|
|
rec.photo: live & let live
Dear Michael S.
All a person can do in any discussion group, AA meeting, or whatever, and still maintain their & the groups integrity is to offer their experience, their knowledge or opinion. For one to be honest, that is all they can do. Weather another person takes that advice or not is strictly up to the other person. If one makes photographs by mixing silver bromide in their home brewed fecal matter, and smearing it on 11x14 glass plates, and process it in a coffee developer, it's their organic right. I may find it amusing and might think they are a fecaphile. But so what? BFD. Personally I think a lot of your advice is quite good. But it's not your, or anyone else's place to try to impose their ideas on another. When you do that, you just raise the noise to signal ratio & burn up bandwidth. It's a good thing you don't participate in any SCUBA diving groups, because there one can make a half way decent argument that one divers actions can jeopardize others safety. But these are above the sea level photo groups, so no such group thinking needs to exists. This type of behavior reminds me of fundamentalist religions. When I escaped from Ohio & the Midwest to California in '66, I felt like I had died & gone to heaven, due to the live & let live attitude. It would make me very happy to keep more of that spirit @ rec.photo, John |
"John McGraw" wrote in message om... Dear Michael S. All a person can do in any discussion group, AA meeting, or whatever, and still maintain their & the groups integrity is to offer their experience, their knowledge or opinion. [...] You get my vote for the strangest post of the year. |
|
"jjs" wrote in message ... "John McGraw" wrote in message om... Dear Michael S. All a person can do in any discussion group, AA meeting, or whatever, and still maintain their & the groups integrity is to offer their experience, their knowledge or opinion. [...] You get my vote for the strangest post of the year. No, I am beginning to believe the only way to get rid of the irritation here is to ignore and not give him what he wants. I think it would be beneficial if you, Udie and I stop playing on his soapbox. Every time one of us give him what he wants (attention), then he has an audience. In the r.p.darkroom newsgroup he started two of the longest threads with as many tangents as possible in recent history. I was as responsible as anyone. I recommend the following. It'll only work with discipline and solidarity. We can answer a post to one of the weirdo's post, but we should strip his comments out. Only address the comment made by the "non-scar'd" one. It became obvious to me in a rather simple post over in r.p.film+labs when someone was having trouble understanding over/under exposure. I answered, Michael Covington answered and we both said the same thing basically. Nice to have two corresponding opinions. Three hours later along comes scar, and says the same thing. Why? Well it dawned on me. He likes seeing his posts. He likes the attention. We need to pull the soapbox out from under his feet. Oh and Udie, I'd rather draw and quarter. Jim |
Jim Phelps wrote:
"jjs" wrote in message ... "John McGraw" wrote in message .com... Dear Michael S. All a person can do in any discussion group, AA meeting, or whatever, and still maintain their & the groups integrity is to offer their experience, their knowledge or opinion. [...] You get my vote for the strangest post of the year. No, I am beginning to believe the only way to get rid of the irritation here is to ignore and not give him what he wants. I think it would be beneficial if you, Udie and I stop playing on his soapbox. Every time one of us give him what he wants (attention), then he has an audience. In the r.p.darkroom newsgroup he started two of the longest threads with as many tangents as possible in recent history. I was as responsible as anyone. I recommend the following. It'll only work with discipline and solidarity. We can answer a post to one of the weirdo's post, but we should strip his comments out. Only address the comment made by the "non-scar'd" one. It became obvious to me in a rather simple post over in r.p.film+labs when someone was having trouble understanding over/under exposure. I answered, Michael Covington answered and we both said the same thing basically. Nice to have two corresponding opinions. Three hours later along comes scar, and says the same thing. Why? Well it dawned on me. He likes seeing his posts. He likes the attention. We need to pull the soapbox out from under his feet. Oh and Udie, I'd rather draw and quarter. Jim Agreed that "shunning" is the best way to deal with him. If he thinks he's being the newsgroup version of Don Rickles, he's missing it badly; if he's really as angry and sick as he appears, then we don't need to encourage or respond to him. |
Sums it up pretty good Jim, I am up to the task.
In article , "Jim Phelps" wrote: No, I am beginning to believe the only way to get rid of the irritation here is to ignore and not give him what he wants. I think it would be beneficial if you, Udie and I stop playing on his soapbox. Every time one of us give him what he wants (attention), then he has an audience. In the r.p.darkroom newsgroup he started two of the longest threads with as many tangents as possible in recent history. I was as responsible as anyone. I recommend the following. It'll only work with discipline and solidarity. We can answer a post to one of the weirdo's post, but we should strip his comments out. Only address the comment made by the "non-scar'd" one. It became obvious to me in a rather simple post over in r.p.film+labs when someone was having trouble understanding over/under exposure. I answered, Michael Covington answered and we both said the same thing basically. Nice to have two corresponding opinions. Three hours later along comes scar, and says the same thing. Why? Well it dawned on me. He likes seeing his posts. He likes the attention. We need to pull the soapbox out from under his feet. Oh and Udie, I'd rather draw and quarter. Jim -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
Sums it up pretty good Jim, I am up to the task.
In article , "Jim Phelps" wrote: No, I am beginning to believe the only way to get rid of the irritation here is to ignore and not give him what he wants. I think it would be beneficial if you, Udie and I stop playing on his soapbox. Every time one of us give him what he wants (attention), then he has an audience. In the r.p.darkroom newsgroup he started two of the longest threads with as many tangents as possible in recent history. I was as responsible as anyone. I recommend the following. It'll only work with discipline and solidarity. We can answer a post to one of the weirdo's post, but we should strip his comments out. Only address the comment made by the "non-scar'd" one. It became obvious to me in a rather simple post over in r.p.film+labs when someone was having trouble understanding over/under exposure. I answered, Michael Covington answered and we both said the same thing basically. Nice to have two corresponding opinions. Three hours later along comes scar, and says the same thing. Why? Well it dawned on me. He likes seeing his posts. He likes the attention. We need to pull the soapbox out from under his feet. Oh and Udie, I'd rather draw and quarter. Jim -- LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 |
Gregory Blank wrote:
: Sums it up pretty good Jim, I am up to the task. Add me to the list. I have to admit for a while he was fun but that wore off a long time ago. He is in my virtual kill file and his posts will be removed from my replies. : In article , : "Jim Phelps" wrote: : No, I am beginning to believe the only way to get rid of the irritation here : is to ignore and not give him what he wants. I think it would be beneficial : if you, Udie and I stop playing on his soapbox. Every time one of us give : him what he wants (attention), then he has an audience. In the r.p.darkroom : newsgroup he started two of the longest threads with as many tangents as : possible in recent history. I was as responsible as anyone. : : I recommend the following. It'll only work with discipline and solidarity. : We can answer a post to one of the weirdo's post, but we should strip his : comments out. Only address the comment made by the "non-scar'd" one. : : It became obvious to me in a rather simple post over in r.p.film+labs when : someone was having trouble understanding over/under exposure. I answered, : Michael Covington answered and we both said the same thing basically. Nice : to have two corresponding opinions. Three hours later along comes scar, and : says the same thing. Why? Well it dawned on me. He likes seeing his : posts. He likes the attention. We need to pull the soapbox out from under : his feet. : : Oh and Udie, I'd rather draw and quarter. : : Jim : -- : LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank : "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, : or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, : is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable : to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
Gregory Blank wrote:
: Sums it up pretty good Jim, I am up to the task. Add me to the list. I have to admit for a while he was fun but that wore off a long time ago. He is in my virtual kill file and his posts will be removed from my replies. : In article , : "Jim Phelps" wrote: : No, I am beginning to believe the only way to get rid of the irritation here : is to ignore and not give him what he wants. I think it would be beneficial : if you, Udie and I stop playing on his soapbox. Every time one of us give : him what he wants (attention), then he has an audience. In the r.p.darkroom : newsgroup he started two of the longest threads with as many tangents as : possible in recent history. I was as responsible as anyone. : : I recommend the following. It'll only work with discipline and solidarity. : We can answer a post to one of the weirdo's post, but we should strip his : comments out. Only address the comment made by the "non-scar'd" one. : : It became obvious to me in a rather simple post over in r.p.film+labs when : someone was having trouble understanding over/under exposure. I answered, : Michael Covington answered and we both said the same thing basically. Nice : to have two corresponding opinions. Three hours later along comes scar, and : says the same thing. Why? Well it dawned on me. He likes seeing his : posts. He likes the attention. We need to pull the soapbox out from under : his feet. : : Oh and Udie, I'd rather draw and quarter. : : Jim : -- : LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank : "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, : or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, : is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable : to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 -- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you ------------------- |
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com