From: "Lasse Karlsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bob B. wrote:
> > Look. No one is being pissy here until you jumped in with this. No one
is
> > jumping on anyone else for previous submissions. No on is dumping on
anyone
> > who has followed the rules.
>
> Obviously you do not know what you have been saying.
Yes. I do.
> According to the submission guidelines for open months, submissions shot
with non Pentax equipment were clearly welcome. Five participants in the
September gallery submitted pictures shot with non Pentax equipment.
Yes. Entirely acceptable. Those were the rules. They did nothing wrong.
> This is what you said:
> "If yer going to be submitting to the gallery, why on earth would ya
submit photo's taken with other brand equipment?
The rules notwithstanding...
Why? That is, why would we want it that way?
> Oh. yeah. I forgot. Ego. Look, there's lots o' places where you can submit
yer
> photos that are not brand related. Photo Critique is one. Satisfy your
personal
> egos there. Give us a link and we'll all go "ooooh" and "Aaaah". "
>
> [snip]
> > Now, there is no reason for anyone here to apologize for stating their
> > opinions concerning their desires for the composition of the PUG. You
> > believe you (or someone else ) were insulted. Why? Your ego?
> No, because you singled out the non Pentax shooting participants of the
gallery
Yes, so? Being a non Pentax shooter is not a race, ethnic origin, religion,
sex, sexual preference or the like. It's a *choice*. I was just singled out
(personally, not generally) for saying what I believe. So what?
> and sarcastically implied that they somehow were showing off or satisfying
their egos, as opposed > to the Pentax shooters.
> That's what I found insulting.
Karlsson! I was not being sarcastic, and it's somwhat arrogant to assume
that what you inferred is what I implied. I said what I believe is a simple
fact of life. Among other things, we are all satisfying our egos to some
extent all the time. Just like you and me, here in this exchange wherein you
have to be right and I have to be evil, or I have to be right and you have
to be ... whatever. That you found my being politically incorrect and
actually saying that we have ego's and that they affect us all to be
insulting to you is your problem. It's a reaction you chose concerning a
fact of life - spoken. (You did note that I included myself in that post,
didn't you?)
> > I practice what I preach. I put a photo on Photo Critique a few years
back,
> > told the PDML, and received a few suggestions and some "ooooh's" and
> > "Aaaah's".
> >
> > Sit back, have a consultation with the Reverend Jack Daniel's, and let
folks
> > have and state their opinions about the PUG.
>
> You continue to do the same, and let me state my opinion about bulls*t
posted to the list.
Cool.
Now exactly why is it, really, that has you feeling that you need to beat up
on me personally? What the hell is this *really* about.
Ok. For the sake of harmony, and to let you stay exactly even, why don't you
put up one more caustic accusation. Make it good. I'll not reply.
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
