In quotes, by Mrs Harrison:
"First, I'll distinguish between private enterprise and institutions of
higher
learning.
Second, I know I'm in a distinct minority about this. As a matter of
principle, I won't go to a popular and well-reviewed movie where the main
subject matter is a woman who's a prostitute. Because if you believe the
movies, 8 out of every 10 professional women sell their bodies for a living
(OK, I'm exaggerating, but you get the point.) It's none of my business
what
someone chooses to do in private, but think of all those other juicy women's
roles in movies that aren't getting written because prostitution brings in
the
box office $$ - so I don't contribute to it. For example, I never saw Jane
Fonda's academy award winning role, Klute, or Julia Roberts' hit, Pretty
Woman. I don't care how entertaining they are. Every once in a while I
break
my own rule, or get fooled into seeing something, and I always regret it.
By the way, I have no problem with art that has sex as a subject matter
(which
arguably is almost everything). My problem is romaticizing or glorifying
prostitution.
Peggy"
****************************************************************************
So how come, Mrs. Harrison :
on the one hand,
you last month censored one of my posts you decided was a "personal attack
against a member of the list" (in occurrence, a reply to a Mrs. Mercedes'
post), despite its purport and wording not breaching any "netiquette" law
whatsoever, but merely because you subjectively disliked its "tone" (a vague
notion, as it were)
on the other hand,
one week-or-so prior to that censoring, you had plainly overseen and thus
let slip a post of the rank sort, featuring the use of the very term
"prostitute" (by someone decidedly not mincing his words to tastelessly
bring his milestone of a point home, namely that singers shouldn't sell
themselves short)
????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????
I daresay, I don't quite get it. Are you calling yourself a moderator of
this list? Besides unmistakably airing your condemning the presenting of
carnal venality in art as something unquestioned (a remarkably scrupulous
concern!), are you also, for the nonce, a lenient browser turning a blind
eye to indecent posts when you might inwardly share their authors' views?
Then in turn, at wish, the relentless rector not allowing the faintest
ironical hue to blemish his flock's pious reading ?
I don't remember ever voting for you as a moderator for Vocalist, and
judging by this latest instance of yours I'm afraid I certainly wouldn't if
new elections were to take place.
Which is rather unfortunate, since there is primarily no reason for me to
believe you're a list member devoid of any consideration, as many a relevant
point you already made in your posts paradoxically tends to accredit.
Yours regretfully,
BJJA
|
