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

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
-------------------

Thanks for the support. I knew I could count on you all.

And, BTW, I have recently (after lurking for soooo long in envy) joined the
ranks of LF'ers. I'm waiting delivery of a Cambo 540, 4X5 with a Fujinon
135 lens I bought from KEH this week. Pack of T-Max 100 arrived today
(along with several packs of TP), so the flow of questions will start as
soon as I get my hands on it. Soon as the budget swells back to life I'll
start getting other accoutrements and more and different types of film to
play with. Looking forward to my first tray processing session, but only
contacts prints for now (the enlarger is one of the other accoutrements).

Jim

Jim Phelps wrote:

Thanks for the support. I knew I could count on you all.

And, BTW, I have recently (after lurking for soooo long in envy) joined the
ranks of LF'ers. I'm waiting delivery of a Cambo 540, 4X5 with a Fujinon
135 lens I bought from KEH this week. Pack of T-Max 100 arrived today
(along with several packs of TP), so the flow of questions will start as
soon as I get my hands on it. Soon as the budget swells back to life I'll
start getting other accoutrements and more and different types of film to
play with. Looking forward to my first tray processing session, but only
contacts prints for now (the enlarger is one of the other accoutrements).

Jim



Jim, if you haven't tried it yet, be sure to spend the $20 for the
Photographer's Formular traditional cyanotype kit. I've got one, and
though I haven't done anything with the arrowroot starch (for sizing
unsized paper), I've been pretty happy with at least some of the prints
I've made; when I have a negative with the right contrast, and combine
with using or not using contrast enhancer (potassium dichromate
solution) in the sensitizing mixture, I get very nice prints with
exposures around five minutes in midday direct sun. Best part is, they
don't require a dark room; you can sensitize and dry the paper under
incandescent room light (though dimmer is better, given enough light to
see what you're doing), load the paper and negative into a contact
printing frame, and then proceed out into the sun for a few minutes (or
leave the frame a few inches from a fluorescent light overnight, but I
prefer sunshine).

If you don't like the dark blue color, tone the dried print in cold,
strong black tea for an hour or two to turn the print to a dark eggplant
or almost neutral black, depending on length of toning, while highlights
go very slightly tan. You don't need Arches Platine, either, though I
won't quibble that it might be the best; I've gotten good results from
Malay-made watercolor paper I got in a comb bound pad of fifteen sheets,
7x10 inch size, at Fred Meyer (basically a combination grocery and
hardware store), in the one-aisle art supplies department.

Prints from 9x12 cm are just a nice 3x4ish size, similar to the prints I
used to get from the drug store when I was a young teen in the early 1970s.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

"Donald Qualls" wrote in message
. com...

Thanks for the tip. I may give it a try once I get the camera figured out.