Three Quick Questions vs The Enjoyment of Photography

Hmmm. Perhaps you have seen it so many times before because you regularly display trollish behavior? I'm sure you don't do so intentionally. However, if it has feathers, webbed feet and quacks, it may just be a duck, right?

You're right: to continue the discussion does require a new thread. However, you do so in a way that reflects the techniques of a troll (see above). Again, I think this is just the way your mind works as you want to precisely and point by point prove your knowledge and defend yourself against imagined chastisement.

Anyway, let's look at some things I actually said vs what you comprehended.

I said "relative semantics", in quotes. Pretty easy to tell I was referring to the subjective understanding of terms such as "exposure". The problem is, you used the term in a way you understood, but not how others may understand it. Ergo, the semantics of your statement is relative to how others use the term exposure.

For example: "Charles, how many exposures do you have left on that role of film?". What is the person asking me? or "What is the correct exposure for that scene using the 'Sunny 16' rule at ISO 100?" Well, the answer is going to be simple, without going into extraneous (though valid) detail about noise levels, equivalency et al. The practical answer: "1/100 at f16 or an equivalent combination of shutter speed and f stop". Most people will only want that much of an answer: anything more in depth doesn't really provide the practical answer the question asks.

I never said, or even implied, that technique is unimportant. I said basically that technique serves to fulfill aesthetic goals, and that most people respond to the aesthetic intention of the photo rather than the technical aspects. To take my meaning further than that is, well, trollish.

GB, believe me, if I were to actually "chastise" you, it would be direct and obvious. As in what I have just typed above. Asking you this:

"Perhaps you should consider that for the great majority of people, the enjoyment of both taking and viewing photos is based on emotional response, not intellectual grasp of technical principles? With that in mind, maybe most people simply don't consider your attempts at "education" to be as important as you consider it to be?"

is a valid set of questions for you to consider, not being "snippy" or chastising you.

Also:

"For instance: I've reached the conclusion that your "3 quick questions" directed to me were less about learning my point of view or opening up mutual dialog as much as simply a way for you to set the stage for your own efforts at showing us all your depth of knowledge. If that's the case, you're simply patronizing people here. If I'm mistaken, then understand my perspective:

I offered my personal conclusion, based on your questions and how you responded to my answers (telling me the "correct" answer to #3. Really?). The statement was concluded by the qualifying statement of "If I'm mistaken..." I then explained why I, personally, view technique as a means to an end, a servant of my personal artistic vision.

That is all I said.

If you take that as chastisement, then I must question the fragility of your ego.

Finally, I presented this analogy:

"Belaboring points about technical aspects, without adequately demonstrating how they will aid in the actual purpose of the photograph, is like explaining how an internal combustion engine works to someone who simply wants directions to get across town."

Again, a pretty straightforward statement pointing out a very real aspect of the discussion: people will read tech comments and ask "how will this make my photos better". If multiple comments on the same subject fail to answer that question, the point is being

Belabored.

1. Argue or elaborate (a subject) in excessive detail: 

--
Some people operate cameras. Others use them to create images. There is a difference.
http://ikkens.zenfolio.com/
http://sarob-w.deviantart.com/