Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: Kevin Raber on July 28, 2018, 06:05:59 pm
-
I just published a new article about the decision to end any political discussion on the Forum's Coffee Corner. Notices are posted at the top of this About The Site Section as well as the Coffee Corner and this ARTICLE (https://luminous-landscape.com/changes-on-the-forum-coffee-corner/).
-
Bravo! One comment/suggestion if that’s OK:
any new political thread will be summarily locked or deleted;
Delete them. Vaporize them. ;D If just locked, they remain as a forum “paper trail” and these posts don’t deserve an archive.
-
Good!If I wanted to (which I don't ) talk poltics I'd be on Face Book. I come here for the photographic content.
-
Good!If I wanted to (which I don't ) talk poltics I'd be on Face Book. I come here for the photographic content.
Me too! Me too!
-
About time.
-
Thank you!
-
The Nature Photography site and forums that I am a co-founder of did the same thing for the same reasons about two years ago in the run-up to the 2016 election and all of the divisiveness that it generated. But we found it was impossible to police within the sub-section of the site (similar to Coffee Corner here) since people had been conditioned to vent there. We ended up having to shut down that section completely to make it stop without becoming a moderators nightmare. Once we eliminated that section, the photo related discussions just naturally moved to other forum sections on the site and the politicing pretty much went away with the exception of stuff about endangered species and the loss of public lands which are appropriate discussions on a Nature Photography site but it's easier to moderate the one or two threads active at any given time about that stuff then a whole section that people got used to venting their political stuff in.
-
As on a number of occasions I have been critical of recent developments at Lula I - for one - am delighted to enthusiastically applaud this new policy regarding Coffee Corner.
Some have claimed in the past that this would be a denial of freedom of speech but that is nonsense. To deny access to views about a particular form of photography or make of hardware would be denial of freedom of speech in our context not editing to retain focus on the purpose of the site. Lula has always been essentially a site concerned with Photography. It built - under Michael Reichmann's leadership - an enviable reputation for expert, informed and impartial information and discussion of relevant topics in that field. Kevin Raber and his team have developed from that base to broaden that approach to keep in step with developing trends in the styles of communication but keeping closely to the essential subject matter - sometimes in ways that old curmudgeons like me find difficult to take on board. A difficult line to tread but the future of the site requires it to be trod.
If serious discussion of political issues is what is wanted it is perhaps better to be involved with a site which offers similar levels of expertise and knowledge in that field as Lula offers in its' area of expertise.
Or, of course, if we want to rant and rail and merely take our prejudices out for an airing there is always the local Bar !!
Well done the Kevin Raber team.
-
Yes, indeed: Well done!
And I hope this will give Jeremy time to do some photography!
-
You have stronger stomachs than I, lasted longer than I could have borne. Right decision, it has completely tainted my view of LuLa.
-
Good!If I wanted to (which I don't ) talk poltics I'd be on Face Book. I come here for the photographic content.
This might be a contest winner for the most ironic forum post of the year. :)
-
It's been said by many here, many times, - including those in favour of unfettered debate - this is Kevin's party and Kevin gets to set the agenda.
Take it or leave it.
-
I don't visit the forums much but I've seen politics ruin other forums too (photography forums). It ruins the mood anyway. I really don't care about anyone else's political view on a photography forum. There are plenty of other places to discuss (argue) politics on the internet anyway. I don't know why anyone would be offended that you can't discuss politics here either. If I'm paying the bills I'd feel free to say whatever I want, but if someone else is paying the bills, then I will gladly limit my topics to those that the bill payer says is ok. The payer is the sayer ;-) I haven't read ANY of the replies to this posting but there usually seem to be some people that feel their free speech is being trampled. That's nonsense and any adult should have a little sense and recognize that again, the payer is the sayer :-) If you want politics, feel free to register your own domain, get your site created and pay the bills to keep your own political discussion forum up and running. Otherwise, stick to what everyone knows this site is about anyway...photography.
-
The Nature Photography site and forums that I am a co-founder of did the same thing for the same reasons about two years ago in the run-up to the 2016 election and all of the divisiveness that it generated. But we found it was impossible to police within the sub-section of the site (similar to Coffee Corner here) since people had been conditioned to vent there. We ended up having to shut down that section completely to make it stop without becoming a moderators nightmare.
I hope that won't happen here. I log on pretty much every day and I will rigorously enforce the new criteria for permissible posts.
Yes, indeed: Well done!
And I hope this will give Jeremy time to do some photography!
Let's hope, eh? I'll be in France and Spain shortly, so I'll do my best.
Jeremy
-
Let's hope, eh? I'll be in France and Spain shortly, so I'll do my best.
Jeremy
San Sebastian and Bilbao??? We were there in May, both towns are wonderful and great food along the way.
-
Finally. Thank you!
-
Finally. Thank you!
+1
Dave
-
Well, I can see where you’re coming from, but if you think that (a) climate change is politics because it has been hijacked by self-serving cynics (of all stripes), and even more, (b) that the security of the natural environment is not an issue that landscape photographers should be concerned with, then frankly, shame on you. I guess “toy shop” is pretty much the level around here these days.
-
Good move.
I for one come to this place to read the views of fellow photographers on that subject. To have ones impression of those photographers coloured by their ideological positions is divisive and not at all constructive.
Politics should be like dirty boots: taken off and left outside the front door.
-
This can only make Luminous Landscape a better place for everyone. It takes courage but it was the best thing to do.
Victor
Edit: I did not read the first post by Jeremy regarding 'The end of Politics' before this post. It also took courage on Jeremy's part to admit that he was wrong regarding politics and this site. Hats off to everyone for making this move.
-
Politics should be like dirty boots: taken off and left outside the front door.
Amen!
-
Good!If I wanted to (which I don't ) talk poltics I'd be on Face Book. I come here for the photographic content.
Photographic content that was denied you by... ?
Simple, just like a menu in a restaurant: you get to choose what you want to consume without being forced to sample anything you don't want to have.
Contents pages help you choose your destination. That's why they are there.
-
Simple, just like a menu in a restaurant: you get to choose what you want to consume without being forced to sample anything you don't want to have.
Until what you ordered comes laced with Salmonella!
-
When the plumbing is clogged up it's best not to keep using the indoor toilet. LuLa has (wisely IMO) chosen to direct folks outdoors when they need to go.
-Dave-
-
When the plumbing is clogged up it's best not to keep using the indoor toilet. LuLa has (wisely IMO) chosen to direct folks outdoors when they need to go.
-Dave-
+1.
-
I'd still be interested to know how all the people who didn't like it were being forced to read it. The decision is fine, but I'm utterly stunned at the number of folks who have been upset or annoyed or in some way put out due to voluntarily reading content they didn't like. Again and again.
/shrug
-
So no political landscapes anymore...;)
Must say i think i know by now where everyone that participated stands... in the landscape...
and there was not so much debat, it read more as a serials of proclamations ...running round in circles.
I don't think the forum posts has changed anyones view...
So lets go back to were we are supposed to be better at... back to nature - photography
-
I'd still be interested to know how all the people who didn't like it were being forced to read it....
/shrug
'Forced' is likely too strong a word ;D, however readers on Tapatalk see everything posted and if one uses the 'Show unread posts..' that also shows all new posts...
Frankly, the Coffee Corner's silliness [uses mild word] has been a serious PIA for two years or more. Time to move on.
-
I'd still be interested to know how all the people who didn't like it were being forced to read it...
Apparently, thanks to Tapatalk.
I hate Tapatalk. I tried it once, tried very hard to like it while I was using a rather small screen iPhone, as it makes text easier to read without reading glasses. Had to delete the app after a brief while, for the same reason others are complaining, plus advertisements. No, not because of visible political discussions, but the fact that it makes you see two lines of text and an image for every bloody post, whether I wanted to read it or not. That made me abandon Tapatalk, not LuLa, but to each his own.
-
Great MOVE! I'm kinda tired of the " person characterized by concern primarily with his or her own thoughts and feelings" This site needs all the LOVE it can get.
-
My difficulty was never that anyone forced me to read it, nobody did, and I didn't. The problem was that it was there. Anything I wrote for the main site would be inevitably linked, however tenuously, to an ongoing dumpster fire. By posting to the forums, I would only have strengthened that link. I'm a fairly busy fellow, as are many other contributors of various kinds, and giving my time to a place like LuLa is something I choose to do because I feel good about it.
I don't want to live next to a garbage dump, whether I smell it or not. Since I have that choice, I elected to not live next to one. The dump has moved on, and so the otherwise pleasant neighborhood is once more appealing to me.
-
My difficulty was never that anyone forced me to read it, nobody did, and I didn't. The problem was that it was there. Anything I wrote for the main site would be inevitably linked, however tenuously, to an ongoing dumpster fire. By posting to the forums, I would only have strengthened that link. I'm a fairly busy fellow, as are many other contributors of various kinds, and giving my time to a place like LuLa is something I choose to do because I feel good about it.
I don't want to live next to a garbage dump, whether I smell it or not. Since I have that choice, I elected to not live next to one. The dump has moved on, and so the otherwise pleasant neighborhood is once more appealing to me.
Brilliantly stated! There's absolutely no reason for such political discussions stinking up the best site dedicated to photography.
Perhaps those 'hurt' but this new move can find a forum dedicated to politics that just happens to also have a sub-forum where people also post about photography and should move there from now on.
-
... I don't think the forum posts has changed anyones view...
That's not necessarily entirely true. Perhaps not our global view, turning liberals into conservatives and vice versa, or changing who we are voting for, but that is not the purpose of debate and education through debate. The purpose of debate is to broaden our horizons. That means expending our understanding of an issue to include different aspects and different perspectives, or at least being aware of it.
Debates often start with taking extreme positions on both sides, and good debates result in finding something in common and taking into account the opposing views. There is also an exchange of facts, not just opinions, some of which we may not have been aware prior to the debate. None of us is expert in all areas.
People like Farmer (Phil Brown) and James Clark, for instance (with apologies if I missed someone), are capable of presenting their cases clearly, supported by facts, logically, and mostly rather politely, to the point that expanded MY OWN understanding of the issue. There were instances were we totally agreed on a subset of an issue. It may not show immediately in the heat of the debate, both those different perspectives tend to sink in over time.
Debate is the only way of defusing extreme positions, so prevalent these days, and the best alternative to getting onto barricades and shooting each other.
-
Debate is the only way of defusing extreme positions, so prevalent these days, and the best alternative to getting onto barricades and shooting each other.
Then go back to the old and tired photo debates such as Nikon vs. Canon, Mac vs. PC, raw vs. JPEG (raw vs. RAW) shooting the Pacific Ocean vs. Atlanta, etc. :P
SLOBODAN: LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE (https://luminous-landscape.com) IS A WEB SITE AND FORUM DEDICATED TO PHOTOGRAPHY (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography)!
Can you contribute to that topic? Please do.
-
What about photographs or photographic essays with strong political content? Will they be also banned from LuLa?
-
... I don't want to live next to a garbage dump, whether I smell it or not...
I tried really hard to let this one go, but couldn't. YOU started a few dumpster fires of your own, or poured gasoline on others. And then realized it stinks too much and elected to leave. And now you are holier than the Pope. Sheesh!
-
...and mostly rather politely, to the point that expended MY OWN understanding of the issue...
Perhaps it would have been better if they had expanded your understanding... ;D
-
Perhaps it would have been better if they had expanded your understanding... ;D
Thanks, Eric, corrected.
-
Then go back to the old and tired photo debates such as Nikon vs. Canon, Mac vs. PC, raw vs. JPEG (raw vs. RAW) shooting the Pacific Ocean vs. Atlanta, etc. :P
SLOBODAN: LUMINOUS LANDSCAPE (https://luminous-landscape.com) IS A WEB SITE AND FORUM DEDICATED TO PHOTOGRAPHY (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography)!
Can you contribute to that topic? Please do.
RAW vs raw can be the next real issue ;D
-
I never claimed to be particularly holy, Slobodan. You made that part up.
Knock off the personal attacks. I am reporting them, yes. And I will continue to.
-
I am reporting them, yes. And I will continue to.
+1! But some show their true colors to other members even when the topic isn't about politics.
I suspect this post will soon be locked down and frankly I don't see why it shouldn't be considering the line drawn in the sand here that most accept and appreciate.
And IMHO guys and gals, it's raw, not RAW unless you're talking about maybe wrestling and here's a photo composite to prove that point. Debates about the quality of the photography or Photoshop work? ::)
Dr. Google found this for Solbodan, seems a good start:
https://www.debatepolitics.com
-
Good!If I wanted to (which I don't ) talk poltics I'd be on Face Book. I come here for the photographic content.
Good!If I wanted to (which I don't ) talk poltics I'd be on Face Book. I come here for the photographic content.
Good point! Even worse than the political discussions are the threads showing images with blurry liquids and those silly vertical smudges. I really hate to be forced to see such disgusting pictures. Time to return to the photography.
-
I tried really hard to let this one go, but couldn't. YOU started a few dumpster fires of your own, or poured gasoline on others. And then realized it stinks too much and elected to leave. And now you are holier than the Pope. Sheesh!
Actually, I like Andrew, I like his website, and on the whole, your posts, Slobodan, tend to annoy me, but you‘ve got an extremely good point here. Initially Andrew was a very disruptive forum participant at Lula. Now he’s in the tent, pi**ing out. And being a touch hypocritical. Pity.
-
Really time to close this here, too. And I hope the discussion will not return elsewhere!
Just another image, perhaps a better fit for LuLa:
Imagine visiting an exhibition of fine photos. Would anyone be able to enjoy it, if part of the audience is shouting at each other in the hallway? Certainly not me. Probably I'd leave after a while, because it's not possible to do, what is the purpose of the exhibition. There might be some with bad ears or good nerves who do not care about the shouting, few might even find it interesting, as they find everything that happens interesting. But most people will be disturbed and just leave quietly, shaking their heads.
-
Really time to close this here, too. And I hope the discussion will not return elsewhere!
Just another image, perhaps a better fit for LuLa:
Imagine visiting an exhibition of fine photos. Would anyone be able to enjoy it, if part of the audience is shouting at each other in the hallway? Certainly not me. Probably I'd leave after a while, because it's not possible to do, what is the purpose of the exhibition. There might be some with bad ears or good nerves who do not care about the shouting, few might even find it interesting, as they find everything that happens interesting. But most people will be disturbed and just leave quietly, shaking their heads.
Imagine the exhibition was at, say, an exhibition centre. In a different part of the exhibition centre, a boxing match was on. Because it's in a different part of the centre and you're not being forced to walk through that part, you enjoy your time at the photo exhibition and go home, only aware that there was a boxing match but never seeing it because you didn't go over there and look. That's what most people do.
-
I never claimed to be particularly holy, Slobodan. You made that part up.
Knock off the personal attacks. I am reporting them, yes. And I will continue to.
Absolutely nothing that Slobo said was a personal attack on you. I've seen more robust exchanges of "good morning" between friends.
Here is the rule that kept Fidonet running for decades:
1) Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.
2) Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.
Under 9.1 General at https://www.fidonet.org/policy4.txt
Number 2 is the genius part of it.
I have zero concerns with the decision made, by the way.
-
'Forced' is likely too strong a word ;D, however readers on Tapatalk see everything posted and if one uses the 'Show unread posts..' that also shows all new posts...
Frankly, the Coffee Corner's silliness [uses mild word] has been a serious PIA for two years or more. Time to move on.
For sure, Chris. It's really a non-issue as a decision - the site is the site and that's good. As for Tapatalk, I'm with Slobo that it's not a great experience, but I just tried it again (still not great) but I still managed to navigate the site without reading something I wasn't interested in (by looking at the subject). By the exclamation of some people you would have thought they were made to read it at gun point :-)
-
What about photographs or photographic essays with strong political content? Will they be also banned from LuLa?
Not necessarily. Read my post (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=126087.0).
Jeremy
-
Before this thread gets locked down I would make the point that the entire discussion as well as the threads that were locked on the Coffee Corner (including the climate change ones that I thought would be apolitical but ended up not), is highly reminiscent of Akira Kurosawa's great film 'Rashomon.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon) Amazing the various viewpoints everyone had as well as their responses.
I'm pretty much in agreement with Phil and Slobodan (we even agreed on some topics) about the threads. Personally, I think it will be a loss. In the end it is LuLa's management that makes the decision.
Far more worrisome to me is not the shutting down of the 'Coffee Corner' with respect to politics but that gradual lack of participation and new topics in the technical sections of LuLa. I seldom read the camera reviews as I see no need for new gear but I regularly read and participate on the color management, printer, & LR fora and over the past 2-3 months it appears that activity perceptibly slowed. To me this has been the major value of LuLa and if it disappears there is really not much value in the site (just my opinion obviously and I purchased the excellent technical videos that were done by Michael and Jeff). But this is probably a topic of another thread.
-
Before this thread gets locked down I would make the point that the entire discussion as well as the threads that were locked on the Coffee Corner (including the climate change ones that I thought would be apolitical but ended up not), is highly reminiscent of Akira Kurosawa's great film 'Rashomon.' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashomon) Amazing the various viewpoints everyone had as well as their responses.
I'm pretty much in agreement with Phil and Slobodan (we even agreed on some topics) about the threads. Personally, I think it will be a loss. In the end it is LuLa's management that makes the decision.
Far more worrisome to me is not the shutting down of the 'Coffee Corner' with respect to politics but that gradual lack of participation and new topics in the technical sections of LuLa. I seldom read the camera reviews as I see no need for new gear but I regularly read and participate on the color management, printer, & LR fora and over the past 2-3 months it appears that activity perceptibly slowed. To me this has been the major value of LuLa and if it disappears there is really not much value in the site (just my opinion obviously and I purchased the excellent technical videos that were done by Michael and Jeff). But this is probably a topic of another thread.
As do most of the sections and sub-sections of this and many other photography fora.
It's called summer.
-
Given that I seem to have made something around 20 posts in the coffee corner in toto in the last 2 years, I have difficulty visualizing how the "very disruptive" label applies, but I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder.
ETA: My crimes and wickedness are all a matter of public record, and well known to all involved here. To pretend that I am "hiding" them, or hoping that nobody remembers them, is silly. To imply that I should attach an Appendix A listing all my own crimes before commenting on anyone else's is equally silly. Of course I also have poo on me. I did not realize this was a secret (because it's not).
-
... It's called summer.
Or is it already fall (in the interest in all things digital)?
The winter of our discontent is not to far away either, when most of us realize that all that glorious techical development and the shiny new gear has not made us better photographers ?
-
Or is it already fall (in the interest in all things digital)?
The winter of our discontent is not to far away either, when most of us realize that all that glorious techical development and the shiny new gear has not made us better photographers ?
Obv, yours still look like cell-pics... ;-)
-
It has been suggested to me privately that there may be a perception that I have a privileged relationship with Kevin and/or Chris. How can I put this precisely...
I don't.
I know them via email, slightly, and they run one of several different web sites that occasionally publish something I have written. I have criticized LuLa in the past and no doubt will again, and I have praised LuLa as well, and hope to do so again. That's it.
-
Given that I seem to have made something around 20 posts in the coffee corner in toto in the last 2 years...
Given the current era of 5-min attention spans, it is a miracle that some people can remember beyond 2 years ;)
-
It has been suggested to me privately that there may be a perception that I have a privileged relationship with Kevin and/or Chris.
It was probably suggested because the absurd is the last refuge of a pundit without an argument. ;)
-
Given the current era of 5-min attention spans, it is a miracle that some people can remember beyond 2 years ;)
I can't remember what you just posted. Can you repeat it?
-
I won't miss it. I can find political arguments anywhere if I really want one.
-
Good!If I wanted to (which I don't ) talk poltics I'd be on Face Book. I come here for the photographic content.
+1!
Photography defeats the media & politicians by bringing us together.
Kent in SD
-
I'd point out that what was going on in the Corner was the antithesis of debate. A debate is an honest discussion amongst people who may disagree re. the topic at hand but recognize each other's basic good faith. What we had here were for the most part mutual coercion fests amongst dug-in believers. When an approach is tried multiple times and not only proves unpersuasive but results in a hardening of attitudes, a rational person will acknowledge failure and either change strategy or move on.
-Dave-
-
Now that the debates are closed, everybody seems to be the cool guy who knows what a “true” debate is. Hic Rhodus, hic salta, when you had a chance.
-
Far more worrisome to me is not the shutting down of the 'Coffee Corner' with respect to politics but that gradual lack of participation and new topics in the technical sections of LuLa. I seldom read the camera reviews as I see no need for new gear but I regularly read and participate on the color management, printer, & LR fora and over the past 2-3 months it appears that activity perceptibly slowed. To me this has been the major value of LuLa and if it disappears there is really not much value in the site (just my opinion obviously and I purchased the excellent technical videos that were done by Michael and Jeff). But this is probably a topic of another thread.
The problem might be - if it exists, and I don't know because I don't pay a heap of attention to that stuff anymore - that people have come to realise that the wonderful promise of digital photography, instant art sales and personal glory beyond words is hype, as much as all those kinds of promises have ever been.
If that's so, and as I say, I can't know - then it is no surprise that those who might have cared, probably coming into digital from film and thus of a certain age and spending power, have realised the dream was just that, and called it a day. It would fit in with falling camera sales, too.
New generations, born to the cellphone camera ethic, will grow to accept its imagery as the standard of excellence, straight from the 'phone, pretty as a picture and instantly fit to send to the rest of the gang doing exactly the same thing. Why would they give a damn about all that stuff about fine art photography? Print quality; somebody prints? Do they all flock to see Rubens? No, they all flock to look at celebrities on tv - on tv? am I serious? - on the Internet. Times have changed, and culture too. Those who cling to old-fashioned notions of quality are an endagered species with no refuge in sight. One of the last bastions of visible print quality was the glossy magazines; for how much longer can they survive before either vanishing completely or being but a misrable, online shadow of their former glory?
Don't for a moment think it's unique to photography or publishing: look at the local High Street. I was chatting with my daughter today about the gents' tailor shops that would make the suits we teens used to wear at weekends, all the different shoe shops that competed, side-by-side; she'd never heard of them, and on looking the names up on the 'net, was amazed to see how much that was standard is no more. And she was born in the 60s. It's been that rapid. Even the famed dress boutiques of that decade have gone with the wind - who would have ever imagined that a newly-found, democratic freedom for young women to buy cheaply and look great wasn't enough for survival? Anyone really believe the world is going to continue to give a fig about learning photographic techniques and spend the money - or the time - on the hobby we profess to love? How much time do we, here, really spend on it?
What is there to say about photography online, or in the pub, for that matter? Even as pros, we were hard put to engage in tech talk; we were very keen to talk about photographers we knew or knew about, what they did, who gave them space in which publication, but that was all shop talk. Remove the business from the baby and "what do you got?" Not much. It's obvious here, too, with the gear plateau of today; the good people have nothing new to discuss. No new toys, no conversation, because as I say, what can you say about pictures that means anything to anyone but yourself? We tried to make street into a breath of fesh air, and what happened? In the end, a few snaps, some good, some mediocre and some lousy. What else is to be expected? How good were all the stars 100 percent of the time, and they spent their working lives doing it?
And even with those who spend time writing about photographic technique, how much photography do they actually post? You know, walking the walk etc.
Maybe we just didn't hear the bell tolling. Or the goddam thing is cracked.
-
I'd guess I'm about the same age as your daughter, Rob.
It's not dead, but it is wildly different, fragmented into a thousand, a million, little threads.
Online, it's tough. There's a massive homogenization effect as everyone comments on everything, and everyone hunts for Likes and approval. The web sites that raked in the money 10 years ago are struggling and dying now, because it turns out that anyone can set up a web site and steal a little of your traffic and anyways online ads don't work very well after all so revenues on that side are in free fall.
Outside that obvious visible world, there's loads of people hustling away doing their own thing. There's guys with a photocopier and a saddle stapler putting out 'zines with great work in them. There's people who self-pub on this platform or that, there's a million sketchy little Fine Art Publishing houses out there that are thinly veiled vanity presses, but every so often I dare say even they produce something good.
In a way it's similar to the online world, in that lowered barriers to entry have caused an explosion of bit players, as well as the demise of the larger players. But in these little print worlds, there's still a need to commit, you have to spend time and money to actually make something, so the work tends to be a heck of a lot better. You might not like it, but someone's actually working on it, they've got an idea.
What are they doing? Telling contemporary stories using the same old methods, I think. But the stories are new, and that's kind of the point, right?
The audiences are small, and nobody's really making much money, but then again, mostly nobody made much money in the old days either. It's still a good way to go broke while making pictures that please you and maybe a few other people. I "sold" $50 worth of 4x4 prints raising money for my kid's school. Gave the rest away. Since the whole edition cost me $20 and a few hours to put together, I feel pretty good about it.
-
Hic Rhodus, hic salta
I'd not come across this before, but it's great, and spot on.
-
I had to look that up, too.
In addition I learned that the numerical value of HIC RHODUS, HIC SALTA in Chaldean Numerology is: 3, while the numerical value of HIC RHODUS, HIC SALTA in Pythagorean Numerology is: 7.
Maybe we can start a thread to debate on the relative merits of these two branches of numerology. ???
-
Maybe we can start a thread to debate on the relative merits of these two branches of numerology. ???
My branch is better than your branch!!
(I had to look it up too, and was amused to discover that Slobodan is actually a Marxist :-) )
-
Given that I seem to have made something around 20 posts in the coffee corner in toto in the last 2 years, I have difficulty visualizing how the "very disruptive" label applies, but I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder.
ETA: My crimes and wickedness are all a matter of public record, and well known to all involved here. To pretend that I am "hiding" them, or hoping that nobody remembers them, is silly. To imply that I should attach an Appendix A listing all my own crimes before commenting on anyone else's is equally silly. Of course I also have poo on me. I did not realize this was a secret (because it's not).
I wasn't talking about the Coffee Corner (which I've hardly ever visited), I was talking about your previous incarnation as a very strong critic of LuLa, which I seem to remember got you in some hot water in years past. Not that (a) I necessarily disagreed with you, or (b) didn't find it all very entertaining (as in your rants against hapless targets like Colberg and Thein), but I'm a little disturbed that you don't recognise that Slobodan had a good point. That's all.
However, that's just banter. What I'm way more disturbed about, and is the reason I'm cancelling my subscription, is the dismissal of climate change as "politics". Do open your eyes please, Kevin, on your next wannabe-subsidised luxury cruise to Greenland. If you can tear them away from your toys, that is. I'm also somewhat shocked that apparently nobody else noticed or cared about that little throwaway. Or well, better and check the aircon is working in the SUV, eh ?
-
However, that's just banter. What I'm way more disturbed about, and is the reason I'm cancelling my subscription, is the dismissal of climate change as "politics". Do open your eyes please, Kevin, on your next wannabe-subsidised luxury cruise to Greenland. If you can tear them away from your toys, that is. I'm also somewhat shocked that apparently nobody else noticed or cared about that little throwaway. Or well, better and check the aircon is working in the SUV, eh ?
I don't think CC was "banned" because it is "politics" in itself, but because the mode of discourse was based on political rather than scientific judgments. One might imagine that those among us lucky enough to visit the Arctic and Antarctic would be the first to raise warning flags.
On a slightly related note there was a newspaper report of a polar bear being shot dead by cruise ship personnel on Svalbard. Perhaps it behoves us to consider very carefully our footprint on nature.
-
I don't think CC was "banned" because it is "politics" in itself, but because the mode of discourse was based on political rather than scientific judgments.
I was briefly a moderator for a thread on CC that tried to document some of the scientific evidence that was coming out. It ended up a failure for the very reason that you note.
-
I wasn't talking about the Coffee Corner (which I've hardly ever visited), I was talking about your previous incarnation as a very strong critic of LuLa, which I seem to remember got you in some hot water in years past. Not that (a) I necessarily disagreed with you, or (b) didn't find it all very entertaining (as in your rants against hapless targets like Colberg and Thein), but I'm a little disturbed that you don't recognise that Slobodan had a good point. That's all.
However, that's just banter. What I'm way more disturbed about, and is the reason I'm cancelling my subscription, is the dismissal of climate change as "politics". Do open your eyes please, Kevin, on your next wannabe-subsidised luxury cruise to Greenland. If you can tear them away from your toys, that is. I'm also somewhat shocked that apparently nobody else noticed or cared about that little throwaway. Or well, better and check the aircon is working in the SUV, eh ?
Yes, there seems, at least on the face of it, little reason to throw Climate Change into the political sin bin.
That said, there is no question that it is very much a political matter as it is one with physical consequences. Only political will can make the difference between being too late or just in time.
Whether it's a natural, cyclical matter or a man-made disaster masturbating in the wings makes little difference. It's clear that pouring poisons into the sea and into the air is a poor way of conserving Earth. We know there are changes that can be made to improve the situation, and even if minute (in some opinions) that's just fine: as with your bank account, every bit that's positive helps. It seems either wilful blindness or madness to refuse the chances on tap to do something to help the situation or, at the very least, buy us a few more centuries.
My daughter and her doctor daughter have just left after spending a short holiday chez moi. This time, the heat got to them too; in past visits they did as the mad dogs and Englishmen are reputed to do, but not in 2018. My own compulsory walking routine has been turned on its head for the first time in fifteen or more years. Something scary is happening, and we really have to do what we can to help ourselves out of this looming disaster.
Calling one another names and hurling muted abuse solves nothing; it only gives Jeremy a sore head. Nero never was a good violin player.
-
My daughter and her doctor daughter have just left after spending a short holiday chez moi. This time, the heat got to them too; in past visits they did as the mad dogs and Englishmen are reputed to do, but not in 2018. My own compulsory walking routine has been turned on its head for the first time in fifteen or more years. Something scary is happening, and we really have to do what we can to help ourselves out of this looming disaster.
If this doesn't worry you, I don't know what ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-change-to-cause-humid-heatwaves-that-will-kill-even-healthy-people
-
However, that's just banter. What I'm way more disturbed about, and is the reason I'm cancelling my subscription, is the dismissal of climate change as "politics".
Hi David,
Although I agree, one (unfortunately) also has to accept that politics have a lot to do with climate change. That makes it difficult to separate them in any meaningful discussion. That, combined with partisan politics (more involved with destroying prior achievements than improving upon them), makes it hard to have discussions where different sides of a view are willing to listen and base their reaction on logic and quality of argument/evidence, rather than dogma. Some even deny that there is an issue, rather than even listen to (let alone accept) the evidence.
So, I guess we should consider shooting more images of destroyed landscapes (which I find utterly uninspiring), time-lapses of retreating glaciers, and of displaced and emaciated animals, rather than of Luminous Landscapes.
And that won't be an easy task, mind you, because how does one e.g. image the disappearance of 90% of the King Penguin population on Possession Island:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antarctic-science/article/massive-decline-of-the-worlds-largest-king-penguin-colony-at-ile-aux-cochons-crozet/E254E3E24DE3BDC523B25FA3A3261584
Maybe just shoot a few nice pictures of the remaining ones we can remember them by?
Cheers,
Bart
P.S. I've attached the original study about the King Penguin as a PDF, in case the link goes dead or disappears behind a pay-wall.
-
If this doesn't worry you, I don't know what ...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/02/climate-change-to-cause-humid-heatwaves-that-will-kill-even-healthy-people
I'm afraid that the subject your post will be more frowned upon than the message it tells ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
This is Lula in a nutshell:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/31/california-wildfire-climate-change-carr-fire
-
This is Lula in a nutshell:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/31/california-wildfire-climate-change-carr-fire
Perhaps your post is a little unfair to us and might better read: This is the attitude of some members in the Climate Change topic.
As has been pointed out above, it is the inability of some intemperate members on each side of a debate to sustain civil discourse. It is that inability that lead us to ban 'politics'.
-
How are we going to cease political debates when one and the same side keeps posting provocative articles? Even in this thread about threads, one side keeps stating their case, but all hell breaks loose apparently only when the other side responds. It has not happened yet, because the other side so far shows patience and respect for the new rules, but it won’t take long.
-
How are we going to cease political debates when one and the same side keeps posting provocative articles? Even in this thread about threads, one side keeps stating their case, but all hell breaks loose apparently only when the other side responds. It has not happened yet, because the other so far shows patience and respect for the new rules, but it won’t take long.
Relatively simply Slobodan, offending posters will be banned, topics will be locked, edited or removed as seems fit by Jeremy.
-
Even in this thread about threads, one side keeps stating their case, but all hell breaks loose apparently only when the other side responds.
Then:
It has not happened yet, because the other side so far shows patience and respect for the new rules, but it won’t take long.
? ? ? ?
::)
-
Banning "politics" is a policy I agree with, but yes, politics does not sit aside from the rest of the human condition, separated by a neat wall. Climate change, without a doubt, falls into a grey area between, with tendrils reaches well into the political, as well as far into the photographic. So it goes.
Judgement will have to be used to determine what is an is not acceptable. I assume that Jeremy will be the sole arbiter of where that line is, and will use a system of quiet warnings followed as necessary by stronger measures to communicate where he sees that line falling. That is how it should be.
Honestly, I don't think it's going to be that hard. Look at what you have written, and imagine dropping the words "Koch", "Trump", "Obama", and "Emissions" from it. Does the text still make sense? You're probably OK posting it. If it turns into gibberish, you probably should edit it a bit.
-
How are we going to cease political debates when one and the same side keeps posting provocative articles? Even in this thread about threads, one side keeps stating their case,
Guilty as charged. However, the intent was not to prolong the discussion from Over There, but rather to highlight the importance of CC to us as landscape photographers who often visit the distant places affected rather than an abstract notion; and also to point out that there is no "debate", as such, because the real understanding comes from scientific research which few here are qualified to judge.
-
How are we going to cease political debates when one and the same side keeps posting provocative articles? Even in this thread about threads, one side keeps stating their case, but all hell breaks loose apparently only when the other side responds. It has not happened yet, because the other side so far shows patience and respect for the new rules, but it won’t take long.
The other side has posted. Your post is from the other side.
-
Then:? ? ? ?
::)
Dr. Google, here is a Wikipedia quote to help you with your confusion (I know, I know... English language can be confusing even for native speakers):
For example, in the English sentence "My train leaves tomorrow morning", the verb form leaves is said to be in the present tense, even though in this particular context it refers to an event in future time.
-
It is a pity that when politics got banned trolling didn't? :-\
-
How are we going to cease political debates when one and the same side keeps posting provocative articles? Even in this thread about threads, one side keeps stating their case, but all hell breaks loose apparently only when the other side responds. It has not happened yet, because the other side so far shows patience and respect for the new rules, but it won’t take long.
There was a decent thread that seemed to be going quite well for about one week. At that point, folks began to chime in with various political agendas and ignored the plea made in the initial post, "Let's keep this civil and focus on the research and issues that are coming forward." For the most part we had a good discussion of the science until things veered off course. I requested the thread be closed . We ended up with 32 pages and several individuals welcomed the discussion that is archived here: http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=121219.0 I continue to believe this to an important issue for photographers as many destinations are likely to be impacted by climate change. In fact there is a LuLa trip to Greenland coming up.
-
However, the intent was not to prolong the discussion from Over There, but rather to highlight the importance of CC to us as landscape photographers who often visit the distant places affected rather than an abstract notion; and also to point out that there is no "debate", as such, because the real understanding comes from scientific research which few here are qualified to judge.
+1
And not only distant places. All of Northern Europe, when seen from the vantage point of a satellite, looks brown rather than green like it did in other years this time of the year. All my attempts to shoot something "Luminous" looked dry and barren after a month and a half without any rain worth mentioning (and I don't think it's my lack of skills).
http://www.euronews.com/2018/07/25/these-pictures-put-northern-europe-s-heatwave-in-perspective
A neighbor of mine spotted the first 2 bats this year, where they used to circle round my house every night when insects were available. Insect-eating birds are also having a hard time.
In January this year, I did shoot a couple of parrots (see attached) through my livingroom window with my cell phone, as they were perched in a tree outside my home, but they had escaped from their cages ... ;)
Cheers,
Bart
-
The other side has posted. Your post is from the other side.
This reminds me of the mimed tennis game in Blow Up (a movie) but lacking some of its entertainment value.
-
Chris,
Pour memoire ...
A word of warning (again) to those that engage in personal insults. Stop pissing in the pool. I won't hesitate to delete people's accounts and ban them without warning if this continues.
Michael
[quote from: hjulenissen on January 27, 2012, 10:19:06 PM]
You have talked about personal attacks and pissing in the pool a couple of times. Can you reference those more concretely?
-
Yes, you and your posts. Either call it a day, leave, or if you continue with your attacks you'll be banned.
Michael
-
I wonder if this group could actually have a scientific discussion that included issues that have since been politicized elsewhere. I kind of doubt it.
-
I wonder if this group could actually have a scientific discussion that included issues that have since been politicized elsewhere. I kind of doubt it.
I don't think it has much to do with this group. Lay people talking about science they do not understand rarely goes well. Absent actual understanding, we tend to interpret even hard science through the lens of our own prejudices and beliefs.
-
(I know, I know... English language can be confusing even of native speakers):
And as so recently illustrated here, presumably native writers! 8)
-
This reminds me of the mimed tennis game in Blow Up (a movie) but lacking some of its entertainment value.
OT but yeah, a classic film every photographer should see and some may find amusing too.
-
I wonder if this group could actually have a scientific discussion that included issues that have since been politicized elsewhere. I kind of doubt it.
I'm active over on the 'Color Management' section of LuLa and have yet to see any political posts of any kind. Lots of good technical stuff so it can be done here on LuLa.
-
I'm active over on the 'Color Management' section of LuLa and have yet to see any political posts of any kind. Lots of good technical stuff so it can be done here on LuLa.
Until someone in power declares Color Management is just a big hoax!
I myself believe in Color Management based on the facts and analysis by the experts, even if it would be more convenient to believe my colors are accurate sans management. 8)
-
I'd still be interested to know how all the people who didn't like it were being forced to read it. The decision is fine, but I'm utterly stunned at the number of folks who have been upset or annoyed or in some way put out due to voluntarily reading content they didn't like. Again and again.
/shrug
Those discussions dominantly popped up in my Tapatalk feed. I didn’t bother to read and the few times a looked into it, with big eyes, it was a kind of not so funny amusement, like a B movie, the popcorn bucket was to big to eat before the interest fainted.
I noticed, by moments, that a sour tone sneaked into other treads as well.
I was moderator on other photo fora and when peoples got pissed for whatever reasons it reflected in all other sections of the site.
I think I recognized it here as well.
Members using their on line time for political or other ranting usually don’t contribute much to the real content of the site. More, they react with the inner f*cked Up feeling and enforce a negative spiral whole over the place.
-
Congratulations, just as before you have...
I apologize. It was meant as friendly teasing, but obviously came across much stronger. I have deleted the post. Feel free to delete my part of your response as well, if you wish so.
-
I don't think CC was "banned" because it is "politics" in itself, but because the mode of discourse was based on political rather than scientific judgments.
Correct.
I wonder if this group could actually have a scientific discussion that included issues that have since been politicized elsewhere. I kind of doubt it.
I don't think it has much to do with this group. Lay people talking about science they do not understand rarely goes well. Absent actual understanding, we tend to interpret even hard science through the lens of our own prejudices and beliefs.
Also correct, and the reason that discussion of climate change is banned. And by that, I mean banned in this thread as well as in every other.
Views have been expressed. The matter is not open for debate.
Bart and Jeremy: don't try the trick of introducing discussion on climate change again.
Jeremy