Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: rogerxnz on February 22, 2013, 01:02:33 am
-
I am a recent contributor to this forum but I have been struck by the heat generated in some of the threads I have read.
It seems that some members do not like in-depth or long critiques or those that deal with feelings and emotions. In the threads, members have used derogatory expressions, such as, "verbose" and "fluff" to refer to such critiques.
I, initially, thought we should try to categorise the poster or their images in some way to avoid mismatched critiques. But now, I think we should avoid categorisation entirely. All we need to do is to follow an etiquette that says that, if you get a critique which you do not like for any reason, you ask politely for clarification or you just give thanks and move on.
After all, why would you ever want to be rude to someone who has spent time and gone to some effort to give their thoughts on your work?
What members should not do is attack the reviewer for any reason. In my opinion, attacking a review or a reviewer because you do not understand their critique only establishes doubt as to your own intelligence.
So, if all members would just politely move past critiques which do not suit their needs, we should have a calmer forum. That is not to say that members cannot ask critiquers for clarification but I would hope they will do so politely.
It should go without saying, but I will say it for completeness, that reviewers should be polite in their critiques and refrain from attacking images and their makers.
Let us all keep calm and carry on.
Roger
-
Applause... ;D
Mike.
-
I'm all about the photography Roger. Sounds good to me.
-
As I said, the scenario you are suggesting sounds awfully like the Emperor's New Clothes.
-
There's little excuse for rudeness; but there's little for pointless verbosity either. There's also an unfortunate tendency to mistake vigorous debate with lack of politeness and forcibly-expressed disagreement with that anathema of modern times, "bullying".
On the whole, it seems to me that the balance here is pretty much right.
Jeremy
-
I agree with Slobodan and Jeremy. Anybody who feels abused can drop off. I'd much rather see some honest heat in debate than see a group of wusses constantly patting each other on the back.
-
Roger, I agree with you, but it doesn't appear that your efforts will be successful. Too bad.
I'd much rather see some honest heat in debate than see a group of wusses constantly patting each other on the back.
Russ, please point out what Roger wrote that prompted your reply. What did he write that even remotely implied that he favors "a group of wusses constantly patting each other on the back"? Damn, Roger very politely makes a sensible suggestion and you start talking about wusses. Pathetic!
-
....Damn, Roger very politely makes a sensible suggestion and you start talking about wusses. Pathetic!
Damn, Dean, If you do not see how such "sensible suggestion" would turn the forum into a group of wusses, praising Emperor's new clothes, then it is indeed pathetic.
-
Perhaps you can explain it to me, please.
-
Hi Dean, Well, let's start with the statement: ". . . members have used derogatory expressions, such as 'verbose' and 'fluff' to refer to . . . critiques." Damn right they have. They've used what Roger calls derogatory expressions after reading critiques that were verbose and full of fluff. There's nothing derogatory about calling a spade a spade.
Then there's the statement: ". . . if you get a critique which you do not like for any reason, you ask politely for clarification or you just give thanks and move on." How about giving thanks and moving on when the writer of the critique, in effect, just called you an asshole? Would that be a reason to give thanks and move on? He goes on: "What members should not do is attack the reviewer for any reason." Come on, get serious. We've seen people on here who went completely berserk with their "critiques." Happily they've been kicked off. A classic was a guy who went by the moniker "dalethorn," to whom I've referred on occasion. He'd just plain lose it from time to time. According to Roger we all should have given thanks to Dale and moved on.
I, for one, can't see any reason why we should hold still for huge chunks of verbose fluff posing as criticism without suggesting forcefully that the writer learn to be more concise. Concise fluff is a lot easier to get past than verbose fluff. How do you and Roger react to the asinine "artists statements" you see in museums and shows? I see the same kind of thing developing here. Side roads, like delving into a poster's psychology, have nothing at all to do with the value of an art work. The things that matter are substance and presentation. If critics stick with those they tend to be concise.
To refuse to object to a smelly explosion of verbal diarrhea is a demonstration of wussiness. Nothing pathetic about it.
-
(http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo102/tanngrisnir3/WTF%20absurdist/90ClownsandPies.jpg)
-
It should go without saying, but I will say it for completeness, that reviewers should be polite in their critiques and refrain from attacking images and their makers.
Let us all keep calm and carry on.
Roger
This is the interweb. Here, sometimes people believe that exchanging opinions is a contact sport.
-
(http://i366.photobucket.com/albums/oo102/tanngrisnir3/WTF%20absurdist/90ClownsandPies.jpg)
Now that's the Almost Moment; a split second more and you'd have caught the Decisive Moment. On the other hand, perhaps they would all have stopped in time, in which case there wouldn't have been one of those delectabe HC-B instances at all.
So how can this best be categorized?
I trust this is sane, helpful, relevant and coherently brief enough critique?
Rob C
-
Now that's the Almost Moment; a split second more and you'd have caught the Decisive Moment. On the other hand, perhaps they would all have stopped in time, in which case there wouldn't have been one of those delectabe HC-B instances at all.
So how can this best be categorized?
I trust this is sane, helpful, relevant and coherently brief enough critique?
Rob C
Boom!
-
HCB would have lowered his eyes to the next row on the contact sheet, and circled THAT tiny image with his red pen -- decisively, natch -- and sent it off to the printer.
-
HCB would have lowered his eyes to the next row on the contact sheet, and circled THAT tiny image with his red pen -- decisively, natch -- and sent it off to the printer.
True: he often cropped feet; intentionally, no doubt, but also possible because of the lousy Leica finder: the perfect marriage of man and his tool...
Now, about that free M9...
Rob C
-
What is the correct number of words for a critique of a photograph? Is it 6? 60? 600? Why? Are some photographs more complicated than others to critique? Does every photographer want the same thing from a critique?
I think the complaint here boils down to a handful of people who are incensed to rage that anyone would write more than a handful of words about a photograph. Maybe it is a recognition that "nice shot Joe" isn't a critique? Maybe it is a standard too high to actually have to put some content into a critique? Maybe it is resentment that an outsider is daring to comment on 'club' photos? Maybe it is that people have been shielded from the normal world of criticism in their photography? Whatever the reasons are, they are confined to a small group which accounts themselves the control faction of this forum. But in fact, taking aside that small group, pretty much all the others which I have commented to, have been appreciative of my comments. And why wouldn't they be? A critique consisting of no analysis is a pat on the back, or in the many cases of no comments at all, it is a simple rejection letter. How is that useful to a photographer? Why bother posting the photo?
Of course I use a lot of words. That's how ideas are constructed - with words. The more ideas you want to express, the more words you will need. I don't see the title of this forum as "pat on the back club." Start one of those, if you hate words. Make a simple check box for thumbs up and down and you can reduce it to no words. Nothing wrong with that. But this isn't that. One of the longest critiques I made here was 500 words. And knowing it would be that, I even provided a single sentence summary at the beginning for people whose eyes cross at the idea of reading 500 words. And that proved to me that it wasn't the length of my commentary that was objectionable, it was the content of it. For evidence, look to the long battles over the simple concept that a photograph reveals something of the photographer. Oddly, people will write at great length to attempt to discredit that idea.
Yes, my view of photography goes beyond the views of most here, because I view it as a larger more important art than many of these here. That's the conflict - not the length of my critique, but the idea I would dare touch on more than what was customary and comfortable. Which I will continue to do.
The attempts to chase me away with gutter level crudity didn't work, and won't work. Keep trying if you like, but it's a reflection on you, not me.
-
The attempts to chase me away with gutter level crudity didn't work, and won't work. Keep trying if you like, but it's a reflection on you, not me.
Keep 'em* coming RG. I for one am learning something--even from the intensity!
*The critiques
-
Hi Dean, Well, let's start with the statement: ". . . members have used derogatory expressions, such as 'verbose' and 'fluff' to refer to . . . critiques." Damn right they have. They've used what Roger calls derogatory expressions after reading critiques that were verbose and full of fluff. There's nothing derogatory about calling a spade a spade.
Then there's the statement: ". . . if you get a critique which you do not like for any reason, you ask politely for clarification or you just give thanks and move on." How about giving thanks and moving on when the writer of the critique, in effect, just called you an asshole?
Probably the writer simply feels as if he is "simply calling a spade a spade." Nothing derogatory about that, after all.
-
What is the correct number of words for a critique of a photograph? Is it 6? 60? 600?
Try 6.
-
Probably the writer simply feels as if he is "simply calling a spade a spade." Nothing derogatory about that, after all.
James, you've got a wicked sense of humor! :)
-
I think the complaint here boils down to a handful of people who are incensed to rage that anyone would write more than a handful of words about a photograph. Maybe it is a recognition that "nice shot Joe" isn't a critique? Maybe it is a standard too high to actually have to put some content into a critique? Maybe it is resentment that an outsider is daring to comment on 'club' photos? Maybe it is that people have been shielded from the normal world of criticism in their photography? Whatever the reasons are, they are confined to a small group which accounts themselves the control faction of this forum. But in fact, taking aside that small group, pretty much all the others which I have commented to, have been appreciative of my comments. And why wouldn't they be? A critique consisting of no analysis is a pat on the back, or in the many cases of no comments at all, it is a simple rejection letter. How is that useful to a photographer? Why bother posting the photo?
Of course I use a lot of words. That's how ideas are constructed - with words. The more ideas you want to express, the more words you will need. I don't see the title of this forum as "pat on the back club." Start one of those, if you hate words. Make a simple check box for thumbs up and down and you can reduce it to no words. Nothing wrong with that. But this isn't that. One of the longest critiques I made here was 500 words. And knowing it would be that, I even provided a single sentence summary at the beginning for people whose eyes cross at the idea of reading 500 words. And that proved to me that it wasn't the length of my commentary that was objectionable, it was the content of it. For evidence, look to the long battles over the simple concept that a photograph reveals something of the photographer. Oddly, people will write at great length to attempt to discredit that idea.
Yes, my view of photography goes beyond the views of most here, because I view it as a larger more important art than many of these here. That's the conflict - not the length of my critique, but the idea I would dare touch on more than what was customary and comfortable. Which I will continue to do.
The attempts to chase me away with gutter level crudity didn't work, and won't work. Keep trying if you like, but it's a reflection on you, not me.
Uh-huh.
You see, when you immediately resort to hyperbole and delusional statements that don't reflect reality, you only dig yourself deeper into a hole of your own making.
To whit:
"Your bitter and filthy personal thoughts about the character of others don't fit into this forum purpose."
"a handful of people who are incensed to rage that anyone would write more than a handful of words about a photograph."
"he attempts to chase me away with gutter level crudity didn't work..."
The above have no basis in reality, but they do bring to mind the old adage that it's a certain kind of fool who likes to hear the sound of his own name.
-
Try 6.
For example: Nice ambiguity, nice diagonals, very nice.
Later,
Johnny
-
Try 6.
25 words or less.
That's what they used to say in the essay contest rules on cereal boxes when I was a kid. If it worked for Kellogg's it can work here.
-
Hi Dean, Well, let's start with the statement: ". . . members have used derogatory expressions, such as 'verbose' and 'fluff' to refer to . . . critiques." Damn right they have. They've used what Roger calls derogatory expressions after reading critiques that were verbose and full of fluff. There's nothing derogatory about calling a spade a spade.
…
I, for one, can't see any reason why we should hold still for huge chunks of verbose fluff posing as criticism without suggesting forcefully that the writer learn to be more concise. …
To refuse to object to a smelly explosion of verbal diarrhea is a demonstration of wussiness.
It seems like you’re saying that if anyone determines for themselves that what someone else writes is “verbose and full of fluff”, then it is okay to be insulting? Why not just give your opinion of the photo? Let the readers read both opinions and decide for themselves which, if either, they agree with. The purpose of “User Critiques” is to critique photos, not to critique other critiques. By ranting on about someone else’s alleged verbosity and fluff, rather than commenting on the photo, you’re just distracting from the photo critique.
Moreover, to refuse to object (in the insulting manner which has been done recently) to what you personally believe is a smelly explosion of verbal diarrhea is not a demonstration of wussiness. It’s a demonstration of a civilized, mature, intelligent discussion.
-
It makes me feel <and now you have two words to express an emotion>.
-
Try 6.
Then use that as your guideline. There, that wasn't so hard then, was it? You thought about what you like to do, you came up with a number, and now you have a handy guide you can apply to your comments. That's what I was hoping for by asking the question. Each would decide on their own!
For me? Rarely will 6 suffice. So, short of the administrator making a "rule of 6," I am comfortable providing my own guidelines.
-
For me? Rarely will 6 suffice.
That probably will go down as the understatement of the century.
-
In my opinion, attacking a review or a reviewer because you do not understand their critique only establishes doubt as to your own intelligence.
No, but it does suggest that we don't truly welcome critique.
#87 Learn to accept criticism.
"Critique is the foundation of art school education, and learning to make constructive use of it is one of the most difficult and important lessons to absorb. Look at your own work, and the work of others, as dispassionately as you can. Being defensive or hurt, while a natural reaction, will not help you improve your work. Learn the biases of your instructors so that you make the most use of their comments. Disagreeing with criticism is not wrong, but unless your work succeeds on its own merits in the eyes of your instructors and peers, resistance may not be constructive or helpful. Be brave under fire."
101 Things to Learn in Art School (http://books.google.com/books?id=r-g4YgEACAAJ)
Take Pramote Laoprasert as the model -- apart from factual corrections to assumptions about the processing of his photographs, his habitual response is "Thank you very much friends! I truly appreciate your comments".
-
You know, there's only one person lately who's had much of a problem accepting negative critique.
-
Yup. Concision, please.
-
Damn, Dean, If you do not see how such "sensible suggestion" would turn the forum into a group of wusses, praising Emperor's new clothes, then it is indeed pathetic.
Perhaps you can explain it to me, please.
Slobodan, just to be clear, my request was serious. I wasn’t trying to be flippant. I truly don’t understand how asking people to avoid “derogatory expressions” and personal “attacks” , to not be “rude” but to be “polite”, would turn the forum into a group of wusses, praising Emperor's new clothes. Being “polite in their critiques and refrain from attacking images and their makers” doesn’t mean that people can’t be critical. It just means to do it in a mature, civil, intelligent manner.
So, Slobodan, I’d really like to hear your explanation of how Roger’s suggestions would turn the forum into a group of wusses, praising Emperor's new clothes.
-
You know, there's only one person lately who's had much of a problem accepting negative critique.
Intersting, Andrew. Here is what you wrote recently in the “other” thread where I critiqued your calling another forum member an idiot.
“I decline to be lectured to, and stand by my opinion that he is an idiot … .”
-
I meant, of course, negative critique about posted photographs.
ETA: critique and criticism are not synonyms.
-
Okay, but then just who are you referring to? How about a quote or link?
-
ETA: critique and criticism are not synonyms.
“Critique … Synonyms: … criticism”
“criticism … Synonyms: … critique”
http://thesaurus.com/browse/critique
-
Oh for the love of god.
Criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.
Critique: a detailed analysis and assessment of something, esp. a literary, philosophical, or political theory.
Criticism also has another definition, number 2 in my dictionary, which means Critique. That definition doesn't apply to your cute little lecture on my mean behavior. The definition that DOES apply is definition 1, in my dictionary, which is quoted above, and which does not mean critique.
And now I am going to stop splitting these stupid semantic hairs with yet another person who clearly just wants to pick a fight.
-
For example: Nice ambiguity, nice diagonals, very nice.
Later,
Johnny
The discussion so far proves my point! There are those who appreciate detailed critiques and those who want a word limit of 6 or 25.
I, personally, would find Johnny's critique stunted in the sense it does not help me make successful images in the future. I would want to know why there is "nice" ambiguity, why there are "nice" diagonals and why it's all "nice". Frankly, I am not much interested in "nice" pictures but my real point is that without knowing the whys, you cannot develop your skills.
But, I would not criticise him for his review and I would thank him.
What I cannot understand is why members who want short critiques want to attack and denigrate longer critiques. Someone has put a lot of effort into a longer review and they complain. How rude is that?
Why can they not just say "thank you" and move on? Why do they feel they have to criticise the review and, often, the reviewer?
All I would like to see is posters politely responding to all critiques. If you cannot do that, may I suggest you refrain from submitting images.
Roger
-
You know, there's only one person lately who's had much of a problem accepting negative critique.
I don't know whom you are referring to but I find this comment unhelpful. The thread is not about negative critiques or criticism but about the reaction of some to long and detailed critiques, irrespective of whether they are negative or positive.
It's also unhelpful because you are singling out a member personally for comment if not criticising a member for his behaviour. I want to encourage members to focus on the critiques and just give thanks for the critiques even if they are not to their liking.
Would be great if you could do that.
Roger
-
Nobody wants a word limit (in general) of 6 or 25, and nobody is objecting (in general) to long critique. Those are red herrings.
I would describe what IS actually being objected to except that in the first place anybody who cares should be able to work it out themselves, and in the second place I would likely be accused of singling someone out for criticism again.
-
All I would like to see is posters politely responding to all critiques. If you cannot do that, may I suggest you refrain from submitting images.
Roger
Do you mean that someone shouldn't post an image if he/she is unwilling to critque politely, and respond to every single image posted by another person?
You've left me confused on that one.
I seldom offer critique because I feel that none, from anyone, really has value beyond disclosure of that person's own bias, likes and dislikes. What do you gain from that, other than just having your image discussed, your vanity stroked - or not? You really, really believe you can learn how to be someone else?
I do like to look at other people's images, not to absorb their personal emotions at all, but to see how their images affect or even reflect my emotional being.
That's the beauty of glossy fashion magazines: you see exceptional imagery but you don't have to read a word. Unless you want or need to do so, which is nice.
Rob C
-
The discussion so far proves my point! There are those who appreciate detailed critiques and those who want a word limit of 6 or 25.
I, personally, would find Johnny's critique stunted in the sense it does not help me make successful images in the future.
Roger
I apologize Rodger, I should have included a funny face ;) with my reply. It was simply my observation of what has been considered by some to be an ideal critique.
Later,
Johnny
-
Roger, you and Dean need to go back through the last few months of posts and see where this all began. Prior to that, even though some of us always have been pretty intense in our criticisms we'd always been pretty polite -- at least since the departure of "dalethorn." There's a reason why things recently turned brutal, and if you check back a bit you'll see the beginnings of the problem. Don't ask me to mention a name. I don't really need to.
-
Do you mean that someone shouldn't post an image if he/she is unwilling to critque politely, and respond to every single image posted by another person?
You've left me confused on that one.
I seldom offer critique because I feel that none, from anyone, really has value beyond disclosure of that person's own bias, likes and dislikes. What do you gain from that, other than just having your image discussed, your vanity stroked - or not? You really, really believe you can learn how to be someone else?
I do like to look at other people's images, not to absorb their personal emotions at all, but to see how their images affect or even reflect my emotional being.
Rob C
I like this take quite a bit... Thumbs up. I tried to make the same point, or at least ask a similar question, (albeit much less elegantly) in my own "No standing" thread.
-
Roger, you and Dean need to go back through the last few months of posts and see where this all began.
Russ, with all due respect, I've been around here a hell of a lot longer than you. Saying I need to go back through the last few months of posts is kind of insulting. More to the point, you’re side stepping the issue. Perhaps you could respond to my questions directly related to the topic of this thread?
It seems like you’re saying that if anyone determines for themselves that what someone else writes is “verbose and full of fluff”, then it is okay to be insulting? Why not just give your opinion of the photo? Let the readers read both opinions and decide for themselves which, if either, they agree with. The purpose of “User Critiques” is to critique photos, not to critique other critiques. By ranting on about someone else’s alleged verbosity and fluff, rather than commenting on the photo, you’re just distracting from the photo critique.
Moreover, to refuse to object (in the insulting manner which has been done recently) to what you personally believe is a smelly explosion of verbal diarrhea is not a demonstration of wussiness. It’s a demonstration of a civilized, mature, intelligent discussion.
Also, if you think someone’s comments are verbose and full of fluff, then don’t read them. What could be easier? Why make a big deal out of it and try to make everyone conform to how you think they should write critiques? I just don’t get your attitude, so I’m sincerely asking for an explanation.
-
I'm not asking you to go all the way back to 2003 when you came on, Dean, or even to 2009 when I came on. I'm asking you to go back over the past few months and see when and why the whole thing blew up. I'm pretty sure you already know the answer, so you probably don't need to do that. Everybody else seems to be pretty clear about when it happened and how it happened. It's also pretty clear that actually you do "get my attitude," and why I have it, so I'm sure you don't really need an explanation.
-
Indeed. You only need to read one thread, in fact. It's all right there.
-
I like this take quite a bit... Thumbs up. I tried to make the same point, or at least ask a similar question, (albeit much less elegantly) in my own "No standing" thread.
Yeah, it's something both from within and without.
The two most important lessons I learned from without came from a couple of black dudes:
1. Cuck Berry: Never let the same dog bite you twice;
2. the Michael Jackson video: The Way You Make Me Feel: listen closely, catch 1.50 to 2.04 (and a bit further on, too).
http://youtu.be/6678i3u7lVI
Rob C
-
Oh for the love of god.
Criticism: the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes.
Critique: a detailed analysis and assessment of something, esp. a literary, philosophical, or political theory.
Criticism also has another definition, number 2 in my dictionary, which means Critique. That definition doesn't apply to your cute little lecture on my mean behavior. The definition that DOES apply is definition 1, in my dictionary, which is quoted above, and which does not mean critique.
And now I am going to stop splitting these stupid semantic hairs with yet another person who clearly just wants to pick a fight.
Yup, that sums it up nicely. I use your words verbatim to show the absurdity of your statements, and then you split hairs and raise irrelevant semantic quibbles. You’re the one who edited your reply to raise a silly, irrelevant critique/criticism distinction. What was your point in doing so?
Even so, you’re still semantic hair splitting and yet again wrong (deceptive) about the meaning of those words.
“Definition of CRITIQUE: an act of criticizing” (Note this is the first, primary definition) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/critique
Cherry picking a narrower, secondary definition of critique just to make a silly point is dishonest and, well, silly.
Also, you accuse me of just wanting to pick a fight, but of course you’re haven’t considered that the same could be said about you? Give me a break. Such an accusation appears to be just a way to get out from answering some uncomfortable, direct questions, and defending your comments in a rational manner.
Moreover, you still haven’t said who you were referring to as the only person lately who's had much of a problem accepting negative critique. Could it be that you meant RG, but after I noted your problem accepting criticism, you changed your statement to mean just critiques of posted photos (as if that really makes any difference), and then realized your problem with him was not about photos he posted? If I’m wrong, just tell us who you meant.
-
Dave, I appreciate your sentiment, but I think things have been fairly calm, at least comparatively. I also think this is an interesting topic, but doubt that anyone will change their minds or behavior based on what is said here.
-
I'm pretty sure you already know the answer, so you probably don't need to do that. ... It's also pretty clear that actually you do "get my attitude," and why I have it, so I'm sure you don't really need an explanation.
Yes, I'm aware of the history, but I truly don't understand your attitude and sincerely would appreciate an explanation to the questions I asked. It seems to me that my questions are pretty straight forward and answers would be enlightening.
-
... So, Slobodan, I’d really like to hear your explanation of how Roger’s suggestions would turn the forum into a group of wusses, praising Emperor's new clothes.
Dean, this whole issue has created so many threads and posts, and raised so many issues, that I sincerely have a hard time catching up, let alone responding to everyone and everything (again, this is a serious statement, not meant to put down anyone already waiting in line for my specific answers). Especially responding in a comprehensive manner -- just taking damn too much time. I feel I would need to do what several long-standing members already did -- close the account -- in order to do something a bit more useful (as opposed to fighting the windmills here). This last episode is just making it one step closer to being the last drop. This is also why I often resort to one-liners (or sniping, depending on your point of view).
So, while I still intend to write a comprehensive answer to Roger's (or is it RG's Alger Ego?) suggested new etiquette, I will resort, for the time being, just to a single, semi-serious line:
We are already witnessing the invasion of the wussies, running for mommy's protection, judging by the one-too-many clicks on the Report-to-moderator button, which already closed one thread.
Over the years, I've been called all sort of things, some pretty offensive (including a threat of physical violence), and some members were even banned for that, but I have, never, ever reported anyone.
-
As indicated, Dean, I'm done.
-
I'm all about the photography Roger. Sounds good to me.
Oh, you two are in agreement? How surprising!
Why does that remind me of the latest Discover Card commercials? For those outside the States, here is the YouTube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hHsyyFi1Ys
Btw, in case you are wondering what is this about, and until proven otherwise, I am buying Stamper's theory (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75336.new#new) (post #17)
-
Yes, I'm aware of the history, but I truly don't understand your attitude and sincerely would appreciate an explanation to the questions I asked. It seems to me that my questions are pretty straight forward and answers would be enlightening.
Sorry Dean, I hate to say it, but that's about the least straightforward plea I've heard in a very long time.
-
Oh, you two are in agreement? How surprising!
Why does that remind me of the latest Discover Card commercials? For those outside the States, here is the YouTube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hHsyyFi1Ys
Btw, in case you are wondering what is this about, and until proven otherwise, I am buying Stamper's theory (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75336.new#new) (post #17)
Thank you for that, Slobodan!
-
Do you mean that someone shouldn't post an image if he/she is unwilling to critque politely, and respond to every single image posted by another person?
You've left me confused on that one.
Sorry you are confused Rob C.
I am not suggesting members have to critique every single image.
All I am suggesting is that, whatever members do on this forum, they do so politely.
Doing so politely includes not directing comments to the persons behind the postings. That means not trying to discredit posters or their postings by comments about the poster. If you don't like a critique for whatever reason, just appreciate the time and effort the poster has spent, give thanks and move on. If you want elaboration, do so politely.
Hope this helps.
Roger
-
Roger, you and Dean need to go back through the last few months of posts and see where this all began. Prior to that, even though some of us always have been pretty intense in our criticisms we'd always been pretty polite -- at least since the departure of "dalethorn." There's a reason why things recently turned brutal, and if you check back a bit you'll see the beginnings of the problem. Don't ask me to mention a name. I don't really need to.
I fail to see the point of the exercise you are suggesting. Are you saying there is someone that started all this heat? Isn't that what infants say to justify their poor behaviour?
I am trying to get the business of this forum away from personalities so we can get back to critiquing images without personal attacks.
I think we are all adults here. As such, we may not be able to control what others do, but we can control how we react.
That's what I would like members to focus on—how they react to what they see and write. I think members should be able to stick to the topic and stop bringing into their posts adverse comments on other members and their posts.
Roger
-
Roger,
I am in 100% agreement with your expressed views: but I fear it may be a lost cause.
Oh, that it were otherwise.
-
Sorry Dean, I hate to say it, but that's about the least straightforward plea I've heard in a very long time.
I have no clue what you mean. Could you explain, please?
It seems like you're ducking answering some very simple questions about how you justify rude, personal attacks just because you personally believe that someone's comments were verbose and full of fluff. I'm trying to understand another perspective, but you and the posters that seem to most defend your position all seem to find reasons to not explain the justification. If you (or the others) really believe your position is justified, you should be able explain it. Isn't that the essence of an intelligent discussion? I'm more than willing to listen to all sides, if only "your" side would explain.
(Maybe I'm just cynical because I've encounter similar excuses in other threads and elsewhere when it appears someone just runs out of ways to try to justify something that can't be justified, but rather than just say so, they make excuses to avoid facing the fact that they can't provide a reasonable justification.)
-
There is a cause to this furor over critique, and it is very simple - me. I'm different, and different here is bad. I write critiques that are longer than a Tweet, and I don't give obeisance to characters because they demand it. I'll document it here in brief.
Feb. 3 - I began posting to this section of the forum
Feb. 5 - I posted a few photos in a thread called "Love Real Street" started by RSL
Feb. 5 - this is RSL's first response to me on this forum, and his first response to my few posted photos. You could call it my welcome to the forum.
RSL on February 05, 2013, 08:09:46 AM - "Guy, Sorry, but what I see is one high-school type snapshot and two environmental portraits -- no street photography. You need to go to a library or bookstore, pick up a book of Cartier-Bresson's photographs, and study it."
This was my direct response. February 05, 2013, 10:36:18 AM
"Oh my. Thanks for the advice. However, it brings to mind two of the worst dangers in art - emulation and assumption of rules. And I thank you for presenting me the opportunity to say something about them. Emulation is deadly to anyone seeking their truth through art. To grab a forerunner's style, and assume it is a standard by which your own truth must conform, will kill the enterprise before it even begins. Whatever CBs truths were as he snapped his shutter are not my truths. His life is not my life. If art is life, how can I adopt his? This is not to deny in any way the appreciation of his life, no not at all. But it is to say that his is his, and mine is different. Necessarily then, my art wouldn't be his either. This confuses many people. This difference between appreciation and emulation. Never emulate! Always seek the truth within. And yes, CB had a certain way with his photographic truth, didn't he?
As to assumed rules of photography, be ever so careful of that tight box. A rule is a boundary generally claimed by someone who might have run out of ideas and seeks to assemble the world within the limits (rules) of their imagination. This is street photography, that is not! The more exclamatory the lecture, the more one should run. The first thing you learn in the study of art (study being the dictate of the poster) is that art advances in movements by means of rule breaking. A box becomes too stale for further exploration because of the existing rules, and then POW! someone breaks them, and all chaos breaks out. Rules are tools for learning, but not intended to bound one's own expressions and truths, lest the whole world of photography suddenly look like there was but one photographer!
Photography is by far the most difficult art form of them all, precisely because it is the most open-ended of them all. (Painters can only dream of what can be done with a camera.) But what makes photography ever the more difficult is falling into the trap of emulating others who have had notoriety. How many tedious attempts have we all seen of the photographer trying to emulate Ansel Adams, instead of seeking their own truth?
The thread title was "Love Real Street." And the obvious implication is that, "real" is a state of one's own truth in their photographs out on the street, not a universal dogmatic truth passed on by some High Priest of Street Photography. If you want to join a religion that's fine with me, but I choose to search out my own universals through photography, and they are not found at the local library or bookstore under "Cartier-Bresson.""
And from that moment on, RSL and his courtiers began a crusade that is now 2 weeks old. The in -between stuff is boring snipes, insults, and hectoring, which eventually centered on the length of my comments made primarily to other people's photographs. The one notable exception was 500 words I wrote about a photograph from Slobodan.
But back to the beginning. It was RSL's standard dismiss and control routine (I learned he has a long history of this behavior). It's the sort of strategy used by rude talk radio hosts. Except this isn't talk radio and the host can't cut off your mic. I responded in the way I would to any pompous and arrogant dismissal. I am not in the least bit intimidated by such nonsense as 'go read the books.'
Everyone of this small group (the coterie) attempted different kinds of attacks (on his behalf) having nothing to do with photography, art, or the content of my critiques. There were claims I was a sock puppet for another unpopular member. There were claims I was an idiot. There were claims that I was ruining the club. There were claims I was running a con game on what the amolitor described as the "dim rubes" here. There were claims, like Slobodan's current character assault, that I am somehow in a conspiracy with Roger. There were countless out and out insults hurled left and right. One guy even attempted to lecture me on Noam Chomsky's linguistics. In spite of the many number of thank-yous both publicly and privately, I was told that no one wanted to hear what I had to say about their photos. And on it went. And on it goes to this day.
The threads which best summarize this constant hectoring are here:
1. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75225.0
2. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75317.0
I understand how Internet fiefdoms work, how private clubs develop in public forums, and I understand all the Internet archetypes and their assigned roles. So, none of this is new or unexpected or shocking. The hierarchy of roles are being played out just as it normally happens. If people want to jump into big arguments with me, have at it. I'll have no trouble keeping up my end. But I owe no person here any deference for reason of their simple demand, or their age, or their length of time here, and certainly not by their photographs. My style of critique is my own, and so is my photography. My idea of worthy art is very likely not yours. Get over it, and be thankful that not everyone is out trying to duplicate what was done 75 years ago. A critique is a single point of opinion. If you want more points than mine, nothing is stopping you from making as many as you want, on any photograph you want. We all have a mouse and a keyboard, right?
I actually don't expect people on the Internet to be polite. That idea was toast from the moment the first listserve was launched. It's fruitless to make pleas for polite behavior, or really even adult behavior. I've yet to see it on an Internet forum. What is realistic to ask for is common sense individuality and tolerance. It really is ok for people to be different from each other, and express different ideas. It really is ok for people to have their own photographic ideas. It is not painful. It doesn't cause cancer, and you have all the tools you need to ignore it if it is offending you.
EDIT: Just after finishing this post, I look and see that Slobodan is now using cyberstalking to attempt to intimidate Roger, and I presume that I am next since he as concocted a conspiracy theory connecting us. REF: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75336.20
This feud has just taken a huge leap into illegal activity. Cyberstalking is against the law in all 50 US states, and I would assume many other countries too. Roger already offered that he did not want to give out his name, and in spite of that reasonable request, Slobodan proudly searched it out and issued the not very veiled threat that "anything was a few clicks away." I take that as a threat directly to me.
People have sensible reasons to protect their personal identity from online stalkers. Lives can be ruined, finances destroyed, and even personal safety becomes contested. It's an absurdity that a forum about photography can devolve to criminal activity because of temper tantrums. If I wasn't sure about staying private before, I certainly am now after seeing this. I have no clue now what the limits are on this forum. What's next? What's the limit to harassment?
-
I am trying to get the business of this forum away from personalities...
Please don't!
No, let me rephrase it:
HELL, NO!!!
Personalities on this forum are exactly what makes me coming back day after day and "wasting" a good part of my day on debates with them. There are sites with better photography (sorry!), there are sites with better forum software, etc., but there are no sites (for me) with a better opportunity to engage in a debate with REAL people, people with real names, people with life achievements, inside and outside photography, people with all the traits that make us human, including quirks and weaknesses.
I spent 40 years on photography, although it is not my profession. I love it, I enjoy doing it, reading about it, debating it. But the moment it becomes a dry debate about "principles of photography" only, without the personalities that go with it, without the humor and characters, without all walks of life, without all moods, all debate meandering, sidetracking, quirky stream of consciousness, political and cultural jabs.. is the moment I would leave this forum.
-
Damn right, Slobodan. It's my reason for coming here as well. I'm tired of conformity, of ever-present injunctions not to offend.
On the other hand, let RG blather on. It makes him happy and I can skip his ramblings easily enough. Many people have an imbalance between what they have to say and the time they take to say it: his is just rather more marked than most (although he seems to have acquired a remarkable paranoia lately, which might liven things up a bit). The rest of us can continue as if he weren't here.
Jeremy
-
Quote dmerger # Reply 44
Also, if you think someone’s comments are verbose and full of fluff, then don’t read them.
unquote
The problem with that statement is that if you skip over someone's post and later in the thread you make a reply then you will inevitably be asked .....did you read all of the posts? Damned if you do and damned if you don't?
-
The problem with that statement is that if you skip over someone's post and later in the thread you make a reply then you will inevitably be asked .....did you read all of the posts? Damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Relax, stamper. There'll be no disgrace in confessing that you've skipped one of that chap's (or that you nodded off in the middle).
Jeremy
-
It seems to me that Roger wants to be the choir master or even a moderator as to what makes good critique. He and RG still don't get it. There is a way of expressing yourself in a concise manner that can state what they mean and like without filling a page. I for one tend to skip over what starts as an overlong post and skip to the next one. It usually starts when I see the name of the person. I would rather not do this as there is usually something to pick out among the plethora of words.
-
I think hacks get paid by the word.
Even an artiste manqué has illusions...
Rob C
-
I, initially, thought we should try to categorise the poster or their images in some way to avoid mismatched critiques. But now, I think we should avoid categorisation entirely. All we need to do is to follow an etiquette that says that, if you get a critique which you do not like for any reason, you ask politely for clarification or you just give thanks and move on.
After all, why would you ever want to be rude to someone who has spent time and gone to some effort to give their thoughts on your work?
I agree with you.
I received lots of less than polite comments because I dared to critic a poor shot with the only goal to let the photographer think over the choices she or he made when taking that shot and deciding whether to post on LuLa or not.
Some people just can't discern their work from their own identity: your shot is wrong == you're wrong.
Most of the time those are the ones who think they're talented while they're just the ones with the bigger camera in their family.
The following response is almost hard-coded: "Then show me your shots!!" (…so that I can ruin your day no matter how good or bad are them).
I feel sincere pity for those people.
I learned to just put those nicks into the ignore list, so that I won't have the temptation in the future to waste time trying to help them.
So yes, keep calm and carry on :)
-
I have no clue what you mean.
I guess I'm not surprised. Try reading it again.
-
I don't need your pity, Mac_Paolo. Veil your response howsomever you wish..I think you said, a "hard coded" response; unsubstantiated claims to greatness only tell me you are all know and no show. Until otherwise proven to me that your critique has something behind it other than personal opinion, I will continue my growth via those who continue to teach, ignore those who rant incessantly with just as little substance as yourself, and move on with my life.
As to the rest of this dialogue, I am learning as much about critique from the exchange as I would in any book. In other, less flattering ways, this is much better than cable TV. But, damn, like Slobodan stated so eloquently when suggested personalities be removed...oh "Hell No."
+1 for that comment.
Great compositional skills were employed in developing your sentence structure, omiting undue verbosity and using proper adjectives constructively, not philosophically.
You might try to use the bottom space more effectively with more emphasis, perhaps less at the top to further emhasise the original point of your comment.
Any more comment than this, I pretty much move on. Not because I don't want to hear what you have to say, far more because I like brevity and opinion photographically based, less personality, ego or emotionally driven. Cut to the chase.
-
There is a cause to this furor over critique, and it is very simple - me. I'm different, and different here is bad. ...
......
.......
..........
No.
That isn't true.
-
EDIT: Just after finishing this post, I look and see that Slobodan is now using cyberstalking to attempt to intimidate Roger, and I presume that I am next since he as concocted a conspiracy theory connecting us. REF: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75336.20
This feud has just taken a huge leap into illegal activity. Cyberstalking is against the law in all 50 US states, and I would assume many other countries too. Roger already offered that he did not want to give out his name, and in spite of that reasonable request, Slobodan proudly searched it out and issued the not very veiled threat that "anything was a few clicks away." I take that as a threat directly to me.
People have sensible reasons to protect their personal identity from online stalkers. Lives can be ruined, finances destroyed, and even personal safety becomes contested. It's an absurdity that a forum about photography can devolve to criminal activity because of temper tantrums. If I wasn't sure about staying private before, I certainly am now after seeing this. I have no clue now what the limits are on this forum. What's next? What's the limit to harassment?
Again with the delusional nonsense? What Slobodan did is not cyberstalking.
There is no criminal activity here. There have been no threats made.
Get over yourself.
-
Again with the delusional nonsense? What Slobodan did is not cyberstalking.
There is no criminal activity here. There have been no threats made.
Get over yourself.
Are you speaking here for the forum management?
-
Michael, do you believe in passport control?
Some European countries have played around with abolishing it with disastrous results: all manner of madness crosses the borders!
;-)
Rob C
-
For the record, Roger's full name has been revealed in his own posts, by himself, for quite some time. One has only to check "Show the last posts for this person," a button provided by the forum software.
-
Are you speaking here for the forum management?
No, I'm speaking as someone who lives in reality.
-
RG = troll (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet))
Cheers,
-
From Wikipedia:
In 1999, Pathe, Mullen and Purcell wrote that popular interest in stalking was promoting false claims.[24] In 2004, Sheridan and Blaauw said that they estimated that 11.5% of claims in a sample of 357 reported claims of stalking were false.[25]
According to Sheridan and Blaauw, 70% of false stalking reports were made by people suffering from delusions.[25][26] Another study estimated the proportion of false reports that were due to delusions as 64%.[27]
-
From Wikipedia:
Wikipedia no less! Impressive research Bloggo. But, that still leaves 30% who actually do know what constitutes a threat, doesn't it?
-
Wikipedia no less! Impressive research Bloggo. But, that still leaves 30% who actually do know what constitutes a threat, doesn't it?
Right, Woody... a "threat" coming from someone with a full public profile toward anonymous someone? Are you sure you got that right? It usually works the other way around, you know.
Oh, one more thing. If you would know how to read statistics right, you would realize you just admitted you would still belong to the 30% of those who falsely claim stalking, just for reasons other than delusion.
-
There is a cause to this furor over critique, and it is very simple - me. I'm different, and different here is bad. I write critiques that are longer than a Tweet, and I don't give obeisance to characters because they demand it.
. . . brings to mind two of the worst dangers in art - emulation and assumption of rules. And I thank you for presenting me the opportunity to say something about them. Emulation is deadly to anyone seeking their truth through art. To grab a forerunner's style, and assume it is a standard by which your own truth must conform, will kill the enterprise before it even begins. Whatever CBs truths were as he snapped his shutter are not my truths. His life is not my life. If art is life, how can I adopt his?
I finally got time to go back and scan this treatise.
ROTFL.
I can't count the number of times during the ten years my wife had her gallery that some kid wearing the same jeans everybody else in his age group wore, growing the same facial hair every male in his age group grew, would come in and plop down some atrocity and tell me that it was sure to sell so fast we wouldn't be able to keep it in stock. Faced with a suggestion that he might want to go over to the local community college for a while and learn something about art he'd be sure to say, perhaps not in so many words, but in essence, this:
"I'm different! I don't need to learn anything about any dead guy's art. I'm unique and I'm creative. I've been unique and creative since I was born. My folks always told me that, and my teachers did too. In grade school I won a bunch of awards. Everybody in my class won a bunch of awards, so it's pretty clear it was a class of geniuses. And, of course, I was at the top of my class of geniuses. So this art work will sell for sure."
Every time I think of that period I find myself ROTFL.
-
EDIT: Just after finishing this post, I look and see that Slobodan is now using cyberstalking to attempt to intimidate Roger, and I presume that I am next since he as concocted a conspiracy theory connecting us. REF: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75336.20
This feud has just taken a huge leap into illegal activity. Cyberstalking is against the law in all 50 US states, and I would assume many other countries too. Roger already offered that he did not want to give out his name, and in spite of that reasonable request, Slobodan proudly searched it out and issued the not very veiled threat that "anything was a few clicks away." I take that as a threat directly to me.
Ah, so who is making false accusations? Dare I say the words: slandering a fellow forum member. Again, quoting your own words. I spent many hours sitting with parents, students and attorneys trying to decipher whether a cyberstalking incident had taken place or was it cyberbullying. I think I have a pretty clear image of what it takes to discern if said communication was a directed threat or just schoolkid nonsense. Slobodan's figures still hold true today. However, all those stats compiled, I can only recall two incidences out of 50 or more where it was proven a student was being bullied or stalked and both resulted in hand slaps by the judge b ecause it was so hard to tell if actual emotional or physical damage occured.
"For the record, Roger's full name has been revealed in his own posts, by himself, for quite some time. One has only to check "Show the last posts for this person," a button provided by the forum software."
I am sure before all is said and done I will come to more conclusions, but two observations about you are humorous, to say the least.
One, you can't paint because you don't understand the concept of an underpainting, thus you turned to photography as an outlet. I am sure you are a better photographer than a painter, but I suspect only marginally so.
Two, I suspect from your language usage, and it is quite good, you were either a philosophy/humanities teacher or taught English. I also suspect you bored your students and colleagues to death when they asked you to explain the word: brevity.
-
I finally got time to go back and scan this treatise.
ROTFL.
I can't count the number of times during the ten years my wife had her gallery that some kid wearing the same jeans everybody else in his age group wore, growing the same facial hair every male in his age group grew, would come in and plop down some atrocity and tell me that it was sure to sell so fast we wouldn't be able to keep it in stock. Faced with a suggestion that he might want to go over to the local community college for a while and learn something about art he'd be sure to say, perhaps not in so many words, but in essence, this:
"I'm different! I don't need to learn anything about any dead guy's art. I'm unique and I'm creative. I've been unique and creative since I was born. My folks always told me that, and my teachers did too. In grade school I won a bunch of awards. Everybody in my class won a bunch of awards, so it's pretty clear it was a class of geniuses. And, of course, I was at the top of my class of geniuses. So this art work will sell for sure."
Every time I think of that period I find myself ROTFL.
Henri,
So close, huh? Well, except that I have never expressed any interest in making and selling crafts in your wife's store, or any other. Nor, is this a vetting jury here. Nor, have I ever made a single claim about being a genius, or all the other little canned tropes you have tossed into your over-rehearsed jibberish salad there. You're just a rude old man pretending to be something you are not, and you've found a contingent of willing fops to stroke your illusions. Sorry, there's nothing scary behind your curtain, only pathetic old grouch.
-
Thanks for confirming and emphasizing my statement, RG.
-
Thanks for confirming and emphasizing my statement, RG.
You are ever so welcome, Henri.
-
I also suspect you bored your students and colleagues to death when they asked you to explain the word: brevity.
+100. :D :D :D
-
I am going to move a response from the Volumes Thread to here as it is far more appropriate and I don't want to hijack a thread.
"We even have guys posting pictures of wet parking lots, so don't be worried that your photos aren't "good enough.""
This comes from a guy who posted a picture of a pink Mercury behind a chainlink fence which had large blue barrels dominating the color scheme? Credibility, RG; where's your credibility?
My wet parking lot is far superior to the snapshot of your pink mercury.
-
I guess I'm not surprised. Try reading it again.
Thanks for the confirmation, Russ. ::)
-
You're welcome. You might want to work on reading comprehension a bit more.
-
Thanks for the tip, Russ. It's just the type of mature comment I've learned to expect from you.
-
Again, you're welcome Dean. I hope you'll take it to heart.
-
I have never done this before, never put anyone on my ignore list (never had one either). I am afraid I must admit the "terrorist won," and I am defeated. I will, therefore, neither see nor respond to anything written by RedwoodGuy and Roger.
-
I just joined you in that endeavor. It's not for exactly the same reason but by and large, I have a very hard time dealing with inanity at any level and you guys are the very kings of inanity. Bye-bye Mark & Roger.
Now a word from our sponsor: Brevity, the elixir of true wordsmiths.
-
Alas I too have grown tired of this and so I have joined you both.
Dave
-
...and I am defeated. I will, therefore, neither see nor respond to anything written by RedwoodGuy and Roger.
No,No,No! That's exactly what he wants. Before long there will be only one person commenting........but the volume won't go down! And, my bet would be that even IF you refrain from commenting on his posts, he can't help but comment on yours.
-
He can comment all day long but we won't see it. When he realizes he has no audience, he'll likely fade away.
-
Alas I too have grown tired of this and so I have joined you both.
Dave
Count me in as well.
-
I think they are probably sophisticated trolls. Their posts hint of educated people so ignorance isn't an excuse. As long as Michael allows it they will continue posting. I think this thread will be locked soon and I haven't hit the Report to moderator button. Someone will no doubt. :(
-
Hmm .....I have read the posts of Stamper, Russ, Slobodan, Rob, Chris, and Eric, and I find it rather remarkable that so many posters in the same thread have thoughts and a writing style that is very similar. All like to avoid detail and explain their thoughts cryptically. The coincidence is remarkable. If I am wrong to draw attention to this and there isn't a connection between them, then I am apologising to the posters. Now where is the dictionary so I can find the definition of alter ego? ;)
-
Dean, your sense of humor is so... laughable!
-
Wait a sec....
Is there an ignore function/button at LL?
Where is it?
-
Check this thread:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=70597.0
-
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/5946183168/hD8134428/)
-
Now, Bryan, that is funny :)
-
Below is a quote from of a post that has been deleted.
"Chris Calohan
Sr. Member
Re: Forum etiquette—keep calm and carry on
« Reply #99 on: Today at 08:54:30 AM »
Well, Dean, I cannot speak for anyone else on this forum, nor would I make such an attempt but either you are reading all of this through rose-colored glasses, or you're just spewing for the sake of spewing.
I can assure you I don't post with anyone else's approval or in collusion with anyone. Roger and RG are so close in response that often I had to double check to see who was the poster. You're not too far behind but I find you a tad less obnoxious so have not put you on the ignore list...yet.
Could it possibly be that we all are constructing our observations on a singular theme: brevity, thus our responses cannot be anything but similar in context? I am quite sure my writing style is significantly different than the others you've mentioned and they from me. Your dictionary won't help you on this dilemma. You get to figure it out for yourself."
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Chris, you mean that my comment was unfair? I was just spewing? Oh, my!
Maybe you’re reaction is just because you disagree with my other posts? I doubt that you’d be quite so quick to criticize a similar post if it were made by one of your alter egos. ::)
To help settle our disagreement, let’s ask a third party whether my post was unfair and just spewing. I’ll even agree to let that third party be one of your alter egos: Stamper. What do you say, Stamper, would you agree that a post like mine was unfair and just spewing?
(Oh, Chris, I see you deleted your post. I’m sure it must have been inadvertent. You wouldn’t be trying to hide anything, like hypocrisy, would you?)
For those who may not understand what’s going on here, my post was a parody of a nearly identical post made by Stamper here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75336.0 Look for Reply #17. I just copied his post, typo and all, and then changed it so that it was directed at different “alter egos”.
The reaction to my parody by the “alter egos” says more about them than could ever be conveyed with words alone. Priceless!
-
Seriously, Dean!?
-
I deleted it in staying with proper ettiquete as per the Admins recent posting as to "jerks" will be removed immediately. I did not want to be construed as such a person therefore DELETED my post which I do not feel you had any right to repost either in part or full. To me, that certainly would qualify as a jerk move.
You do as you wish per third party interventions as you just earned the coveted, "ignore post" from me
-
Hmm .....I have read the posts of Stamper, Russ, Slobodan, Rob, Chris, and Eric, and I find it rather remarkable that so many posters in the same thread have thoughts and a writing style that is very similar. All like to avoid detail and explain their thoughts cryptically. The coincidence is remarkable. If I am wrong to draw attention to this and there isn't a connection between them, then I am apologising to the posters. Now where is the dictionary so I can find the definition of alter ego? ;)
I am honored that you include me in your Hall of Fame. I do admire Stamper, Russ, Slobodan, Rob, and Chris, although I have never met any one them in person. And this is the first time in my memory that anyone has claimed that my writing style has any similarity to anyone else's.
Thank you, Dean!
-
Gee guys, RedwoodGuy and Roger make your ignore lists, but I only make the cut with Chris? I’m kind of feeling like Rodney Dangerfield. ;D
-
Hmm .....I have read the posts of Stamper, Russ, Slobodan, Rob, Chris, and Eric, and I find it rather remarkable that so many posters in the same thread have thoughts and a writing style that is very similar. All like to avoid detail and explain their thoughts cryptically. The coincidence is remarkable. If I am wrong to draw attention to this and there isn't a connection between them, then I am apologising to the posters. Now where is the dictionary so I can find the definition of alter ego? ;)
You would never make a good editor; we write quite differently regarding grammar, construction as well as cadence and flow. But you're right: we are similar in that we all use English.
Rob C
-
Eric, Rob, you mean that I was unfair to say that your writing styles are similar? Really? Maybe once again we should ask Stamper whether such types of comparisons are fair? ;D
By the way, I'm glad to see your comments to my post. Now, if only Stamper and Russ would do so, too, all the "alter egos" would be represented.
-
Gee guys, RedwoodGuy and Roger make your ignore lists, but I only make the cut with Chris?...
Corrected now.
-
You would never make a good editor; we write quite differently regarding grammar, construction as well as cadence and flow. But you're right: we are similar in that we all use English.
Rob C
Thanks for properly using a semi-colon, but an editor would know that there are two spaces after a colon. ;-)
-
Thanks for properly using a semi-colon, but an editor would know that there are two spaces after a colon. ;-)
Au contraire, mi capitan:
"If you are using a typewriter, 2 spaces after a period or colon, 1 space after all other punctuation marks like a comma or semicolon.
If you are using a computer with a word processor or any other type of program the rule is one space after all punctuation. More than one space will cause unsightly gaps between words and sentences."
-
One thing that I find a little surprising about Chris’s and Eric’s replies is that Stamper started this alter ego nonsense just a couple days ago. Chris and Eric both actively participated in that nonsense, yet they appear to have been clueless that my post was a parody, even though my post was virtually identical to Stamper’s post. It just goes to show that, no matter how obvious and blatant the hypocrisy, some people are blind to their own hypocrisy. Moreover, even when confronted with their hypocrisy, they refuse to show any regret or shame. I wish it were not so, but Chris’s and Eric’s conduct is not unusual. All you have to do is read or watch the news to see such conduct daily.
Slobodan was also a very, very active participant in that alter ego nonsense, but apparently he at least was able remember doing so. Even so, he didn't acknowledge, or show any regret or shame, for not only participating in such nonsense but spreading it to other threads.
-
Come on Dean,
Give it a rest already and let this atrocious thread die a peaceful death.
It is better to just walk away from a fight than to engage needlessly and be carried away.
Rich
-
Yeah, you’re right.
-
I am honored that you include me in your Hall of Fame. I do admire Stamper, Russ, Slobodan, Rob, and Chris, although I have never met any one them in person. And this is the first time in my memory that anyone has claimed that my writing style has any similarity to anyone else's.
Thank you, Dean!
I feel rather insulted to have been left out. Boo hoo.
Jeremy
-
Eric, Rob, you mean that I was unfair to say that your writing styles are similar? Really? Maybe once again we should ask Stamper whether such types of comparisons are fair? ;D
By the way, I'm glad to see your comments to my post. Now, if only Stamper and Russ would do so, too, all the "alter egos" would be represented.
Unfair, no; it's got nothing to do with the concept of fairness.
Eric doesn't usually let himself go terribly far very often (on the written pages to which I have access), so without a longer body of work in one post it is difficult to come to an accurate conclusion. Clearly, slight evidence hasn't prevented you from forming a firm opinion. You may be mistaken, but I admire confidence!
However, formimg such opinion on slight evidence also removes you from being a capable detective unless you work for the parallel universe that is virtual Dade County.
Not editor, and now not detective... have you tried photography?
;-)
Rob C
-
Thanks for properly using a semi-colon, but an editor would know that there are two spaces after a colon. ;-)
That depends: in the States, folks often use a capital letter right after a colon, but not so in the UK.
I have never come across the custom to which you refer, but that doesn't mean what you write isn't correct... that's what it means to view life through a camera: you miss the bigger picture.
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob,
Dean has backed off and CSI Miami is broadcast history.
Time to let it go.
Rich
-
Eric, Rob, Jeremy, perhaps you missed my explanation that my post was a parody, and the more you criticize that post in the manner you have the more effectively you make my point?
For those who may not understand what’s going on here, my post was a parody of a nearly identical post made by Stamper here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75336.0 Look for Reply #17. I just copied his post, typo and all, and then changed it so that it was directed at different “alter egos”.
If you were already aware that my post was a parody, or it doesn’t matter with respect to your recent comments, please just ignore this post.
-
... we write quite differently regarding grammar, construction as well as cadence and flow... we are similar in that we all use English.
Indeed. Only in my dreams one would confuse my writing with Rob's.
-
I think this entire thread is merely a product of the matrix. 8)
-
I think this entire thread is merely a product of the matrix. 8)
Which one?
For a brief, quickly quenched moment of madness I'd imagined you'd been thinking dominatrix before you typed, but I was obviously just having a hot flush. Thinking of which, the restaurant is back down to normal prices today after Sunday excesses, so as I have had enough of my own cooking over the weekend, I'd better rush off and have a shower, something I dread here in winter: everything is so damned damp and cold, even when the electric heating's on. I should have faced it earlier, but we had a power cut this morning and I didn't dare get caught covered in soap with no way to get rid of it. The water comes courtesy of an electric pump. Fun in the sun, right.
Rob C
-
A hot flush? I have heard about heated toilet seats, but never a hot flush. Talk about lifestyles of the rich and famous ;D
-
Are you saying Rob is rich AND famous. Now that will bring a flush to his cheeks. ;) ;D
-
Just ignore these guys, Rob. They won't post their ages but it sounds as if they're too old to have a hot flush.
-
Just ignore these guys, Rob. They won't post their ages but it sounds as if they're too old to have a hot flush.
Age is a state of mind. My wife says I still act like a 12 year old.
-
Age is a state of mind. My wife says I still act like a 12 year old.
Just as long as she's not a twelve-year-old (beware the Ides of Jerry Lee) you have nothing to fear. The perfect age, in my estimation, was the mid-forties. I speak of my age, not of the times in which we lived (some of us), because we were both young enough to enjoy everything that was going, had the health and stamina to eat it, drink it, probably buy it and go sail in it. Yes!
Today, few of those options remain, but at least at the time the Internet, for me, didn't; had it existed, I may well have wasted many of those other, real opportunities in exchange for an uncomfortable typìst's chair on a stick. Close shave, that!
;-)
Rob C
-
A hot flush? I have heard about heated toilet seats, but never a hot flush. Talk about lifestyles of the rich and famous ;D
You can always settle for a hot bidet.
Rob C
-
You can always settle for a hot bidet.
Rob C
A couple of Habanero peppers will achieve the same result at a much lower cost. :D
-
And... the lofty etiquette debate just went down the toilet... in Habanero flames. ;D
-
And... the lofty etiquette debate just went down the toilet... in Habanero flames. ;D
Be happy: better down than up!
;-)
Rob C
-
Roger (the gentleman who started this thread):
I want you to know that I admire the way you responded to the “alter ego” smear campaign waged against you. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75336.0
Faced with a despicable personal attack by a clique of immature bullies, you responded gracefully, treating your bullies with respect that they surely didn’t deserve. Your response is especially striking in comparison to the responses made by some of those bullies to my parody.
Roger, you’ve demonstrated what it means to be a man of honesty and integrity. You may have been bullied and smeared by many posters in these threads, but I want you to know that at least one person recognizes and appreciates your sound character. Thank you for your efforts and demonstration of grace under fire.
-
clique?
immature?
bullies - Yes.
-
Easy guys.This dog is sleeping. If you wake him up he may bite you.
-
Roger (the gentleman who started this thread):
I want you to know that I admire the way you responded to the “alter ego” smear campaign waged against you. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75336.0
Faced with a despicable personal attack by a clique of immature bullies, you responded gracefully, treating your bullies with respect that they surely didn’t deserve. Your response is especially striking in comparison to the responses made by some of those bullies to my parody.
Roger, you’ve demonstrated what it means to be a man of honesty and integrity. You may have been bullied and smeared by many posters in these threads, but I want you to know that at least one person recognizes and appreciates your sound character. Thank you for your efforts and demonstration of grace under fire.
More than one.
-
More than one.
Add me to the list. I am sure that there are a lot more.
-
gracefully, treating your bullies with respect
You mean like calling me "child-like," "out of control," and telling me to "get a grip?" All that while lecturing and berating not for what concerns him directly, but on behalf of another poster? So much for his "let's discuss photography, not another poster."
-
Oh, Slobodon, you big mean bully, you! This reminds me of a scene at the end of Blazing Saddles.
I understand Slobodon's retort and from whence it came and while I agree, I think everyone needs to heed RSL's response as to being wary of sleeping dogs...who never bite, until they awaken. Zzzzzzzzzz, seems more prudent. Anyway, there are few days or weeks in which some other topic will get similar responses...
-
... I understand Slobodan's retort and from whence it came and while I agree, I think everyone needs to heed RSL's response as to being wary of sleeping dogs...
Damn... am I dense sometimes... I didn't get what Russ was referring to at the time :-[
-
Chomp! Grrr!
;)
-
You mean like calling me "child-like," "out of control," and telling me to "get a grip?" All that while lecturing and berating not for what concerns him directly, but on behalf of another poster? So much for his "let's discuss photography, not another poster."
Slobodan, you are a liar. I wrote that Roger responded gracefully to the alter ego attack in this thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75336.0 Nowhere in that thread did he call you "child-like," "out of control," or tell you to "get a grip".
Taking my quote out of context to distort what I wrote, and taking (again out of context) any comments that Roger may or may not have posted elsewhere and pretending that they were in the thread under discussion, is despicable.
To make matters worse, Chris and Eric then cheer you on. You guys are beneath contempt.
-
Slobodan, you are a liar. I wrote that Roger responded gracefully to the alter ego attack in this thread: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=75336.0 Nowhere in that thread did he call you "child-like," "out of control," or tell you to "get a grip".
Taking my quote out of context to distort what I wrote, and taking (again out of context) any comments that Roger may or may not have posted elsewhere and pretending that they were in the thread under discussion, is despicable.
To make matters worse, Chris and Eric then cheer you on. You guys are beneath contempt.
Dean, it sounds as if you're intent on getting the whole LuLa Art of Photography forum shut down. Is that what you have in mind? The dog you just awakened is liable to bite you in the ass big time. It's clear Michael is a very, very patient guy, but there's a limit to anyone's patience.
-
One by one, as patience & tolerance run thin, I am banning individuals from posting.
BTW if you find yourself banned - don't bother trying to PM or email Michael or I