Re: [Leica] Anal Pore

["Raimo Korhonen" <raimo.korhonen@pp2.inet.fi>]

If you really respected Tina you´d get her name right.
Raimo
photos at http://personal.inet.fi/private/raimo.korhonen
nyt myös Kameralehden juttuja suomeksi
- ----------
> From: Jeffrey Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>
> To: 'leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us'
> Subject: [Leica] Anal Pore
> Date: 15. joulukuuta 1998 19:26
> 
> I'm sorry, Paul, but I have to rise to your post.  Of all the six or
seven
> hundred LUG members, Tina Manly is a REAL PHOTOGRAPHER in every sense of
the
> word and art.  Its not the group, but Tina who deserves more respect than
> you demonstrated.  Ms. Manly is out there practicing what most of the
rest
> of us only discuss and dream of being able to do; just look at her
pictures.
> You will read a many flaming posts on this group, but when you attack
> someone, and-- make no mistake-- what you posted was an attack, expect to
> get back what you deserve.  Further, it is not sufficient or even
> appropriate for you to declare "...let's just drop it," when you started
it.
> Your post was simply rude and unwarranted and you did a great deal more
> than, "...merely raise(d) a question of propriety."  Many of us lock
horns,
> but in general we do so off-group.  I suggest that you learn some
courtesy.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	Paul Schiemer [SMTP:pschiemer@aol.com]
> > Sent:	Tuesday, December 15, 1998 12:33 PM
> > To:	leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
> > Subject:	[Leica] Re: [NO Leica] Legal Links, Apology, Anus
> > 
> > Trying to make a couple netiquite points I inadvertently stirred some
> > pyrotechnic jelly into the mix.  Curious how some folks deal with a bit
> > of controversy.
> > 
> > As for being called an asshole, no problem. I've heard worse. Just
> > seemed out of place here- as most contributors are more eloquent and
> > articulate.  [that 'asshole' thing and then "you don't know what 'civil
> > discourse' is all about!" in the same sentence, what a LAUGH!!]  
> > I was being civil.
> > 
> > T.Manley posts the 'legal' message here after creating quite a ruckus
> > over on PhotoPro.
> > [You have seen this, right??  what a mess!]
> > Okay fine, Lugites are considered friends and family, BUT....
> > 
> > ...why does she post the exact URL of the offending web site to us??
> > 
> > Click throughs create traffic.  These perv sites rely on 'click
> > throughs' to survive.  [The way it works is somebody PAYS them for each
> > 'hit' they get, and pay again for each click through to other sites
from
> > theirs.  BTW, any commercially produced web site has a counter,
> > somewhere.]
> > And it worked more than once too, ie; <<I followed the link with some
> > trepidation and after looking for 5 minutes....>>
> > 
> > [Try typing that specific URL, it's NOT easy; and some mail programs
> > require TWO steps to have it highlighted in the body of a message for
an
> > actual click through (embedding the HTML code separately).]
> > 
> > Now, with all the <s>niping and <c>lipping, in todays digest there are
> > no less than EIGHTEEN click throughs to the offending site.
> > She has promulgated the increase in traffic at the offending site,
> > unwittingly perhaps.  
> > I'd prefer to think it was a mistake, and the sequence was just one of
> > those coincidental things that happen.  I merely raised the question of
> > propriety.
> > 
> > Bottom line;  Manley will have to do something to her site to prevent
> > the link from the offending URL to hers.  She's had LOTS of suggestions
> > from the thread on PhotoPro, and now here.  Let's just drop it.
> > 
> > That anyone believes my post was 'miserable behavior', 'grossly
> > offensive', or 'sermonizing' (?) I'm actually surprised.  Perhaps they
> > read my post, clicked through for a quick look see at the offending
URL,
> > and their resultant offensive messages about my post was in
proportional
> > response to the nastiness of what they saw?  A knee/jerk thing.
> > 
> > Oh yeah, this marks the END OF DISCUSSION (on my part).  Leave it go,
no
> > harm done.
> > Now we can get back to the real meat of the NG, eh?  Technical,
> > aesthetic, and off topic.
> > [Let us maintain vigilance on our clipping techniques too!]