About APUG, to Patrick

From: "UC"
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: APUG.org
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 12:57:08 -0800


PATRICK GAINER wrote:

Did you have to take lessons on how to lose friends and antagonize
people, or do you just have a natural knack for it?

Let's put it this way:

Nietzsche is my hero.

I despise political correctness. I despise ignorance. I haven't the
slightest interest in what
anyone else says, only what he can PROVE. I know more than most people
do about photography. FAR, FAR more, and I can prove it.

Most people's minds are like garbage dumps. What they learn is more the
result of random chance than anything else. Few people pursue anything
systematically. They hold onto what they learned as children, or from
their first teacher, or whatever was their first experience. Their
religion, their language, their skills, are all a result of the place
of their birth. They seldom challenge themselves.

I, on the other hand, have thrown away what I used to believe in a
number of areas, because it is wrong, irrational, or both.

I was raised Catholic.
I am now an atheist.

I used to think were the best way to play tennis for me was from the
baseline, because that's what
the teaching pros taught me. They said I was too short to play serve
and volley.
I now play serve and volley.

I used to think Meryl Streep was a good actress.
I now think she's a fraud.

I used to push film.
I never push film any more.

I initially thought the zone system was valuable.
I now know it to be a fraud.

I used to think expensive cameras like Leica and Zeiss were rip-offs.
I now own a Leicaflex system, and have for 33 years.

The real mark of an intelligent person is the ability to learn, and to
throw over the common,
ordinary beliefs, and especially to throw away one's DEAREST beliefs.

It takes COURAGE too.

I used to believe a lot of the things that are popularly believed. I
was not afraid to reject them
when I found out that those beliefs were inadequate.

Most people don't have the guts to accept that they're wrong, and I
despise them for that. Most people don't bother to do the research that
I have done. Why? Most people are lazy and stupid. When I HAVE bothered
to do the research, and HAVE bothered to find out the TRUTH, not simply
'go along' with the crowd, they label me as an antagonist.

The truth is, I don't have time to explain every time WHY what I say is
true, and that the popular belief is false.

The lazy *******s don't deserve my time.

In other words, if I say something is so in photography, you can bet
your life it is true. I HAVE tried it myself, or I would not say
anything about it.

You will NOT find me discussing cars or motorcycle engines or tires or
poker or lots of things I know nothing about, because I know nothing
about them. If I did discuss such things, I would make it a point to
learn a lot about them FIRST.

When one master pianist was playing the piano, an interviewer told him
that he would give anything to play like that. The master pianist said
something like this: "No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't spend the time
that it takes. I have already have spent years and years. That's what
it takes. If you were serious about it, you would already have devoted
your life to it. Since you haven't, your just lying to yourself."

I spent the time and money to learn for MY benefit, not YOURS on anyone
else's. HOW MUCH did it cost you to learn what you 'KNOW'? If you
picked it up on the street, that's what it's worth.

I listen to photo conversations all the time. The people who are most
eager to dispense advice to beginners are hardly more than beginners
themselves. Reading discussion groups is very illuminating in that
respect.

I'm so fed up with dogma and zone system bull**** I could scream. Most
people pick up a copy of 'The Negative' and it never occurs to them to
question any aspect of it. Why? Because the reputation that Ansel Adams
has, and nothing else. Most people are cowards. They are afraid that if
they question the great bearded photo god they will be chastised.
They're right, of course. They WILL be chastised.

I have found that the people most intolerant of any criticism at all
are the zone system fanatics. That is why I call them zonazis. The name
is QUITE apt.

Those people are lunatics. Whatever Adams or Sexton says is, for them,
gospel. It is not to be questioned. That is the attitude I cannot
abide, and I SHALL NOT cease from attacking it, no matter where the
chips may fall.

It is often considered impolite to insist that all parties in a
discussion deserve equal respect. Bull****! Intelligent Design should
not be taught as science. It is NOT science, and no amount of political
pressure will make it science.

If I know something someone says in a discussion about photography is
incorrect or misleading, I will say so, in no uncertain terms.

UC wrote:

From: "UC"
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: APUG.org
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 12:57:08 -0800


PATRICK GAINER wrote:


Did you have to take lessons on how to lose friends and antagonize
people, or do you just have a natural knack for it?



Let's put it this way:

Nietzsche is my hero.

I despise political correctness. I despise ignorance. I haven't the
slightest interest in what
anyone else says, only what he can PROVE. I know more than most people
do about photography. FAR, FAR more, and I can prove it.

Most people's minds are like garbage dumps. What they learn is more the
result of random chance than anything else. Few people pursue anything
systematically. They hold onto what they learned as children, or from
their first teacher, or whatever was their first experience. Their
religion, their language, their skills, are all a result of the place
of their birth. They seldom challenge themselves.

I, on the other hand, have thrown away what I used to believe in a
number of areas, because it is wrong, irrational, or both.

I was raised Catholic.
I am now an atheist.

I used to think were the best way to play tennis for me was from the
baseline, because that's what
the teaching pros taught me. They said I was too short to play serve
and volley.
I now play serve and volley.

I used to think Meryl Streep was a good actress.
I now think she's a fraud.

I used to push film.
I never push film any more.

I initially thought the zone system was valuable.
I now know it to be a fraud.

I used to think expensive cameras like Leica and Zeiss were rip-offs.
I now own a Leicaflex system, and have for 33 years.

The real mark of an intelligent person is the ability to learn, and to
throw over the common,
ordinary beliefs, and especially to throw away one's DEAREST beliefs.

It takes COURAGE too.

I used to believe a lot of the things that are popularly believed. I
was not afraid to reject them
when I found out that those beliefs were inadequate.

Most people don't have the guts to accept that they're wrong, and I
despise them for that. Most people don't bother to do the research that
I have done. Why? Most people are lazy and stupid. When I HAVE bothered
to do the research, and HAVE bothered to find out the TRUTH, not simply
'go along' with the crowd, they label me as an antagonist.

The truth is, I don't have time to explain every time WHY what I say is
true, and that the popular belief is false.

The lazy *******s don't deserve my time.

In other words, if I say something is so in photography, you can bet
your life it is true. I HAVE tried it myself, or I would not say
anything about it.

You will NOT find me discussing cars or motorcycle engines or tires or
poker or lots of things I know nothing about, because I know nothing
about them. If I did discuss such things, I would make it a point to
learn a lot about them FIRST.

When one master pianist was playing the piano, an interviewer told him
that he would give anything to play like that. The master pianist said
something like this: "No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't spend the time
that it takes. I have already have spent years and years. That's what
it takes. If you were serious about it, you would already have devoted
your life to it. Since you haven't, your just lying to yourself."

I spent the time and money to learn for MY benefit, not YOURS on anyone
else's. HOW MUCH did it cost you to learn what you 'KNOW'? If you
picked it up on the street, that's what it's worth.

I listen to photo conversations all the time. The people who are most
eager to dispense advice to beginners are hardly more than beginners
themselves. Reading discussion groups is very illuminating in that
respect.

I'm so fed up with dogma and zone system bull**** I could scream. Most
people pick up a copy of 'The Negative' and it never occurs to them to
question any aspect of it. Why? Because the reputation that Ansel Adams
has, and nothing else. Most people are cowards. They are afraid that if
they question the great bearded photo god they will be chastised.
They're right, of course. They WILL be chastised.

I have found that the people most intolerant of any criticism at all
are the zone system fanatics. That is why I call them zonazis. The name
is QUITE apt.

Those people are lunatics. Whatever Adams or Sexton says is, for them,
gospel. It is not to be questioned. That is the attitude I cannot
abide, and I SHALL NOT cease from attacking it, no matter where the
chips may fall.

It is often considered impolite to insist that all parties in a
discussion deserve equal respect. Bull****! Intelligent Design should
not be taught as science. It is NOT science, and no amount of political
pressure will make it science.

If I know something someone says in a discussion about photography is
incorrect or misleading, I will say so, in no uncertain terms.



UC:
I had planned to keep this between us, but you have decided to post it
on a public forum, so I feel I should reply publicly. There are so many
illogical statements in your diatribe I hardly know where to begin.
Neither do I care for political correctness for its own sake. I do know
things you do not know about logical argument. Assertions cannot be
proved. They can be accepted or disproved, but not proved. There is one
theorem that has been proved conclusively, and that is Godel's
incompleteness theorem.

You think atheism is the way to go? I agree with you that we do not know
what intelligent design is. But there is no such thing as pure
randomness either. Randomness only describes behavior that we cannot
accurately predict, not that is absolutely unpredictable. The creator of
the universe created all there is and ever will be in the first instant
of creation, including time itself. As far as I am concerned, the words
I am writing were known to the creator at the instant of creation, and
you cannot prove otherwise.

I had no intention of trying to prove that any of my developer formulas
would exceed your revered Acutol. I and others using them have found
that the stock solution has a very much greater resistance to aerial
oxidation. The formulas are considerably simpler. They allow preparation
of sulfite-free ascorbate developers, which in turn allow experimenting
to find the optimum sulfite content for any purpose. I don't care if you
or anyone else ever uses them. Even though I am retired from Government
service, I try to carry on what I was told my first day at NACA. "Our
only product is reports. We learn through study and experiment and pass
on what we learn in our reports."

You said "Most people's minds are like garbage dumps. What they learn is
more the result of random chance than anything else. Few people pursue
anything systematically. They hold onto what they learned as children,
or from their first teacher, or whatever was their first experience.
Their religion, their language, their skills, are all a result of the
place of their birth. They seldom challenge themselves."

Perhaps. But that is as dogmatic a belief as any you accuse us of
holding. You cannot prove it, both because of the limitations of human
logic, and because you would have to reason from some particular example
to the general.

You said "I, on the other hand, have thrown away what I used to believe
in a number of areas, because it is wrong, irrational, or both. I was
raised Catholic. I am now an atheist."

Now tell me what is irrational about Catholicism. I have been a staunch
Roman Catholic all my 78 years. My Godfather was a professor at St.Louis
University, a colleague of my father's. My sponsor at confirmation was
Vernon J. Bourke, a noted philosopher and translator of Aquinas and
Augustine, and also a professor at St. Louis University at the time.

You said "I used to think the best way to play tennis for me was from
the baseline, because that's what the teaching pros taught me. They said
I was too short to play serve and volley. I now play serve and volley."

Never was much at tennis. I was a member of a handball team while
attending power Memorial Academy in NYC, and earned a medal for my
efforts. That, of course, is the poor man's tennis. it only needs half a
court and no raquet. I was on a high school rifle team in Webster
Groves, MO and tied for second place in the Hearst Trophy match in St.
Louis at the age of 13.

You said "I initially thought the zone system was valuable. I now know
it to be a fraud."

I'm not much of a fan of the Zone system either, but I think if you
really knew it you would see its uses. Also, you'd better look up the
definition of "fraud."

You said "The real mark of an intelligent person is the ability to
learn, and to throw over the common, ordinary beliefs, and especially to
throw away one's DEAREST beliefs."

You seem to be trying to make the point that learning inevitably means
rejecting. You won't succeed. My intelligence has told me that my
dearest beliefs are worth holding. You are talking to the wrong guy. I
rebel sometimes, but out of curiosity, not for the sake of rebelling. I
like to seek alternate explanations of things I observe. I also know for
sure that any set of axioms at least as rich as arithmetic is incomplete
or inconsistent or both.

You ought not despise anyone. It is not good for YOUR psyche. Also, it
makes you despicable. You should love love, hate hate and scorn scorn.
I met a few rude performers while playing principal oboe for the Norfolk
Symphony. Only two out of many really stand out in my mind as being
rude, one famous pianist and one famous violinist whose names I will not
mention. The great majority were good people. The great tenor Jan Pierce
told us "Don't play too loud there. I'm just one little Jewish guy." and
"If anybody hears that last chord over the applause, I didn't do my
job". Isaac Stern was a good and kind person as well as a violin
virtuoso. He told the story of a lady who, after a concert, said to him
"Mr. Stern, you must have a very fine violin to be able to make such a
good sound." He handed her his fiddle and said "You know, I never get to
hear what it sounds like from a distance. Would you please play a few
bars for me?" He also was known to say "I left no tone unSterned."

You said "I spent the time and money to learn for MY benefit, not YOURS
or anyone else's. HOW MUCH did it cost you to learn what you 'KNOW'? If
you picked it up on the street, that's what it's worth."

I learned from others all they could teach me, but not all that I know.
That is the way it should be. I learned and applied much of my
photographic knowledge while working at NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA as an Aerospace Research Engineer. It was essential to
certain research projects. I also applied it while playing
professionally with various orchestras, photographing guest artists
during dress rehearsals, processing the negatives and prints and
presenting them to the artists the next day. Jorge Bolet, the piano
virtuoso, was a rabid amateur photographer who favored Canon.

You said "It is often considered impolite to insist that all parties in
a discussion deserve equal respect. Bull****! Intelligent Design should
not be taught as science. It is NOT science, and no amount of political
pressure will make it science."

Now we hit a paradox. If, as I have proposed, there is no such thing as
true randomness, then any possible design will qualify as intelligent,
including evolution. One cannot use the apparent process of design to
argue against the existence of a designer. If I stir up a batch of
chemicals, which might look pretty much like a random process to some, I
am not surprised when the result is the developer or whatever the
ingredients were supposed to produce. That developer was the result of
intelligent design, even though the mixing process appeared quite
random. Even if it doesn't work, it is a source of intelligence because
we learned that it doesn't work.

You said "If I know something someone says in a discussion about
photography is incorrect or misleading, I will say so, in no uncertain
terms."

Sure, but it is not necessary to call it bovine excrement. Lighten up.
Have fun. Make fun, even. And please do get treatment for your paranoia.

Pat Gainer

My point was that I admire people who can find it possible to reject
old beliefs in the face of evidence or absurdity, who are not afraid to
turn their backs on what they held before, even though those beliefs
were comfortable.

I despise those who cannot...

I have rejected many things that I formerly believed to be true. I see
that not many people are willing to do that. Most people appranetly
find this excruiciatingly difficult to do. They take the path of least
resistance.

For this I am constantly criticized and scormned by those unwilling to
subject their own beliefs to scrutiny.

In other words, I used to be like the people who scorn me, but unlike
them I have discarded those beliefs that I have found don't hold up to
tests or scrutiny. Since I am no longer a member of this flock of
sheep, and have joined the flock of eagles, the sheep complain and call
me names.

For this, I have the perfect response:

Nicht zu vergessen! - je höher wir uns erheben, um so kleiner
erscheinen wir Denen, welche nicht fliegen können.
Morgenröthe, §574

My translation:
"The higher we elevate ourselves, the smaller we appear to those who
cannot....fly..."

(Courtesy Friedrich Nietzsche)

So, since the sheep abhor my freedom, let them bleet away...

I don't give a damn what others think. What others think does not
change the facts...and I am especially intolerant of those who are
intolerant...I take no prisoners, and suffer no fools:

Not John Sexton
Not Ansel Adams
Not George Tice
Not Monte Zucker

There is ONE and ONLY ONE thing that matters: what comes out on the
print.

I am a strict empiricist. If someone says 'do X because of Y' and your
prints will look good, and I do X and they don't, I reject the advice.
I don't give a damn about 'Y', if doing X does not produce the desired
results.

All the zonazi mumbo-jumbo and Roman numerals don't mean ****....these
people are no better than the Nazis who worshipped the Füher's
authority...

I worship no authority but what I can see with mine own eyes...no
gurus, no gods, no scared scriptures of any kind, photographic or
religious or sociolgical...



PATRICK GAINER wrote:
UC wrote:

From: "UC"
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: APUG.org
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 12:57:08 -0800


PATRICK GAINER wrote:


Did you have to take lessons on how to lose friends and antagonize
people, or do you just have a natural knack for it?



Let's put it this way:

Nietzsche is my hero.

I despise political correctness. I despise ignorance. I haven't the
slightest interest in what
anyone else says, only what he can PROVE. I know more than most people
do about photography. FAR, FAR more, and I can prove it.

Most people's minds are like garbage dumps. What they learn is more the
result of random chance than anything else. Few people pursue anything
systematically. They hold onto what they learned as children, or from
their first teacher, or whatever was their first experience. Their
religion, their language, their skills, are all a result of the place
of their birth. They seldom challenge themselves.

I, on the other hand, have thrown away what I used to believe in a
number of areas, because it is wrong, irrational, or both.

I was raised Catholic.
I am now an atheist.

I used to think were the best way to play tennis for me was from the
baseline, because that's what
the teaching pros taught me. They said I was too short to play serve
and volley.
I now play serve and volley.

I used to think Meryl Streep was a good actress.
I now think she's a fraud.

I used to push film.
I never push film any more.

I initially thought the zone system was valuable.
I now know it to be a fraud.

I used to think expensive cameras like Leica and Zeiss were rip-offs.
I now own a Leicaflex system, and have for 33 years.

The real mark of an intelligent person is the ability to learn, and to
throw over the common,
ordinary beliefs, and especially to throw away one's DEAREST beliefs.

It takes COURAGE too.

I used to believe a lot of the things that are popularly believed. I
was not afraid to reject them
when I found out that those beliefs were inadequate.

Most people don't have the guts to accept that they're wrong, and I
despise them for that. Most people don't bother to do the research that
I have done. Why? Most people are lazy and stupid. When I HAVE bothered
to do the research, and HAVE bothered to find out the TRUTH, not simply
'go along' with the crowd, they label me as an antagonist.

The truth is, I don't have time to explain every time WHY what I say is
true, and that the popular belief is false.

The lazy *******s don't deserve my time.

In other words, if I say something is so in photography, you can bet
your life it is true. I HAVE tried it myself, or I would not say
anything about it.

You will NOT find me discussing cars or motorcycle engines or tires or
poker or lots of things I know nothing about, because I know nothing
about them. If I did discuss such things, I would make it a point to
learn a lot about them FIRST.

When one master pianist was playing the piano, an interviewer told him
that he would give anything to play like that. The master pianist said
something like this: "No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't spend the time
that it takes. I have already have spent years and years. That's what
it takes. If you were serious about it, you would already have devoted
your life to it. Since you haven't, your just lying to yourself."

I spent the time and money to learn for MY benefit, not YOURS on anyone
else's. HOW MUCH did it cost you to learn what you 'KNOW'? If you
picked it up on the street, that's what it's worth.

I listen to photo conversations all the time. The people who are most
eager to dispense advice to beginners are hardly more than beginners
themselves. Reading discussion groups is very illuminating in that
respect.

I'm so fed up with dogma and zone system bull**** I could scream. Most
people pick up a copy of 'The Negative' and it never occurs to them to
question any aspect of it. Why? Because the reputation that Ansel Adams
has, and nothing else. Most people are cowards. They are afraid that if
they question the great bearded photo god they will be chastised.
They're right, of course. They WILL be chastised.

I have found that the people most intolerant of any criticism at all
are the zone system fanatics. That is why I call them zonazis. The name
is QUITE apt.

Those people are lunatics. Whatever Adams or Sexton says is, for them,
gospel. It is not to be questioned. That is the attitude I cannot
abide, and I SHALL NOT cease from attacking it, no matter where the
chips may fall.

It is often considered impolite to insist that all parties in a
discussion deserve equal respect. Bull****! Intelligent Design should
not be taught as science. It is NOT science, and no amount of political
pressure will make it science.

If I know something someone says in a discussion about photography is
incorrect or misleading, I will say so, in no uncertain terms.



UC:
I had planned to keep this between us, but you have decided to post it
on a public forum, so I feel I should reply publicly. There are so many
illogical statements in your diatribe I hardly know where to begin.
Neither do I care for political correctness for its own sake. I do know
things you do not know about logical argument. Assertions cannot be
proved. They can be accepted or disproved, but not proved. There is one
theorem that has been proved conclusively, and that is Godel's
incompleteness theorem.

You think atheism is the way to go? I agree with you that we do not know
what intelligent design is. But there is no such thing as pure
randomness either. Randomness only describes behavior that we cannot
accurately predict, not that is absolutely unpredictable. The creator of
the universe created all there is and ever will be in the first instant
of creation, including time itself. As far as I am concerned, the words
I am writing were known to the creator at the instant of creation, and
you cannot prove otherwise.

I had no intention of trying to prove that any of my developer formulas
would exceed your revered Acutol. I and others using them have found
that the stock solution has a very much greater resistance to aerial
oxidation. The formulas are considerably simpler. They allow preparation
of sulfite-free ascorbate developers, which in turn allow experimenting
to find the optimum sulfite content for any purpose. I don't care if you
or anyone else ever uses them. Even though I am retired from Government
service, I try to carry on what I was told my first day at NACA. "Our
only product is reports. We learn through study and experiment and pass
on what we learn in our reports."

You said "Most people's minds are like garbage dumps. What they learn is
more the result of random chance than anything else. Few people pursue
anything systematically. They hold onto what they learned as children,
or from their first teacher, or whatever was their first experience.
Their religion, their language, their skills, are all a result of the
place of their birth. They seldom challenge themselves."

Perhaps. But that is as dogmatic a belief as any you accuse us of
holding. You cannot prove it, both because of the limitations of human
logic, and because you would have to reason from some particular example
to the general.

You said "I, on the other hand, have thrown away what I used to believe
in a number of areas, because it is wrong, irrational, or both. I was
raised Catholic. I am now an atheist."

Now tell me what is irrational about Catholicism. I have been a staunch
Roman Catholic all my 78 years. My Godfather was a professor at St.Louis
University, a colleague of my father's. My sponsor at confirmation was
Vernon J. Bourke, a noted philosopher and translator of Aquinas and
Augustine, and also a professor at St. Louis University at the time.

You said "I used to think the best way to play tennis for me was from
the baseline, because that's what the teaching pros taught me. They said
I was too short to play serve and volley. I now play serve and volley."

Never was much at tennis. I was a member of a handball team while
attending power Memorial Academy in NYC, and earned a medal for my
efforts. That, of course, is the poor man's tennis. it only needs half a
court and no raquet. I was on a high school rifle team in Webster
Groves, MO and tied for second place in the Hearst Trophy match in St.
Louis at the age of 13.

You said "I initially thought the zone system was valuable. I now know
it to be a fraud."

I'm not much of a fan of the Zone system either, but I think if you
really knew it you would see its uses. Also, you'd better look up the
definition of "fraud."

You said "The real mark of an intelligent person is the ability to
learn, and to throw over the common, ordinary beliefs, and especially to
throw away one's DEAREST beliefs."

You seem to be trying to make the point that learning inevitably means
rejecting. You won't succeed. My intelligence has told me that my
dearest beliefs are worth holding. You are talking to the wrong guy. I
rebel sometimes, but out of curiosity, not for the sake of rebelling. I
like to seek alternate explanations of things I observe. I also know for
sure that any set of axioms at least as rich as arithmetic is incomplete
or inconsistent or both.

You ought not despise anyone. It is not good for YOUR psyche. Also, it
makes you despicable. You should love love, hate hate and scorn scorn.
I met a few rude performers while playing principal oboe for the Norfolk
Symphony. Only two out of many really stand out in my mind as being
rude, one famous pianist and one famous violinist whose names I will not
mention. The great majority were good people. The great tenor Jan Pierce
told us "Don't play too loud there. I'm just one little Jewish guy." and
"If anybody hears that last chord over the applause, I didn't do my
job". Isaac Stern was a good and kind person as well as a violin
virtuoso. He told the story of a lady who, after a concert, said to him
"Mr. Stern, you must have a very fine violin to be able to make such a
good sound." He handed her his fiddle and said "You know, I never get to
hear what it sounds like from a distance. Would you please play a few
bars for me?" He also was known to say "I left no tone unSterned."

You said "I spent the time and money to learn for MY benefit, not YOURS
or anyone else's. HOW MUCH did it cost you to learn what you 'KNOW'? If
you picked it up on the street, that's what it's worth."

I learned from others all they could teach me, but not all that I know.
That is the way it should be. I learned and applied much of my
photographic knowledge while working at NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA as an Aerospace Research Engineer. It was essential to
certain research projects. I also applied it while playing
professionally with various orchestras, photographing guest artists
during dress rehearsals, processing the negatives and prints and
presenting them to the artists the next day. Jorge Bolet, the piano
virtuoso, was a rabid amateur photographer who favored Canon.

You said "It is often considered impolite to insist that all parties in
a discussion deserve equal respect. Bull****! Intelligent Design should
not be taught as science. It is NOT science, and no amount of political
pressure will make it science."

Now we hit a paradox. If, as I have proposed, there is no such thing as
true randomness, then any possible design will qualify as intelligent,
including evolution. One cannot use the apparent process of design to
argue against the existence of a designer. If I stir up a batch of
chemicals, which might look pretty much like a random process to some, I
am not surprised when the result is the developer or whatever the
ingredients were supposed to produce. That developer was the result of
intelligent design, even though the mixing process appeared quite
random. Even if it doesn't work, it is a source of intelligence because
we learned that it doesn't work.

You said "If I know something someone says in a discussion about
photography is incorrect or misleading, I will say so, in no uncertain
terms."

Sure, but it is not necessary to call it bovine excrement. Lighten up.
Have fun. Make fun, even. And please do get treatment for your paranoia.

Pat Gainer

My point was that I admire people who can find it possible to reject
their own
old beliefs in the face of evidence or absurdity, who are not afraid to
turn their backs on what they held before, even though those beliefs
were comfortable.

I despise those who cannot...

I have rejected many things that I formerly believed to be true. I see
that not many people are willing to do that. Most people apparently
find this excruiciatingly difficult to do. They take the path of least
resistance.

For this I am constantly criticized and scormned by those unwilling to
subject their own beliefs to scrutiny.

In other words, I used to be like the people who scorn me, but unlike
them I have discarded those beliefs that I have found don't hold up to
tests or scrutiny. Since I am no longer a member of this flock of
sheep, and have joined the flock of eagles, the sheep complain and call
me names.

For this, I have the perfect response:

Nicht zu vergessen! - je höher wir uns erheben, um so kleiner
erscheinen wir Denen, welche nicht fliegen können.
Morgenröthe, §574

My translation:
"The higher we elevate ourselves, the smaller we appear to those who
cannot....fly..."

(Courtesy Friedrich Nietzsche)

So, since the sheep abhor my freedom, let them bleet away...

I don't give a damn what others think. What others think does not
change the facts...and I am especially intolerant of those who are
intolerant...I take no prisoners, and suffer no fools:

Not John Sexton
Not Ansel Adams
Not George Tice
Not Monte Zucker

There is ONE and ONLY ONE thing that matters: what comes out on the
print.

I am a strict empiricist. If someone says 'do X because of Y and your
prints will look good', and I do X and they don't, I reject the advice.
I don't give a damn about 'Y', if doing X does not produce the desired
results.

All the zonazi mumbo-jumbo and Roman numerals don't mean ****....these
people are no better than the Nazis who worshipped the Füher's
authority...

I worship no authority, but instead rely only what I can see with mine
own eyes...no
gurus, no gods, no sacred scriptures of any kind, photographic or
religious or ideological...


PATRICK GAINER wrote:
UC wrote:

From: "UC"
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: APUG.org
Date: Sun, 08 Jan 2006 12:57:08 -0800


PATRICK GAINER wrote:


Did you have to take lessons on how to lose friends and antagonize
people, or do you just have a natural knack for it?



Let's put it this way:

Nietzsche is my hero.

I despise political correctness. I despise ignorance. I haven't the
slightest interest in what
anyone else says, only what he can PROVE. I know more than most people
do about photography. FAR, FAR more, and I can prove it.

Most people's minds are like garbage dumps. What they learn is more the
result of random chance than anything else. Few people pursue anything
systematically. They hold onto what they learned as children, or from
their first teacher, or whatever was their first experience. Their
religion, their language, their skills, are all a result of the place
of their birth. They seldom challenge themselves.

I, on the other hand, have thrown away what I used to believe in a
number of areas, because it is wrong, irrational, or both.

I was raised Catholic.
I am now an atheist.

I used to think were the best way to play tennis for me was from the
baseline, because that's what
the teaching pros taught me. They said I was too short to play serve
and volley.
I now play serve and volley.

I used to think Meryl Streep was a good actress.
I now think she's a fraud.

I used to push film.
I never push film any more.

I initially thought the zone system was valuable.
I now know it to be a fraud.

I used to think expensive cameras like Leica and Zeiss were rip-offs.
I now own a Leicaflex system, and have for 33 years.

The real mark of an intelligent person is the ability to learn, and to
throw over the common,
ordinary beliefs, and especially to throw away one's DEAREST beliefs.

It takes COURAGE too.

I used to believe a lot of the things that are popularly believed. I
was not afraid to reject them
when I found out that those beliefs were inadequate.

Most people don't have the guts to accept that they're wrong, and I
despise them for that. Most people don't bother to do the research that
I have done. Why? Most people are lazy and stupid. When I HAVE bothered
to do the research, and HAVE bothered to find out the TRUTH, not simply
'go along' with the crowd, they label me as an antagonist.

The truth is, I don't have time to explain every time WHY what I say is
true, and that the popular belief is false.

The lazy *******s don't deserve my time.

In other words, if I say something is so in photography, you can bet
your life it is true. I HAVE tried it myself, or I would not say
anything about it.

You will NOT find me discussing cars or motorcycle engines or tires or
poker or lots of things I know nothing about, because I know nothing
about them. If I did discuss such things, I would make it a point to
learn a lot about them FIRST.

When one master pianist was playing the piano, an interviewer told him
that he would give anything to play like that. The master pianist said
something like this: "No, you wouldn't. You wouldn't spend the time
that it takes. I have already have spent years and years. That's what
it takes. If you were serious about it, you would already have devoted
your life to it. Since you haven't, your just lying to yourself."

I spent the time and money to learn for MY benefit, not YOURS on anyone
else's. HOW MUCH did it cost you to learn what you 'KNOW'? If you
picked it up on the street, that's what it's worth.

I listen to photo conversations all the time. The people who are most
eager to dispense advice to beginners are hardly more than beginners
themselves. Reading discussion groups is very illuminating in that
respect.

I'm so fed up with dogma and zone system bull**** I could scream. Most
people pick up a copy of 'The Negative' and it never occurs to them to
question any aspect of it. Why? Because the reputation that Ansel Adams
has, and nothing else. Most people are cowards. They are afraid that if
they question the great bearded photo god they will be chastised.
They're right, of course. They WILL be chastised.

I have found that the people most intolerant of any criticism at all
are the zone system fanatics. That is why I call them zonazis. The name
is QUITE apt.

Those people are lunatics. Whatever Adams or Sexton says is, for them,
gospel. It is not to be questioned. That is the attitude I cannot
abide, and I SHALL NOT cease from attacking it, no matter where the
chips may fall.

It is often considered impolite to insist that all parties in a
discussion deserve equal respect. Bull****! Intelligent Design should
not be taught as science. It is NOT science, and no amount of political
pressure will make it science.

If I know something someone says in a discussion about photography is
incorrect or misleading, I will say so, in no uncertain terms.



UC:
I had planned to keep this between us, but you have decided to post it
on a public forum, so I feel I should reply publicly. There are so many
illogical statements in your diatribe I hardly know where to begin.
Neither do I care for political correctness for its own sake. I do know
things you do not know about logical argument. Assertions cannot be
proved. They can be accepted or disproved, but not proved. There is one
theorem that has been proved conclusively, and that is Godel's
incompleteness theorem.

You think atheism is the way to go? I agree with you that we do not know
what intelligent design is. But there is no such thing as pure
randomness either. Randomness only describes behavior that we cannot
accurately predict, not that is absolutely unpredictable. The creator of
the universe created all there is and ever will be in the first instant
of creation, including time itself. As far as I am concerned, the words
I am writing were known to the creator at the instant of creation, and
you cannot prove otherwise.

I had no intention of trying to prove that any of my developer formulas
would exceed your revered Acutol. I and others using them have found
that the stock solution has a very much greater resistance to aerial
oxidation. The formulas are considerably simpler. They allow preparation
of sulfite-free ascorbate developers, which in turn allow experimenting
to find the optimum sulfite content for any purpose. I don't care if you
or anyone else ever uses them. Even though I am retired from Government
service, I try to carry on what I was told my first day at NACA. "Our
only product is reports. We learn through study and experiment and pass
on what we learn in our reports."

You said "Most people's minds are like garbage dumps. What they learn is
more the result of random chance than anything else. Few people pursue
anything systematically. They hold onto what they learned as children,
or from their first teacher, or whatever was their first experience.
Their religion, their language, their skills, are all a result of the
place of their birth. They seldom challenge themselves."

Perhaps. But that is as dogmatic a belief as any you accuse us of
holding. You cannot prove it, both because of the limitations of human
logic, and because you would have to reason from some particular example
to the general.

You said "I, on the other hand, have thrown away what I used to believe
in a number of areas, because it is wrong, irrational, or both. I was
raised Catholic. I am now an atheist."

Now tell me what is irrational about Catholicism. I have been a staunch
Roman Catholic all my 78 years. My Godfather was a professor at St.Louis
University, a colleague of my father's. My sponsor at confirmation was
Vernon J. Bourke, a noted philosopher and translator of Aquinas and
Augustine, and also a professor at St. Louis University at the time.

You said "I used to think the best way to play tennis for me was from
the baseline, because that's what the teaching pros taught me. They said
I was too short to play serve and volley. I now play serve and volley."

Never was much at tennis. I was a member of a handball team while
attending power Memorial Academy in NYC, and earned a medal for my
efforts. That, of course, is the poor man's tennis. it only needs half a
court and no raquet. I was on a high school rifle team in Webster
Groves, MO and tied for second place in the Hearst Trophy match in St.
Louis at the age of 13.

You said "I initially thought the zone system was valuable. I now know
it to be a fraud."

I'm not much of a fan of the Zone system either, but I think if you
really knew it you would see its uses. Also, you'd better look up the
definition of "fraud."

You said "The real mark of an intelligent person is the ability to
learn, and to throw over the common, ordinary beliefs, and especially to
throw away one's DEAREST beliefs."

You seem to be trying to make the point that learning inevitably means
rejecting. You won't succeed. My intelligence has told me that my
dearest beliefs are worth holding. You are talking to the wrong guy. I
rebel sometimes, but out of curiosity, not for the sake of rebelling. I
like to seek alternate explanations of things I observe. I also know for
sure that any set of axioms at least as rich as arithmetic is incomplete
or inconsistent or both.

You ought not despise anyone. It is not good for YOUR psyche. Also, it
makes you despicable. You should love love, hate hate and scorn scorn.
I met a few rude performers while playing principal oboe for the Norfolk
Symphony. Only two out of many really stand out in my mind as being
rude, one famous pianist and one famous violinist whose names I will not
mention. The great majority were good people. The great tenor Jan Pierce
told us "Don't play too loud there. I'm just one little Jewish guy." and
"If anybody hears that last chord over the applause, I didn't do my
job". Isaac Stern was a good and kind person as well as a violin
virtuoso. He told the story of a lady who, after a concert, said to him
"Mr. Stern, you must have a very fine violin to be able to make such a
good sound." He handed her his fiddle and said "You know, I never get to
hear what it sounds like from a distance. Would you please play a few
bars for me?" He also was known to say "I left no tone unSterned."

You said "I spent the time and money to learn for MY benefit, not YOURS
or anyone else's. HOW MUCH did it cost you to learn what you 'KNOW'? If
you picked it up on the street, that's what it's worth."

I learned from others all they could teach me, but not all that I know.
That is the way it should be. I learned and applied much of my
photographic knowledge while working at NASA Langley Research Center,
Hampton, VA as an Aerospace Research Engineer. It was essential to
certain research projects. I also applied it while playing
professionally with various orchestras, photographing guest artists
during dress rehearsals, processing the negatives and prints and
presenting them to the artists the next day. Jorge Bolet, the piano
virtuoso, was a rabid amateur photographer who favored Canon.

You said "It is often considered impolite to insist that all parties in
a discussion deserve equal respect. Bull****! Intelligent Design should
not be taught as science. It is NOT science, and no amount of political
pressure will make it science."

Now we hit a paradox. If, as I have proposed, there is no such thing as
true randomness, then any possible design will qualify as intelligent,
including evolution. One cannot use the apparent process of design to
argue against the existence of a designer. If I stir up a batch of
chemicals, which might look pretty much like a random process to some, I
am not surprised when the result is the developer or whatever the
ingredients were supposed to produce. That developer was the result of
intelligent design, even though the mixing process appeared quite
random. Even if it doesn't work, it is a source of intelligence because
we learned that it doesn't work.

You said "If I know something someone says in a discussion about
photography is incorrect or misleading, I will say so, in no uncertain
terms."

Sure, but it is not necessary to call it bovine excrement. Lighten up.
Have fun. Make fun, even. And please do get treatment for your paranoia.

Pat Gainer

PATRICK GAINER wrote:

UC:
I had planned to keep this between us, but you have decided to post it
on a public forum, so I feel I should reply publicly. There are so many
illogical statements in your diatribe I hardly know where to begin.
Neither do I care for political correctness for its own sake. I do know
things you do not know about logical argument. Assertions cannot be
proved. They can be accepted or disproved, but not proved. There is one
theorem that has been proved conclusively, and that is Godel's
incompleteness theorem.


Philosophers, scientists, and similar professionals often change their
positions in response to arguments or newly discovered/recovered facts.

Let me illustrate.

A few years ago, I renewed my interest in translating Kant. I did some
research and found that a book had been published on that very thing!
Thrilled I was, this to know!

Gram, Moltke S., Ed. Interpreting Kant. Iowa City: University of Iowa
Press, 1982

Well, I read a few of the chapters, written by different philosophers,
and one in particular (by Richard Aquila) impressed me with its
cleverness.I called professor Aquila personally and told him precisely
that. In his article, Professor Aquila said that he had detected and
corrected some errors in the existing dominant translations of Kant's
major work.

Later, something told me to dig a little deeper. I found, after
engaging in considerable research and critical analysis, that one of
the translations was not wrong after all, and that Aquila had in fact
missed the whole thing. I did this by reconstructing the work of the
translator whom Aquila had thought to be mistaken. I wrote my analyses
into a paper and found a journal, Semiotica, that was interested in
publishing it.

It is now available on-line:

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/VERSCH.html

Later, I again spoke with Professor Aquila, who admitted that he was
'****ed off' at first when he read my paper, but then admitted that he
had not spent as much time on it as I obviosly had. He was convinced of
the soundness of the work I had done and the conclusions I had reached.

Two years later, I wrote a longer, similar paper that investigated
additional translation problems in the works of Kant and Nietzsche.

http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/texts/adv.html

So, you see, philosophers and others who deal with arguments and facts
often have to change their positions as circumstances dictate.

Zone system fanatics NEVER do this. Even Paul Butzi-who, so far as I
know, is the only zone system adherent to test the assumptions
underlying the zone system, and who published on his web site the fact
that decreased development gave virtually identical tonal
distribution-even Butzi still clings to the zone system like Linus
and his blanket. He CANNOT let go of the notion that variable film
development is necsessary, even though he PROVED it is not necessary
himself! That takes real mental gynmastics....

http://www.butzi.net/articles/zoneVC.htm

I don't know if I could live with myself if I did this...

"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

I don't give a damn what others think. What others think does not
change the facts...and I am especially intolerant of those who are
intolerant...I take no prisoners, and suffer no fools:

Not John Sexton
Not Ansel Adams
Not George Tice
Not Monte Zucker


The problem isn't so much what you say it's what you do, or don't do. Those
"fools" have gotten some pretty impressive results using their "quack"
theories. And you?

There is ONE and ONLY ONE thing that matters: what comes out on the
print.

Correct. The bottom line is: RESULTS. Where are your masterpieces?

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:13:43 GMT, "seog" wrote:

Correct. The bottom line is: RESULTS. Where are your masterpieces?

Perhaps they went down the toilet ? Quick ! Call the EPA !

JD

seog wrote:
"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

I don't give a damn what others think. What others think does not
change the facts...and I am especially intolerant of those who are
intolerant...I take no prisoners, and suffer no fools:

Not John Sexton
Not Ansel Adams
Not George Tice
Not Monte Zucker


The problem isn't so much what you say it's what you do, or don't do. Those
"fools" have gotten some pretty impressive results using their "quack"
theories. And you?

There is ONE and ONLY ONE thing that matters: what comes out on the
print.

Correct. The bottom line is: RESULTS. Where are your masterpieces?

I have no interest in showing or exhibiting at this time. I am working
on a large project documenting the decline of manufacturing in my home
city. When it's complete I'll have the work exhibited. I'm also
probably going to get a different enlarger somewhere along the way. The
one I own now does not give completely uniform illumination.

seog wrote:
"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

I don't give a damn what others think. What others think does not
change the facts...and I am especially intolerant of those who are
intolerant...I take no prisoners, and suffer no fools:

Not John Sexton
Not Ansel Adams
Not George Tice
Not Monte Zucker


The problem isn't so much what you say it's what you do, or don't do. Those
"fools" have gotten some pretty impressive results using their "quack"
theories. And you?

If you examine Sexton's work closely, the tonal manipulations are
obvious. I can even tell what sort of film he is using: T-Max. It gives
kind of lack-lustre lower middle tones, and the zonazi contracting that
he so often uses makes this even worse.

The results are inferior....


There is ONE and ONLY ONE thing that matters: what comes out on the
print.

Correct. The bottom line is: RESULTS. Where are your masterpieces?

I have no interest in showing or exhibiting at this time. I am working
on a large project documenting the decline of manufacturing in my home
city. When it's complete I'll have the work exhibited. I'm also
probably going to get a different enlarger somewhere along the way. The
one I own now does not give completely uniform illumination.

Vicious circle? He who shall remain nameless said, "I am especially
intolerant of those who are intolerant," like a vampire there must not be
any mirrors in his house.

I had a friend that contacted Fred Picker in person (back when he still was
still answering his own phone) with a procedural question about something
from Picker's book, Zone VI Workbook, he wasn't doing it Fred's way, Picker
chewed his heinie for that, then took the time to make some constructive
suggestions that got my buddy back on track. I miss reading Picker's
writings, he could be a bit rough, but he had the chops to go with it.
--
darkroommike

"seog" wrote in message news:b9Dxf.3211$ID1.1396@trndny01...
"UC" wrote in message
oups.com...

I don't give a damn what others think. What others think does not
change the facts...and I am especially intolerant of those who are
intolerant...I take no prisoners, and suffer no fools:

Not John Sexton
Not Ansel Adams
Not George Tice
Not Monte Zucker


The problem isn't so much what you say it's what you do, or don't do.
Those
"fools" have gotten some pretty impressive results using their "quack"
theories. And you?

There is ONE and ONLY ONE thing that matters: what comes out on the
print.

Correct. The bottom line is: RESULTS. Where are your masterpieces?