Don't leave home without it!

[accozzaglia]

I know why you won't answer. It is because you have been BUSTED!
Jamusu

Yeah, you're right: I was "busted" when puberty hit my body.

Beyond that, it seems impossible to even communicate with you. Pick out any photo I shot that you think came without consent in a private space, and I will gladly give you the background. And preferably, not to waste any more space on this thread, do it in a private message, please. Otherwise, I don't think I have anything further to say to you.

[2F/2F]

Nobody is suggesting that the conversation should only involve U.S. law and experiences. What somebody is suggesting is that Canadian law covering private spaces should not be used to form assumptions on what U.S.A. law covering public spaces is...especially assumptions that you then go on to stubbornly argue despite the facts. I don't hear anyone arguing that U.S.A. law covering public spaces can be used to state what Canadian law covering private spaces is...so I am really lost on the point, here.

[jd callow]

...and I still don't know what the whole point is. It seems like an off-topic, rambling, self-interested thread hijack for the sake of Internet drama to me.

Ditto

[jamusu]

Yeah, you're right: I was "busted" when puberty hit my body.

Beyond that, it seems impossible to even communicate with you. Pick out any photo I shot that you think came without consent in a private space, and I will gladly give you the background. And preferably, not to waste any more space on this thread, do it in a private message, please. Otherwise, I don't think I have anything further to say to you.

__________________________________________________ _______________

Why do you want me to PM you? Do I sense a guilty concience? Are you afraid that other APUGER'S are going to view your portfolio as well a come to the same conclusion that I have?

By your own pictures you were BUSTED. Now as a result you seem a bit DISGUSTED. Be not angry at me but rather yourself for posting images that you yourself took and posted that conflict with what you have written. Now are you going to answer my question or what? Or are you too BUSTED and DISGUSTED!

Jamusu.

[jd callow]

In an effort to save this thread tomorrow I will go through and delete the chaf (including my own posts) if tomorrow the thread has no new off topic arguments.

[Thomas Wilson]

In an effort to save this thread tomorrow I will go through and delete the chaf (including my own posts) if tomorrow the thread has no new off topic arguments.

Why not leave (the entire thread) as it was written?
Is the chaf, as you describe it, not worthy of review by future readers? I think the chaf speaks more clearly of the posters' character and demeanor than the sanitized, neutered version that will be left.

How are future readers to put in context the comments that will remain?
Clearly, many uncensored posts to the thread will be taken "Out of context," for little, if any, truly telling context will remain.
It is clear to me that as a Moderator to this forum, you should lead by example, and not enjoy the ability to claim "Mulligan," or "Never mind" in 20/20 hindsight.

Clearly, you and I have opposing standards of photography, and moderation.

I stand by my words.

[MattKing]

I think accozzaglia's original post does ad to this thread, at least in relation to that part of the discussion that relates to how best to deal with someone who prefers not to be photographed at the particular time in question.

In this thread, her post is the only one that comes from a viewpoint in front of the camera. All the rest come from the other side.

Maybe she is the only one here who would have found the approach of the other picture taker at her friend's party irritating. I don't think that matters, because if she found his approach irritating, he should have abided by her wishes because he wasn't at a concert, he was at a birthday party.

I've done a fair amount of photography in social settings, and I think that it is both easy, and difficult. It is easy because people expect to see cameras, but it is difficult because you can really screw up the party if you aren't sensitive to the wishes of the others there.

Whether or not a photographer is entitled to take photos, he or she shouldn't do so in a way that will ruin the party for one or more of the guests! And the photographer cannot assume that what doesn't bother him or her, doesn't bother others.

I see nothing wrong or illogical about having differing standards for how to deal with the wishes of others in private places/functions vs. public places/functions. In private, it is reasonable to have a greater say in whether or not or how we are photographed.

All of which leads to the question of what constitutes "private" and what constitutes "public", which of course certainly is part of how this thread has meandered.

And with respect to accozzaglia's flickr portfolio - so what? I didn't see any irritated party-goers there. So she has shot some street scenes, some of which aren't necessarily flattering. What has that got to do with the scenario she originally described?

At least she didn't suggest shooting anyone.

Matt

[jd callow]

Why not leave (the entire thread) as it was written?
Is the chaf, as you describe it, not worthy of review by future readers? I think the chaf speaks more clearly of the posters' character and demeanor than the sanitized, neutered version that will be left.

How are future readers to put in context the comments that will remain?
Clearly, many uncensored posts to the thread will be taken "Out of context," for little, if any, truly telling context will remain.
It is clear to me that as a Moderator to this forum, you should lead by example, and not enjoy the ability to claim "Mulligan," or "Never mind" in 20/20 hindsight.

Clearly, you and I have opposing standards of photography, and moderation.

I stand by my words.

Thomas,
Until I look through the thread I can't say even if I can edit out the junk, but i agree that the context is important. I never claim a mulligan and have no desire to rewrite the record. My intent would be to remove OT post and arguments that add nothing to the topic. Culling a thread is something we hardly ever do. 1) because people seem to think deleting a thread in whole is less an act of censorship than trying to salvage one by removing the arguments; 2) it is a pain in the backside; and 3) the greif wrought by both is seldom worth the effort.

[jamusu]

And with respect to accozzaglia's flickr portfolio - so what? I didn't see any irritated party-goers there. So she has shot some street scenes, some of which aren't necessarily flattering. What has that got to do with the scenario she originally described?

At least she didn't suggest shooting anyone.

Matt[/QUOTE]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matt.

Accozzaglia's FLICKR photostream has everything to do with the scenario she described. Her main point was not being photographed without permission by that photographer, but her photostream clearly shows her doing that very thing to others.

Have you read all of her post's. Whenenver she is cornered by someone, she attempts to change the subject. In my case she refused to answer the question totally because she knew that she had been exposed.

Jamusu.

[accozzaglia]

And with respect to accozzaglia's flickr portfolio - so what? I didn't see any irritated party-goers there. So she has shot some street scenes, some of which aren't necessarily flattering. What has that got to do with the scenario she originally described?

At least she didn't suggest shooting anyone.

Matt

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Matt.

Accozzaglia's FLICKR photostream has everything to do with the scenario she described. Her main point was not being photographed without permission by that photographer, but her photostream clearly shows her doing that very thing to others.

Have you read all of her post's. Whenenver she is cornered by someone, she attempts to change the subject. In my case she refused to answer the question totally because she knew that she had been exposed.

Jamusu.

Jamusu, here's an idea: why not actually factor the qualifier I have used consistently in this discussion that you, every single time, have excluded (and rather aggressively so): without permission in a private space. And let's get even more incisive: in Canada.

In public? That's another matter, and if you'd like to actually read through what I have already written, word for word, you'll have observed that my quarrel was never with photos in public space. Rather, I seem to recall this thread began with Domenico's experience in a public space. My mistake was having unintentionally derailed the public space issue in the U.S. with a circumstance arising in a Canadian private space and then engaging in a debate about the meaning of private spacing in a contemporary, academic context. And for that, I'm sorry for the distraction, all.

But my bigger mistake was to engage an illiterate child who sounds like a broken record stuck on a groove called "BUSTED" and unable to conduct themselves in an intelligent manner. Give me a bloody break. Grow up, learn to read, and learn to think. If you can't or won't, then sucks to be you.



[n.b., The following was over the line, and I've set him away on ignore. Sorry all.]

[btw Jamusu, I ran through your few shots on flickr: all digitally made — a Nikon D60? c'mon, you can do so much better — and not very inspiring shots of Nickelsville, either. Did daddy buy you your digital toy? If so, then why in heavens are you trolling Analogue Photography Users Group, anyway?]