American girl in Italy, 60 years later

@joefromchicago,

I believe you've just given us your opinion. Thank you for that.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

I believe you've just given us your opinion. Thank you for that.

Don't mention it. I'm glad to see that you agree with me.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

I can certainly agree that you have opinions. Beyond that, I suspect there wouldn't be much agreement here.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

Shortly thereafter the thread took a turn

http://able2know.org/topic/176187-2#post-4705840

that felt quite familiar to me

http://able2know.org/topic/164540-123#post-4538497

Not exactly the same, but familiar enough. Others disagree with you - they must be emotional or "stirred up" while you remain clinical.

I didn't buy it earlier this year, I'm not buying it now.

Whoa, Beth. That's really a stretch. Read page 1 of the thread in question. There was some hysterical stuff, from Chai, from Arella, from me.

From Wandel, nope.

2 Replies

@JTT,

Seriously, I am trying to stay out of the argument but I don't recall any of my stuff being hysterical.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

I can certainly agree that you have opinions. Beyond that, I suspect there wouldn't be much agreement here.

With what could you possibly disagree?

0 Replies

@JTT,

I've read the entire thread, some sections several times.

I was following HH's attempts to make a couple of points about intent when jw took the stance that I've come to recognize.

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

I agree. I don't think I'd call any of this hysterical.

We just see things differently, as usual, but for some reason opinions and emotions or judgements in this thread rapidly spiralled out of control.

Chai thought the woman looked scared and the scene was creepy and wandel was trying to figure out why she thought so because to him she didn't look scared and it wasn't creepy. I felt the way wandel did and can understand him trying to see why Chai would think that way. I really don't understand why his comment about her view maybe being affected by a past incident warranted all the slime that got thrown at him. How could it possibly have been patronizing, implying she is defective, etc?

Talk about an over-reaction - that's actually closer to any hysteria here than anything else, but mainly, I see it as an over-reaction and hasty judgement without cause.

1 Reply

@Arella Mae,

Quote:

FINE! YOU CAN BE RIGHT! I GIVE UP THE RIGHT TO MY OPINION!

Quote:

Those guys all look like they are ready to jump her bones. Perhaps that is not the intent of the picture but that's what it appears like to me.

Quote:

MacMillan

hysterical

reacting to something in an unreasonable way

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/hysterical

SPOKEN extremely funny

Of course that is just my opinion based on my reading of the meaning of 'hysterical'.

1 Reply

@JTT,

The FINE! I give up? Not hysterical. I was ticked off.

The other comment? I guess you must mean you thought it was funny because I don't see how it was unreasonable. But.................no matter. I'm not getting in the argument.

Sheesh...............it's easy to be dragged in!

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

You mentioned that you had to get up from the computer after something that Wandel said. I'm trusting this to memory so correct me if I'm not accurate in any fashion.

I took that to mean that you were disturbed by what he said, or what you think he said, "when jw took the stance that I've come to recognize".

After you got up from the computer, did you mention anything about this to Setanta?

1 Reply

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

How could it possibly have been patronizing, implying she is defective, etc?

You see, I don't understand how anyone doesn't see Wandel's posts as patronizing.

Quote:

patronizing:
1. Treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.

Here are the two posts which I think demonstrate this, with a link to the first post:

http://able2know.org/topic/176187-2#post-4705840

wandeljw wrote:

The slice of life interpretation does not impose elements that come from a peculiar bias.

(sorry for taking a "clinical" rather than emotional view)

wandeljw wrote:

It occurred to me that Chai and Arella's reactions may be connected to unfortunate personal experiences in their own past. I do not want to devalue their honest personal feelings.

1. He indicates that his interpretation is free of bias (implying that anyone who disagrees with him is biased).
2. He specifies that he's being "clinical" and that others are being "emotional."
3. He categorizes any experiences that causes someone to disagree with him as "unfortunate."
4. He doesn't want to "devalue their honest personal feelings" while making it clear that he does not value their honest artistic interpretation.

If you see it differently, that's your prerogative. But credit me with being honest, and having a solid basis for how I see things.

2 Replies

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

After you got up from the computer, did you mention anything about this to Setanta?

nooooooope. we generally don't talk about a2k - and in this case, we weren't awake and in the house at the same time for close to two days.

In any case, I'm not sure why it would matter. We don't collaborate on opinions. He has his and I have mine.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

I'm fascinated by the behavior exhibited when people were confronted with their inappropriate behavior. Three times in a row, the response was to immediately repeat and/or escalate the behavior.

Indeed . . . i have explained why i found Wandel's remark to be offensive, and in response from him i got accusations of hysteria, and shallow remarks which i suppose were intended to be humorous. It was not long at all until he was telling AM that it was all in good fun, that this is the kind of thing that guys do--which was utter bullshit, and yet another example of him claiming to know what motivates other people. My opinion of Wandel just sinks lower and lower.

0 Replies

@Arella Mae,

Arella Mae wrote:

Quote:
The argument would go like this, if it is staged, the intent of the photographer and model becomes a factor. If a viewer reacts in a way that is different than what the photographer intended, the viewer's interpretation would more likely be a mistaken interpretation.

Why does the viewer's interpretation have to be the one that is mistaken? If the photographer and model do not convey their intent CLEARLY in the photograph how can it be the viewer's mistake? I'm not sure that was your quote. I'm having trouble keeping up.

Amen to that. If Wandel does not convey his intent clearly, the same applies to him.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

That's pretty fuckin' hilarious . . . probably the reason we rarely discuss this site is because we so rarely agree about it . . .

0 Replies

Setanta and DrewDad,

Believe what you want, but please stop stalking me.

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

OK, let's hear how discussing your behavior here constitutes "stalking."

"Talking," I'll agree with.

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

You're a legend in your own mind, aren't ya, Bubba? Believe me, although i will defend myself in this thread from your hysteria, i will no longer ever read or respond to you in any other thread. Stalking indeed . . . what a pathetic figure you reveal yourself to be.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

As soon as Set goes to "Bubba", you know that he sits at his computer, steam venting from his ears.

0 Replies

American girl in Italy, 60 years later

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know