Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Ray on May 25, 2007, 12:19:51 am
-
There was a bit of deja vu when I noticed that a poster by the pseudonym of Boghb had been banned from the site for persisting in his personal views which were very critical of Michael. (Refer the MFDB section, James Russell?)
I was banned myself a few years ago for ignoring the warnings that I was sorely trying Michael's patience.
There's a problem that many of us have. If we think we are right, we can just go on and on. It's a type of fundamentalism. I'm very critical of religious fundamentalists, but the fact is, which I'm perhaps reluctant to admit, I am probably a rationalist fundamentalist. If you can't give me rationally justified evidence for an opposing point of view, I could go on and on almost ad infinitum, counteracting every argument which I thought was illogical and unsubstantiated by the available evidence.
The Lolita affair was a case in point. If Michael had not closed the threads, I'd probably be still arguing my point with an obsessive goal of squashing what I perceived as bigoted and irrational points of view.
However, I know from experience, that such arguments tend to get further and further away from the topic of photography, so I'm not surprised that Michael has closed the threads in question.
Perhaps we need a new section called 'Free for All'. Just kidding, the whole site is already 'free for all'.
-
The original contents of this posting have been removed by Michael and the following message sent to the sender...
I have deleted both your posts to Ray. You were totally over the top and rude.
You may restate your opinions in a calmer manner without the personal attack, drop the subject, or leave.
Do it again and you'll be removed from the forums.
Michael
-
And here I thought civility was dead...
-
Ericevans has now replied with an even rudder and more foul-mouthed response than before (deleted), so he has been removed from the forum and banned.
Any other malcontents wish to have themselves removed? If so, please let me know.
Otherwise – back to photography, and the spirit of polite and informed discourse which this forum has always tried to be about.
Michael
-
Bravo!
-
Some of these wacko forum users remind me of the guys who call the sport talk "Winer Line." The joke is that these guys are still living in their mother's basements and have little else to do! Michael is fair game to disagree with as are the rest of us but a personal rule can be don't say something on line that you wouldn't say to someone's face.
Peter
-
Some of these wacko forum users remind me of the guys who call the sport talk "Winer Line." The joke is that these guys are still living in their mother's basements and have little else to do! Michael is fair game to disagree with as are the rest of us but a personal rule can be don't say something on line that you wouldn't say to someone's face.
Peter
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=119553\")
I thought this subject was now off-limits. Obviously not.
Personally, as one of the 'wackos', I wasn't aware of being insulting. I only made the observation that few high end pros are prepared to discuss with lesser mortals and that for Michael to declare (May 19 2007, 11:01 PM ):
'If you continue to be offended by this issue, then maybe you should just find another place to hang out ...'
was unfortunate. I said 'insane'. That's Irish for 'not very sensible'. Perhaps that use of the word is understood in America as well? I guess so.
Michael replied:
'What utter rubbish. Can't you read? He asked to be removed. '
Well, I'm sure he did. But perhaps he (and the others) wouldn't have asked if the offer to leave hadn't been put so bluntly.
Anyway, I learned something. Had a look at the Troy House site:
[a href=\"http://www.troyhouse.com/]http://www.troyhouse.com/[/url]
Jaw dropping quality. JR was not alone. If anyone sees these guys posting anywhere in the future, please alert us.
Can't imagine why they would bother, though.
(So, Peter - if I said this to you in person, would you be offended? Maybe so. A different point of view seems enough to offend some).
-
PeterPix2005 said: --"Some of these wacko forum users remind me of the guys who call the sport talk "Winer Line." The joke is that these guys are still living in their mother's basements and have little else to do! Michael is fair game to disagree with as are the rest of us but a personal rule can be don't say something on line that you wouldn't say to someone's face."--
No, a good personal rule for Michael would be to lose the double standard. He dismisses those that are pissed at him with reasonable foundation, and allows guys like Jeff Schewe to treat people like crap on a regular basis.
Schewe can be seen, quite regularly, stomping around this forum tossing out sarcastic and insulting shots at people who come here asking questions. Why should a person trying to learn something have to deal with this on this forum?
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=0&#entry119571 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17054&pid=119571&st=0&#entry119571)
Michael said it himself, -- "Otherwise – back to photography, and the spirit of polite and informed discourse which this forum has always tried to be about."--
Well, I don't know about you guys, but, to me, that seems totally hypocritical when Michael allows Schewe's impolite behavior to continue. It's a classic double standard.
Tough love? Bullshit, it's called -Being An Asshole For No Reason, "Bud"-. That tough love crap is laughable and those associated with Schewe use that to conceal their embarrassment from being associated with him.
-
Since Jeff is a friend, I have spoken to him about this privately.
Your point is noted.
Michael
-
I don't consider myself a "malcontent," but I want my name removed. This will not bother Michael because I have never, nor do I ever plan to, spend money here.
I was not offended by the two half naked women embracing but was taken aback by Michael's attitude toward those who spoke out. It was simply tamer than other things Michael had seen.
I was not offended by Lolita, but again, by Michael's attitude. I would like to ask Lois Wakeman about her response. She seems amused by young girls experimenting with their sexuality with thong underware and low rise pants. I was wondering if she would be equally amused if a young girl turned around to reveal her pregnant belly hanging over those pants and she could see it was her granddaughter.
I have not been banned yet, but was threatened when I asked a "Superadministrator" what an artist is. This particular chap advertised himself as a "Visual Artist" so I thought he might know. Smart answer and a threat.
I also was a bit hard on a friend of Michael's who wrote an article about matt cutters and suggested that if we were serious about matt cutting, we would buy a $10,000 computer driven one. Many wring their hands over spending a few hundred bucks on a real Canon lens.
I see that calling those who do not agree with Michael whackos, whiners and residents of their mother's basement is acceptable. Disagree and you get membership in the Morality Police. I believe Michael called one person an asshole while being civil and adult.
I can handle Michael being a dictator, but he should attempt to follow the same rules he unevenly enforces on others. Maybe he will be happy swapping stories with his friends.
Howard Smith
-
I just hope all this hand-wringing, name-calling, conspiracy theorising, finger-pointing, mud-slinging and petty griping comes to an end soon.
I don't know what's happened recently, but this forum really seems to have been derailed by some bitter people with too much time on their hands, and it's a shame.
We all have our differences, folks. Just because someone's point-of-view doesn't match up with one's own is not necessarily a reason to go bashing out a reply on a forum about it. Take a deep breath and move on with your life instead. I've never known a forum discussion to result in anyone ever changing their opinion on any issues moral, political or religious. They are, however, wonderful places to share knowledge and experience, and we all benefit when the discussion stays on-topic and civil.
This forum is for discussions relating to photography. The park is for people who want to behave like children.
-
OK, another one bites the dust.
Maybe when this settles down we'll have a forum of civil folks who simply want to talk about photography.
If the snide bitching keeps up though I may be tempted to shut the damn thing down. It's becoming a royal pain.
Michael
-
Schewe can be seen, quite regularly, stomping around this forum tossing out sarcastic and insulting shots at people who come here asking questions. Why should a person trying to learn something have to deal with this on this forum?
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=0&#entry119571 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=17054&pid=119571&st=0&#entry119571)
Michael said it himself, -- "Otherwise – back to photography, and the spirit of polite and informed discourse which this forum has always tried to be about."--
Well, I don't know about you guys, but, to me, that seems totally hypocritical when Michael allows Schewe's impolite behavior to continue. It's a classic double standard.
Since Jeff is a friend, I have spoken to him about this privately.
Your point is noted.
Michael
Bookmarked and very much appreciated.
I agree, let's move on. Some of us may have learned from this whole story. Let's see.
Peter
--
-
OK, another one bites the dust.
Maybe when this settles down we'll have a forum of civil folks who simply want to talk about photography.
If the snide bitching keeps up though I may be tempted to shut the damn thing down. It's becoming a royal pain.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=0\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
it seems like you are enjoying yourself....
i haven't read anything UN civil here (maybe you came in in time to remove it before i could see it...don't know)....and i honestly think that the discussion about the photo and the title was one of the few discussions in this forum ABOUT photography....and not when the 1DSmkIII will be out and how many pixels it will have.....and "bashing" or "standing up for" one brand or another......it seems it is these silly discussion that take up a lot of bandwidth here.....
i don't agree with personal attacks or rude language, but i do believe in exchange....of course it is michaels right to remove whoever he regards as someone unfitting his forum....it is HIS forum...he runs it....
please michael, go ahead shut it down...you know that without this forum you would not get a fraction of the traffic you are getting.....and i think you like to have the traffic to keep doing what you are doing....we need a place like this and you need us to keep this place interesting for such a large audience....
what really surprises me is the unwillingness of most people here to chritize or question ANYTHING.....and automatically side with the authorities.....i mean what the hell is a post like the one up above.......BRAVO!...go michael? get rid of the "bad guys"?
james and troy were 2 of the few commercial shooters CONTRIBUTING here....they chose to be removed but i don't think this is in any way cause for celebration.....no matter how anyone feels about THAT photo or the title....and what i know about them tells me that they did not leave because of the image or the title but because of the way this whole thing was and still is handled....
it seems like this whole situation is leaving a bad taste in everybody's mouth......and maybe one of the reasons is that the actual issue seems still unresolved?
-
No, on the contrary. I am not enjoying myself. Quite the opposite.
And if you think that this forum is a significant contributor to the site's traffic, you are also mistaken. Big time. The forum generates less than 5% of the site's total traffic on any given day. It's a cost center and an occasional annoyance (at least recently) but I keep it going because I feel that it provides a contribution to the photographic community.
I regret that the Lolita nonsence got out of hand, but short of recanting (which I wasn't about to do then and won't now), it seems to have had a trajectory that was unavoidable.
I also regret losing some valuable contributors. But those that are unwilling to accept that reasonable people can have differing opinions, and who feel that they have the right to throw mud when they feel like it, have the right to move on on the one hand, and I have the right to eject them on the other.
Michael
-
The longer this goes on, the more glad I am that Michael dug in his heels and refused to change what I happen to feel was a lame choice of title (but not one so heinous that he deserved verbal crucifixion).
Some say there's nothing about photography in this discussion, but for me it's all about the use of meaningful titles versus simple Weston-style descriptions like "Amazon Girl I". Give a title that loads the image with the photographer's interpretation or suggestion thereof, or let the picture speak for itself and let dirty minds interpret it how they want?
John
-
Just want to put up a quick post to thank you for doing what you do, running the site and hosting this forum. The imagery, articles, tutorials, and this forum have done more for my photography and artistic growth than any other site, workshop, book, or class I have taken. It is an invaluable resource and one which I turn to over and over again. I'm sure the controversies, virtrol, and immaturity from visitors and guests to your site (as we all are) can be trying at times, but please remember that there are so many who derrive so much, even if it is not always readily apparent.
Best,
-John
-
Some time ago (a year?) I was deliberately insulted by Jeff Schewe on some minor thing, and was fairly unhappy. As time went by, and I read more Schewe forum talk, I started to think, "That's just Schewe." I don't think he intends it, I don't think he exactly calculates the effect of his words, and with all his intelligence and expertise, I suspect that characteristic is the reason he isn't a big shot at a digital-photographic programming company. But I concluded he's not a bad guy; despite his sometimes unseemly manner, he also chips in a good deal of information on subjects like Lightroom, and it's worth putting up with him to get that expertise. I appreciate his presence on the forum.
But Schewe's comments are considerably different than people who come here simply to slag other posters for their personal political positions, and who don't really have anything to contribute on the art of photography. Somebody else on one of these threads said it well, when he said that you shouldn't write anything that you wouldn't say to a person's face...
It's interesting that the threads that cause trouble don't really involve photography. The "Lolita" controversy was mostly about changing cultural, political and linguistic positions, not about the photograph itself. There are no "right" or "wrong" positions in these discussions, no "rational" or "irrational" positions, only a lot of assumptions and ego. They simply are not going to be won by logic; attempting to do so is pissing into a strong wind. I thought MR should have closed the thread more quickly than he did.
As for the folks who are leaving the forum...well, people come and go all the time. So what? And who's losing? I wish James Russell hadn't chosen to leave, but, when I come right down to the bottom of it, his departure doesn't really have much effect on me or my work; JR never told me where I could get a good deal on a SD card. But I would seriously hate to see this forum disappear. It's one reliable and generally comprehensible place to get good information on very specialized subjects from like-minded people.
JC
-
No, on the contrary. I am not enjoying myself. Quite the opposite.
And if you think that this forum is a significant contributor to the site's traffic, you are also mistaken. Big time. The forum generates less than 5% of the site's total traffic on any given day. It's a cost center and an occasional annoyance (at least recently) but I keep it going because I feel that it provides a contribution to the photographic community.
I regret that the Lolita nonsence got out of hand, but short of recanting (which I wasn't about to do then and won't now), it seems to have had a trajectory that was unavoidable.
I also regret losing some valuable contributors. But those that are unwilling to accept that reasonable people can have differing opinions, and who feel that they have the right to throw mud when they feel like it, have the right to move on on the one hand, and I have the right to eject them on the other.
Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119625\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I repeat: Bravo.
-
I repeat: Bravo.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119645\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It would be a terrible shame if this fine forum was shut down. Can't we all get along? Lets agree to disagree, bury the hatchet, swallow our pride and move on. If the forums are shut down, we all lose.
-
Just when I thought this was all behind us I find out how wrong I am.
I like this site and have learned a great deal from visiting. I lurked for many years before actually joining and I glad I finally joined.
I've never met Michael, never spoke to him. Yes I've written him and he back to me. I do have a good friend who has spoken with Michael (I do hope you sign the lens).
It appears to me that this might have been brewing from sometime now with a few folks who were waiting for just the right time to pounce. Let’s face it, not everyone likes everyone else, nether do they always like what those people they do like do all the time. This entire thing is very close to getting out of hand and I find it remarkable that Michael has kept his cool.
Art is supposed to be provoke feelings and this is exactly what the image and title has done. Bravo Michael.
This site is free. We are here as Michael’s guest much the same as being in someones’ house. You don’t go to their home being overly rude and expect a return invitation. Sure you’re mad. You’ve made your point countless times as Michael has. Move on.
In the grand scheme of things this is really small potatoes. We have folks fighting for their very lives all over the world. What we accomplish here is nothing to what they accomplish there.
If you really feel that you’ve been wronged and can’t take it any more – do something about it. Leave. Start your own website then see how happy you are.
Me? I do landscape and nature. I refuse to do people. I will, like Michael refuse to change an image or a title because a few folks might find it offensive. I’m also the same person who will not move the rusting can in order to get a better shot. I’ll either move to another spot or take the image as is.
Remember censorship in any form is bad.
I’m a photographer first writer second so I hope I’ve gotten my point across.
Thank you all.
-
I have deliberately stayed out of the fray up till now because I didn't want to contribute more mud to the waters.
But I, too, want to thank Michael for being a kind, generous, and generally tolerant host. Let me add my own fervent "amen" to the previous five posts, by John, another John, Hank, Andrew, and Don. I agree with every word they have said.
Regards,
Eric
-
This site is free. We are here as Michael’s guest much the same as being in someones’ house. You don’t go to their home being overly rude and expect a return invitation. Sure you’re mad. You’ve made your point countless times as Michael has. Move on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=119651\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Excellent point, we are guests here and we should act accordingly. It is unfortunate that some lack the responsibility of being courteous. That is all I want to say.
-
So, Michael... Can we see the Bull fighting shot again???
Kidding!! Keep doing just what you're doing.
-
This entire nonsense has become tedious and somewhat juvenile, but I feel I must set the record straight.
I am the one who posted about girls playing with their sexuality. I am not Lois Wakeman. I don't know her, but I feel that she should not have to bear the burden of my opinion! I am Katherine Mann. If you have an issue with my opinion you are welcome to message me privately.
-
I agree with those that left and disagree with Michael's position and opinions on the Lolita affair, but I'm still here. Being here doesn't mean I support Michael or his views. I just enjoy reading posts from grown 'adult' male Diva's, Prima Donna's and Drama Queen's sometimes. Meh, so some of them left. The internet is full of them.
Regards, Art. (I find it quite amusing who started this thread too - maybe he's seen the light? D'oh! My bad ...)
-
I've been completely quiet on this subject so far, because I see it all as people turning a molehill into a mountain (reminicent of the bullfighting photo mess of a couple of years ago). There are some people who just can't agree to disagree; if we lose them, there are still plenty of us left here.
The only reason I'm posting now is to thank Michael for running - and especially for providing substantial encouragement for - this great forum over the years. I've learned more about photography here than anywhere else. Don't let this latest brouhaha disillusion you.
Some people will leave, but others will keep showing up. Life goes on.
Thanks,
Lisa
-
I'll join you in this Lisa.
Whatever the opinions, we shouldn't forget that these discussions are allowed to take place because Michael is making this forum available to us.
I have personnally always been impressed by the degree of freedom of speech here compared to many other forums. I do disagree with Michael's views on a number of issues, but have never felt that it was a problem to express these opinions.
Thanks again Michael.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
What Lisa and Bernard said. I don't personally care for the Lolita photo, but I see no reason to get all bent out of shape over it and accuse Michael of aiding and abetting or condoning child molestation.
-
Man, you go out of town for a week and what do you get...
Is the bullfighting photo and surrounding controversy still online, I don't think I was around then and am curious.
-
I appreciate the supportive comments, but can we please move on? The longer this thread remains alive, the greater the opportunity for someone to reenergize it.
I'm therefore going to close it. I hope no one interprets my closing of a supportive thread as indicative of anything other than a desire for this chapter to be over.
Michael