Forum quality much lower without David Kilpatrick

fredferkel said:

You should leave here right now and never return. I find it
disgusting that a non-achiever like you has the gall to call Phil an
idiot. Take a look in the mirror if you want to see one of those.

Click to expand...

HUM469 said:

The amature Richard Butler demonstrated at least a poor comprehension
of basic english and proper meanings in his biased attempts to
downplay the A350's strengths. In particular, he referred to it's
maximum frame rate in LV, one of the fastests LV frame rates around
right now, as "slovenly". Of course this means nothing in reference
to speed of things, but it carries a very negative connotation.
David K suggested that a better word would be more appropriate, and
perhaps a reviewer should look at what rate other cameras run at in
LV before trying to say the A350's rate is bad. The funny thing I
think about all this is that thefreedictionary.com lists the
following:

slovenly
Adjective
1. always unclean or untidy
2. negligent and careless: to write in such a slovenly style

...to write in such a slovenly style
Perhaps Richard was accidentally referring to himself with that
slipup?

Websters says:

slovenly
adjective
Date: circa 1568
1 a: untidy especially in personal appearance b: lazily slipshod
2: characteristic of a sloven

Even more entertaining is the fact that the review was changed later,
exactly as David K suggested and is better (if not still terribly
accurate) because of it. That is the reason that everyone who was
around finds things particularly childish or petulant. If dpreview
feels Richard was correct in describing a frame rate as slovenly,
then they should not change anything. If they agree that it was
innappropriate and needed correcting, whatever happened to accepting
a correction with a little grace and dignity? Yes, I admit that my
tone here is at this point a litte harsh, David K's tone was at no
point as insulting as my own. And I know I have been guilty of being
even more critical than this in the past of both forum members and
site staff and I have never been banned, so the excuse that David K
was too rude and therefor violating some rule is simply not true. It
is, as others suggested, simply an issue of "journalistic jealousy"
and bruised egos. The thing I don't think they realize at DPReview
though, is that they need a knock here and there to help them remain
on a path of good quality writing. If we don't receive a little
criticism from time to time, we all become complacent and quality
falls. I hope to see David back very soon.
--
-Dylan Anderson

Click to expand...

Keith Schmidt said:

...or like me, have dramatically reduced their participation here in
light of the fiasco that was the a350 review. The review itself was
unprofessional (although I'm not really arguing against the
conclusion), and then the response and actions of the staff were
downright childish. That really turned me off from this site.

I still visit from time to time, but I just don't participate a whole
lot anymore.

Click to expand...

Keith Schmidt said:

--
Keith
http://keithinsp.smugmug.com/
http://www.pbase.com/themitty/
http://www.picasaweb.google.com/themitty

Click to expand...

Henry Richardson said:

splendid_splinter said:

I mean unless he was threatening people with violence, cursing
non-stop, making racial comments, or being abusive in some other way,
I don't see why they would ban him. It hurts them.

I use this site for getting some feedback and learning a little about
what is going on in the Sony world, however, I see that there are
prejudices and bias all over this site...its is in the fabric of the
site. I take it for what its worth and David is missed.

Click to expand...

David was very even-keeled and although often provoked he was very
moderate in his responses. Better than I could do. He always came
across as friendly and patient. He wasn't banned for being abusive
or anything even remotely like it.

Click to expand...

Member said:

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

Click to expand...

Henry Richardson said:

I just noticed that this thread has been removed from the Top
Discussions on the main page. Not clear why. Not that it is
important and maybe it is a glitch. It was there earlier and this
thread has more posts than several others that are on the list. I'm
not saying someone intentionally removed it, just that it is curious.

Click to expand...

ck3 said:

The top discussions stat doesn't count the absolute number of posts
in a thread but the number of posts/time. This thread may contain
more posts than other treads, but it hasn't been very active lately.

Click to expand...

ck3 said:

I guess it's because the stat list the most active threads in the
last 48 hours - so it takes some time till it disappears after it's
been closed.

Click to expand...

HUM469 said:

While your point is important and it is certainly true that more
people can make for more positive threads, I think there is a
sub-text here too. I don't think it is entirely about David K here.
Oh yes, there are plenty who cannot see anything but him, but I think
this whole complaint is also about the fact that there are so many
deserving trolls running around who never get the boot despite plenty
of rule violations. They chase after so many of the other regular
posters who try to start these types or threads, creating chaos,
trying to disrupt these better discussions of technique and photos
and gear to the point that many have stopped trying. Of course
everyone could rise above it and ignore these trouble makers, but I
think many cannot see why someone who would regularly did manage to
ignore them for the sake of helping everyone out would get banned,
when the trouble makers still have the run of the place. Just look
through any one of these threads and you will see some of it. It
really is defeating to many on here every time there is a new
technique or useful setting combination or something mentioned, and 2
or 3 trolls swoop in and start calling all idiots and what not
because well the Canon could have done that with 6 other custom
functions or the Nikon has greater number of settings, so the Sony is
rubbish since it does it differently and everyone who thinks
different should just shut up. Get harrassed enough and even the
thickest skinned at least lose their enthusiasm. There are rules,
many wonder why they aren't enforced except when a reviewer's ego is
on the line.

Click to expand...