In re censorship & banning

[Dean Banks]

This is a great site--highly informative and regularly entertaining. I've always assumed it covers digital photograhy generally, discussing both the pros and cons of methods and equipment. Recently, however, I've gotten the feeling that Phil's creation has been smitten by a bad case of Nikonitis.

Personally, I'm a Nikon devotee, and have been for more decades than I like to admit. Currently, the 990 is my preferred digital unit for nonprofessional use. I think it stands about two or three steps above the new Oly, everything considered (in some respects, the Oly is clearly superior).

At the same time, as many postings on this site have underscored, the 990 is far from perfect. I've appreciated all the factual criticism, and thought it was basically a good idea to pull those scattered items into a compendium: such briefs are especially useful to novices, including those inexperienced in navigating websites.

Lately, I've noticed a lot of overreaction to items clashing with the general Nikon fever dominating this site. Phil, himself, intervened on Nikon Talk and cautioned that all the comments about bugs and such might turn buyers away from the 990, which Phil rightfully considers an excellent unit (Nikon Talk, 7 May 2000). I bit my fingers and refrained from replying more strongly at that point. I simply suggested that the OVERREACTION to "negative" postings--not the postings, themselves--was creating the basic problem.

Obviously, I think Phil has overreacted again. And now the overreaction is generating counter-overreaction--as is often the case.

It's true that technically "this is Phil's site." But, as with any public accommodation in this enlightened age, right of ownership doesn't translate into absolute control, for various reasons. One: Phil's commodity is information, including public discussion groups, and there are serious questions about control in that regard. Two: Phil's operation is subject to well-known limitations imposed by the nature of the internet, including easy and perhaps unusually effective counterreaction. Three: . . . (fill out the list; its a long one).

So here we are. Perhaps the issue will fade away if left alone; maybe it has peaked. But I think Phil needs to make an overture and end this on a high note.

Offered constructively,

Dean

 

[Peter iNova]

This is a great site--highly informative and regularly entertaining.
I've always assumed it covers digital photograhy generally, discussing
both the pros and cons of methods and equipment. Recently, however, I've
gotten the feeling that Phil's creation has been smitten by a bad case of
Nikonitis.

Personally, I'm a Nikon devotee, and have been for more decades than I
like to admit. Currently, the 990 is my preferred digital unit for
nonprofessional use. I think it stands about two or three steps above
the new Oly, everything considered (in some respects, the Oly is clearly
superior).

At the same time, as many postings on this site have underscored, the 990
is far from perfect. I've appreciated all the factual criticism, and
thought it was basically a good idea to pull those scattered items into a
compendium: such briefs are especially useful to novices, including
those inexperienced in navigating websites.

Lately, I've noticed a lot of overreaction to items clashing with the
general Nikon fever dominating this site. Phil, himself, intervened on
Nikon Talk and cautioned that all the comments about bugs and such might
turn buyers away from the 990, which Phil rightfully considers an
excellent unit (Nikon Talk, 7 May 2000). I bit my fingers and refrained
from replying more strongly at that point. I simply suggested that the
OVERREACTION to "negative" postings--not the postings, themselves--was
creating the basic problem.

Obviously, I think Phil has overreacted again. And now the overreaction
is generating counter-overreaction--as is often the case.

It's true that technically "this is Phil's site." But, as with any
public accommodation in this enlightened age, right of ownership doesn't
translate into absolute control, for various reasons. One: Phil's
commodity is information, including public discussion groups, and there
are serious questions about control in that regard. Two: Phil's
operation is subject to well-known limitations imposed by the nature of
the internet, including easy and perhaps unusually effective
counterreaction. Three: . . . (fill out the list; its a long one).

So here we are. Perhaps the issue will fade away if left alone; maybe it
has peaked. But I think Phil needs to make an overture and end this on a
high note.

Offered constructively,

Dean

And constructively taken. But I may be overreacting.

-iNova

 

[Dean Banks]

Interesting: I wrote this last night at 1:00, just before going to bed, then decided to hold off on posting. Got back to the computer a short while ago and decided to hit the post button. Didn't notice Phil had come through--as I suspected he would in the end.

Don't agree with some of those responding to Phil's reversal, those saying he simply caved in to a threat of user reaction. Having followed this site for some time, I have no doubt Phil's second-thought came from his core, not from outside circumstances. Oldtimers used to say "Character will out."

This is a great site--highly informative and regularly entertaining.
I've always assumed it covers digital photograhy generally, discussing
both the pros and cons of methods and equipment. Recently, however, I've
gotten the feeling that Phil's creation has been smitten by a bad case of
Nikonitis.

Personally, I'm a Nikon devotee, and have been for more decades than I
like to admit. Currently, the 990 is my preferred digital unit for
nonprofessional use. I think it stands about two or three steps above
the new Oly, everything considered (in some respects, the Oly is clearly
superior).

At the same time, as many postings on this site have underscored, the 990
is far from perfect. I've appreciated all the factual criticism, and
thought it was basically a good idea to pull those scattered items into a
compendium: such briefs are especially useful to novices, including
those inexperienced in navigating websites.

Lately, I've noticed a lot of overreaction to items clashing with the
general Nikon fever dominating this site. Phil, himself, intervened on
Nikon Talk and cautioned that all the comments about bugs and such might
turn buyers away from the 990, which Phil rightfully considers an
excellent unit (Nikon Talk, 7 May 2000). I bit my fingers and refrained
from replying more strongly at that point. I simply suggested that the
OVERREACTION to "negative" postings--not the postings, themselves--was
creating the basic problem.

Obviously, I think Phil has overreacted again. And now the overreaction
is generating counter-overreaction--as is often the case.

It's true that technically "this is Phil's site." But, as with any
public accommodation in this enlightened age, right of ownership doesn't
translate into absolute control, for various reasons. One: Phil's
commodity is information, including public discussion groups, and there
are serious questions about control in that regard. Two: Phil's
operation is subject to well-known limitations imposed by the nature of
the internet, including easy and perhaps unusually effective
counterreaction. Three: . . . (fill out the list; its a long one).

So here we are. Perhaps the issue will fade away if left alone; maybe it
has peaked. But I think Phil needs to make an overture and end this on a
high note.

Offered constructively,

Dean

 

[Dean Banks]

Interesting: I wrote this last night at about 1:00, just before goiing to bed, then decided to delay posting. Got back to the computer a while ago and hit the post button. Didn't notice Phil had come through, as I suspected he would in the end.

I don't agree with some of those responding to Phil's reversal, those saying he simply caved in to the threat of reaction. Having followed this site for some time, I have no doubt Phil's second-thought came from his core, not from external circumstances. Oldtimers used to say "Character will out."

This is a great site--highly informative and regularly entertaining.
I've always assumed it covers digital photograhy generally, discussing
both the pros and cons of methods and equipment. Recently, however, I've
gotten the feeling that Phil's creation has been smitten by a bad case of
Nikonitis.

Personally, I'm a Nikon devotee, and have been for more decades than I
like to admit. Currently, the 990 is my preferred digital unit for
nonprofessional use. I think it stands about two or three steps above
the new Oly, everything considered (in some respects, the Oly is clearly
superior).

At the same time, as many postings on this site have underscored, the 990
is far from perfect. I've appreciated all the factual criticism, and
thought it was basically a good idea to pull those scattered items into a
compendium: such briefs are especially useful to novices, including
those inexperienced in navigating websites.

Lately, I've noticed a lot of overreaction to items clashing with the
general Nikon fever dominating this site. Phil, himself, intervened on
Nikon Talk and cautioned that all the comments about bugs and such might
turn buyers away from the 990, which Phil rightfully considers an
excellent unit (Nikon Talk, 7 May 2000). I bit my fingers and refrained
from replying more strongly at that point. I simply suggested that the
OVERREACTION to "negative" postings--not the postings, themselves--was
creating the basic problem.

Obviously, I think Phil has overreacted again. And now the overreaction
is generating counter-overreaction--as is often the case.

It's true that technically "this is Phil's site." But, as with any
public accommodation in this enlightened age, right of ownership doesn't
translate into absolute control, for various reasons. One: Phil's
commodity is information, including public discussion groups, and there
are serious questions about control in that regard. Two: Phil's
operation is subject to well-known limitations imposed by the nature of
the internet, including easy and perhaps unusually effective
counterreaction. Three: . . . (fill out the list; its a long one).

So here we are. Perhaps the issue will fade away if left alone; maybe it
has peaked. But I think Phil needs to make an overture and end this on a
high note.

Offered constructively,

Dean

 

[Michael Oersigh]

This is a great site--highly informative and regularly entertaining.
I've always assumed it covers digital photograhy generally, discussing
both the pros and cons of methods and equipment. Recently, however, I've
gotten the feeling that Phil's creation has been smitten by a bad case of
Nikonitis.

Personally, I'm a Nikon devotee, and have been for more decades than I
like to admit. Currently, the 990 is my preferred digital unit for
nonprofessional use. I think it stands about two or three steps above
the new Oly, everything considered (in some respects, the Oly is clearly
superior).

At the same time, as many postings on this site have underscored, the 990
is far from perfect. I've appreciated all the factual criticism, and
thought it was basically a good idea to pull those scattered items into a
compendium: such briefs are especially useful to novices, including
those inexperienced in navigating websites.

Lately, I've noticed a lot of overreaction to items clashing with the
general Nikon fever dominating this site. Phil, himself, intervened on
Nikon Talk and cautioned that all the comments about bugs and such might
turn buyers away from the 990, which Phil rightfully considers an
excellent unit (Nikon Talk, 7 May 2000). I bit my fingers and refrained
from replying more strongly at that point. I simply suggested that the
OVERREACTION to "negative" postings--not the postings, themselves--was
creating the basic problem.

Obviously, I think Phil has overreacted again. And now the overreaction
is generating counter-overreaction--as is often the case.

It's true that technically "this is Phil's site." But, as with any
public accommodation in this enlightened age, right of ownership doesn't
translate into absolute control, for various reasons. One: Phil's
commodity is information, including public discussion groups, and there
are serious questions about control in that regard. Two: Phil's
operation is subject to well-known limitations imposed by the nature of
the internet, including easy and perhaps unusually effective
counterreaction. Three: . . . (fill out the list; its a long one).

So here we are. Perhaps the issue will fade away if left alone; maybe it
has peaked. But I think Phil needs to make an overture and end this on a
high note.

Offered constructively,

Dean

And constructively taken. But I may be overreacting.

-iNova

Actually Dave(one day ago) I am surprised that no one gets booted off a lot sooner.......and is Phil Askey (great site ,Phil) really Peter Inova??? Nahhhhh...err.

Michael

 

[Michael Oersigh]

Sorrrreeee...I meant Dean, please no more wine.

 

[Michael Oersigh]

Dean

Back again just seen a sight that mentions a link to this site with the comments,
'tons of postings but lots of ramblings and flame wars .....'

Now it seems it only takes one or two individuals (and I don't mean anyone in particular) to give that sort of impression.....only it's not an impression is it?

 

[Rob Patterson]

Like most people in these inflationary times, I hustle a buck at every opportunity that presents itself.

One of my part time jobs is tending bar. I've tended bar part time for 25 years.

When people start bickering, customers start leaving! Happens everytime. Guaranteed.

What to do? You interceed. You butt in and change the subject. You attempt to get a laugh and tell a few jokes. If that doesn't work, you tell the bickering individuals to seperate and move to opposite ends of the bar. If it continues you cut the worst offender off. You tell him to go home. When he leaves and comes back ready to fight some more, you 86 the dude.

By now, more than half the customers in the place have packed it in and gone elsewhere.

I carefully watched the reactions from Phil as the dispute escalated. It did escalate. People were offended. This is why I supported Phils decision. This is Phil's site. It's not subject to the provisions of the U.S. Constitution or the British equivalant.

Phil has kept this site as one of the most loosely reined forums that photography aficionados can visit. I feel his decision to interceed in the manner he did was well done. Very business like manner. He knows how to run this business.

Let's respect him and exercise as much self restraint as we possibly can. Sure, bickering will continue to occur. Recognize when enough is enough and stop. I don't want to see the a lock on the door and a for sale sign above it.

Dean

Back again just seen a sight that mentions a link to this site with the
comments,
'tons of postings but lots of ramblings and flame wars .....'

Now it seems it only takes one or two individuals (and I don't mean
anyone in particular) to give that sort of impression.....only it's not
an impression is it?

 

[jelly fish]

robert,

have you ever stopped to think that the reason you've
been tending bar for 25 years is because you can't get
a decent job?!

One of my part time jobs is tending bar. I've tended bar part time for 25
years.

 

[Dentist]

Whatever we do, where we come from, what color is our skin.... Please do not CLASSIFY people. We are here to discuss Digital Photography. We share information, here we see from other peoples perspective.
Do not disturb people directly by sore words.

Let us all be polite. I could be a postman or trashman. But my interest could be digital photography.

I think Phil will not react as far as we are polite. There should be a control mechanism. He is the controller. Whether he does it good or not, this site is his child.

This site is the most interactive and efficient site I have ever seen. Phil, did you use Microsoft Internet Developer Studio and Microsoft SQL Server? I just wonder....

have you ever stopped to think that the reason you've
been tending bar for 25 years is because you can't get
a decent job?!

One of my part time jobs is tending bar. I've tended bar part time for 25
years.

 

[Rob Patterson]

Many years ago grasshopper my father gave me a very good piece of advice. If you want more money go get another job. If you read my post in it's completeness, you may notice that I bartend part time.

I consider it a real job. It pays money. Good money. It is additional money that I add to the money I earn from working as an Administrative Assistant. I also climb trees for a living. Another real job. I earned $350 dollars from that real job in 4 hours yesterday. I also do work from my computer. I am currently working on an adendum to an architectual plan for my neighbor.

I like money. I have a favorite T-shirt. It reads: "I'm money mad, No money and I get mad"

Oh, incidentally I purchased an 800 Nikon in excellent condition while bartending for $200 dollars. I got a Fuji 1200 for $50. I got a Canon A50 for $75. The non-real job has some hidden benifits.

Now be a nice Jelly fish and go sting someone else.

have you ever stopped to think that the reason you've
been tending bar for 25 years is because you can't get
a decent job?!

One of my part time jobs is tending bar. I've tended bar part time for 25
years.

 

[jelly fish]

i am jelly fish. i am arrogant. i like to use sour words.
my psychologist say it was because of a bad
experience in 2nd grade.

do not eat jelly fishes. jelly fishes have rights too.

 

[dougjnn]

First let me say i'm not responding to the particular merits of this dispute. I didn't follow it enough. I'm also fairly new to this site. But a long vet on the net.

Sites without the banning sanction ultimately available have a strong tendency to degenerate into a whole lot of personal attacks -- and sometimes really distasteful comments as well. Those are fine SOMEWHERE on the net -- but it is also fine for a site owner to try to keep that sort of thing within some sorts of bounds. The real reason, to me and and think to most, is not so that our delicate ears are not offended, but to try to keep the garden somewhat weeded of stuff that most of us don't wnat to have clogging the bandwidth.

Banning people for saying negative things about a particular camera on a site which is dedicated to reviewing them and discussing them is something else entirely. It is within the site owner's rights -- as really just about anything is -- but it sure would make me less interested in the site. I hope that hasn't happened.

Someone you repeatedly spreads around inflamatory FUD, with an apparently malicious intent, is a more difficult middle case. I personally would let someone go fairly far in that area. But if it became clear that they were posting things which are clearly untrue or utterly unfounded, and not just a matter of opinion, and doing it again and again, that might become a case for banning as well. Because it is noise, rather than useful contrary opinion.

This sort of power on the part of a site owner sounds awfully controlling and dangerous, you say? Well, not really. Because a wise site owner, who cares about high traffic and maybe even becoming (or remaining) a leading place in its niche, will take good care of it's "clients" and rule with a very light hand.

A site owner is rather like the owner of a bar/pub or nightclub. Yes, his rule if pretty much absolute. But if he is too restrictive and rules with much of a visible presence (as opposed perhaps to sometimes trying to persuade and lead), he is going to loose his clientelle. And what is a bar/pub/nightclub, without it's clientelle? Also, like the latter, a culture tends to spring up. The owner probably has a lot to do with launching it and coloring it initially. But then it takes on a bit of a life of its own. And if he tries to buck that culture too much he is risking loosing his key customer base -- and then having to try to attract a new one.

Aw well, enough. This little tempest in a teapot seems to have ended well enough.

This is a great site--highly informative and regularly entertaining.
I've always assumed it covers digital photograhy generally, discussing
both the pros and cons of methods and equipment. Recently, however, I've
gotten the feeling that Phil's creation has been smitten by a bad case of
Nikonitis.

Personally, I'm a Nikon devotee, and have been for more decades than I
like to admit. Currently, the 990 is my preferred digital unit for
nonprofessional use. I think it stands about two or three steps above
the new Oly, everything considered (in some respects, the Oly is clearly
superior).

At the same time, as many postings on this site have underscored, the 990
is far from perfect. I've appreciated all the factual criticism, and
thought it was basically a good idea to pull those scattered items into a
compendium: such briefs are especially useful to novices, including
those inexperienced in navigating websites.

Lately, I've noticed a lot of overreaction to items clashing with the
general Nikon fever dominating this site. Phil, himself, intervened on
Nikon Talk and cautioned that all the comments about bugs and such might
turn buyers away from the 990, which Phil rightfully considers an
excellent unit (Nikon Talk, 7 May 2000). I bit my fingers and refrained
from replying more strongly at that point. I simply suggested that the
OVERREACTION to "negative" postings--not the postings, themselves--was
creating the basic problem.

Obviously, I think Phil has overreacted again. And now the overreaction
is generating counter-overreaction--as is often the case.

It's true that technically "this is Phil's site." But, as with any
public accommodation in this enlightened age, right of ownership doesn't
translate into absolute control, for various reasons. One: Phil's
commodity is information, including public discussion groups, and there
are serious questions about control in that regard. Two: Phil's
operation is subject to well-known limitations imposed by the nature of
the internet, including easy and perhaps unusually effective
counterreaction. Three: . . . (fill out the list; its a long one).

So here we are. Perhaps the issue will fade away if left alone; maybe it
has peaked. But I think Phil needs to make an overture and end this on a
high note.

Offered constructively,

Dean

 

[Ulysses]

"NOTES: Abusive, personal, commercial advertising or self-promoting messages are banned and will be deleted, all IP addresses are logged and repeated offences will lead to you or your ISP being banned from access to the forums. Postings are not moderated and appear immediately."

Phil puts it there, and he enforces it. His right to exercise that authority supercedes what we perceive to be our right to speak anything and all things we want.

i am jelly fish. i am arrogant. i like to use sour words.
my psychologist say it was because of a bad
experience in 2nd grade.

do not eat jelly fishes. jelly fishes have rights too.

 

[jim19038]

First let me say i'm not responding to the particular merits of this
dispute. I didn't follow it enough. I'm also fairly new to this site.
But a long vet on the net.
A site owner is rather like the owner of a bar/pub or nightclub. Yes,
his rule if pretty much absolute. But if he is too restrictive and rules
with much of a visible presence (as opposed perhaps to sometimes trying
to persuade and lead), he is going to loose his clientelle. And what is
a bar/pub/nightclub, without it's clientelle? Also, like the latter, a
culture tends to spring up. The owner probably has a lot to do with
launching it and coloring it initially. But then it takes on a bit of a
life of its own. And if he tries to buck that culture too much he is
risking loosing his key customer base -- and then having to try to
attract a new one.

Well another barman and Nikon owner sprung up. What is this with them?