You think you know trolls?

Steve Young wrote:

"Lisa Horton" wrote

In the case of the photo groups, it was perhaps less
unusual. The main photo group was apparently targeted by
someone or some people who were unhappy about something
or some things that didn't appear to have anything to do
with photography, instead seeming to center around a
perceived need to change the group's charter. It was a
bit odd, actually.

You know quite well the argument revolves around a flaw in
the charter of the group you're referring to, and the
second point is a group which had morphed away from its
charter, with an activity which is off
topic to the chartered purpose.

She knows that we shall fix the rpe35mm charter ... very soon. )

And actually, as I recall, you favor the ability to amend
group charters.
True or false?

Indeedy, she does, except when it imposes a threat to her legacy ...
the highly off-topic SI!

Steve Young wrote:

"Lisa Horton" wrote

In the case of the photo groups, it was perhaps less
unusual. The main photo group was apparently targeted by
someone or some people who were unhappy about something
or some things that didn't appear to have anything to do
with photography, instead seeming to center around a
perceived need to change the group's charter. It was a
bit odd, actually.

You know quite well the argument revolves around a flaw in
the charter of the group you're referring to, and the
second point is a group which had morphed away from its
charter, with an activity which is off
topic to the chartered purpose.

She knows that we shall fix the rpe35mm charter ... very soon. )

And actually, as I recall, you favor the ability to amend
group charters.
True or false?

Indeedy, she does, except when it imposes a threat to her legacy ...
the highly off-topic SI!

Steve Young wrote:

"Lisa Horton" wrote

In the case of the photo groups, it was perhaps less
unusual. The main photo group was apparently targeted by
someone or some people who were unhappy about something
or some things that didn't appear to have anything to do
with photography, instead seeming to center around a
perceived need to change the group's charter. It was a
bit odd, actually.

You know quite well the argument revolves around a flaw in
the charter of the group you're referring to, and the
second point is a group which had morphed away from its
charter, with an activity which is off
topic to the chartered purpose.

She knows that we shall fix the rpe35mm charter ... very soon. )

And actually, as I recall, you favor the ability to amend
group charters.
True or false?

Indeedy, she does, except when it imposes a threat to her legacy ...
the highly off-topic SI!

wrote:


Indeedy, she does, except when it imposes a threat to her legacy ...
the highly off-topic SI!

I know I'm inviting flames, but 've never really understood why the SI
is off topic? Is it because you have to have a digital image (eg. scan
of the print) and this group is rigidly about images that only exist as
paper or negative?

wrote:


Indeedy, she does, except when it imposes a threat to her legacy ...
the highly off-topic SI!

I know I'm inviting flames, but 've never really understood why the SI
is off topic? Is it because you have to have a digital image (eg. scan
of the print) and this group is rigidly about images that only exist as
paper or negative?

wrote in message
oups.com...
I know I'm inviting flames, but 've never really understood why the SI
is off topic? Is it because you have to have a digital image (eg. scan
of the print) and this group is rigidly about images that only exist as
paper or negative?

Technically, it isn't even about digital camera images. Strictly speaking,
it's about the equipment used with 35mm film and the techniques and use of
that equipment. Stretched, about the images made with 35mm film equipment.

I do not believe the 'letter of the law' meets the 'spirit of the law' and
any camera of the 35mm class meets the spirit, digital or film. Therefore,
IMHO, I believe the discussion of 35mm class equipment and the images made
from those cameras can, should and are discussed in this newsgroup and
therefore are on topic.

I would say you (like I) belong to the majority who believe the SI is
on-topic.

There are those who would believe the SI really belong in the
rec.photo.techniques.misc as some of the photo's submitted might not be
taken with 35mm class equipment (and may have actually been taken with MF or
LF equipment), but that's trivial. Most submissions are taken with 35mm
class equipment and if they are not, how could you tell.

wrote in message
oups.com...
I know I'm inviting flames, but 've never really understood why the SI
is off topic? Is it because you have to have a digital image (eg. scan
of the print) and this group is rigidly about images that only exist as
paper or negative?

Technically, it isn't even about digital camera images. Strictly speaking,
it's about the equipment used with 35mm film and the techniques and use of
that equipment. Stretched, about the images made with 35mm film equipment.

I do not believe the 'letter of the law' meets the 'spirit of the law' and
any camera of the 35mm class meets the spirit, digital or film. Therefore,
IMHO, I believe the discussion of 35mm class equipment and the images made
from those cameras can, should and are discussed in this newsgroup and
therefore are on topic.

I would say you (like I) belong to the majority who believe the SI is
on-topic.

There are those who would believe the SI really belong in the
rec.photo.techniques.misc as some of the photo's submitted might not be
taken with 35mm class equipment (and may have actually been taken with MF or
LF equipment), but that's trivial. Most submissions are taken with 35mm
class equipment and if they are not, how could you tell.

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I know I'm inviting flames, but 've never really understood why the SI
is off topic? Is it because you have to have a digital image (eg. scan
of the print) and this group is rigidly about images that only exist as
paper or negative?

Technically, it isn't even about digital camera images. Strictly
speaking,
it's about the equipment used with 35mm film and the techniques and use of
that equipment. Stretched, about the images made with 35mm film
equipment.

I do not believe the 'letter of the law' meets the 'spirit of the law' and
any camera of the 35mm class meets the spirit, digital or film.
Therefore,
IMHO, I believe the discussion of 35mm class equipment and the images made
from those cameras can, should and are discussed in this newsgroup and
therefore are on topic.

A search (press ctrl+f) for the word "digital" on this page reveals that
only those groups with digital in their title are cited as appropriate for
that item. Look he http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm
Film best,
me

PS: But who lets a charter stand in the way of an OT discussion and why
would anyone pay any attention to the word digital in a NG title? ;-)

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I know I'm inviting flames, but 've never really understood why the SI
is off topic? Is it because you have to have a digital image (eg. scan
of the print) and this group is rigidly about images that only exist as
paper or negative?

Technically, it isn't even about digital camera images. Strictly
speaking,
it's about the equipment used with 35mm film and the techniques and use of
that equipment. Stretched, about the images made with 35mm film
equipment.

I do not believe the 'letter of the law' meets the 'spirit of the law' and
any camera of the 35mm class meets the spirit, digital or film.
Therefore,
IMHO, I believe the discussion of 35mm class equipment and the images made
from those cameras can, should and are discussed in this newsgroup and
therefore are on topic.

A search (press ctrl+f) for the word "digital" on this page reveals that
only those groups with digital in their title are cited as appropriate for
that item. Look he http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm
Film best,
me

PS: But who lets a charter stand in the way of an OT discussion and why
would anyone pay any attention to the word digital in a NG title? ;-)

"Jim Phelps" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
I know I'm inviting flames, but 've never really understood why the SI
is off topic? Is it because you have to have a digital image (eg. scan
of the print) and this group is rigidly about images that only exist as
paper or negative?

Technically, it isn't even about digital camera images. Strictly
speaking,
it's about the equipment used with 35mm film and the techniques and use of
that equipment. Stretched, about the images made with 35mm film
equipment.

I do not believe the 'letter of the law' meets the 'spirit of the law' and
any camera of the 35mm class meets the spirit, digital or film.
Therefore,
IMHO, I believe the discussion of 35mm class equipment and the images made
from those cameras can, should and are discussed in this newsgroup and
therefore are on topic.

A search (press ctrl+f) for the word "digital" on this page reveals that
only those groups with digital in their title are cited as appropriate for
that item. Look he http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm
Film best,
me

PS: But who lets a charter stand in the way of an OT discussion and why
would anyone pay any attention to the word digital in a NG title? ;-)