Some people do not as you rightly say show photos here and that's only because they can be anonymous and carry on regardless.
There we disagree. People may have all sorts of reasons for not showing photos. They may not take any, or they may be modest about the merits of their work, but may still have an informed interest in photography (say as an art form or a historical or social phenomenon) and hence have something to contribute to the forum, which I take to be for people who are
interested in photography rather than just for people who take photographs.
Compare, for example, a forum for people who love music - whether or not posters could hold a tune would be relevant only in a narrow set of circumstances.
The difference that I'm objecting to, anonymous people hanging around who may not be photographers as no photographs are ever displayed, are now the reason you claim this is somehow not like a camera club. Which is somewhat absurd logic really.
Same point as above. You have an argument with a particular person, but there are plenty of other people who don't post photographs (some of them anonymous, others not). What I am saying that Lula differs from a camera club in a way which makes not posting photographs acceptable behaviour rather than odd or suspicious, as you seem to think. Anonymity is a separate question. I prefer to use my own name (and I post the occasional image) but I accept that others may have good reasons for not doing either and still have something interesting to say.
You seem to be a very literal person. If something is not exactly the same, then it must therefore be completely different.
The price of the trip and the location are not relevant. The fact that a bunch of photographers are going somewhere to take photos as arranged by folks from their forum is.
I took your observation about trips to be humorous - it certainly made me smile - and I was attempting, unsuccessfully it seems, to reply in the same vein - so I accept full responsibility for the fact that you completely misunderstood what I was saying
. I was agreeing that one of the points in common between Lula and camera clubs is that both arrange trips, smiling at the idea of a camera club arranging a $15,000 trip to Antarctica, but then reflecting that it probably has happened, or will happen. Why not, after all? I am sure there are travel agents who could organise it all for the club.
Again with being very literal and missing the point. It's not about being a master photographer, it's about being a photographer at all if pontificating about photographic matters and particularly if engaging in trolling behaviour.
Pontificating and trolling don't strike me as any less objectionable because the poster takes and shows photographs or more objectionable because he or she does not. Pontificating is pontificating, trolling is trolling. Posts should be judged on their own merits. Asking to see a person's photographs (in a combative rather than a friendly way) is a relevant comment only if the person has made some claim about the merits of those photographs. It is certainly irrelevant if the subject of the discussion is how Adobe's subscription service is working out, and, IMO, equally irrelevant in most of the other circumstances in which it is made on the forum.
... those who tend to come out with the most rubbish are usually hiding themselves away behind their keyboards with their masks on.
Again, I think you are generalising illegitimately from your negative view of a particular individual. Or have you done a survey of Lula members who don't post photographs and/or don't use their own name? If you have, the results would be genuinely interesting - or maybe someone else has some information, eg on what proportion of people who post also show their images.
As for the subscription service, I have come round to it. $10 a month strikes me as a good deal, and I seem to have been fortunate in having no software problems. But I take nothing for granted and won't be throwing away my old "perpetual licences".
