Why do I post here? Locked

Started Mar 9, 2013 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
yvind Strm
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,129
Re: About a C
In reply to Laurence Matson, Mar 12, 2013

Laurence Matson wrote:

yvind Strm wrote:

BTW, isn't it a bit under the belt, to offer diagnosis on people?

And you did not? In spades?

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.

This is complete nonsense. You obviously have no idea about why good people leave here.

No? But I do know that if you and the other loyalists refrained from attacking people coming here, this would be a much better place.

I try to write understandable, but I do not use length to give impression that I have more merit.

Sorry, but I do not believe you.

Ok, understandable, as it would tore away the foundation for your arguments.

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.

Deflection does not mean that you understand what others do.

Fanboys is a pretty accurate term.

To your way of thinking. Just for your information, Michihiro Yamaki called them "evangelists." This was later picked up by Popular Photography in an editorial about the Sigma Users Group. I think he is more accurate with that term than you are with fanboys, which is widely seen as pejorative.

Here I will give you right. "Evangelists" IS much better. I will try to use that.

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.

Nonsense. And you consider yourself a model of civility?

No, not at all. I do make mistakes, and comes off wrongly or too strong. But I do try to correct and appologize if I step over the line.

'"serial comparers,"

I fail to notice I said that.

People who spend time looking up past postings.

Aha. Absolutely.

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.

Sorry, but your language betrays you in that post.

Well, you must be right then. I'm just not sure what I am jealous about.

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.

Nonsense

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.

Great. I even read it and (perhaps?) corrected it. I cannot remember. I did it for someone.

Actually, you are right. You did proof it for me, and corrected a lot of my bad english.

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?

They certainly do. And they can separate the chaff from the wheat, believe it or not. The general consensus is that 95% of what is written here is technically incorrect, just as an aside. The general tone they are mature enough to recognize as pretty standard on Internet forums. (See Bowman's post elsewhere.)

Thanks for clarifying that. I am still amazed.

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.

See one of the follow-up posts that you answered. Not a tough search even for you.

I cannot recall that I have claimed that I have the only possible view on what a good photograph is. But I do think that using my approach, for many photographers, will result in better pictures. Others have other approaches, which is perfectly fine.

But I recall those post I wrote about that was very long posts. But that was before you told me that posts should not be so long.

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?

No, an honest opinion. You post an offer to help others with criticism and then run out of time. And what you tell them is somewhere between fluff and nonsense with a few good points mixed in. If that is good enough for you, fine. As I said:

So, you admit to just a tiny bit of "serail comparring" by yourself. And obviously storing things as ammunition for totally unrelated attacks. Is this also something you guys share between you in off forum conversations?

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.

No. It was referenced in a follow-up posting that you answered. Don't be daft.

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.

Domodossola-Brig

I hope this isn't wasted on the readers. I don't know that expression.

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.

You honestly are deluded enough to think that you will change my behavior? I think it is great that you send out some PMs and a few e-mails. As I said, others have invested a lot more than that. And that is generally what you feel necessary to put down.

Oh, so it was just a coincidence, then. I just observed that you have behaved better in the last years.

Isn't there a contradiction somewhere, in wanting me to spend more time off forum, to clean up some of the mess, and saying that I can't change your behaviour? I guess I would just waste my time.

It is great to know that you and your likes spend lots of time communicating off forum. I never doubted that. Is that where the wolf pack attacks are planned? And analysing and discussion about a possible return of previous expells? Because I cannot imagine that this vast amount of off forum communication has any intent on calming things down. On the contrary, I think it is about planning how to get rid off those voicing different views, so order and family cosiness can be restored. Why not create a facebbok page, where only the loyals are admitted and can praise Sigma cameras?

And why did you even ask? Since you have diagnosed me having "profilierungsneurose", I cannot be expected to hide away my views in emails or PMs?

Enough nonsense. As you said, I can't change your behaviour.

And with your arguing, you just prove my point on how the Evangelists treat dissidents.

If you excuse me, I must prepare for Richard Stones next attack.

-- 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

--
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