RE: [Leica] Re- Clementine

["Sam Krneta" <skrneta@mindspring.com>]

Don,

Give it a break. Why do you insist on drawing this thread out any
further? The damage has already been done: do we need to add to it? If
you have a beef with Kim take it private. I don't think anyone here
needs to witness this childishness. WTF does Kim having a bar license or
not have to do with photography?

Sam Krneta


- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Don R.
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 11:11 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re- Clementine

Control, control, control--no wonder you are no longer practicing law.

By the way, what is your State of California bar license number?

Don
- ----- Original Message -----
From: <Teresa299@aol.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re- Clementine


>
> In a message dated 9/30/02 6:20:44 PM, don.ro@verizon.net writes:
>
> << Kim:
>
>
> And what business of yours was it to lecture a specific photographer
about
>
> anything much less legal matters? If you don't have a state bar
license I
>
> seriously doubt your are qualified to give a legal opinion and may be
guilty
>
> of  barristery.>>
>
> I don't recall lecturing anyone.  I think I offered a suggestion.  The
> suggestion, really had nothing to do with legal matters, it was about
common
> courtesy.  You may or may not understand that concept.
>
> Incidentally, I do have a state bar license with the State of
California.
I
> have an inactive membership because I decided there were other things
to
do
> with my life than practice law.  So, I'm probably guilty of many
things
> though "barristery" is the least of them.
>
>
> <<Just the typical "control freak" wanting to control one more human
being
I
>
> take it.>>
>
> Uh, yeah.  Right.  I live my life to control people on the LUG.
That's
why I
> subscribed.  I used to try and control people with Japanese made
cameras
but
> it just wasn't the same.
>
>
> <<If  "model release" is an "issue for potential discussion"  as you
now
say,
>
> why not give us your dissertation but leave the specific photographer
out
of
>
> it.  Then you may ramble on with no harm being done.>>
>
> I think you're not following the thread properly.  Some one else
specifically
> raised the issue of model releases...I basically said that no matter
how
well
> you think you know someone, in my mind, particularly as it relates to
> underage, nude or quasi-nude models, it might be a nice thing to let
them
> give you permission to show their photo on the internet.
>
> You may or may not disagree.  It's hard to tell because other than
spew
venom
> regarding "control" you never addressed the point.
>
>
> <<Let the specific photographer alone. Let him do his thing.>>
>
> I don't know Gerry.  I've seen his work.  He does good work.  I assume
Gerry
> is a grown man.  I sense that you think I have the power to remotely
control
> Gerry into doing things which I want him to do.  I assure you that I
don't.
> The specific photographer in question decided to remove his photos and
vow
> never ever ever to show his work on the LUG again.   Because he's been
quiet
> on the issue, I'm not even sure why he specifically chose to act that
way.
> But in any event, that's his choice.  As a grown man he can chose to
share
> with the LUG or not.  But understand this, any photographer on the LUG
can
> "do their thing," short of Brian throwing them off the list.   When
LUG
> members publically post a photo or a thought, it leaves the thought or
photo
> open for discussion, or in the case of folks like you, a complete lack
of
> civility... but that's the risk we all take when we decide to stop
lurking
> and start posting.
>
>
> -kim
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html