Paul
On Nov 12, 2004, at 6:32 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I was thinking of the diatribe resulting from a couple of photos I posted
recently, of the comments made towards me, about the people in the photos,
and about the relevance and appropriateness of the posted photos Of course
my post was facetious, but it was also a bit sarcastic and angry, for I'm
still bitter about some things that were said. I probably should have
held off pressing the send button with this post, but the anger and
frustration I felt then has not subsided or dissipated very much.
Shel
[Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
There are some great shots here, and some very ordinary ones. I don't
know that I find the blurry shots particularly interesting. The blur
doesn't seem to contribute to the message. As far as people on the list
objecting to shots of those in distress, I can't recall that ever
happening. Thus, I don't understand the purpose of Shel's obviously
facetious message.
Paul
On Nov 12, 2004, at 4:10 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Really! Putting up pictures of people in distress and suffering has no
place on the pentax list. Are you trying to push your political or
social
agenda here. It's been determined by a "minority consensus" that
photos of
this sort are unwelcome and out of place on this list. Please stick to
landscapes, pictures of flowers, or those of pets.
