What does 'Open Talk' mean?

bronson99817 · Jun 28, 2002

Open Talk about photography? That seems to be redundant in light of all the photographic related forums here.

I always assumed it was for talking about whatever was on your mind, within the parameters set by the administrator.

Ed Leys20479 · Jun 28, 2002

Hi,

Perhaps this thread holds the answer you are looking for. You might have to read it all, though...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1001&message=395107

tim martin · Jun 28, 2002

bronson said:
Open Talk about photography? That seems to be redundant in light of
all the photographic related forums here.
I always assumed it was for talking about whatever was on your
mind, within the parameters set by the administrator.

There are so many places to discuss non-digital photography
issues, why do they have to do that (talk about religon
and politics, et cetera) here ?

If it would make things easier for Phil to be able to say "there
were complaints", he can consider this as a complaint. I come
here to discuss digital photography. Maybe others feel different,
and if I must, I can respect that, but I won't be happy if "Open
Talk" goes beyond digital photography related issues.

Jim DeLuco · Jun 28, 2002

This thread is what Phil wrote regarding the DP Review forum...it explains the bounds of this site....not that it will matter to people who have other agenda's.

http://www.dpreview.com/misc/about.asp

--
Jim DeLuco
DeLuco Photography
http://www.delucophoto.com

Ted B.47613 · Jun 28, 2002

If the thread says "ot or religious or politcal", don't read it, and you won't be affected at all by its existance. If Phil does not kill a thread, then why should you care?

My guess is you can't "tolerate" the topic or poster is some way, and want him or her stopped to satisfy your emotional response to the topic.

You can fix the problem for yourself by simply ignoring the thread. Let others enjoy the debate and just butt out.

But you dive in, read the posts, get angry about it and want it killed. Sounds like you just need some self-control, to enable you to ignore what you don't like, instead of attacking it.

I never have understood why someone would want a thread killed, other than Phil Askey. No one else has any stake in it at all.

tmartin9 said:
There are so many places to discuss non-digital photography
issues, why do they have to do that (talk about religon
and politics, et cetera) here ?

If it would make things easier for Phil to be able to say "there
were complaints", he can consider this as a complaint. I come
here to discuss digital photography. Maybe others feel different,
and if I must, I can respect that, but I won't be happy if "Open
Talk" goes beyond digital photography related issues.

--
'The Key to Safe Wildlife Photography: Think OUTSIDE of the Bear.'

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/

OlyMike · Jun 28, 2002

I agree. Seems to me if a thread gets as much response as the Pledge one of late then it would only be LOGICAL that there was some interest in it. If someone is offended by this topic then for heavens sake don't read it. If Phil deems it not in accordance with his policies then he will kill it. I learned the hard way if this forum only catered to the photography questions only, it would lose a tremoundous amount of personality and uniqueness. If a person only wants to hear about photography then sign up for a college class and forget the interaction with PEOPLE......
Enough said
MJ

Bogey said:
My guess is you can't "tolerate" the topic or poster is some way,
and want him or her stopped to satisfy your emotional response to
the topic.

You can fix the problem for yourself by simply ignoring the thread.
Let others enjoy the debate and just butt out.

But you dive in, read the posts, get angry about it and want it
killed. Sounds like you just need some self-control, to enable you
to ignore what you don't like, instead of attacking it.

I never have understood why someone would want a thread killed,
other than Phil Askey. No one else has any stake in it at all.

tmartin9 said:

There are so many places to discuss non-digital photography
issues, why do they have to do that (talk about religon
and politics, et cetera) here ?

If it would make things easier for Phil to be able to say "there
were complaints", he can consider this as a complaint. I come
here to discuss digital photography. Maybe others feel different,
and if I must, I can respect that, but I won't be happy if "Open
Talk" goes beyond digital photography related issues.

Click to expand...

--
'The Key to Safe Wildlife Photography: Think OUTSIDE of the Bear.'

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/

John Burns · Jun 28, 2002

shhhh...don't try and put any responsibility on the "Phil kill this thread" group.

Thanks for trying though.

Bogey said:
My guess is you can't "tolerate" the topic or poster is some way,
and want him or her stopped to satisfy your emotional response to
the topic.

You can fix the problem for yourself by simply ignoring the thread.
Let others enjoy the debate and just butt out.

But you dive in, read the posts, get angry about it and want it
killed. Sounds like you just need some self-control, to enable you
to ignore what you don't like, instead of attacking it.

I never have understood why someone would want a thread killed,
other than Phil Askey. No one else has any stake in it at all.

tmartin9 said:

There are so many places to discuss non-digital photography
issues, why do they have to do that (talk about religon
and politics, et cetera) here ?

If it would make things easier for Phil to be able to say "there
were complaints", he can consider this as a complaint. I come
here to discuss digital photography. Maybe others feel different,
and if I must, I can respect that, but I won't be happy if "Open
Talk" goes beyond digital photography related issues.

Click to expand...

--
'The Key to Safe Wildlife Photography: Think OUTSIDE of the Bear.'

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/

--
John

tim martin · Jun 28, 2002

Bogey said:
If the thread says "ot or religious or politcal", don't read it,
and you won't be affected at all by its existance. If Phil does
not kill a thread, then why should you care?

My guess is you can't "tolerate" the topic or poster is some way,
and want him or her stopped to satisfy your emotional response to
the topic.

You can fix the problem for yourself by simply ignoring the thread.
Let others enjoy the debate and just butt out.

But you dive in, read the posts, get angry about it and want it
killed. Sounds like you just need some self-control, to enable you
to ignore what you don't like, instead of attacking it.

I never have understood why someone would want a thread killed,
other than Phil Askey. No one else has any stake in it at all.

Actually, I have been doing fine on this. Certainly on Usenet during
the last 10 years I have gotten into a lot of arguments about a
lot of different topics, and I almost wish that I hadn't, I guess.

But I haven't really been reading much of these discussions of
religon or whatever here, on dpreview.

But so far, I have been doing fine. You're probably right about
the "self control" thing, but it would be easier for me to just not
have all of that here.

I would like the site more if I have didn't have to do that "self
control" thing... that's all I am saying.

tim martin · Jun 28, 2002

John Burns said:
shhhh...don't try and put any responsibility on the "Phil kill this
thread" group.

Thanks for trying though.

Now you are talking about "reponsibility". I do the "responsibility"
thing most weekday mornings by getting out of bed and going
to work. And then I do it in many other ways as well.

I don't come here to be "Mr. Responsibility". I come to dpreview
to have fun by reading about my hobby, digital photography.

As near as I can see, you are calling me "irresponsible", which is
another reason why one should try to stick to digital photography
issues, because then things will remain a bit more friendly.

John Burns · Jun 29, 2002

If you are a member of the pro censorship group I guess I am calling you irresponsible. There are thousands of threads here for your hobby enjoyment. Click one any of them. Yet you are here where you hate to be. I wonder who is responsible for that occurance?

tmartin9 said:
John Burns said:

shhhh...don't try and put any responsibility on the "Phil kill this
thread" group.

Thanks for trying though.

Click to expand...

Now you are talking about "reponsibility". I do the "responsibility"
thing most weekday mornings by getting out of bed and going
to work. And then I do it in many other ways as well.

I don't come here to be "Mr. Responsibility". I come to dpreview
to have fun by reading about my hobby, digital photography.

As near as I can see, you are calling me "irresponsible", which is
another reason why one should try to stick to digital photography
issues, because then things will remain a bit more friendly.

--
John

CliffB · Jun 29, 2002

Let me see if I have this straight. We have users who do not like the fact that some threads may not be directly related to photography; and, therefore, are wasting their time and taking up bandwidth that could be going to photography discussions. So in response thereto we are having a thread that takes up bandwidth and our time to discuss the fact that the other threads are taking up bandwidth and our time.

Isn't this the old chicken and egg question?????????????

This reminds me of when my then 6 year old daughter asked, "Dad. How do you start to think about what it is that you might want to think about?"

Cliff

Phil Askey · Jun 29, 2002

No, it's for the discussion of anything RELATED TO DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY which doesn't fit into the other forums.

It is NOT for discussion of relgion etc.. There are PLENTY of other places on the net for that. I will soon (and have just) purge any such messages, they do not have a place here.

bronson said:
Open Talk about photography? That seems to be redundant in light of
all the photographic related forums here.
I always assumed it was for talking about whatever was on your
mind, within the parameters set by the administrator.

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Peter G · Jun 29, 2002

Its your board and you can do whatever you please, but I would suggest "Open Digital Talk", or "General Digital Talk" to be more clear on its intent.

Especially since some boards have an "off topic" forum as well, so occaisonally people can discuss broader issues, while keeping it out of the specific forums. "Open Talk" seems similar to "Off topic".

Peter

Phil Askey said:
It is NOT for discussion of relgion etc.. There are PLENTY of other
places on the net for that. I will soon (and have just) purge any
such messages, they do not have a place here.

bronson said:

Open Talk about photography? That seems to be redundant in light of
all the photographic related forums here.
I always assumed it was for talking about whatever was on your
mind, within the parameters set by the administrator.

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

tim martin · Jun 29, 2002

CliffB said:
Let me see if I have this straight. We have users who do not like
the fact that some threads may not be directly related to
photography; and, therefore, are wasting their time and taking up
bandwidth that could be going to photography discussions. So in
response thereto we are having a thread that takes up bandwidth and
our time to discuss the fact that the other threads are taking up
bandwidth and our time.

No, this thread, in my opinion, would be okay. "www.dpreview.com"
is one of the best sites for digital photography, talking about what
is best for this digital photography site is related to the subject of
digital photography.

Or at least more so than why muslims should convert to christanity,
or vice versa.

tim martin · Jun 29, 2002

Phil Askey said:
No, it's for the discussion of anything RELATED TO DIGITAL
PHOTOGRAPHY which doesn't fit into the other forums.

It is NOT for discussion of relgion etc.. There are PLENTY of other
places on the net for that. I will soon (and have just) purge any
such messages, they do not have a place here.

That's great news. If somebody were to post to subject like
"proof americans are fools", I might be tempted to join in and
defend myself and my countrymen, et cetera.

And then I would later regret having gotten mixed up in such
a silly discussion. No, let's just stick to digital photography.

kad · Jun 29, 2002

I think the amount of posts not involving photography on this site are so small, as to make the seriousness of this discussion rather silly. It's for phil as the "booming voice of god" to make the decisions, since its his site.

I grunt in annoyance or roll my eyes sometimes at post titles (doesn't everyone?) but to wish to eradicate then seems to be mean spirited.And it's like the guy that ate half of his chicken dinner and then wanted his money back because it was inedible. If you participate in those forums by reading or posting, you are your own worst enemy.

I think this site has a good balance(with maybe too much techie talk for me and not enough art talk- but I'm not running around telling people to shut up) and any tampering should be thought about carefully.

tmartin9 said:
Phil Askey said:

No, it's for the discussion of anything RELATED TO DIGITAL
PHOTOGRAPHY which doesn't fit into the other forums.

It is NOT for discussion of relgion etc.. There are PLENTY of other
places on the net for that. I will soon (and have just) purge any
such messages, they do not have a place here.

Click to expand...

That's great news. If somebody were to post to subject like
"proof americans are fools", I might be tempted to join in and
defend myself and my countrymen, et cetera.

And then I would later regret having gotten mixed up in such
a silly discussion. No, let's just stick to digital photography.

tim martin · Jun 29, 2002

kad said:
I think the amount of posts not involving photography on this site
are so small, as to make the seriousness of this discussion rather
silly.

Well, you know "nip it in the bud", as they say. Before it goes
on too long, and becomes more of a problem.

kad said:
I grunt in annoyance or roll my eyes sometimes at post titles
(doesn't everyone?) but to wish to eradicate then seems to be mean
spirited.And it's like the guy that ate half of his chicken dinner
and then wanted his money back because it was inedible. If you
participate in those forums by reading or posting, you are your own
worst enemy.

So far I have done well, and stayed clear. I looked at the pledge
of aliegence thing, and was able to walk away from it without
saying anything. But maybe if those sort of topics started becoming
more common, somebody might say something I disagree with, for
a topic of which I have strong opinions. Then I would be faced
with a choice: 1) explain why I disagree with what is being said,
or 2) let the statement stand there, uncontested.

Sure you can say "just don't read it", but sometimes the subject line suckers you into the the topic.

Pat B. · Jun 30, 2002

Could you please create a "Can you please decide for me what camera should I buy?" forum?

Phil Askey said:
No, it's for the discussion of anything RELATED TO DIGITAL
PHOTOGRAPHY which doesn't fit into the other forums.

It is NOT for discussion of relgion etc.. There are PLENTY of other
places on the net for that. I will soon (and have just) purge any
such messages, they do not have a place here.

Josh Robinson · Jun 30, 2002

Pat B. said:
Phil Askey said:

No, it's for the discussion of anything RELATED TO DIGITAL
PHOTOGRAPHY which doesn't fit into the other forums.

It is NOT for discussion of relgion etc.. There are PLENTY of other
places on the net for that. I will soon (and have just) purge any
such messages, they do not have a place here.

Click to expand...

I believe the best thing to do is rename the Forum to Open DIGITAL talk.

That way it should eliminate things like this happening again. Open Talk can be interpreted too many ways.

tim martin · Jun 30, 2002

John Burns said:
If you are a member of the pro censorship group I guess I am
calling you irresponsible. There are thousands of threads here for
your hobby enjoyment. Click one any of them. Yet you are here
where you hate to be. I wonder who is responsible for that
occurance?

"here where I hate to be" ? I am in this thread where I am
defending my reasoning as to why I think the forums section
of my favorite digital photography web site should be limited to
discussions of digital photography.

I don't enjoy this, but the other choice would to let my opinions
about this digital photography web site go unexpressed.

"pro censorship"... there are always limits on speech. You cannot
walk into your nearest public library and start shouting about
why you think it is awful that Nixon never served any jail time.
Same thing here.

What does 'Open Talk' mean?

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

John Burns

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

John Burns

Guest

Senior Member

Phil Askey

Guest

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Active member

Active member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts