[Leica] Anal Pore

[Jeffrey Hausner <Buzz@marianmanor.org>]

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!]