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