All forum contributors please read...behind a computer screen, we can be worse than childrengreenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread |
Sometimes I wonder what some of us are really doing here......I just finished reading a post by Chris Chen, where he made a list of great places to photograph, and asked for other's opinions.
Many replied with total and utter disrespect. And to those people I ask, "would you act this way in person?" I think 'probably not', or you'd have your socks knocked off!! Sure, we all don't have to agree on everything, but we can do our best to make comments with respect to others.
Lastly I'd like to leave you all with a thought.
"Instead of looking at another's actions, please look more closely at the reason behind the actions. Not "what", but "why". And in Chris Chen's example, he made the post to see what others thought. In other words he cares about your opinion, and would be greatful for positive (not negative) replies.
Now why should he be FLAMED for that? Because his post didn't mention the term "Leica photography". Isn't that obvious enough?
Please, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all.
-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002
Is this post Leica photography related?......If Leica photographers are meant to be nice people, I think so?Is it a necessary post? We'll see by the quality of responses.....
-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.
....and this has noting to do with having a "difference of opinion". It has to do with "insulting".
-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.
"...and would be grateful for positive (not negative) replies". I go along with this statement. Many of us can yet take negative statement PROVIDED it is stated constructively and in all sincerity. If my photos posted on this site should attract some negative statement, please do so in a gentlemanly manner. Or perhaps some of us have forgotten we are supposed to be gentlemen in the first place? In that case throw your tantrum somewhere else and stay away. Let's keep this forum meaningful to sustain its very existence for the benefit of each and every caring Leica (and related) user.
-- Paul Chan (janpo@tm.net.my), April 01, 2002.
Re subject here:I'd say "No -- with or without being behind a computer screen -- we can't be worse than children.
And if we can, is it always that bad?
-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), April 01, 2002.
A bit of banter ,or a pompous person can add.We all find pompous views amusing and banter is always good fun.Deliver me from Swedish temptation.
Mike Dixon you are the only person who can help him.You have been there, and everywhere. Regards Allen(i think he has a sense of humour).
-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 01, 2002.
Yes Kristian, I too was surprised by the "quality" of some of the responses to Chris Chen's post/question. I don't think an abundance of hostility is profitable in a forum that should welcome linked issues or concerns. Discussing peripheral issues does not necessarily threaten the, I should think, understood, centrality of the Leica forum theme.
-- Art Waldschmidt (afwaldschmidt@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.
Art, I stated this in response to your other thread, but I'll repeat it again. I think the reason there has been so much hostility to Chris Chen's posts is because of the sheer volume of threads he has started in the past week or so (some on topic, some very much off topic). Count how many threads he has started. I think that people were getting tired of his continually posting new threads without any sort of filter. This happens every so often here -- someone starts posting large numbers of on and off topic questions and people get angry.
-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.
I should add, Chris should post whenever and however he wishes. However, he shouldn't be surprised if he gets flamed on an off topic thread (or one that seems just seems like one) when he's started so many threads recently. Besides, it's the internet. It's all part of the fun. I don't think anyone should take this too seriously.
-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.
I'm sure that some of us old geezers may find some of the questions and/or answers silly or annoying. Be that as it may, I just giggle or groan to myself as the case may be. I don't have the time to waste typing out some retort to what I may think may not be up to the "importance" level of the "group". I just hope that all the questions keep coming at all levels. I try and be polite as I go through my daily grind and the older I get I try to keep from getting bothered by my pet peeves such as people on a cell phone while driving at 70 mph plus and not using their turn indicators etc. Life is too short and I don't need the extra stress....Good luck to all and keep posting. F. William Baker - Atelier 5.6 Photography
-- F. William Baker (atelfwb@aol.com), April 01, 2002.
Why get worked up over someone you have never met?
-- ray tai (jeslam88@netvigator.com), April 01, 2002.
I think Richard is correct in that when a person starts to heavily post many questions/ comments at a forum (any forum, not just here) usually the responses start to eventually turn negative. Restraint is a often a good thing, and some forums request users to limit there questions/comments to so many per week to avoid this type of scenario.
-- Andrew Schank (aschank@flash.net), April 01, 2002.
Being rude is low class.
-- George L. Doolittle (geodoolitt@aol.com), April 01, 2002.
perhaps if you did some postings.................he would not have to do so many.
-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 01, 2002.
KristianI think the best policy is as Tony asked -- just ignore this stuff. I don't think you initiating a new "non-thread" helps. It just clutters up the site even more. You don't have to act as a guardian. If you really have a complaint then you can email Tony privately. I am not sure this thread helps really. Oops, I have broken my own rule!
-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.
Kristian,You might think of your own words here in your above thread reply to Travis' excited posting of his work. You take a shot at him for sharing too many photos. How awful for someone to be excited enough about their photos to actually go to the trouble to share them. And you, too, can simply ignore them if you don't want to see them. There's wisdom in your words, for you too.
-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.
Correction--"take a shot" is too strong. You didn't insult him. But you did effectively tell him you didn't like what he was doing, if nicely.
-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.
Kristian. The other side of the coin you discuss (ie., the quality of the responses) is the quality of the questions posed. Most of us don't mind answering naive questions from newcomers, but it gets tiresome when the same individual starts numerous threads over a short period of time. Particularly when the questions are open ended and include a laundry list without a particular focus. Here, even reasonable individuals can get annoyed. I think human nature being what it is, these types of queries will continue to attract negative comments.
-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 01, 2002.
I like this forum and like to post here because:1. I like most of the responses.
2. Most are tech/design in nature; sort of why, always wanted to know...? Even though many posted answers seem contradictory and sometimes wrong (see body shell material. Andy P. had to ask a Leica rep. for the answer. Previous posts were wrong). I'm a techie.
3. I don't like rereading older threads. They seem to die out so quickly.
4. I like to try to "contribute".
5. This is the best I've found.
-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), April 01, 2002.
I second Robin here: the way this bbs is built, each thread really has a life of its own, and the interference between threads is very low. This is radically different to e-mail based lists such as the LUG, where one is submitted to ALL threads.Once you realise this, you'll find that there is not much use in initiating police threads such as this one. Robin is our benevolent cop and intervenes when he sees fit.
While I do produce my fair share of posts that seem rude to some readers, I personally find there is also rudeness in the following:
- initiating threads on this Leica list that are not directly related to Leica matters: many other lists specialise in other topics;
- posting low quality images or irrelevant images in the hope that being member of the Leica "family" will induce more tolerance to incompetence than what is found in the many lists dedicated to image critique;
- posting images or initiating threads that are not meant to trigger exchanges of opinion related to Leica specific issues. This list is not called "my personal photo album" or "general photography";
- asking a question that has been asked and fully answered many times (a categorised repository of past threads is available and useable, though not best of breed in search functions I must add);
- posturing all over the threads as a seasoned specialist when it is quite obvious that there is no meaningful practical photographic experience to support the pseudo knowledge being disseminated. Compulsive textbook posters, when merged with compulsive equipment collectors, are a plague (not refering to historical collectors here, those are really cute !).
When confronted with those signs of rudeness, I tend to respond in kind, when I'm too wound up to shut up. I know that is wrong but that is the way I am.
I find that usually, here and elsewhere, on-topic threads initiated in good faith are quite immune to rude posts. On this list, I find that "on topic" means "Leica photography", and I view this in a restrictive way.
-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.
oops, confused the "benevolent cop", who is Tony of course, not Robin. Apologies to both....
-- Jacques (jacquesbalthazar@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.
Eliot and Jacques--basic human attention seeking move is to try and get any response, even an ugly one. I can definitely see that in some of the post you two are writing about. Best response is absolutely no response. Ignore the thread and go on. If everyone who writes a bogus request got no feedback, they'd soon quit and go elsewhere to look for the attention they need. Giving ugly feedback only ends up reflecting badly on the feedbacker (if there is such a word), more so than the original writer. My 2c.
-- Charles (c.mason@uaf.edu), April 01, 2002.
Kristian, your point is well taken. I suppose my skin is not thick enough (nor is Chris'). When I made a reference to DAH's concept of photographing your own backyard first in response to Chris' travel photography post, I was trying to be helpful. When Chris misinterpreted it as a hostile attack, instead of explaining my reply I allowed myself to be drawn into the foray. My apologies to everyone.
-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.
Droogies, Baca Baca.Problem Bolshoi, Baca.
-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), April 01, 2002.
The anonymity conferred by the net should only go so far. I don't believe that anyone should be allowed to join, much less post, on any forum of any subject, without identifying themselves correctly including their e-mail address.Note the request ("Please don't use a fake e-mail address......") included in the instructions for posting. Personally I have no intention of responding to anyone who lacks the courtesy of following that simple instruction. Anyone come to mind whose e-mail address seems to bounce with regularity?
Jerry
-- Jerome R. Pfile, Jr. (JerryPfile@msn.com), April 01, 2002.
Quite honestly, I’m offended by both you and Chris Chen. Who do either of you think you are to lecture this forum with such a condescending, patronizing rant? I’m not your dog, wife, or kid. Maybe you feel free to talk to them that way, but not me. You both seem to want to hijack this forum for your own purposes. You both seem like a couple of pompous, self-absorbed, immature individuals. I’ve found both of you to instigate insults to other contributors of the type you seem to be ranting against. And the veiled threat of a contributor getting “their socks knocked off,” is a threat easily made behind a computer screen. A threat which reduces your spam to the lowest common denominator. So my answer is GROW UP!
-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.
Biff! Slap! Bang!Thank you, Batman. We (perhaps) needed that.
Seriously, I think an occasional reminder of the need for courtesy and respect is sometimes warranted by the direction of the ebb and flow of posts. Even on forums such as this with a fairly narrow focus, the diversity of individuals contributing is amazing. Whether participation is worthwhile, however, is a matter of the overall tenor of the communication to which we all contribute by the nature of our questions and responses.
While I'm a relatively new participant here (relatively new to Leica, as well), I've found the general tenor to be mostly positive, and the knowledge of many of the participants to be considerable. Occasionally, I notice some people popping in and out with responses that are rude and seemingly worthy of being ignored. But, I haven't been here long enough to know whether they are long-time contributors or not, so I personally reserve judgment. (Not my place to "judge" anyone else anyway.)
While any one of us can express our personal preferences for the direction of the forum with respect to topics of discussion, I believe that only Tony is in the position of issuing edicts in that regard. To me, it seems quite easy to ignore those threads that strike me as less interesting, or are intended only to grab attention or incite riots.
I will admit, however, that I find the use of bogus e-mail addresses very frustrating. If I can't respond to someone off-line because of a bogus e-mail, I start to question the veracity of their posts and their motivation.
-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), April 01, 2002.
Kristian. Yor really need to grow up, you seem to have become a self- appointed guardian of this free forum - directing people to act this way or that while continuing with your own hiprocysy. Stop interfering for goodness sake.
-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 01, 2002.
Who do either of you think you are to lecture this forum with such a condescending, patronizing rant?Uhh, Glenn, weren't you the one who, less than a month ago, was ranting about the pitiful quality of the photos everyone else was posting and claiming that you were the only one doing "real" photography?? And while we're on the topic of telling other people what they're not supposed to do: would you mind not making anymore inaccurate, irrelevant, and wholly-inappropriate comments about my relationships with models?
-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 01, 2002.
Kristian. Yor really need to grow up, you seem to have become a self- appointed guardianIf he is,what a good guardian he is.Keeps me nice,or else there will be a lot of upset Fools....try me.
-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 01, 2002.
I appreciate threads like this from time to time. It keeps the forum "self-policing" and gives participants room to vent a little bit.
-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@mail.com), April 01, 2002.
I will continue starting from this moment to ignore those negative comments made above.But I must say that I am very impressed with most of the responses. Some expected and some not. Special thanks gos to "Anon" for making the apology.
I am very much to blame fo making useless re-posts at times that are by no means constructive to others. I apologise for this. The reason I think people wish and continue to re-post is that it is much nicer to have an answer directed to yourself. You just feel more at peace and satisfied with the answer.
Some of you may feel "who is this Kristian guy and who does he think he is?"
The answer, he is a 23 year old marketing graduate feeling the need to stand up and say something before valuable forum members are discouraged and lost.
-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.
RE: OFF TOPIC POSTS:Sure some of us sometimes feel compelled to ask a question or leave a comment that isn't directly related to Leica photography.
Again, why? Maybe because we get to know and like the other forum members and wish to gain their knowledge and advice in another area. And usually it is these posts that ahve the most replies. Those who wish to complain should do so without typing.
-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.
"I will continue starting from this moment to ignore those negative comments made above.""who is this Kristian guy and who does he think he is?"
"Those who wish to complain should do so without typing"
Etc.
What? Anyone who actually has a different opinion to yours? Kristian, come on, your hiprocysy defies belief, after your recent (tounge in cheek?) racist comments, use of "f##king" type language, endless bag questions and laying down of your own "forum law" perhaps you should ease off, no?
-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), April 01, 2002.
:)
-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.
Giles,with respect.Why do you feel the need to to attack without cause,anyone who is trying to improve this Forum.Should we all send our posts to you for your approval.Sorry ,if i have upset you,but you are not the only person in the world.Post ,what you want,leave others to do the same.Love to read your posts.....are there any.
-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 01, 2002.
Steve/GilesStill waiting for your posts,or is it the case of BS.Well, do we really need to ask.
-- Allen Herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), April 01, 2002.
Thanks for the support Allen. Your turnaround must be acknowledged. :)
-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.
Jeez....Lighten up fellas! This is directed to all except Mike Dixon..... that lucky bastard!!!His camera is smiling as we speak.Life is too short....for this type of thing...unless it accomplishes more understanding.Harmony through conflict can work too.
-- Emile de Leon (Knightpeople@msn.com), April 01, 2002.
you are all so full of your own shit it is unbelievable. get a life! all of you! (except mike dixon of course)marc
-- marcia (marcia@photogs.org), April 01, 2002.
As the person who apparently set all this off with my comment to Chris, I must say I'm enjoying all this immensely! I just love how these complaints bring out the "touchy, feely" crowd who rant about "can't we just all get along"; to which I respond HELL NO!
-- Alec (alecj@bellsouth.net), April 01, 2002.
You guys kill me, you really do. I'm enjoying this thread immensely. The only site I have experienced that was more exciting than this one is photo.net. I say 'was' because photo.net seems to have settled down in recent months. Maybe Phil Greenspun finally saw the light and got rid of those despicable moderators he used to have - anyone remember those *ssholes?
-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.
This is defamatory to children! Every time I read about adults - usually politicians - being accused of being "worse than children," or of "behaving like they are in a kindergarten" I think, hell, kids behave much better than that!
-- David Killick (dalex@inet.net.nz), April 02, 2002.
David, you just took the words outa my mouth. That's exactly what I was trying to say above. The whole title of this posting is where it's at. Kids are often much better than some of us here are. Which, again, also isn't the end of the world.
-- Michael Kastner (kastner@zedat.fu-berlin.de), April 02, 2002.
Kids are much less callused towards the world than adults. They think freely, unlike many, many adults and do not limit themselves to social constructs and conventions, largely because the do not know them but also because they seem to be much more accepting of differences then most adults. There is a lot adults can learn from children, sadly most seem to be on their high horses and think they know better. This is where the problem lies. Kids would be willing to say what they are thinking and not get worried about hav[ing] your socks knocked off because they adults forgive kids for their foibles, why do some of us feel like we can't/shouldn't extend this same leniency to other adults?
-- Matthew Geddert (geddert@yahoo.com), April 02, 2002.