RE: [Leica] LUG web space project

["B. D. Colen" <BDColen@earthlink.net>]

- -----Original Message-----
From:	owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of
dannyg1@idt.net
Sent:	Saturday, June 18, 1927 9:38 AM
To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject:	Re: [Leica] LUG web space project

Alf/All,

Francesco has made an offer to the LUG membership that's both
extraordinarily kind
and of good heart; I thank him for making the offer. IMO your objections
have been
spoken with a kind of  'beneath us' disdain that's innappropriate, at best;
in effect
'criminalizing' Francesco for offering of himself.

> I will not change my mind, and I refuse to accept, that essential parts of
> the LUG might be managed by you.

Your point of concern comes from the Playboy courtcase and the listing of
the 5senses
server as a 'pornographic' one. His explanation for what led to the court
decision was,
beyond being none of our business, credible. From what Francesco has told
us, he
participates in a genre of photography known as 'glamour' photography, much
the same
as the work of our own LUG hero Erwin Puts.

Would you have a problem showing your photos next to Erwin's?

What if Compuserve offered us free space? I presume that the perception
Compuserve
promotes, that of a 'civilized neighborhood', would appeal to you?

Here we have an established entity which includes a photoforum. Their
photoforum has
member rules which specifically permit the 'right' of the forum staff to
selectively
discriminate on the basis of POV (or for whatever reason best fits). They
also track
where their membership goes and make a 'profile' history available to
whomever they'ld
like (be they advertisers, spammers or maybe even religious zealots) without
notifying
the user. And they're owned by AOL, whose membership is notorious as the
most
prolific consumers of pornographic materials on the net.

It would seem that finding a server innocuous enough to meet your
requirements would
be a rough task I'm fairly sure none of us are pure enough to undertake in
an honestly,
'personally pure enough' sense.

I say none of this to antagonize you and want you to understand that. I do
however,
object to claimed Puritanism as vocally as you object to pornography.

Men, glass houses, stones and all that.

Regards,
Danny Gonzalez

I think this is beginning to get overly personal and loses sight of an
important point. With all do respect to Francesco, who has made a
wonderfully generous offer out of the goodness of his heart, one person's
"glamour" is another person's "cheese cake," another's "soft porn," and
another's porn.

The question before us as a group has nothing to do with Francesco's morals
or how he earns a photographic living. Rather, it has to do with what the
LUG is or isn't and what the group does or does not want to be associated
with. We have many members in their 60s and, I assume 70s, whose view of
what is "right and wrong"  and what is "glamour" and what is "porn" may be
quite different from those of members who came of age during or after the
1960s. I, for one, believe that we have to respect the views of the more
senior members on this one.

And, last but not least, whether or not one believes Francesco's explanation
of the whole Playboy mess, etc., and I assume that his version is accurate,
there is the issue of the public record, public perception, and whether
discretion might be much the better part of valor in this case,

Just MHO

B. D.