Why do I post here? Locked

Started Mar 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
yvind Strm
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,130
Re: About a C
In reply to Laurence Matson, Mar 12, 2013

Hello Laurence

I guess "Yes" would not be appropriate here....

Laurence Matson wrote:

Øyvind,

With all due respect, I think this is a bit over the top. I could just as easily sign on to "Splendid" and trump it with my own "Profilierungsneurose." There is something there.

I sometimes write long posts, I know. Maybe because I don't have those long english or funny german words in my vocabulary. I bet they could cover many of my sentences. From now on, I know I can just write "Profilierungsneurose", and everyone would know that this was about me, and not the behaviour of many fanboys here. Nice attempt on diversion.

BTW, isn't it a bit under the belt, to offer diagnosis on people? Oh, sorry, I forgot, it is perfectly allowed, when someone oppose the fanboys here. I must remember to add it to the list for use next time I think the fanboys step over the line. But, don't worry, I can take it. It just gives me the opportunity to write you a VERY LONG reply. If I have "profilierungsneurose", I have "profilierungsneurose".

Much of what you say has a grain of truth spiced with a dash of not-so-subtle and seemingly understated viperitude.

And all of it at such length begs the question: Why not just say: "Chill out, folks!"

I did think of that. I actually did write that at first also. But, then I saw the reply of Richard Stone, where he asked people to support RonJ, and then you know, the "profilierungsneurose" took over, and the post got longer and longer, as I recalled all the good people you and others have forced out over the years. And since it is so long since I adressed the bad behaviour of people here.

But the length - Biblical by forum standards - is something I think you really like, because it gives the impression that you have more merit in what you say than others could possibly have.

No, that is not intentional. I try to write understandable, but I do not use length to give impression that I have more merit. I try to make what I say to stand for it self. So I am afraid that your next argument falls apart.

Is there an english word for making an assumption, and then basing the arguments on that (wrong) assumption, as you repeatedly do?

This is blatantly untrue, again, with all due respect. You have not the slightest idea what others do in a holistic sense. You take a picture from here, blow it way up.

And now you have punctured it, so all problems goes away. As you say, it has a grain of truth.

First, through your labels: fanboys, wannabees, Richard Stones,

Are there more than one Stone? Sorry, couldn't resist.

Fanboys is a pretty accurate term. I am not so sure about wannabees. I have just observed that often rather new people joins the wolf pack, after the fanboys have set the uncivil tone. So , I thought it could be that they felt they would be easier accepted by the master fanboys.

BTW, what did you think about the new word I invented the other day? "Fanboying" - the act of excersizing fanboy activities.

'"serial comparers,"

I fail to notice I said that.

Sigmafia,

I give you that this word is stupid. Sorry. I wil refrain from using it again.

Carl's wife (which I assume you mean with "Linn"),

Yes, I bet you do. I THINK you are smart enough to understand that it was a typo. Of course I meant Lin (Evans), not Linn. (I assume you found it useful to pick on a typo). Linn is such a nice person - I have many good memories from hers and Carls wedding.

etc, and then have the gall to denigrate other things - meetings, trade shows, shoots, beta testing, personal contacts, dinners, tours - for what appears to be simple jealousy reasons,

No, that's not right. There is no jealousy involved. I have participated in all the SUG meetings in my area (one :-), and I have by free will decided not to attend other arrangements in other regions.  Do you refer to that I once wrote to you and offered to become a beta tester?

thereby ignoring the fact that many people here have dedicated considerable resources in terms of time and money to making this effort on the part of Foveon and Sigma somewhat successful. And for the most part, those people doing this, did not do it to make you or anyone else jealous (as you clearly are);

Again you make an assumption, and base your arguing on that assumption. A wrong assumption.

I do not know how many hours I have spent on this forum helping people mastering their Sigmas, and compiling my SD14 compendium. So I am not alien to aid Sigma, for free. And since I did not do it to make anyone jealous, I do think I can understand that neither did, or do, any of the ones you refer to above.

amazing as the concept may seem to you, Sigma and Foveon actually reach out to users they can identify as serious people, who might have something important for them to hear.

Yes, I must admit that there is something that have amazed me. How can a marketing department (at Sigma) still embrace their "serious" peoples, when thy can watch how they can insults, belittel (or in other way behave uncivil), either other Sigma customers or even potentional Sigma customers, who are labeled Trolls if they dare asking a critical (no, let me correct, an assumed critical) question, about a Sigma camera (which they do not have, since they havn't provided a picture of a glas of water). Oh, that was a long sentence. Can you read it , Laurence?

Don't they read this forum?

As for your judgment of who is civil and who is not, I agree that a good tone is preferable, but I also think that sly humor, direct statements, and even brutal honesty also have their place. Pollyanna has just as little place here as does Attila the Hun, and by his own account, Ron is far closer to the latter.

What really killed your grade though is your placing yourself on some pedestal as the final arbiter of the good photograph.

I did try to read what I wrote again, but can't really find support for what you claim.

I am glad you enjoyed it.That last long paragraph addressed to Ron goes beyond the ridiculous and ends at the faux-sublime. You have an opinion about what makes a great picture and provide it - when you have the time.

Do I sense a snide attack here? An old thread, perhaps?

But it is only your opinion, and sometimes wrong in the eyes of others, who have every right to be just as correct or wrong as you.

Have you been searching old posts? Or something you have stored from the past to use at the right moment? Beacuse I see nowhere in this post that I have claimed to have the "correct" view of a picture.

Finally, your long list of characters reads like an Irish dramatis personae after a collective supping off the end of the Guinness pipeline before they have a group slash all over the pitch.

I am glad you enjoyed it. I didn't know it was that good.

Next time I point out uncivil behaviour, I will include your unprecented tactic of using the length of the post in the arguments.

And if I manage to decipher the Irish thing properly, maybe there is something to include there too. Who knows

Here's my question to you: How much time do you actually spend off this forum constructively communicating with other members in an attempt to clean up some of the mess you perceive being here?

Sorry, I haven't kept track of that. There has been some PMs and mails over the years. And, if memory doesn't fail me, you started to behave better after some mail exchange with me - or was it just a coincidence? Others I have found is beyond reach.

Nuff said for now. I am very interested to hear Ron's take on what you wrote.

I bet you are.

yvind Strm wrote:

RonJG wrote:

I would seriously like to better understand the Sigma cameras I own, (SD1M, SD15 and DP2M). I have problems with all three of them with weird and inconsistent colours, weird and inconsistent exposure and strange jaggies and purple/green splotches in shadow detail.

I'm told I'm either mad or just stirring up trouble with I ask questions or am told that there is nothing wrong with my gear, that all the problems are either in my head or my fault.

The "help" I have received here has either been non existent or has been of such patronising quality it was immediately dismissed.

This forum is NOT a terribly helpful place to be if you fall out with the SigMafia, or if one of the SigMafia decides you are not worthy. One step out of line and the dog pack is released. Pretty disgusting behaviour I must say.

Anyhoo - I'm certainly no quitter and I will continue to try to get these Sigma things working at something approaching an acceptable level.

I will also continue to offer honest and open oipinion on posted pictures and I will continue challenging those persons I feel are being less than open or honest with their comments. If honest comments are not received at Sigma headquarters, problems will never be fixed. The 12 years or so of the purple/green splotches is testament to that.

Go your damndest, Sigmafia. I ain't leaving voluntarily.

Ron

I am sorry that I have missed your request for help. There ARE several helpful people here. I will do whatever I can to help. Please link to previous requests or write a new list. Even several member of the "sigmafia" are helpful - if you do not insult their cameras or Sigma, and when they not are busy with:

  1. defending against imaginary trolls
  2. scanning a posters history to find out if he has a Sigma
  3. scanning a posters history to find quotas to use against him
  4. denying that a problem exist, unless they have seen it themself (to be fair, only a few falls into this category)
  5. monitoring if one of their friends (or heroes) are beeing critisized
  6. managing their huge Ignore list
  7. feeding a posters post into a very advanced algorythm to match him against all previous persons that is disliked in this forum (which is an even huger list), and share among them
  8. mending their hurt feelings when someone critisize their camera or Sigma (oh, I have alraedy said that once)
  9. pulling out Richard Stone as last line of defence. Sorry, Richard - you wondered who would step out in defence of RonJ. That comment might have made some to refrain from doing so - which I have no doubt was the intention (and a new low, even from you) - but, sorry, not me. Oh, I must say, not so much in defence of RonJ, but against the behaviour of you and other fanboys. I would not accuse any of you fanboys beeing only 13 or so, but its not always easy to see that from your and others posts. Your language is of course too sophisticated, but the attacks are not.

And then there is the wannabees. Relativly new to the forum, they jump in, in defence (no, sorry, join the attack) of the master "fanboys".

There are also some hidden aspects in this forum, that is invisible to newcomers, but may explain some of the strange things happening here. Firstly, many of the oldtimers meet in person. On PMA - with tours (with equipment form Sigma), and dinners (sponosred by Sigma). Some may even be found behind the counters at Sigmas stand, helping Sigma demonstrating. So, maybe some are defending priviledges in addition to camera/Sigma?

Next thing is Beta testers. Several people here are betatesters for Sigma. Would you find it reasonable to expect that they agreed on faults they did not find when testing?

Dunno why I write this - I don't know how many times I have tried to get people to behave better here. I claim that the fanboy approach of to many here, is harming Sigma. For every poster there are many, many lurkers. People are attracted to Sigma, comes here to see if Sigma has a good community - and what do they find? A bunch of uncivil people that jumps in unison on anyone differing in views about their camera or Sigma. Does it scare some from buying Sigma cameras? I am sure it has.

The Sigmafia/fanboy behaviour of this forum may drive out some unwanted individuals (and yes, that has been done successfully many times over the years) and regain the illusion of a cosy place. To me, it is the fanboys, Sigmafia or whatever name appropriate that spoils almost ALL the spoiled discussions here, by far to often responding in an uncivil way. The favorite excuse is that there has been so many trolls coming here over the years, so people have a low tolerance.

I have used Sigma for several years now (oh, I havn't shown a picture of a glass of water yet, so Linn probably do not believe it). From the very launch of my camera (the SD14) the forum flooded with faults. Over the coming years I collected tips and tricks, and turned it into a compendium for new users. (Temporarely unavailible)

My take is - let's get everything on the table. If a persons unit doesn't show the same behaviour, good for you - but do not deny problems other have. Only if everything is out in the open, workarounds can be found (or not), and Sigma can be notified and make a fix. Sigma cameras is different, quirks are numerous, Sigmas SW qualities is inferior to most others makers and unit variation is present. I thought I could use the SD14 for professional jobs, but had to postpone my plans for returning to pro jobs for several years.

But in the end, one must decide if the potentionally superb results makes it worth the endless frustrations of the camera. I can't risk using my SD14 to earn money, so I go for a Nikon D800E, which I consider closest to getting Sigmas microcontrast. And possibly a DP2M.

Ron, a few words of advice to you too.

If someone posts a picture, and do not especially ask for feedback, a good advice is to wait a little, till the usual Ahhs, and Ohhs has come, and the author do not prostests to getting positive feedback, then I can step in, either to challenge the responders to why they think it is a good image, or offering a rather extensive comment about the picture. I always say what I mean, but I try to do it in a constructive way. But, some people do ONLY want pats on their back, which they unfortunately get from friends and alike. SO you can still be honest, but I too think you came off to direct in your first post.

With that said, the responses from Linn and others was far worse.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards
Øyvind

-- hide signature --

Laurence
laurence at appledore-farm dot com
"The fact of being reported multiplies the apparent extent of any deplorable development by five- to tenfold" (or any figure the reader would care to supply).
Barbara Tuchman, A Distant Mirror
http://www.pbase.com/lmatson
http://www.pbase.com/sigmadslr
http://www.howardmyerslaw.com

-- hide signature --

Kind regards
Øyvind

Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
WowNew
(unknown member)
wow.New
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow