Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/12/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Gary D. Whalen It is completely and totally incomprehensible to me how someone can look at a photograph of a woman (which has been part of "art" since the cave paining days) and "automatically" envision "sleez" or "porn" or "corruption" or "whatever." So when you see someone with a full beard and messy hair do you automatically envision "homeless bum?" Does a pin striped suit, gold chains, and Mercedes 500 with gold trim, automatically mean "drug dealer?" Why do you have such a negative attitude? What you have said, below, is totally preposterous. It probably puts you in a majority of "one" on the 800+ member LUG. This is a "world wide" group. Your naive view of - photography/art/people/the world - puts you in an infinitesimal minority within at least a "billion" or so people. I suggest that if you do not want to see the fine creations of Mother Nature, you turn off your computer, turn off the TV, lock the doors, and hibernate forever. Please add me to your "copy-to-trash list." I do not ever want to be known as someone who has contributed to the alteration of your dismal thoughts. And whatever you do, do NOT visit our esteemed Erwin Puts web pages. Shocking as it is, Erwin uses Leica lenses to photograph women. Sometimes they are even without clothes. Oh my god!!! Can this be true? His URL has been posted numerous times on the LUG. His photographs are there. Perhaps you should add Erwin to your "copy-to-trash list." Great photograph Pascal. Keep up the good work. Jim At 03:40 PM 12/10/99 -0500, Gary D. Whalen wrote: >Pascal > > Shame on you. Your picture is a cancer to this newsgroup. I see no >reason for you to post this image here. I am sure that you could have found >another image, less distateful, than this one. I used to read your posts and >pay attention - now they go into the trash - were they will have the >appropriate company. > >My point was not that the image was pornography. I do not think it is. >My point is that that image is not NECESSARY to show the abilities or >lack of with his 2000. Uncalled for and unnecessary. Maybe sleazy >would be a better word. > > Gary D. Whalen > >