What Part of "Don't Take My Picture!" Don't You Understand?

[galt]

@Siege

galt, I assume you think I’m being oversensitive.

Well, as a matter of fact, I do, but that’s your prerogative. I think you have every right to be as upset as you want; I just think it’s unrealistic to expect a stranger to care. It’s highly unusual and somewhat hysterical to freak out about someone taking your picture, whatever deep-seated reasons you have.

I assume you had a better childhood than I did and have a higher opinion of yourself. My life hasn’t granted me those privileges. Does that honestly give another woman I’d never met before to treat my wishes like they are completely and utterly meaningless?

Well, it would certainly have been nice of her not to take your picture, but I really can’t imagine how she’s morally obligated to take your wishes into account. Having your picture taken is known to be harmless, so it’s something that most people generally put up with even if they don’t particularly like it. It’s a common enough occurrence that you just shouldn’t have an expectation of being able to control whether or not someone takes a picture of you.

And you’re not ugly. I checked. I have some choice words I could say about your father, but as I don’t know your current relationship with him, I’ll just keep that to myself.

[Siege]

You see, by my moral standards, I am required to respect her wishes, but I operate under some rather strict ones. As I said, this isn’t normal circumstances for me; if it weren’t, I wouldn’t need to use a cane to go and get some lunch. It’s been a difficult couple of months.

CJ

[Podkayne]

This is yet another situation where people seem to think that because they don’t think something a big deal, they should be allowed to do it because it’s no big deal, and for some reason, their desire to do this thing, which they themselves insist is no big deal, trumps another person’s request that they please not do it because it hurts their feelings or offends them or what have you.

If it’s just a picture, then it’s not a big deal, and you can somehow manage to continue living without taking Seige’s picture, because it’s a big deal to her. I can’t understand why people have so little empathy, that they think their trivial little desires trump other people’s strong feelings.

[Podkayne]

@galt

It’s highly unusual and somewhat hysterical to freak out about someone taking your picture, whatever deep-seated reasons you have.

I don’t think it’s that unusual. I have two friends, one male and one female, who really strongly dislike having their pictures taken.

Lemme see if I can articulate the important differences between looking at a person and taking a picture of them, not necessarily because I have a big issue with your analogy, but because it really started me thinking.

How conscious is the act? People look at other people all the time because we are social creatures, and that’s what we’re wired to do. As you’re walking through a crowd, you’re constantly looking at the people you, for many reasons. You look at people when talking to them. If you’re just sitting somewhere in a group of people, you may be lost in thought and not even be aware that you’re looking at another person, but as humans, our gazes are drawn to faces. Contrast this with taking a photograph, which is a very deliberate act: raise the camera, frame the the shot, press the button.

What is the utility of the act? Looking at people gives us a lot of valuable information. Where are you, so I don’t run into you? Are you angry, so that you might be a threat to me? Are you doing anything that intentionally or inadvertently threatens my safety? Are you gesturing to get my attention? In conversation, a lot of meaning is conveyed by facial expression, gestures, posture, and other clues we can only get by looking. So not looking at you may be inconvenient to me, because it costs me a lot of information that could be useful to me. Not taking your picture? The only cost to me is that . . . I don’t have a picture of you. What is the value of that picture to me? If you’re a stranger I just met at a con, very little.

Do I know that you do not want me to take this action? Most people do not want me to walk up and punch them in the nose. Most people do not mind if I look at them, and if they do mind this a lot, they are probably aware that if they are in a public place, people are going to do that anyway, and are dealing with it. People’s feelings about having their picture fall somwhere between these extremes, and vary. Most people, at least, would like some warning that their photo is being taken, so it’s reasonable to ask, “May I take your picture?” But it is silly under most circumstances to ask, “Do you mind if I look at you?” and because looking something we do so constantly, it would be totally impractical to get the permission of everyone we look at.

How long-lasting are the consequences of the action? If I look at you, then I have a memory of you. I could maybe tell other people that I saw you, or give a vague description of you. I wouldn’t be able to draw a recognizable picture of you, and most other people wouldn’t, either. If I take a picture of you, then I have a permanent record of your image, which I could show to other people, manipulate, duplicate, and distribute without you having any control over it.

Either way, if you were to politely say, “Please don’t take my picture,” or “Please don’t look at me,” then I wouldn’t, because I have been informed that it bothers you, and it’s fairly easy for me to comply with your wishes. If you’ve asked me not to look at you and I accidentally glance at you, I hope you will forgive me. But if you’ve asked me not to photograph you, and I do take a picture of you specifically, not just accidentally catching you in the background, then that’s more akin to deliberately staring at you after you’ve asked me not to look at you, which is just freakin’ rude.

[EllaBean]

I understand where you’re coming from, Siege

I’m a recovering anorectic and I absolutely loathe having my picture taken. Especially now that I’m working my way back up to a normal weight and I feel GARGANTUAN. I’m generally not an overly sensitive emotional person or the moody teenager type who freaks out over the slightest percieved insult, but seeing a photograph of myself these days almost invariably makes me cry.

Most people don’t understand this. They ask why I don’t want my picture taken and if I tell them the truth, they think I’m fishing for compliments. “I don’t want my picture taken because I’m fat and ugly” doesn’t usually go over well.

It’s sometimes hard to tell the difference between someone being coy and someone who really doesn’t want their picture taken. I think the woman probably did not intend to be rude, but you’ve got every right to be upset about it. She would not have suffered at all from her lack of photographs of you.

[galt]

I do think the woman was a bitch for gloating about getting the picture. It’s kind of like when you tell a kid “don’t touch that” and they deliberately touch the thing and say “I’m touching it!” to try to be funny. It’s stupid and obnoxious. If I were her, I probably would have said, “well, I’m taking a picture of the group, so if you don’t like it, you better move.”

[Siege]

Don’t you understand? I couldn’t move. I injured the cartilage in my right knee at the beginning of June and had only just been cleared to move from crutches to a knee brace. I’d taken the knee brace off because it was chafing. This also wasn’t one group photo of everyone in the room; it was individual pictures of each individual in the room. For the umpteenth time, if I had been able to move, if I hadn’t had to wear the blasted brace, I wouldn’t have objected!

CJ

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

I still can’t see the harm. Such an emotional reaction to such a trival thing as having your image recorded in a camera seems irrational and out of proportion to me. I think the “staring” analogy is perfectly valid. All the person is doing is preserving an image of yourself that you’ve already given consent to look at simply by being in a public place. It’s an extended version of staring. All they’re really doing is looking at your image. It might seem a little creepy if a stranger does it but ultimately you have not been injured.

If being photographed is really such a crippling phobia for someone, then I would suggest that person should avoid going to places or public events where there is a high liklihood of photography. Sci-fi conventions would be a perfect example.

I admit, I’m not exactly Mr. Sensitivity on stuff like this. This thread reminds me of a co-worker with whom I once spent a summer running a children’s summer day camp. I liked her and we got along fairly well. One day, for some reason I know longer remember, this person told the rest of us that she had a deathly fear of cotton. That’s right- cotton- as in the little fluffy balls. If there were cotton balls in the room, she wouldn’t go near them. It was weird. I wondered if it was some kind of OCD thing but she refused to explain where the phobia came from. I discovered that if someone tossed a cotton ball at her she would scream and flinch away like it was a tarantula. So I did what any other guy would do…I started tormenting her with cotton balls. I didn’t acually pelt her with the balls but simply holding one up and making threatening throwing gestures were enough to freak her out. Before I get jumped, this wasn’t something I did all the time, just once in a while in an idle moment in (what I thought) was a light hearted manner. Some part of me just never really believed she wasn’t kidding. It was such a bizarre thing to be afraid of that I couldn’t take it seriously.

One night we were running a sort of carnival event at a rec center and we had a cotton candy machine. It turned out that this co-worker was also bat-shit scared of cotton candy and wouldn’t even go in the same room as the cotton candy machine. I felt that this new revelation obligated me to chase her around the rec center with a huge cone of cotton candy while yelling “Cotton candy…gonna get it on you,” interspersed with singing the occasional refrain of “The toooouch, the feeeel of cotton- the faaaabric of our liiives.”

She didn’t think it was funny and got really, really pissed. I wasn’t really going to touch her with the candy but she just didn’t see the humor in it. When I later tried to figure out what drove me to do that. The impulse to torture this person with cotton was out of character for me (I am usually not in the habit of that kind of behavior and I despise bullying). After some self-examination, I think that some part of me was just really annoyed at what I considered to be a ridiculous fear and I think my behavor was my way of trying to show how silly I thought this person was being. I believe that I have a bit of the same reaction to people who freak out about having their pictures taken. I just don’t get it. Maybe it’s a failing on my part. I’m almost overly sympathetic to people who I see as legitimate victims who have been done real harm or suffer real injustice but I’m incredibly impatient and even insensitive if I think a person is being irrational or overreacting to (in my view) a petty slight of ettiquette.

[StGermain]

So apparently, Diodenes, *you’re *the one that get’s to judge if someone’s phobia is legitimate or not? I always wondered how that worked. If the camp worker in your above-mentioned story had been afraid of spiders it would’ve been acceptable, but not cotton? Admittedly, I think fear of cottonballs is weird, but that’s the nature of phobias! They’re irrational fears.

If the person who took **Seige’s ** picture tried to take mine, I would’ve tried to physically intimidated her until she withdrew. To hell with being polite. I probably would not have issued a direct threat - I’m not stupid. But I may have tried a legal bluff or intimidation to get my way. Would I have the law on my side? No. But she wouldn’t know that. And although I’m only 5’1", I can pound 30 fenceposts a day in on my farm, and I look it. I wouldn’t touch her - I’d stand REALLY close and say “Look, Lady - what part of ‘I don’t want my picture taken’ don’t you understand? Do I need to call Security?” Most people would back down.

StG

[EleventyOne]

@Diogenes the Cynic

If being photographed is really such a crippling phobia for someone, then I would suggest that person should avoid going to places or public events where there is a high liklihood of photography. Sci-fi conventions would be a perfect example.

So someone with a camera phobia should just become a recluse, because there are insensitive people out there ya know. Gotcha.

I admit, I’m not exactly Mr. Sensitivity on stuff like this. This thread reminds me of a co-worker with whom I once spent a summer running a children’s summer day camp. I liked her and we got along fairly well. One day, for some reason I know longer remember, this person told the rest of us that she had a deathly fear of cotton. That’s right- cotton- as in the little fluffy balls. If there were cotton balls in the room, she wouldn’t go near them. It was weird. I wondered if it was some kind of OCD thing but she refused to explain where the phobia came from. I discovered that if someone tossed a cotton ball at her she would scream and flinch away like it was a tarantula. So I did what any other guy would do…I started tormenting her with cotton balls.

You don’t understand irrational fears; personally, I don’t understand the concept that tormenting people off by purposely doing things they don’t like is fun. It’s mean, and petty.

She didn’t think it was funny and got really, really pissed. I wasn’t really going to touch her with the candy but she just didn’t see the humor in it. When I later tried to figure out what drove me to do that. The impulse to torture this person with cotton was out of character for me (I am usually not in the habit of that kind of behavior and I despise bullying). After some self-examination, I think that some part of me was just really annoyed at what I considered to be a ridiculous fear and I think my behavor was my way of trying to show how silly I thought this person was being. I believe that I have a bit of the same reaction to people who freak out about having their pictures taken. I just don’t get it.

If you keep having that reaction, i.e. with the cotton lady and here again with Siege and the cameras, maybe it isn’t so far out of character as you’d like to believe. What if Siege was not majorly annoyed, but simply mildly irritated by having her photo taken? Would you find that as tempting a button to push?

Maybe it’s a failing on my part. I’m almost overly sympathetic to people who I see as legitimate victims who have been done real harm or suffer real injustice but I’m incredibly impatient and even insensitive if I think a person is being irrational or overreacting to (in my view) a petty slight of ettiquette.

Yeah, I’d say it’s a failing. Where, exactly, do you draw the lines in the grey areas between rational and irrational fears, and why are the lines drawn where they are? Think about that. Those lines are drawn in your head, and they have nothing to do with what the other people are actually feeling. The abuse of other people’s dislikes because YOU don’t think they’re a “worthy” dislike shows a real lack of empathy and compassion.

This may be out of line to expect an answer to, but something to think about: are you married? Does your wife have things that annoy her? Out of respect for household harmony, do you purposely do those things? (If you do, do you sleep on the couch a lot? ) Would you, if it was a phobia rather than an annoyance? If you wouldn’t do it to your wife, why would you do it to a casual acquaintance or stranger?

You don’t have to understand an irrational fear in order to respect a person’s wishes regarding it. The account of the cotton candy incident displays a serious lack of respect; you were abusing her fear for your own amusement. It takes no extra effort to not annoy someone. Somebody doesn’t want you to take their picture? Don’t stand there and argue that it’s so totally not a big deal, what’s the problem, ya big baby? Respect their wishes, and don’t take their picture. It’s just not that hard.

[Kalhoun]

@StGermain

So apparently, Diodenes, *you’re *the one that get’s to judge if someone’s phobia is legitimate or not? I always wondered how that worked. If the camp worker in your above-mentioned story had been afraid of spiders it would’ve been acceptable, but not cotton? Admittedly, I think fear of cottonballs is weird, but that’s the nature of phobias! They’re irrational fears.

If the person who took **Seige’s ** picture tried to take mine, I would’ve tried to physically intimidated her until she withdrew. To hell with being polite. I probably would not have issued a direct threat - I’m not stupid. But I may have tried a legal bluff or intimidation to get my way. Would I have the law on my side? No. But she wouldn’t know that. And although I’m only 5’1", I can pound 30 fenceposts a day in on my farm, and I look it. I wouldn’t touch her - I’d stand REALLY close and say “Look, Lady - what part of ‘I don’t want my picture taken’ don’t you understand? Do I need to call Security?” Most people would back down.

StG

I don’t think Seige ever said she has a phobia. There’s quite a difference between becoming physically distraught from a phobia and being annoyed at someone’s rudeness. While I agree this woman was insensitive in taking her picture, she didn’t send Siege into conniptions. She just pissed her off.

[Kalhoun]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I don’t know about Girls Gone Wild. My guess is that they would have to get the girls to sign a release because the videos are for commercial release.

I believe that news organizations have a right to publish whatever they want as long as the photos were obtained legally (non-consensual public photographs of celebrities are the lifeblood of tablids). I know that permission is also needed if an image is used for advertising.

IAN remotely a L, though. I hope somebody else has a better handle on the exact laws.

Permission is not needed for artistic endeavors that reap a shitload of cash to the photographer. If the photo is candid and in a public place, the artist has no obligation to obtain permission or to pay the subject of the photograph.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@EleventyOne

So someone with a camera phobia should just become a recluse, because there are insensitive people out there ya know. Gotcha.

Either that or learn to accept the fact that they might get their picture taken. They shouldn’t expect the world to cater to their personal aversions.

You don’t understand irrational fears; personally, I don’t understand the concept that tormenting people off by purposely doing things they don’t like is fun. It’s mean, and petty. If you keep having that reaction, i.e. with the cotton lady and here again with Siege and the cameras, maybe it isn’t so far out of character as you’d like to believe. What if Siege was not majorly annoyed, but simply mildly irritated by having her photo taken? Would you find that as tempting a button to push?

Even more so, because she wouldn’t have a psychiatric or neuro-chemical condition causing her to react that way.

Yeah, I’d say it’s a failing. Where, exactly, do you draw the lines in the grey areas between rational and irrational fears, and why are the lines drawn where they are? Think about that. Those lines are drawn in your head, and they have nothing to do with what the other people are actually feeling. The abuse of other people’s dislikes because YOU don’t think they’re a “worthy” dislike shows a real lack of empathy and compassion.

The line for me is drawn where there is a genuine potential for harm. Photographing a person does not harm her any more than looking at her.

This may be out of line to expect an answer to, but something to think about: are you married?

Yes.

Does your wife have things that annoy her?

Of course.

Out of respect for household harmony, do you purposely do those things?

Sometimes. Hey, it’s not healthy to hold those farts in.

(If you do, do you sleep on the couch a lot? )

It’s happened.

Would you, if it was a phobia rather than an annoyance? If you wouldn’t do it to your wife, why would you do it to a casual acquaintance or stranger?

I don’t think I could be married to a person with a clinical phobia. Too much work. I might be able to force myself to respect it in others but when you’re talking about stuff that does them absolutely no harm, I don’t think I’m obligated.

You don’t have to understand an irrational fear in order to respect a person’s wishes regarding it. The account of the cotton candy incident displays a serious lack of respect; you were abusing her fear for your own amusement.

That’s true. And I apologized to her. It was especially inappropriate in a work situation. I still think her fear was ridiculous, though.

It takes no extra effort to not annoy someone. Somebody doesn’t want you to take their picture? Don’t stand there and argue that it’s so totally not a big deal, what’s the problem, ya big baby? Respect their wishes, and don’t take their picture. It’s just not that hard.

Conversely, it’s no big deal to suck it up and let somebody snap a picture, which they have every right to do and which causes no injury to the subject.

I’m annoyed by cell phones. Does that mean everyone around me is obligated to honor my feelings about cell phones and refrain from using them in my presence?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Diogenes

@EleventyOne

What if Siege was not majorly annoyed, but simply mildly irritated by having her photo taken? Would you find that as tempting a button to push?

Even more so, because she wouldn’t have a psychiatric or neuro-chemical condition causing her to react that way.

I misunderstood this question. For some reason, I thought I was being asked if I would be tempted to push the button knowing that Siege was merely irritated rather than having a phobia (even though that’s clearly not what was stated).

To be honest, I probably wouldn’t take the request seriously and would snap the picture anyway. It wouldn’t be because I was trying to provoke her but only because I’m clueless enough not to get that a person really means it instead of just being coy.

[Zyada]

@DiogenestheCynic

There were posters who said the action was illegal. Those assertions needed factual correction.

So since we’ve cleared them up, can we stop talking about it?
And I would point out that in dictionary.com the first meaning of the noun <a href=“http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=right”>Right</a> is: That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting. Calling something a right (which is how I think this hijack started) does not mean that you are invoking the law.

@DiogenestheCynic

Well, then that’s just too bad. She chose to enter the room of her own free will.

I’m just so impressed by your kindness and humanity. I’m sure that Siege is psychic and knew that there would be a rude photographer in there.

@DiogenestheCynic

People are not leagally entitled to any expectation that they will not have their picture taken while they are in public. Furthermore, she was not harmed in any way. Why are people acting like she was being threatened with a gun For the life of me I can’t see how a person is injured by being photographed.

However, people can usually expect some level of common courtesy and should* not have to modify their behavior on the assumption that there might be a small chance that someone is rude.

As for your question - some of us know what it is like to have painful memories dredged up. And to have our druthers flagrantly ignored.

*not the legal should, but the human should.

Me: Also - you wouldn’t object? Neither would I. But neither of us have lived her life. So we didn’t learn to object to having pictures taken, but she did.

DtC: And her objection was legally meaningless.

Does this have anything to do with what I said? Or do you just invoke the law whenever you don’t know what else to say?
Re: the french fry analogy.

This is a ridiculous analogy. A person who take my food is stealing my property. I have a legal right not to have my property stolen. I do not have a legal right not to have my picture taken. The situations are not comparable.

So do your “legal” :rolleyes: objections have anything to do with how you would feel about a situation? I’m talking about emotions. Not the legalities which should not affect how we feel about a situation anyway. (Of course, I would also probably tell someone to get counseling if they tried to get someone arrested for taking a french fry from their plate.)

@DiogenestheCynic

The woman had no obligation to honor the request and taking the picture did not cause any harm. Neither did “gloating” about it. I think some of you have a very distorted perception of what truly constitutes injurious behavior.

Physical harm? No. And by this point you should realize that I don’t consider legal ramifications pertinent to the discussion.
But you can not dictate that someone else’s emotions are valid or invalid. Well, physically you can, but unless you are a mind reader and can get into her mind, your declaration that she did not feel what she is telling us she felt is self-centered at best, and manipulative at worst.
Why do you believe that your perceptions and experience are the only valid perceptions?

@DiogenestheCynic

I disagree that her boundaries were violated. I disagree that the “don’t take my picture” boundary even exists. It’s exactly like claiming you’ve been violated by someone looking at you.

How can you “disagree” with her emotions? Once again, your perceptions are not the only valid perceptions, and to demand that other people accept such is boorish. Frankly, to say that she wasn’t hurt when she says she was is calling her a liar.

As for the “it’s just like looking” argument. Looking only lasts seconds or even milliseconds. Looking isn’t recorded. Looking is for the purpose gathering information for the current situation (body language, placement of solid objects to avoid, etc.) Looking is in the moment. A camera records. That is its purpose. Pictures taken by a camera are meant to be looked at later, at the leisure of the photographer, they are not for the here and now. If you had said it was the same as staring, you would have been closer. But staring is a recognized breach of etiquette, at least in the U.S., and there have been bar fights over people who wouldn’t stop staring at someone else.

But the rudest part of the transaction is still that someone did something contrary to not one but three specific requests, without giving a good reason why the requests were being ignored. And while you are belittling the “gloating”, consider the old phrase “adding insult to injury”.
Now for the “appeal to authorities” arguments
This guy has a good argument pertaining to the discussion, although I’m not so sure about the long distance stuff.
Miss Manners disagrees with you.

[Zyada]

Also a question: Are you aware of the concept of “personal space”? And have you ever had someone violate your personal space?

[wonky]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I don’t think I could be married to a person with a clinical phobia. Too much work. I might be able to force myself to respect it in others but when you’re talking about stuff that does them absolutely no harm, I don’t think I’m obligated.

The whole point of a phobia is that it does them no harm, except psychologically.

And no. Obviously you couldn’t be married to a person with a phobia. You’d be dragging agoraphobes to a fair, or dropping tarantulas in arachnophobes’ hair.

It’s spiteful, and I’m honestly surprised at you.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@jsgoddess

I’m just so impressed by your kindness and humanity. I’m sure that Siege is psychic and knew that there would be a rude photographer in there.

She should have no that there would be a large chance that people would be taking pictures at a sci-fi convention.

However, people can usually expect some level of common courtesy and should* not have to modify their behavior on the assumption that there might be a small chance that someone is rude.

Siege was not asked to modify her own behavior, she expected the shutterbug to modify her behavior in order to humor a personal quirk.

Re: the french fry analogy.

So do your “legal” objections have anything to do with how you would feel about a situation? I’m talking about emotions. Not the legalities which should not affect how we feel about a situation anyway. (Of course, I would also probably tell someone to get counseling if they tried to get someone arrested for taking a french fry from their plate.)

I would obviously get more annoyed at someone stealing my food than I would at them taking my picture. Taking my property affects me personally, taking my picture does not.

Physical harm? No. And by this point you should realize that I don’t consider legal ramifications pertinent to the discussion.
But you can not dictate that someone else’s emotions are valid or invalid. Well, physically you can, but unless you are a mind reader and can get into her mind, your declaration that she did not feel what she is telling us she felt is self-centered at best, and manipulative at worst.
Why do you believe that your perceptions and experience are the only valid perceptions?

I never said that Siege didn’t really feel the way she described. I just said I thought the feeling was iirrational, that doesn’t mean I think the feeling wasn’t genuine. I also don’t think her psychic distress was the fault of the person taking the photograph. Her emotional reaction is rooted in other causes and was triggered completely innocently by the photographer.

How can you “disagree” with her emotions?

I don’t “disagree” with her emotions, I disagree that not having a picture taken in public is a legitimate expectation or right. I disagree that there is any moral boundary to doing so.

Once again, your perceptions are not the only valid perceptions, and to demand that other people accept such is boorish.

Siege was the only making a demand that someone else should adhere to her personal desires.

Frankly, to say that she wasn’t hurt when she says she was is calling her a liar.

When did she say she was hurt?

As for the “it’s just like looking” argument. Looking only lasts seconds or even milliseconds. Looking isn’t recorded. Looking is for the purpose gathering information for the current situation (body language, placement of solid objects to avoid, etc.) Looking is in the moment. A camera records. That is its purpose. Pictures taken by a camera are meant to be looked at later, at the leisure of the photographer, they are not for the here and now. If you had said it was the same as staring, you would have been closer. But staring is a recognized breach of etiquette, at least in the U.S., and there have been bar fights over people who wouldn’t stop staring at someone else.

I fail to see the difference between looking at a picture or looking at the person live. If anything, looking at a picture is less intrusive. How many people have died because someone looked at their picture?

But the rudest part of the transaction is still that someone did something contrary to not one but three specific requests, without giving a good reason why the requests were being ignored.

Nor was she obligated to give a reason why. Asking someone not to take a picture in a public place is like asking them not to talk on their cell phone. You might find their behavior annoyong but they aren’t hurting you and demanding that they stop (in my opinion) is being just as rude as they are.

Now for the “appeal to authorities” arguments
This guy has a good argument pertaining to the discussion, although I’m not so sure about the long distance stuff.
Miss Manners disagrees with you.

I’ve already agreed that it was mildly rude. I just don’t think it was anything more than that.

@Zyada

Also a question: Are you aware of the concept of “personal space”? And have you ever had someone violate your personal space?

How does taking your picture violate your personal space?

[Broomstick]

@Uncommon Sense

By the way, Broomstick, have you shared the name of your affliction with the SD yet? You know, in case anyone here has a better way of dealing with or treating it? Just curious.

I have really sensitive skin, basically - I suffer from bouts of eczema, contact dermititis, and other skin-based manifestations of allergic reactions.

Short of reprogramming my immune system, there isn’t really a cure.

Steroids can bring a halt to these reactions - but they do so by suppressing the immune system. Many of these drugs are the same as those used by organ recipients to prevent rejection, just in different doses. So they can heal my skin but leave me vulnerable to infection. Long term, they can damage the pancreas, kidneys, and other organs, precipitate osteoporosis, lead to obesity, and various other nasty, equally unpleasent (or more unpleasent) conditions than what I already have to deal with.

Some newer drugs - like Elidel - which are not steroids but do affect the immune system can help, but they aren’t perfect and long-term may leave a person more suspetible to cancer… or, again, damage organs.

I have learned some of my triggers and avoid them as best I can, but all sorts of things can affect the immune system, including stress. Given that over the past year I’ve nurse both the husband and my two parents through life-threatening illnesses and buried several friends it’s really no wonder I’m having a few skin problems. What’s a wonder is that I’m not suffering more of them.

Many people who suffer from eczema only have very mild outbreaks. Mine are a little more intense than typical.

[wonky]

@Diogenes the Cynic

She should have no that there would be a large chance that people would be taking pictures at a sci-fi convention.

I didn’t say the things you’ve attributed to me.