Reading mode: Light Dark

Did Mishkin just say Goodbye?

Go to last post
DavidP said:
All who knew about DPR prior to the release of the 10D -- don't
post for the next month.

LOL.
Doug Walker said:
I think you got this part backwards. This isn't to say I condone
what mishkin did (I think he had a moment of bad judgement). It's
the "OLD cronies" (not cronnies) that contribute expert advise to
equipment questions, not the newbies. It's the newbies that make it
a chat room with all the "just got my 10D" or "why isn't everything
in focus like my XYZ point 'n shoot" or the hourly "what lens
should I buy" posts not the OLD cronies. If it weren't for the OLD
cronies this forum would be just an endless series of mindless
posts by those who have little, if any, knowledge of photography
and would have nothing to learn from each other.
In reading your posts it seems that the OLD cronies are NOT the
ONLY ones who can appreciate this forum. Looks like you have gotten
some valuable info from those OLD cronies yourself. Your posts also
seem to have a rude tone. Is this what YOU bring to this forum?
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!
Click to expand...
--
Doug Walker
Check my profile for equipment list.
 
Doug Walker said:
DavidP said:
All who knew about DPR prior to the release of the 10D -- don't
post for the next month.

LOL.
Doug Walker said:
I think you got this part backwards. This isn't to say I condone
what mishkin did (I think he had a moment of bad judgement). It's
the "OLD cronies" (not cronnies) that contribute expert advise to
equipment questions, not the newbies. It's the newbies that make it
a chat room with all the "just got my 10D" or "why isn't everything
in focus like my XYZ point 'n shoot" or the hourly "what lens
should I buy" posts not the OLD cronies. If it weren't for the OLD
cronies this forum would be just an endless series of mindless
posts by those who have little, if any, knowledge of photography
and would have nothing to learn from each other.
In reading your posts it seems that the OLD cronies are NOT the
ONLY ones who can appreciate this forum. Looks like you have gotten
some valuable info from those OLD cronies yourself. Your posts also
seem to have a rude tone. Is this what YOU bring to this forum?
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!
Click to expand...
--
Doug Walker
Check my profile for equipment list.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!
 
Maybe he did not know that link was such "detructive".

If ones uses pop up blocker or Opera and disable pop up, those pop ups won't work.

Thanh
John Davis said:
DavidP said:
A link he provided was one of those "ever-multiplying links" that
uses Java-script (or something) to keep creating new windows
automatically.

It shouldn't cause any permanent harm. But it was difficult on my
machine to stop the process, and I had to reboot. I didn't lose
any data, but it's certainly possible that somebody who paniced and
hadn't saved data in spreadsheets, etc. could've lost some work.
Click to expand...
If he did that, I think the penalty should be more than being
banned from this site. That sort of thing is illegal and violates
federal law. Some of us know how to deal with that sort of popup
intrusion, but many do not and those popus may lurk there and ruin
people's machines and networks.

John
John Davis said:
Kevin Duff said:
I have missed this, how could he be messing up peoples machines?
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

o
 
Pekka Saarinen said:
That's silly. If a site is owned by an englishman in London,
servers are most likely in USA, and I open a forum message here in
Helsinki, written by a Russian, and click a link which leads to
third party page which is in Taiwan: which law is applied when that
third party page gives me a virus?

--
Pekka
http://photography-on-the.net
Click to expand...
Well we'll just write a law to cover it here in the US. Our government seems to think it rules the world so such a law could surely cover Finland, Russia and Taiwan. A computer virus shouldn't be any more difficult to handle than "weapons of mass destruction."

Seriously, thank god for the Internet. At last something that governments really can't much tamper with.
--
Dave Lewis
 
Please! Robert Vance and John Davis, your whining is about to cause cracks in my monitor.

Robert, when you speak of other forums, I think you are confusing respected with safe and sterile. If you want safe and sterile, do everyone a favor, sell your computer, lock the doors to your house, unplug the phone and avoid the real world.

The only criminal behavior I have been witness to is the haughty, self righteous attitude that John and Robert have taken regarding this issue.

Mishkin did act like a decent individual ( ‘a man’ in Robert’s words) and own up to the fact that what he did was not really bright and apologize for it. Robert, I’m kind of wishing that you would do the right thing and shut up or go away. I hope neither you nor John Davis is ever in a situation where other people depend on a rational thought process and an unbiased opinion in order to make a decision.

John, before you start spouting off about how much damage can be done to a computer or a network, you might want to take the time to learn about computers and networks. It is obvious, from the dire warnings you posted, that you don’t have any idea how computers and networks really work.

To everyone else in the forum, I apologize. I held my tongue as long as I could, but when these two got together and started spouting ignorance in support of each other, it was more than I could tolerate.
 
Mishkin2 said:
When I posted the link, I didn't know what it will do to other
computers. Legally speaking, it's YOUR responsibility when you
click a link on the internet. I didn't send it via email. And in no
way I could anticipate how other computers will react to this.
Click to expand...
Morally speaking, the wack job that posts the link is the problem, not the person that clicks the link. We're talking irresponsible. I threw the tacks in the road but it's your fault because you drove over them. Talking a lame excuse here folks.

No sympathy or support for "ANY" hackers that write invasive code.

Ya don't need to write any uninvited invasive code, period. Maybe some jail time will get you to understand. I don't download anything strange because of gonzos that think hacking computers is cool.

Don't bother coming at me with a reply because what was done was clearly wrong, joke or no joke.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
Read further.

He didn't WRITE this code. He merely linked to it, and didn't fully comprehend what it was doing. It did one thing on HIS computer, mainly because of the exact manner in which he reacted to it.

Other reactions to it (like mine) caused more problems than what he knew were possible.

Irresponsible? Yes.

Intentionally malcious? No.
Thomas Gardner said:
Morally speaking, the wack job that posts the link is the problem,
not the person that clicks the link. We're talking irresponsible.
I threw the tacks in the road but it's your fault because you drove
over them. Talking a lame excuse here folks.

No sympathy or support for "ANY" hackers that write invasive code.

Ya don't need to write any uninvited invasive code, period. Maybe
some jail time will get you to understand. I don't download
anything strange because of gonzos that think hacking computers is
cool.

Don't bother coming at me with a reply because what was done was
clearly wrong, joke or no joke.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!
 
Interesting... you joined this forum to add to this thread and you entered with a bang.

Who are you to judge my knowledge of technology? Read my messages... I said the event would not have bothered me. I said too that the event could have caused trouble to many who are less adept to IT issues. If you think otherwise, suit yourself... the fact that some reported they rebooted their machines could imply loss of on-going work - it happens all the time, notwithstanding anything else.

And... I'll tell you what: I've been around this forum for a long time and have contributed for it. It's not a newbie, fresh in the door that is going to shut me up. Have a good day and... enter slowly.

John
Michael Sheldon said:
Please! Robert Vance and John Davis, your whining is about to
cause cracks in my monitor.

Robert, when you speak of other forums, I think you are confusing
respected with safe and sterile. If you want safe and sterile, do
everyone a favor, sell your computer, lock the doors to your house,
unplug the phone and avoid the real world.

The only criminal behavior I have been witness to is the haughty,
self righteous attitude that John and Robert have taken regarding
this issue.

Mishkin did act like a decent individual ( ‘a man’ in Robert’s
words) and own up to the fact that what he did was not really
bright and apologize for it. Robert, I’m kind of wishing that you
would do the right thing and shut up or go away. I hope neither
you nor John Davis is ever in a situation where other people depend
on a rational thought process and an unbiased opinion in order to
make a decision.

John, before you start spouting off about how much damage can be
done to a computer or a network, you might want to take the time to
learn about computers and networks. It is obvious, from the dire
warnings you posted, that you don’t have any idea how computers and
networks really work.

To everyone else in the forum, I apologize. I held my tongue as
long as I could, but when these two got together and started
spouting ignorance in support of each other, it was more than I
could tolerate.
Click to expand...
 
The infinite number of windows might have been an honest mistake, but he assumed it was a site that put five annoying and quite insulting windows all over people's screens. If you think that's appropriate behavior, then I think we have different ideas of what a forum built in mutual respect is all about.

That's okay because varierty makes the world go round and maybe this forum has a place on the net as the one were people can sling funny insults at each other -- the marx brothers canon DSLR forum.

That said, I did some serious rule breaking a while back when we went to war with Iraq and felt compelled to argue with people who seemed to have their pea-brained heads up their #@$@#s (just a fun-loving joke -- Mishkin style ;-), so I should be banned I guess.

And, I've noticed that DavidP and Mishkin have been trying very hard to start threads that make people think and discuss and participate in topics that help people question photography in meaningful ways. Given that, I believe Mishkin should be let back on. This community means too much to him for him to ever make that mistake again.
Olga Johnson said:
..and DavidP was kind enough to warn us.

I was lucky though to see the warning. :-)

Olga
Click to expand...
--
                            • -- - - - - - - - - - - - SMoody
http://www.pbase.com/smoody
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
 
IMO, banning shouldn't be done "in a vacuum".

One should consider all the pertinent facts regarding what happened, and also the history of the person under consideration for banning.

What Mishkin did wasn't very bright. Hopefully I caught it and posted the warning early enough that others didn't have to experience what I did.
smoody said:
Olga Johnson said:
..and DavidP was kind enough to warn us.

I was lucky though to see the warning. :-)

Olga
Click to expand...
--
                            • -- - - - - - - - - - - - SMoody
http://www.pbase.com/smoody
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!
 
DavidP said:
Irresponsible? Yes.

Intentionally malcious? No.
Click to expand...
Irrespective, still responsible.

I can't believe how fast people are to distance themselves from responsibility.

I'll step back but have no sympathy for those that write or intentionally pass these things on.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
If he had done this with the intent to cause actual harm, that'd be one thing.

It's the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter.

Same results, different intent, different punishment.
Thomas Gardner said:
Irrespective, still responsible.

I can't believe how fast people are to distance themselves from
responsibility.

I'll step back but have no sympathy for those that write or
intentionally pass these things on.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!
 
DavidP said:
If he had done this with the intent to cause actual harm, that'd be
one thing.

It's the difference between murder and involuntary manslaughter.

Same results, different intent, different punishment.
Click to expand...
Sorry, can't walk through that door. We're not talking muder here and the gal did get convicted. It's called responsibility, something that few wish to acknowledge these days. You don't go around posting bombs in other people's computer, even if it's a joke.

He posted the bomb and it blew up. He tried to feign innocents when in fact he was reponsible by posting it. If it hadn't been done then it wouldn't have happened.

Have we become so corrupted that we can no longer see right from wrong? "I was only trying to have a good time, there was no intent there." Sorry David, I can't do it. Somewhere along the line one has to learn to control their impulses and for good reason. It's called growing up.

Ya don't mess with anybody's computer..... period!

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
He never feigned innocence.

He quite clearly stated that he'd done it, and what he thought he was doing, and that it hand unintended consequences.

He's claiming innocence only in regard to intent, not to what he did.

If you don't think there are far worse URL's he could've sent one to (which would demand a greater punishment, IMO), I'd be happy to send you to some places where you could find them.

He made a mistake. A total ban (forever) is uncalled for, IMO.

Unfortunately, Phil's lack of communication (apparently on ANY bannings, from what I know) with those banned doesn't leave one with any idea of what his punishment is going to be.

And the fact that anybody can just log back in with a new email effectively means that the worst offenders came come back immediately, just like those who deserve only a "slap on the wrist".
Thomas Gardner said:
He posted the bomb and it blew up. He tried to feign innocents
when in fact he was reponsible by posting it. If it hadn't been
done then it wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!
 
DavidP said:
He never feigned innocence.

He quite clearly stated that he'd done it, and what he thought he
was doing, and that it hand unintended consequences.

He's claiming innocence only in regard to intent, not to what he did.

If you don't think there are far worse URL's he could've sent one
to (which would demand a greater punishment, IMO), I'd be happy to
send you to some places where you could find them.

He made a mistake. A total ban (forever) is uncalled for, IMO.

Unfortunately, Phil's lack of communication (apparently on ANY
bannings, from what I know) with those banned doesn't leave one
with any idea of what his punishment is going to be.

And the fact that anybody can just log back in with a new email
effectively means that the worst offenders came come back
immediately, just like those who deserve only a "slap on the wrist".
Click to expand...
I'm not trying to go toe-to-toe with you on this issue.

I have a very hard outlook on hackers, bombs and those that claim "...it was not my intent, even though they had the choice whether or not to post the link."

You don't blame those that click the link as that absolves the poster of the totality of their error. Shifting blame is only another way of shifting responsiblity. If I hurt someone with my pesticides, who's fault is it, the manufacture, me or the owner who hired me. It's one thing to use a product with an unknown defect in it but you can bet you're bottom dollar that nobody is going to blame the customer and that I'm going to incure a huge liability even though I didn't know the EPA certified product was defective. The point, everytime someone says my intent wasn't to harm, the way I'm understanding you, you're saying they should be held blameless. Degree of harm not to be a consideration as then you're only talking degrees.

I know this leads to an excellent argument, that's not the purpose of my comment. The purpose of my comment was to condemn any attack on anybody's computer, intended or accidental.

You don't mess with another person's computer, joke or no joke. Leave the other person's computer alone. It's a simple message with merit.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
 
I'm not saying Mishkin is blameless.

Clearly he's to blame for posting the link. I think he admits that.

It's his intent and knowledge, though, that lead me to say that he shouldn't be banned as if he had done something far worse.

Let's put it this way. Chemical company sells you a product and says it's safe to use in houses. You even test it at your place, and it seems harmless.

Now, you go apply it in the homes of others.

Unbeknownst to you, it kills off their dogs (hey, you didn't have any dogs -- you're a cat lover - lol).

Are you to blame for applying the chemical? Of course. You applied it.

Are you to blame for the unintended consequences? Not really. It was the chemical company (who, BTW, knew that it would kill dogs, just didn't bother to tell you).
Thomas Gardner said:
I'm not trying to go toe-to-toe with you on this issue.

I have a very hard outlook on hackers, bombs and those that claim
"...it was not my intent, even though they had the choice whether
or not to post the link."

You don't blame those that click the link as that absolves the
poster of the totality of their error. Shifting blame is only
another way of shifting responsiblity. If I hurt someone with my
pesticides, who's fault is it, the manufacture, me or the owner who
hired me. It's one thing to use a product with an unknown defect
in it but you can bet you're bottom dollar that nobody is going to
blame the customer and that I'm going to incure a huge liability
even though I didn't know the EPA certified product was defective.
The point, everytime someone says my intent wasn't to harm, the way
I'm understanding you, you're saying they should be held blameless.
Degree of harm not to be a consideration as then you're only
talking degrees.

I know this leads to an excellent argument, that's not the purpose
of my comment. The purpose of my comment was to condemn any attack
on anybody's computer, intended or accidental.

You don't mess with another person's computer, joke or no joke.
Leave the other person's computer alone. It's a simple message
with merit.

--
If you don't want to believe me, ignore me:-)
Click to expand...
--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

Yes, this is ON-TOPIC!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top