Apparently, my previous message was garbled for some people. See below.
best
Damian
on 18/6/03 11:33 AM, Sutton - Damian Peter at [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Joe,
>
> Rather than call names, why don't you actually try to move the debate on and
> say something clearer and more considered about why you feel the original post
> deserved censure in this forum? After all, censure was what you were
> suggesting when you said "Send your women only desperate requests to women
> only".
>
> I don't think your original 'quip' had the intellectual quality that you seem
> to think it did. As for your explanations since, I'm afraid they don't
> demonstrate the "ability to anlayze and issue or engage in discriminating
> thought" that you see absent in the comments of others.
>
> To my mind there is, in fact, an important discussion here vis a vis archives
> regarding how and why they're set up. There certainly are wide-ranging
> opinions on the matter - and wide scope for discussion - but your posts don't
> seem to open up discussion, only close it down.
>
> I, for one, amy happy to see archives such as Cinenova exist, but have
> questions about its operation that I think are valid, eg. Does it have to be
> women 'directors'? How is the work of other women film-operatives to be
> archived? (eg. designers, editors, actors) How much of a factor is 'quality'
> in the upkeep of an archive - especially if it has to be reduced at all and
> some films kept whilst others not? How 'good' does a film have to be to be
> archived? (after all, someone has to archive all Luc Besson's films, but I
> wouldn't pay money to have _The Fifth Element_ kept)
>
> Ultimately I think it is a bit of a shame that one of the Cinenova events is
> 'women-only', since it would (at first sight) naturally exclude some who would
> also be interesting in productively supporting it, or helping answer questions
> such as "In relocating or storing material, how can Cinenova re-address its
> activities and make new plans with active support?"
>
> However, there is another, similar, event that isn't women-only, and clearly
> the principal imperative for the organisation is to find women keen to get
> involved, so it seems eminently suitable to have both events.
>
> I would have thought the questions posed by the Cinenova email (re. archiving
> and support) would have given us plenty of scope for discussion - pertinent to
> gender politics or not. What a pity these questions were forgotten amidst this
> pedantry.
>
> Damian
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Billings [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tue 6/17/2003 8:22 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: Cinenova
>
>
>
> Its hard to move on when you say inflamatory things like,
> "engaging with the reactionary politics of J Billings and
> fellow travellers." Its hard to imagine a more reactionary
> (or more baseless) statement than your own and those of a
> few others apparently like you who cry for censorship when
> they encounter a view different than their own.
>
> The curious thing about your kind of libel and invective is
> that it always seems to spring from a sorry inability to
> analyze an issue or engage in discriminating thought --the
> essence of mob thinking and historically the necessary
> intellectual preconditions for all kinds of oppression.
>
> I am quite finished with this issue, but perhaps there is
> no limit to your emotionalism. You may have the last
> accustic blast.
>
> Joe
>
>
> --- Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> By engaging with the reactionary politics of J Billings
>> and fellow
>> travellers, surely incidental to the original posting,
>> have we not failed to salute
>> Cinenova for sticking with their project through thick
>> and thin? As I remember,
>> they came to us with genuine and pressing issues
>> requiring resolution. They must
>> be disappointed, as well as bemused, by the strife they
>> inadvertently caused.
>> Is it possible to move on after 24 dense hours of this?
>> Richard
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>
|