of its, and civilization's, dark ages.
 
 Although I am not Catholic, there was a time when I was hanging out with
 a number of priests. They were scholars, and we had a common interest in
 the Medieval period. When the former Pope died, all agreed long before
 the conclave of Cardinals met that he would be the next Pope, because in
 their words, No one would dare to vote against him. They know what
 would happen to them if they did. These priests said that Ratzinger was
 openly referred to as the J. Edgar Hoover of the Catholic Church,
 referring to his use of, and consistent abuse of, power.
 
 Having seen the trailers for the new Clint Eastwood movie, this parallel
 may be deeper than they knew. Strangely like Hoover's many-year close
 relationship with his protege Clyde Tolson, Ratzinger has had a 15-year
 relationship with Monsignor Georg Gänswein (called Bel Giorgio or
 Beautiful George within the Church for his good looks). He became
 Ratzinger's private secretary when he was head of the Congregation for
 the Doctrine of the Faith (the Inquisition), and is now private
 secretary to the Pope. His fashion sense is such that Versace based a
 line of clothing on it. You can't make this stuff up:
 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1768381/posts
   ttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1768381/posts

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[maskedzebra]

Reading this a second time I am in the presence of two simultaneously valid 
realities, each of which contradicts the other. For me, Judy, this is the 
paradigmatic example of postmodernism—which itself originates in the 
metaphysical ambiguity originating in the absence of God. You are, then, 
right—and I feel this. feste27, she is right too. Go figure.

See, there is no final way of adjudicating truth. I mean in some ultimate way.

Before [before we were born] I insist there was. Or at least the universe was a 
context within which truth could be decided, even if not demonstrably proven.

I have only written here to make sure I don't come into the line of your fire.

I don't know, as yet, what it is like to be a male victim' of yours, like 
Barry does.

Seems to mean we have an instance of the Personal Impersonal God principle here 
(Judy vs feste37). Right?



--- 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.  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   The clothing line Benetton has long indulged in...uh...provocative
   advertising. This time they've hit the jackpot, because the UNHATE
   campaign showed images of world leaders getting over their hatred of
   each other and actually kissing. You can see the complete set of images
   -- the Pope kissing Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb, imam of the al-Azhar mosque
   in Egypt; Obama kissing Hugo Chavez; Benjamin Netanyahu kissing the
   leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas; North Korean dictator
   Kim Jong-Il kissing South Korean President Lee Myung-bak; German
   Chancellor Angela Merkel kissing French President Nicolas Sarkozy; and 
   Obama (again) kissing Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the following link
   (slideshow about halfway down the page).
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_1\
   097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and

   http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_\
   1097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
   What makes this newsworthy, and interesting, is that Benetton has
   withdrawn at least one of the campaign photos after protests from an
   organization representing one of the people shown. Who, you might ask?
   Could it be noted crazy persons Kim Jong-Il or Netanyahu? Or maybe
   Obama, possibly feeling as if being portrayed kissing two world leaders
   might make him seem...uh...promiscuous?
   
   Nope. The protest came from the Vatican, ironically defending the most
   obviously closeted gay Pope in recent history. Protesting at the
   mocked-up picture, Federico Lombard, a spokesman  for the Pope said: 'We
   must express the firmest protest for this  absolutely unacceptable use
   of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated  and exploited in a
   publicity campaign with commercial ends. This shows a grave lack of
   respect for the pope, an offence to the  feelings of believers, a clear
   demonstration of how publicity can  violate the basic rules of respect
   for people by attracting attention  with provocation.'
   

   [http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/197241/slide_197241_477307_lar\
   ge.jpg?1321442898]
   
   Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the overreaction 
   here on FFL yesterday by deadender cultists to the suggestion that 
   they...uh...might belong to a cult.  :-)
   
   It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum goes
   bat-shit crazy every time someone suggests (not unreasonably) that she
   might just have...uh...hidden reasons for stalking a few of her male
   victims for decades.  Can't have that. Hate is hate and love is love,
   and never the twain shall meet.  :-)
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[authfriend]

--- 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.  

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[maskedzebra]

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.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 Here I have to disagree with Judy, feste37, because once I caught the quality 
 of experience that made you say what you said here, I found myself in 
 agreement—at least so far as this: your perception/judgment goes deeper than 
 Judy's perception/judgment—even though of course I can entirely understand 
 the 'truth' of what she say—it certainly is real for her. But what you say 
 here, just touches upon something I think almost everyone will miss. I felt 
 the same way about your comments about the segregation of women and men in 
 the TMO. I don't say I don't understand the extreme views of Mike D, I only 
 say that you have an honest and true experience, and it obviously gets at a 
 truth that I think Judy (and more obviously Mike D) miss. For Judy to be 
 objectively correct would mean your experience was false, imagined, purely 
 subjectively. This certainly it is not. It is subtle and real. Thank you for 
 speaking up, feste37.

I really don't get your definitions of objective and 
subjective, Robin. Seems to me both feste and I are
reporting our subjective reactions.

I mean, if we could somehow force the Benneton people
to tell us honestly whether they did or did not intend
to be offensive, we might get at one genuinely objective
truth about the campaign. (And even then, if they denied
they were trying to offend, we couldn't be positive they
were being honest.)

But other than that, it's all purely subjective, as far
as I can see. Objective correctness just doesn't enter
into it.


 --- 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.  
  
  --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote:
  
   The clothing line Benetton has long indulged in...uh...provocative
   advertising. This time they've hit the jackpot, because the UNHATE
   campaign showed images of world leaders getting over their hatred of
   each other and actually kissing. You can see the complete set of images
   -- the Pope kissing Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb, imam of the al-Azhar mosque
   in Egypt; Obama kissing Hugo Chavez; Benjamin Netanyahu kissing the
   leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas; North Korean dictator
   Kim Jong-Il kissing South Korean President Lee Myung-bak; German
   Chancellor Angela Merkel kissing French President Nicolas Sarkozy; and 
   Obama (again) kissing Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the following link
   (slideshow about halfway down the page).
   
   http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_1\
   097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and

   http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_\
   1097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
   What makes this newsworthy, and interesting, is that Benetton has
   withdrawn at least one of the campaign photos after protests from an
   organization representing one of the people shown. Who, you might ask?
   Could it be noted crazy persons Kim Jong-Il or Netanyahu? Or maybe
   Obama, possibly feeling as if being portrayed kissing two world leaders
   might make him seem...uh...promiscuous?
   
   Nope. The protest came from the Vatican, ironically defending the most
   obviously closeted gay Pope in recent history. Protesting at the
   mocked-up picture, Federico Lombard, a spokesman  for the Pope said: 'We
   must express the firmest protest for this  absolutely unacceptable use
   of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated  and exploited in a
   publicity campaign with commercial ends. This shows a grave lack of
   respect for the pope, an offence to the  feelings of believers, a clear
   demonstration of how publicity can  violate the basic rules of respect
   for people by attracting attention  with provocation.'
   

   [http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/197241/slide_197241_477307_lar\
   ge.jpg?1321442898]
   
   Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the overreaction 
   here on FFL yesterday by deadender cultists to the suggestion that 
   they...uh...might belong to a cult.  :-)
   
   It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum goes
   bat-shit crazy every time someone suggests (not unreasonably) that she
   might just have...uh...hidden reasons for stalking a few of her male
   victims for decades.  Can't have that. Hate is hate and love is love,
   and never the twain shall meet.  :-)
  
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[authfriend]

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.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[feste37]

If I were to cobble together an image of you kissing Sal Sunshine, or Barry 
Wright, would you find that cute, too?

--- 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.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[authfriend]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote:
 
 If I were to cobble together an image of you kissing Sal
 Sunshine, or Barry Wright, would you find that cute, too?

Good question. I wouldn't find it cute, but I wouldn't
be outraged and disgusted and offended by it, because I'd
see the positive message behind it. I wouldn't think that
message was plausible, but I'd accept it as having been 
well-intentioned.

And, you know, never say Never. After all, it isn't
totally inconceivable that Sal and Barry could have an
epiphany and realize how stupidly wrong and obnoxious
they've been all these years. ;-)



 
 --- 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.
 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[maskedzebra]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote:

 
 
 --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@ wrote:
 
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:

 Here I have to disagree with Judy, feste37, because once I caught the quality
of experience that made you say what you said here, I found myself in
agreement—at least so far as this: your perception/judgment goes deeper than
Judy's perception/judgment—even though of course I can entirely understand the
'truth' of what she say—it certainly is real for her. But what you say here,
just touches upon something I think almost everyone will miss. I felt the same
way about your comments about the segregation of women and men in the TMO. I
don't say I don't understand the extreme views of Mike D, I only say that you
have an honest and true experience, and it obviously gets at a truth that I
think Judy (and more obviously Mike D) miss. For Judy to be objectively correct
would mean your experience was false, imagined, purely subjectively. This
certainly it is not. It is subtle and real. Thank you for speaking up, feste37.

Judy: I really don't get your definitions of objective and
subjective, Robin. Seems to me both feste and I are
reporting our subjective reactions.

I mean, if we could somehow force the Benneton people
to tell us honestly whether they did or did not intend
to be offensive, we might get at one genuinely objective
truth about the campaign. (And even then, if they denied
they were trying to offend, we couldn't be positive they
were being honest.)

But other than that, it's all purely subjective, as far
as I can see. Objective correctness just doesn't enter
into it.

Robin: Well, Judy, is *this* determination you have made that my categories of 
objective and subjective doesn't enter into it an objective one?

Objective and subjective get differentiated against the background of reality. 
Reality being the way things really are. Now if you will permit me to bring in 
the metaphor of God, objective versus subjective would mean that where God 
favours one point of view over another, that point of view would have the value 
of being more objective than the other point of view which did not meet with 
God's favour (remember, we are/I am using God as a metaphor for some omniscient 
vantage point from which to see reality—since this vantage point created that 
reality).

If someone's point of view about the Benneton ads can only be subjective, then 
what is the point of arguing one way or the other? Are you not, in the very act 
of arguing for the validity of your own take on these ads, implying that your 
point of view is more 'objective' than feste37's point of view? After all, if 
one can marshall a whole series of arguments in support of one's 'subjective' 
point of view, does that not add something more objective to that subjective 
point of view, and therefore makes it more subjectively objective (if I can use 
that term)?

I think that we all come at everything from our own subjective point of view, 
granted. However the degree to which we feel the realness, the oughtness, the 
rightness of that point of view surely has something to do with our sense of 
what kind of purchase it is making on reality. Reality being what really is the 
case.

Feste37 did not express her point of view with the absolute notion it was 
merely subjective. If she did this, she would have already realized there 
really is no issue here, since it is just one person's subjectivity versus 
another person's subjectivity.

Now you chose to explain how your own point of view seemed more reasonable, 
more in line with the facts, more what the Benneton people were up to, than was 
feste37s point of view. Is this not in some sense then putting the issue into a 
context where fact and truth mean something? These are hardly concerns that are 
subjective.

Whether in the final analysis your point of view and  feste37's point of view 
amount to what is purely subjective, the very need you felt to buttress your 
case, to argue on behalf of its validity, must mean that you deemed your point 
of view to be, at the very least, more subjectively objective than feste37's 
point of view was subjectively objective.

If it is all a matter of pure subjectivity, and we can never establish any 
standard of objective truth in discussing a matter like this, then why was 
anything said for or against these different points of view?

I sense that the very decisiveness, authoritativeness, and certainty of what 
you have just told me borders on the subjective, and therefore I am going to 
say this: Your peremptory assessment that there is nothing that can be said in 
defence of my notion of degrees of objectivity within a subjective point of 
view, is itself unbeknownst to you, a subjective point of view.

But I do not wish you become your enemy, Judy!

And if one can decide something is just subjective, that in itself participates 
in some 

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[turquoiseb]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote:

 If I were to cobble together an image of you kissing Sal 
 Sunshine, or Barry Wright, would you find that cute, too?

I'm gonna go with Jayne on the good ship Serenity's
view on this one; I could stand to see a little more. 
Photoshoppers out there, go for it.  :-)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHFuzbeTPew

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[Bob Price]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XvmPPJqaUwfeature=fvsr



From: authfriend jst...@panix.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 12:02:58 PM
Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE  :-)



--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote:
 
 If I were to cobble together an image of you kissing Sal
 Sunshine, or Barry Wright, would you find that cute, too?

Good question. I wouldn't find it cute, but I wouldn't
be outraged and disgusted and offended by it, because I'd
see the positive message behind it. I wouldn't think that
message was plausible, but I'd accept it as having been 
well-intentioned.

And, you know, never say Never. After all, it isn't
totally inconceivable that Sal and Barry could have an
epiphany and realize how stupidly wrong and obnoxious
they've been all these years. ;-)

 --- 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.
 



   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[Tom Pall]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com wrote:


 Let's just squash this bug every time Barry lets it
 loose. Nobody overreacted yesterday to that
 suggestion.


Actually, everybody underreacted.   The proper reaction should have been a
slew of atta boys towards my post, telling once again how right on I am,
how I should be one of the only posters here taken seriously, heeded, etc.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[Bob Price]

Yo Tom,



Although I'm always pleased to be mistaken for Judy, I'm not sure she would 
want me taking credit for her insights; the quote below should have been 
attributed to her.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWFa8zfWfeA



From: Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 4:15:56 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)



On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com wrote:


Let's just squash this bug every time Barry lets it
loose. Nobody overreacted yesterday to that
suggestion.



Actually, everybody underreacted.   The proper reaction should have been a slew 
of atta boys towards my post, telling once again how right on I am, how I 
should be one of the only posters here taken seriously, heeded, etc. 

   

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[Tom Pall]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com wrote:



 Yo Tom,



 Although I'm always pleased to be mistaken for Judy, I'm not sure she
 would want me taking credit for her insights; the quote below should have
 been attributed to her.



I'm sure you enjoy sharing clothes,  shoes.  gossip, hair style and makeup
secrets with In Bibliography We Trust.  If Buckero can get away with 45
levels of  from never snipping, surely I can randomly decide to
respond to three posters ago.  Understand that I loathe you almost as much
as I loath RC and Ravioli, so responding to your posts is about as
distasteful to me as having sex with a rattlesnake.   There's so little
time and so much to snipe at, so find a post, respond to it is my motto.

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[authfriend]

Robin, gotta give this short shrift because there's a pile
of work I need to be doing this evening. It's an interesting
issue; maybe we can take it up again soon.

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, maskedzebra no_reply@... wrote:
snip
 If it is all a matter of pure subjectivity, and we can never
 establish any standard of objective truth in discussing a
 matter like this, then why was anything said for or against
 these different points of view?

Because it's enjoyable to have one's opinions challenged
and see what one can come up with to defend them? Or
modify them, if need be? It's intellectual tennis. Rarely
does one have a clear win or loss, but the thinking
muscles get a good workout.

 I sense that the very decisiveness, authoritativeness, and 
 certainty of what you have just told me borders on the
 subjective, and therefore I am going to say this: Your
 peremptory assessment that there is nothing that can be
 said in defence of my notion of degrees of objectivity
 within a subjective point of view, is itself unbeknownst
 to you, a subjective point of view.

Yikes, I never asserted and certainly didn't mean to
suggest that there was nothing that could be said to
defend your notion of objectivity--to the contrary,
by saying I didn't understand it, I was implicitly
requesting that you explain it. Also note the
qualifiers in what I wrote--seems to me and as far
as I can see--that signal subjectivity. Basically, I
was saying, Here's how I see the subjective/objective
components of the Benneton discussion; how do you see 
them?

 But I do not wish you become your enemy, Judy!

(Freudian slip there? You don't want me to become my
own enemy?)

Responding to what you meant to write: You'd have to
try a lot harder than this to become my enemy, Robin.


That's 50 for me. Back at the usual time (hopefully
with a response in our other conversation, maybe some
additional comments on the subjectivity/objectivity
question).

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[seventhray1]

Bennetton has always done this. They go for shock value, and I agree
that it is tasteless.  But as a company they have pretty much lost their
cachet, at least as I understand it.  So much is foisted upon us as
being sophisticated.  I don't go for it.  On the other hand, I haven't
watched a TV sitcom, or much of any other TV for at least 20 years.

Ok, I have occasionally watched the Simpsons when I kids had it on
before dinner.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote:



 I think you have an odd idea of cute, but that is your business. I
don't see this as having a positive message embedded in it all. It's
deliberately, cynically designed to be offensive.

 --- 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.
  
   --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@
wrote:
   
The clothing line Benetton has long indulged
in...uh...provocative
advertising. This time they've hit the jackpot, because the
UNHATE
campaign showed images of world leaders getting over their
hatred of
each other and actually kissing. You can see the complete set of
images
-- the Pope kissing Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb, imam of the al-Azhar
mosque
in Egypt; Obama kissing Hugo Chavez; Benjamin Netanyahu kissing
the
leader of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas; North Korean
dictator
Kim Jong-Il kissing South Korean President Lee Myung-bak; German
Chancellor Angela Merkel kissing French President Nicolas
Sarkozy; and
Obama (again) kissing Chinese leader Hu Jintao at the following
link
(slideshow about halfway down the page).
   
   
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_1\
\
097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
   
   
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/11/16/benetton-unhate-campaign-_n_\
\
1097329.html?ref=uk#s477307title=The_Pope_and
What makes this newsworthy, and interesting, is that Benetton
has
withdrawn at least one of the campaign photos after protests
from an
organization representing one of the people shown. Who, you
might ask?
Could it be noted crazy persons Kim Jong-Il or Netanyahu? Or
maybe
Obama, possibly feeling as if being portrayed kissing two world
leaders
might make him seem...uh...promiscuous?
   
Nope. The protest came from the Vatican, ironically defending
the most
obviously closeted gay Pope in recent history. Protesting at
the
mocked-up picture, Federico Lombard, a spokesman for the Pope
said: 'We
must express the firmest protest for this absolutely
unacceptable use
of the image of the Holy Father, manipulated and exploited in a
publicity campaign with commercial ends. This shows a grave lack
of
respect for the pope, an offence to the feelings of believers, a
clear
demonstration of how publicity can violate the basic rules of
respect
for people by attracting attention with provocation.'
   
   
   
[http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/197241/slide_197241_477307_lar\
\
ge.jpg?1321442898]
   
Hilarious, if you ask me. It reminds me a little of the
overreaction
here on FFL yesterday by deadender cultists to the suggestion
that
they...uh...might belong to a cult. :-)
   
It also reminds me of how a certain obsessive on this forum goes
bat-shit crazy every time someone suggests (not unreasonably)
that she
might just have...uh...hidden reasons for stalking a few of her
male
victims for decades. Can't have that. Hate is hate and love is
love,
and never the twain shall meet. :-)
   
  
 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[Bob Price]

Was it something I said?



From: Tom Pall thomas.p...@gmail.com
To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2011 6:15:32 PM
Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)



On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Bob Price bobpri...@yahoo.com wrote:



Yo Tom,



Although I'm always pleased to be mistaken for Judy, I'm not sure she would 
want me taking credit for her insights; the quote below should have been 
attributed to her.




I'm sure you enjoy sharing clothes,  shoes.  gossip, hair style and makeup 
secrets with In Bibliography We Trust.  If Buckero can get away with 45 levels 
of  from never snipping, surely I can randomly decide to respond to 
three posters ago.  Understand that I loathe you almost as much as I loath RC 
and Ravioli, so responding to your posts is about as distasteful to me as 
having sex with a rattlesnake.   There's so little time and so much to snipe 
at, so find a post, respond to it is my motto.

   

[FairfieldLife] Re: The hate caused by UNHATE :-)

[seventhray1]

Score one for the Fest.  Case closed.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@... wrote:



 If I were to cobble together an image of you kissing Sal Sunshine, or
Barry Wright, would you find that cute, too?

 --- 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.