Alternate discussion groups

jjs wrote:

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...

I cannot tell who wrote that, but regardless; it is clear that this group is
has become a place full of nothing important. Bye.

Then leave, John. You yourself contribute little
technical knowledge to _any_ nsg I see your posts
in...

Frank Pittel wrote:

Stacey wrote:


: Maybe today, in the past there have been DOZENS of different people
: complaining about his actions here. Most have left because of him and
: were a valuable resource of information, unlike Steve who basically
: posts links to his site as an answer to anything.

While Steve's posts can be annoying they're normally non-offensive. I
doubt anyone has left this group becuase of him.

I remember a whole group of others who Steve ****ed off who now never post
here anymore, seems like some guy named Paul and a couple of others?
Irregardless what he's doing OBVIOUSLY rubs some/many people the wrong way
and he refused to acknowledge what -he's doing- is the cause.

--

Stacey

Frank Pittel wrote:

Stacey wrote:


: Maybe today, in the past there have been DOZENS of different people
: complaining about his actions here. Most have left because of him and
: were a valuable resource of information, unlike Steve who basically
: posts links to his site as an answer to anything.

While Steve's posts can be annoying they're normally non-offensive. I
doubt anyone has left this group becuase of him.

I remember a whole group of others who Steve ****ed off who now never post
here anymore, seems like some guy named Paul and a couple of others?
Irregardless what he's doing OBVIOUSLY rubs some/many people the wrong way
and he refused to acknowledge what -he's doing- is the cause.

--

Stacey

jjs wrote:

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...

I cannot tell who wrote that, but regardless; it is clear that this group
is has become a place full of nothing important. Bye.


Wasn't me, should have trimmed the quotes better... Sorry.
--

Stacey

jjs wrote:

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...

I cannot tell who wrote that, but regardless; it is clear that this group
is has become a place full of nothing important. Bye.


Wasn't me, should have trimmed the quotes better... Sorry.
--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:



Stacey wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:

In article ,


Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you
seriously suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?

No, but anyone who thinks he's a sociopath can see if his admin would
like to filter him (my guess is that Supernews would suggest taking a
look at some group that has real problems).


But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...



If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one
of Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to
change their habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to
suggest preemptive censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is
applied to.

People have been yelling at Simmons for enough years that it is obvious
that neither side of the thing are going to affect each other in the
least.

I wonder if he has a clue to how many sales he loses vs gains doing this
here?

The only people I see complaining are you, stafford, and David,

Maybe today, in the past there have been DOZENS of different people
complaining about his actions here. Most have left because of him and were
a valuable resource of information, unlike Steve who basically posts links
to his site as an answer to anything.

Like I said, I used to subscribe to his mag till I saw what a buffoon
he is.

If so, he's not the only one. His critics easily surpass him
in their petty, insignificant self importance on USENET...

But they aren't breaking the group's charter or trying to sell anything.

Give it a rest. It's bogus nonsense and you need perspective.
Or are you also (like hypocrite stafford preaching on his
silly "spirt of usenet" soapbox) going to promote a chicken
little version of the Usenet "sky is falling" argument all
due to Steve Simmons?

As I said before, Simmons' critics crowing about "usenet
culture" and "rules" is simply laughable. That's the issue
here as I see it. They're worse than he is -- if he's done
anything at all other than simply maintaining a presense
for his _useful_ magazine. Big deal. As a reader and poster
I happen to have found View Camera a useful resource in this
NSG (even being an experienced LF photographer for 20+years),
as opposed to all the useless posts by his major critics. Even
I said Steve should probably do more than post web site links,
but stop being so persecutingly overzealous; he's not posting
commercial "For Sale" ads, "Wanted to Buy" ads or otherwise
hawking equipment. The idea that posting about View Camera
resources or articles is somehow a "violation of usenet" is
about as lame a criticism as one can get. It's petty criticism
by petty people. In fact, last time I posted a technical question
about a LF lens, _View Camera_ was one of the few valuable answers/
resources I got and it didn't even come from Steve...

O.K., want to be so self righteously picky? Let's apply your
standards fairly. Stafford's own recent post "Nature photogs -
% of work without perspective controls?" _IS_ in fact a
violation of this nsgs chartered discussion guidelines. Big
surprise. It belonged in rec.photo.technique.nature, since it
was not an equipment question but a technique question (and
one where stafford showed a great deal of LF ignorance and
could benefit from reading View Camera...)

Plus, he consistently behaves more like a troll than a serious
mature photographer, flaming anyone (usually his betters) he
disagrees with. All in the "spirit" of Usenet "rules and culture,"
naturally, which in itself is an argument only a troll would make.

Stacey wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:



Stacey wrote:

Rebecca Ore wrote:

In article ,


Excuse me for jumping in here, and forgive my density, but are you
seriously suggesting trying to prevent Simmons from posting to Usenet?

No, but anyone who thinks he's a sociopath can see if his admin would
like to filter him (my guess is that Supernews would suggest taking a
look at some group that has real problems).


But sociopaths have a right to post too don't they? :-)

Including john stafford, who has a long history of
sociopathic postings...



If so, I object strongly to even suggesting such a thing--and I'm one
of Simmons' critics here. It's one thing to try to get a poster to
change their habits (as futile as that may be). Quite another thing to
suggest preemptive censorship, which always sucks no matter who it is
applied to.

People have been yelling at Simmons for enough years that it is obvious
that neither side of the thing are going to affect each other in the
least.

I wonder if he has a clue to how many sales he loses vs gains doing this
here?

The only people I see complaining are you, stafford, and David,

Maybe today, in the past there have been DOZENS of different people
complaining about his actions here. Most have left because of him and were
a valuable resource of information, unlike Steve who basically posts links
to his site as an answer to anything.

Like I said, I used to subscribe to his mag till I saw what a buffoon
he is.

If so, he's not the only one. His critics easily surpass him
in their petty, insignificant self importance on USENET...

But they aren't breaking the group's charter or trying to sell anything.

Give it a rest. It's bogus nonsense and you need perspective.
Or are you also (like hypocrite stafford preaching on his
silly "spirt of usenet" soapbox) going to promote a chicken
little version of the Usenet "sky is falling" argument all
due to Steve Simmons?

As I said before, Simmons' critics crowing about "usenet
culture" and "rules" is simply laughable. That's the issue
here as I see it. They're worse than he is -- if he's done
anything at all other than simply maintaining a presense
for his _useful_ magazine. Big deal. As a reader and poster
I happen to have found View Camera a useful resource in this
NSG (even being an experienced LF photographer for 20+years),
as opposed to all the useless posts by his major critics. Even
I said Steve should probably do more than post web site links,
but stop being so persecutingly overzealous; he's not posting
commercial "For Sale" ads, "Wanted to Buy" ads or otherwise
hawking equipment. The idea that posting about View Camera
resources or articles is somehow a "violation of usenet" is
about as lame a criticism as one can get. It's petty criticism
by petty people. In fact, last time I posted a technical question
about a LF lens, _View Camera_ was one of the few valuable answers/
resources I got and it didn't even come from Steve...

O.K., want to be so self righteously picky? Let's apply your
standards fairly. Stafford's own recent post "Nature photogs -
% of work without perspective controls?" _IS_ in fact a
violation of this nsgs chartered discussion guidelines. Big
surprise. It belonged in rec.photo.technique.nature, since it
was not an equipment question but a technique question (and
one where stafford showed a great deal of LF ignorance and
could benefit from reading View Camera...)

Plus, he consistently behaves more like a troll than a serious
mature photographer, flaming anyone (usually his betters) he
disagrees with. All in the "spirit" of Usenet "rules and culture,"
naturally, which in itself is an argument only a troll would make.

Tom Phillips wrote:

The idea that posting about View Camera
resources or articles is somehow a "violation of usenet" is
about as lame a criticism as one can get.

So where does it stop? Should B&H be able to post their monthly specials?
Should freestyle be able to post about the film they have? What if EVERY
magazine started posting ads to their website here? Thank goodness we only
have one moron who is doing this right now.



O.K., want to be so self righteously picky? Let's apply your
standards fairly. Stafford's own recent post "Nature photogs -
% of work without perspective controls?" _IS_ in fact a
violation of this nsgs chartered discussion guidelines. Big
surprise. It belonged in rec.photo.technique.nature, since it
was not an equipment question but a technique question


Which you answered "Stupid question...." He specifically said "tilt and
rise" yet you did your best to attack HIM rather than discuss the topic.
You made three insulting responces, hopeing for him to come back at you?
You've made anything he posts -personal-. And now want to call him a troll?

If steve would even say "I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was posting
incorrectly" instead of argueing that he is right maybe there wouldn't be
so much friction? The fact you fail to see how much of a jerk he is, is
well comical!
--

Stacey

Tom Phillips wrote:

The idea that posting about View Camera
resources or articles is somehow a "violation of usenet" is
about as lame a criticism as one can get.

So where does it stop? Should B&H be able to post their monthly specials?
Should freestyle be able to post about the film they have? What if EVERY
magazine started posting ads to their website here? Thank goodness we only
have one moron who is doing this right now.



O.K., want to be so self righteously picky? Let's apply your
standards fairly. Stafford's own recent post "Nature photogs -
% of work without perspective controls?" _IS_ in fact a
violation of this nsgs chartered discussion guidelines. Big
surprise. It belonged in rec.photo.technique.nature, since it
was not an equipment question but a technique question


Which you answered "Stupid question...." He specifically said "tilt and
rise" yet you did your best to attack HIM rather than discuss the topic.
You made three insulting responces, hopeing for him to come back at you?
You've made anything he posts -personal-. And now want to call him a troll?

If steve would even say "I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was posting
incorrectly" instead of argueing that he is right maybe there wouldn't be
so much friction? The fact you fail to see how much of a jerk he is, is
well comical!
--

Stacey

Stacey wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

The idea that posting about View Camera
resources or articles is somehow a "violation of usenet" is
about as lame a criticism as one can get.

So where does it stop? Should B&H

Apples and oranges...

be able to post their monthly specials?

Steve isn't selling products. View camera is a
useful resource on LF equipment and technique.
Clearly you _haven't_ read it lately.

Should freestyle be able to post about the film they have? What if EVERY
magazine started posting ads to their website here? Thank goodness we only
have one moron who is doing this right now.

The only morons are people who have a petty axe to
grind here asd can't tell the diff between hawking
film sales and promoting a useful LF resource...

O.K., want to be so self righteously picky? Let's apply your
standards fairly. Stafford's own recent post "Nature photogs -
% of work without perspective controls?" _IS_ in fact a
violation of this nsgs chartered discussion guidelines. Big
surprise. It belonged in rec.photo.technique.nature, since it
was not an equipment question but a technique question

Which you answered "Stupid question...."

Because it show's his true ignorance contrasted against
his superior "only I know what this nsg is about..." BS

than He specifically said "tilt and
rise" yet you did your best to attack HIM rather than discuss the topic.

It's a technique question, not an equipment question.
If you don't know that you're equally as LF ignorant
as he is. Read the charter...

You made three insulting responces,

So report me to the USENET administrators.

Maybe you can get everyone you and stafford don't like
or disagree with kicked off usenet and then you'll have
nothing to complain about except your own benightedness..

hopeing for him to come back at you?

Hardly. John S. threw one of his puerile tatrums some
weeks ago and stopped talking. Very refreshing to
most discussions I'm involved with Or maybe he's
holding his breath till he turns blue..

You've made anything he posts -personal-. And now want to call him a troll?

I normally ignore him but when he so laughingly
attacks his betters I will point out what a troll-
like hypocrite he is.

First time he ever disagreed with me (even though he
hadn't a clue what he was talking about since the
technical discussion that was ongoing was clearly way
over his head) he resorted to calling me "newbie" at
every opportunity. He childishly flames anyone he
ignorantly disagrees with at every opportunity yet
then acts like he's the USENET Emily Post.

If steve would even say "I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was posting
incorrectly"

Oh stop it.

You need a life if all you have to do is monitor
other's use of a quote string on USENET. Don't like
Simmons? Try a killfile.