A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Photo Equipment » Large Format Photography Equipment
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

rec.photo: live & let live



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 4th 04, 11:08 PM
John McGraw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
  #2  
Old October 5th 04, 12:39 AM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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.


  #3  
Old October 5th 04, 04:20 AM
Udie Lafing
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Actually,... I am for taring and feathering him.


In article ,
(John McGraw) wrote:

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

--
?
?
?
?
LOL
  #4  
Old October 5th 04, 10:06 AM
Jim Phelps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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


  #5  
Old October 5th 04, 11:50 AM
LR Kalajainen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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.
  #6  
Old October 5th 04, 05:19 PM
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #7  
Old October 5th 04, 05:19 PM
Gregory Blank
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #8  
Old October 5th 04, 06:31 PM
Frank Pittel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #9  
Old October 5th 04, 06:31 PM
Frank Pittel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #10  
Old October 5th 04, 06:59 PM
Uranium Committee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(John McGraw) wrote in message . com...

Photography is just as well-governed by the laws of physics and
chemistry as is SCUBA diving. Unfortunately photography is one field
where misinformation abounds. Those who think film can be 'pushed' are
just as guilty of ignoring the laws of nature as are those who try to
breathe an empty tank. The results in the former case are not lethal,
but the point is the same. I offer sound technical advice based on
years and years of experience and study. I know what does not work
(believe me, I've tried almost everything possible in B&W) and what
does work.

I pains me to believe that ****wits who don't have 1/1000th of my
knowledge or even my skill try to discount my advice and silence me.
Most often, these are Zonazis who have taken a few classes from
Zonazis who have seized power at universities. They resort to all
sorts of logical fallacies, name-calling, insult, and 'kill-file'
simply because they don't have the intellectual equipment to deal with
reality. I have never 'kill-filed' anyone.

One of their tactics is the argument that 'even if you don't do it
deliberately, you're using at least part of the zs.' It makes as much
sense as saying that because I'm wearing a wool coat, and that Nazi
uniforms were made out of wool, then I must be a Nazi. Hogwash. This
is the fallacy of composition. The Zonazis have stolen a few points
from conventional photographic practice (which they label as their
own) and have added others. In fact, most if not all of the additions
are wrong. Those who observe the conventional practices that have been
stolen by the Zonazis and incorporated into the zs are not in any way
practicing the zs.

Suppose the German Nazis drew up a list of 20 principles, and that 19
of them were inncouous (such as that workers should not be mistreated
in factories, and that children should be cared for by their mothers)
but the 20th one is that Jews are not to be allowed to work in the
government. If one were to agree with the 19 principles but rejects
the 20th, according to the Zonazis, one can still be called a
practicing Nazi. I reject such an argument out of hand. Yet we see
such idotic forms of argument here almost daily. When I castigate such
stupidity, I am called 'intemperate'. So be it. If people are so
(expletive deleted) stupid that they don't understand the basics of
logic, why should I care?

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

It is true that for a few years I worked in photo retailing. This gave
me the opportunity to try a broad array of equipment and materials. I
would use these and show the results to my coworkers and customers,
both amateur and professional. The results often intrigued us. Believe
it or not, the cheap stuff was seldom as good as the better stuff.
Alpas and Leica(flexe)s outperformed Minoltas and Nikkormats.
Kodachrome outperformed Anscochrome. Tri-X outperformed HP4. Focotars
outperformed Componons. Trinovids outperformed Pentax binoculars.
Acutol outperformed Rodinal. Velour Black outperformed Brovira and
Kodabromide.

Lest you think these were my own opinions alone, I should point out
that there was generally a consensus amongst us. Several of us went on
to work professionally in various capacities, in photography,
including me.

Another thing I learned while doing these comparsison tests was HOW to
do comparsison tests. In other words, the scientific method.

As I have journeyed through life, I discovered that many people don't
have a clue about the scientific method. They rely on dogma, myth, and
hearsay. I don't. This undoubtedly perturbs the hell out of some
people on this ng, especially the Zonazis. I have had personal
dealings with them, at the highest levels (including professors of
photography). They are invariably dogmatic, rigid, and untrainable.
Their minds are as closed as can be. I'm fed up with them. They don't
understand logic, they don't understand the scientific method, and
they don't understand cause and effect. They refuse even to discuss
the possibility that their 'knowledge' is not in fact, the truth.

Unfortunately this is not restricted to academics who teach
photography. Academics in a number of fields have the same attitudes
and share the same faults. (Expletive deleted) 'em. (Expletive
deleted) 'em all.


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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[Meta] *GETTING RID OF THE JUNK* - Newsgroup filtering for Windows users in rec.photo newsgroups [email protected] Digital Photography 3 July 21st 04 02:57 AM
Live Video/Data Capture? Jorge Prediguez Digital Photography 1 July 1st 04 02:04 AM
Live Video/Data Capture? Jorge Prediguez 35mm Photo Equipment 1 July 1st 04 02:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.