Once in a while I have an email sent to me that rubs me up the wrong way. I sometimes ignore them and sometimes respond, but once in a blue moon I feel I need to vent publicly about the content. This is one of those occasions.
A couple of weeks ago I published an interview article titled, ‘A Conversation between Film Soupers Amy Berge and Jen Stamps‘. Holly, who compiled the interview, does a little bit of work for the website these days – she helps find people to contribute to the site, and has more recently been spending a lot of hours creating a book. In short, she’s part of the team, a very valuable part at that.
I have for a long time now been trying to expand the niche of 35mmc. More specifically, I have been trying to encourage content from a more diverse range of people with a more diverse set of interests within photography. I’m not very good at this alone as I tend to just gravitate to photography and cameras I’m interested in and/or people who seem to share my interests.
One of the reasons I wanted Holly to be part of the team is that she has a very different perspective on photography to me. She likes and engages with different types of photography, follows different people, and operates in different circles of the online film and alternative process photography community.
This is exactly how an article about film souping ended up on 35mmc.
Let me first be clear about my attitude toward film souping. I’ve written recently about my lack of interest in serendipity in my film photography. I take pleasure in pre-visualisation and the satisfaction when what I pre-visualise comes good in my end photos. The idea of disrupting that process by intentionally damaging the film’s emulsion to the point that I would have no idea if I am even going to get an image at the end boggles my mind. I don’t even like the results the massive majority of the time. In short, it’s not something I can currently see me ever doing.
But, does the fact that I am so against it as part of my photography mean that I don’t respect other people’s desire to take part in such activities? In short, no, not at all.
I totally respect whatever path photographers might take in their work. In fact, more than that. I almost get a vicarious joy reading about the pleasure that some people get out of partaking in photographic pursuits I don’t personally enjoy myself. I love the fact that other people enjoy different things to me, and I don’t need to enjoy those things or even understand them for me to feel that way.
I know how much pleasure photography gives me. So when I read about someone else enjoying it, I feel an empathy toward that enjoyment. I don’t need to like the photos – it’s a bonus for me personally if I do – but really who am I to judge the quality of someone else’s photography? Who am I to judge the output of someone else’s enjoyment?
This is what 35mmc is about for me. It’s a blog about personal experiences of photography. It’s not a celebration of what might most frequently be considered objectively “good” photography, instead it’s a celebration of people’s experiences of photography, and indeed the emotions it makes them feel.
So whilst I might not personally have any interest in film souping, or the results it achieves, I am interested to read about three people who do – for their own reasons – enjoy it for themselves. Which is exactly what Holly’s mini-interview with Jen and Amy was about.
Did I publish it expecting all 35mmc’s readers to enjoy the photography? No. I didn’t even expect everyone to take the time to read it. But I did – perhaps naively – publish it expecting readers to respect it for what it is. That being a reflection of the enjoyment that three photographers get out of partaking in a particular alternative photography process.
Which is why I was a little bit (a lot) annoyed off to receive this email:
Dear Mr. Gill;
I was attracted to your website by its idiosyncratic nature, but . . .
Do you vet any of the articles you allow on 35mmc? Some of the equipment articles are of interest but many of the other articles display an alarming lack of photographic talent and artistry.
The recent article “A Conversation between Film Soupers Amy Berge and Jen Stamps – By Holly Gilman” is appalling. The images attest to the complete uselessness of what is espoused in the article. I can almost hear Ansel Adams rolling over in his grave. The old comment about a million monkey’s at typewriters cranking out Shakespeare (eventually) comes to mind.
Your site could be so much better.
The above is a perfect example of the sort of gatekeeping and of arrogance and hubris toward other photographers I see online far too much. It’s bigoted, self interested, and myopic. It is the sort of opinion that boggles my mind way more than something like film souping ever could.
I might not understand why someone would want to do this sort of thing to their film photos through my own perspective. But I realise others might have a different perspective. I even respect the email writer’s entitlement to his own opinion.
What I don’t understand is why someone would want to diminish someone else’s enjoyment. I also really don’t understand how it is possible to enjoy the richness of photography whilst simultaneously not seeing how other people might enjoy it differently.
After receiving the email, I sent a message first to Sroyon (who also works for 35mmc) to see what he thought of it. We had a bit of a chat and then he remembered a passage out of Adams’ book ‘The Print’ which reads,
The reader must bear in mind that what these books are intended to accomplish is to present a concept (visualisation) and a modus operandi (craft) to achieve desired results. This is obviously directed to serious participants in photography, but it should not be interpreted as dogma; each must artist must follow his own beacons and chart his journey over the medium’s seas and deserts. I wish to dispel any thought that my approach is rigid and inflexible.
I responded to the email with the following reply:
In discussing this email with one of the team, a passage from Adams’ book ‘The Print’ was brought to my attention:
[The above passage screen grabbed]
Specifically, “it should not be interpreted as dogma; each artist must follow his own beacons and chart his journey over the medium’s seas and deserts”.
One of the most wonderful things about photography is the vast array of opportunity it provides participants with when it comes to discovering ways to express themselves creatively.
It seems you don’t agree, so perhaps you could tell me how and where I should draw a line around photography, which types of creative expression I should exclude, to which/who’s set of “rules” I should prescribe, and why…?
I am yet to receive a reply, and frankly I don’t want one. There should be no line drawn around photography as a pastime, we are all entitled to express ourselves creatively however we damned please, and 35mmc will continue to celebrate that fact!
Share this post:
Comments
Andrea Bevacqua on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
my thoughts are exactly like yours but, as you said, I really don't mind (and sometimes I even enjoy) to read different approaches about photography in this case.
Here I see a few problems. Who sent you the e-mail probably takes himself too seriously and maybe is also frustrated by the fact that he would like to arrive at Ansel Adams level but is not quite there.
Also, this is the usual problem of our days: social medias are fantastic if they would have been used how they were intended to, but unfortunately they get the chance to "speak" to too many people and anyone can say whatever they want...even bags of bullshits most of the time or is just a way for someone to pour out thei frustration to others.
I personally think you guys are doing a great work. Your website is good mix of talented people who is able to produce good quality works and people like me who is just enjoing his journey and is happy to look around and discover new ways of doing things.
I would not change anything of your website.
Bravo!
Bob Janes on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
For myself. I'm very happy to see stuff on this site that I don't understand, or that challenges me.
Charles Higham on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Stephen John Curzon on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Keith on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Unfortunately photography is often dominated by those whose attitude stems from a degree of personal arrogance. Whether it's equipment or the rules applied to determine whether or not an image is any "good", these individuals are dismissive of anything outwith their limited world view. Photographic snobbery for want of a better phrase and absolutely encapsulated by "Your site could be so much better". What a pompous fool.
Personally, film souping is something I'm unlikely ever to dabble in, but I'm so glad others do. There's more than an element of Jackson Pollock about the whole process and that's definitely something to be celebrated.
Keep up the good work.
Rock on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Jalan on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Tony Smith on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
I have now bookmarked that article (missed it the first time) because I have been loving redscale, have bought Lomo Purple and love the idea of souping. My personal journey has led me to feel if I want perfection I will shoot digital, if I want an experience I shoot film and have fun with it.
Different strokes etc.
Clive W on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
So it is with artistic and technical experimentation — although, in this case of course, there’s an intentional guiding hand at work. Most experiments turn out to be dead ends, but without taking that risk, we will never discover anything new and valuable.
Conservatives (small c) have the funny idea that the thing to conserve is the sum of exactly the number of changes that had been made when they arrived. They set themselves up as arbiters of perfection when they really have no more idea than the rest of us. I also much prefer diversity and inclusiveness, and find both on this site. If I don’t like everything that appears here — and I don’t — that’s for me to deal with.
Ralph Turner on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Ken Rowin on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Dave Walker on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Feel free to make your own, mate...
Clive Shepherd on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
David Henderson on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Doug Anderson on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Yul Vazquez on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
What's his work like? His site? This is a blowhard who needs a hobby.
Keep doing your thing.
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Peter C on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
I've said it before and I will repeat it here. Photography is an art. How you choose to create what you want to show the world and how you present it are up to you. Just because you don't like someone else's process doesn't mean that what they've created is rubbish. It's art, you interpret it however you will. I've seen plenty of works of art that didn't appeal to me but that doesn't mean that it doesn't appeal to someone else.
MrSnappy on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
(Gustave Flaubert. 1821 - 1880).
Mark O’Brien on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Eric Norris on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Richard Moore on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
I'm not especially interested in expired film but I'm always interested in what people do with it.
A life credo of "don't be a dick" covers most eventualities.
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Justin Kingery on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Great reply. There's an extra "must" in the Adams quote that needs removing. Cheers! And thanks for all you do at 35mmc. It's absolutely wonderful.
davesurrey on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Yes, this is Hamish’s blog and he has every right to include whatever articles he wishes just as he has every right to say he disagrees with what others write in reply. But what I can’t understand, when this seemed to be a clear piece extolling the virtues of free expression and opinion, is why so many of the comments seem to be so aggressive towards the emailer.
Either we tolerate free speech, even though we may not agree with what is being said, or we enact censorship and all that goes with it. Personally I’m on Voltaire’s side.
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Daniel Castelli on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
This morning, before I typed this response, I walked around our property and tried to find the plinth holding a statue of me and my immortal words. There was none. You see, none of us really have the definitive answer or opinion about anything that is etched in stone. We have opinions. And, opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one.
I didn't care much for the article. I don't believe in cross-processing, stand development or developing film in coffee. But, that's just me. I don't damn the author or the practitioners of the technique just because I don't like it. Others are probably inspired by what they say. Good.
I was raised in a home where my mother was a commercial portrait photographer. She photographed people as they were. I was surrounded by LIFE magazine and Nat'L Geo growing up in the 1960's & 70's. All pretty straightforward photography. I like unmanipulated images. When I use photo shop to adjust my negs to post online, I only apply the same corrective steps I use in my darkroom. I also don't think people should put ketchup on their eggs.
But, as we used to say, different strokes for different folks. I don't get on a high horse (or plinth if I had one!) and express my opinion as if it was gospel truth (except for that ketchup/egg thing...) I just read the next posting. It isn't hard.
To your disgruntled reader: jeez, just move on. Or, write, illustrate and post your opposing viewpoint. Or, just shut up. Or block 35mmc so you won't become distressed. Or start your own blog. But don't tear down without offering up another solution.
Now, I've got to grab my stone cutting chisels and carve TRUTH in stone avoid people eating their morning eggs with ketchup...
-Dan
Peter Roberts on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
The greatest strength of 35mmc is its diversity of content and celebration of image making at all levels.
Don't ever change it Hamish.
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
CHRISTOF RAMPITSCH on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
jeremy north on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
I used to be frustrated by the celebration of mediocrity on so many podcasts, so just stopped listening to them and instead stuck to those who aspired to excellence. THat's why, Hamish, I've not been getting into hot water on Twitter for months because of my comments :-)
I do the same when looking at blog posts. I read snd react those I consider relevant and ignore those which consider photography to be a random thing to which one doesn't need to apply any skill. If they want to waste film and be praised for the results by other artless clueless types then good for them. After all Lomography did a lot to revive the interest in analogue photography by appealing to such like ones. That has been good for Ilford & Kodak, therefore good for us. If the Emperor want's to ride naked then so be it. It gives the rest of us something to laugh at
Cheyenne Morrison on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Adams cemented his place in popular photography, the press during his lifetime, and after his death as the "Inventor" of the Zone System, but in fact he stole the idea from another photographer. The hypocrisy of his statement that you quote is born out by the fact that throughout his life Ansel Adams tried to cover up this fact, and even worse destroy the career and reputation of the man who really did invent the system William Mortensen.
William Mortensen (1897–1965), an innovative pictorialist visionary whom Ansel Adams called the "Antichrist". By the time of his death in 1965, Mortensen’s once-prominent name had faded to obscurity. His work and archives were scattered posthumously among his students and admirers, or lost and destroyed.
The critic AJ Coleman even contends that Adams’s “zone system” for exposure was taken largely from articles written by John L Davenport, who himself relied greatly on Mortensen. Adams would later concede he was “embarrassed” to find out Mortensen had “anticipated some of my pet ideas of technique: controlled exposure and development of the negative”.
Unlike the pictorialism favoured by Moertensen Ansel Adams, favored realism, as did many of his famous peers, such as Imogen Cunningham and Edward Weston. Collectively referred to as Group f/64, they became known for producing sharp, high-contrast, "straight" or "purist" photography, and disdained borrowing techniques from painting and other art forms to manipulate photos the way Mortensen did.
Mortensen called the work of "purist" photographers "hard and brittle." In a popular five-part series in Camera Craft magazine called "Venus and Vulcan: An Essay on Creative Pictorialism" (reprinted in American Grotesque), he wrote "'Purity' is conceived to consist in limiting photographic expression to the mechanically objective representation that is inherent in the uncontrolled camera … [but] Imagination is a wayward and willful wench, and when she is on the loose she is not to be held in check by any arbitrary boundaries that divide one medium from another." Mortensen wrote "The Fallacies of Pure Photography"? around 1933 in the magazine of the day called Camera Craft in which he pointed out the shortcomings of “Straight” photography.
Following these articles Adams spent the rest of his life attempting to destroy Mortensen’s reputation. Adams, along with his f/64 sycophants and allied critics & art historians, were on the winning side of the battle to define "fine art photography". they did this by attempting to destroy the reputations of the competition, may fine technicians and visionaries among them.
I feel that the fashion in which Adams treated Mortensen illustrates that, while Adams may have been a brilliant technician, he was a rather loathsome human being. He actively sought to destroy Mortensen's career because it didn’t conform to the f/64 definition of fine art, and after he succeeded in destroying Mortensen's career, he even had the indecency to joke about his artistic demise. "artists" with such a small-minded and fascist mentality as this should not be idolized, unless you want others force-feeding their definitions of art to you.
A.D. Coleman wrote “Anathematized, ostracized, and eventually purged from the dominant narratives of 20th-century photography due to the biases of a small but influential cluster of historians, curators, and photographers, Mortensen plunged into an obscurity so deep that by 1980 most considered him unworthy of even a footnote.”
Even years after his death Adams could find little or nothing nice to say about him. In retrospect, although Mortensen’s subject matter was often grotesque and sometimes fell into the kitschy, his mastery of craft was and is astounding. Most people seeing a Mortensen print for the first time find it hard to believe it is a photograph.
Recent years have brought praise for Mortensen's development of manipulation techniques and a renewed interest in his work. If you can find a copy of "Mortensen on the Negative" (1940) you will find it one of the most entertaining technical books on photography you can read. The Command to Look: A Master Photographer's Method for Controlling the Human Gaze by Mortensen is far more interesting than any of the pontificating that Adams ever wrote, and in his books Mortensen comes across as a very bright, self-assured and unpretentious man - and funny!
I’d encourage anyone who is interested in photography to spend some time comparing the works of Adams vs Mortensen and examining the argument between these two styles.
https://bigthink.com/Picture-This/william-mortensen-the-anti-christ-of-american-photography
https://petapixel.com/2019/11/05/realism-vs-pictorialism-a-civil-war-in-photography-history/
https://petapixel.com/2016/09/22/ansel-adams-wrote-pictorialism-photography-history/
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/06/william-mortensen-photography-master-macabre
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Adrian on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Don't change a thing, please!
AlistairH on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
They never comment on the work itself, but on the technique use to make it (which I am willing but bored to discuss). Most often, it is that I am doing things with software that I should not. Next up, it is what I am doing with my cameras is wrong (not "getting it right in the camera" and hence falling back on the previous point), or using the wrong camera, or using the wrong exposure mode. I have had all of these! All this is said to my face! Invariably, when I ask them to tell me about their own photographic work, I get a non-answer or "I do a few landscapes". (There is no point in asking how many thousands *they* made selling their work in the last year!)
At first, I felt that I had to defend my work from these comments. Not any more! I have been doing this successfully for long enough to have the confidence ignore nasty people or (when they are very nasty) tell then to F-off! What really worries me is the effect they could have on newcomers who are just starting to show their work, with all of the uncertainties that involves.
An interesting trend has appeared having compared notes with people in the same open studio events working in other media. This is a bit of a generalisation, but seems to be repeated over many years and locations Wood-turning is like photography but more so - very pedantic loud and overt negative opinions from other self-acclaimed practitioners. Painters seem to have a bit of snobbishness, but not as much. Textile artists (my partner is one) are quite the opposite, and never seem to have any snarkishness at all.
Sorry, this is a bit long, bit it has struck a chord!
Comment posted: 10/05/2021
Rich on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
As to souping, as someone said, it's not my cup of tea. But if _you_ like it, more power to you!
--Rich
Peter on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
I must 2nd all of the positive words supporting you and 35mmc in these replies.
If it is not your cup of tea don’t drink it; but for the love of all that’s holy don’t go back to wherever you bought it from, tear it off the shelves, burn the source to the ground and prevent others from trying it!
Sadly, some find easier to criticize than accept the fact that it takes all sorts to make this a wonderful world. I have looked forward to seeing 35mmc in my inbox and it always takes precedence over the other rubbish in there.
Never let the naysayers tell you otherwise!!!
Sacha Cloutier on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
Laurence Kesterson on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
Anyway, what is souping in the current vernacular? As a working news photographer shooting Tri-X developed in D-76 1:1 with a borax mix for most of my career, we always referred to developing film as "souping." Does souping refer to a different darkroom technique now?
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
Chris Pattison on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
bp_reid on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
tjen dezutter on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
It's always nice to read the posts in 35 mmc. It's feeling good that there is place for mainstreaming ideas even in a smaller becoming world of filmphotography. After the reading of the soup- cooking (hihi I like soup) I 'll ask if there is a possibilty to reunite different forms of filmphotographing art ? Yes, even the souping is art cause they concquered their places in exhibitions in and outside Europe !
May'be we could look at the work with understanding eyes and ...learn from our ideas ?
There are many people who said to me also you're foolish to do impressionistic photography on film .. But is this not just my decision? Ansel Adams was a photographer not a law- writer ! In photoacademy Bruges Belgium there is a teacher giving special techniques to them who have mastered their portfolio ...He is also into filmphotography .Put lensen for a year under the ground in his garden to see what effect on film they have when using them after time underground! Is he foolish, so I don't think so .He's searching, exploring borders to develop his view on art...Let's do also !
Taylor (@avecfilm) on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
Photographers can be drawn to the very technical, or not - it doesn't mean there is one "right" way. For every photographer who is into gear and understands all of the technical aspects, there is another photographer shooting a camera with minimal settings and a plastic lens - and everything in between.
As someone else said, the photography tent is big.
When art can inspire a response - then that's when I think it's successful. You may not like or understand why someone would film soup, but it elicited a reaction? Good. If you don't like it, it doesn't mean it's inherently wrong or bad.
This is my first time reading this site (and commenting) - thank you for the discussion!
gavin on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
brine on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
shawn granton on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 11/05/2021
I'm also going to point this out since it hasn't been mentioned yet: The author of said critical email is male, and holds up a couple of other men as an example of "real artists". The writer and subjects of the piece he's critical of? All women. Reflect on that for a moment.
Christopher on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 12/05/2021
Keep up the amazing work.
Lee on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 12/05/2021
It's like the television ads that the Lincoln Project (anti-Donald Trump Republicans) make and then pay to air on TV stations near Palm Beach, Florida during times when Trump is known to watch programming, such as various Fox News shows. They're meant to shake Trump's confidence, pick on his weaknesses, and make him feel small and stupid. I think you accomplished the exact same thing with this post for the gatekeeer who sent that initial email. The fact that you haven't gotten a response to your well-reasoned reply speaks volumes.
Kurt Ingham on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 15/05/2021
Dean on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 16/05/2021
I read the article on souping, mainly because I had no idea what it meant. It's not something I will be trying yet, but who knows in the future. The seed has been sown. Which is what makes our hobby the brilliant thing that it is. There is always something to learn.
This chap should appreciate that, he may gravitate towards it on his own one day. It matters not what we think is acceptable or not, we have to allow others a different view, and be polite, instead of thinking only people who share our view are correct.
I'd block this bigoted plonker, I doubt he'll learn in the near future.
Keep up the good work folks, my eyes have been opened on several occasions, I'm sure there's more to come.
Dean.
Comment posted: 16/05/2021
Daniel on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 17/05/2021
Comment posted: 17/05/2021
Phil on Who Made You Gatekeeper? My Response to a Bigoted Email
Comment posted: 17/05/2021
Comment posted: 17/05/2021