...it is the discussion re. "labeling", "name-calling", and
"divisiveness", that I and a number of others have attempted some
reasoned-contribution to, with no indication from Michael that he
finds ANY merit in the points we invite him to consider.
Larry,
I have to interrupt.
Oh.
OK. ...(A compulsion, ...I understand.)
Hi Jim ;-)
The problem is not with MR. He has his POV,
and he uses his own site to label people he dislikes. The problem
lies with certain people like Mitch Conner who explode into a rage.
That there is/is-not a "problem with" B does not say there are none with A.
If we are afraid to say anything because it may be "divisive', then
it will be the end of free speech. We will have to be political
correct, if we are afraid of a vocal minority. In fact, MR's
intention is not seditious. His intention is educational.
BTW, since you are so principled
Thank you!
Oh. :-0
Well, this has not been established. I have, however, made some observations about the phenomena on LL, as I see it(naturally).
I would expect
you to reprimand people who make bad jokes about Nikon users, or
any other groups.
Hmmm again. I don't recall "wanting" or "expecting" you to do any particular thing, ...but we each have our own style, no?
This expectation will not be met.
I have no problem with good natured "We're number 1!" joshing exchanges by fans of different teams.
The opinion I have expressed/explained at some length, is that MR's creation of the cute "Pixel Peepers" phrase, while harmlessly-funny enough in it's own right, has, through repeated denigrating usage, and because-of wide adoption by some who enjoy such "poking-with-a-stick", ... contributed to an increase in the amount of noise vs signal both at his site and others.
Your profile indicates participation here over a 9 mo. period. If you have for the same or longer period of time been a visitor/member at LL, and if you will look-back/can remember the pre-"PP" era, I think you would agree that the atmosphere/level-of-discussion was perhaps a tad more congenial/elevated.
The fact that MR owns his site, and can do as he wishes, does not change some other facts. I consider it a fact that repeated "harangues'" which simplistically reduce the variety of forum participants to only two characterizations( " Pixel Peepers", and The-Rest-of-Us), with little-if-any addressing of legitimate opposition TO THIS PRACTISE (to denigrating reference, not to review-types, or other issues)...would be considered trolling, by a great many people, ..and condemned as inflammatory, rather than contributive, in most venues.
What I write is personal opinion, ...as is what you write.
I am also disappointed in Michael's refusal to "engage" those who make what they consider to be reasonable points re. the situation, ...beyond his reductionist (and convenient) dismissal of all "opposition" as merit-less.
My opinion is that these practises (harangues/non-engagement) are negatives.
I believe this situation is a result of a reaction to the inevitable "targeting" and criticism of any outspoken and strongly-opinioned site-host, ...and that the reaction is detrimental rather than helpful, even though it may be understandable.
I refer here to MR's actions. Your defining of his "intent' is necessarily conjecture.
For the record ...some of my "principles"(from my mouth, rather than yours):
I support freedom-of-speech. (All types,...but am personally less-interested in pronouncements shouted from a soapbox, ...than in reasoned, intelligent exchange.)
I deplore "political-correctness" ( an oxymoron intended to disguise peer-pressure-induced expression)
I do not fear any vocal-minority/majority.
I welcome sincere respectful discussion(within the limits of patience and fatigue ;-) {witness these posts exchanged between the two of us, ..we being, I believe, tuned to slightly different frequencies}
I feel I should explain that I have ventured these (qualified-by appreciative acknowledgement)criticisms of MR, here in this one-of-several threads at DPR, only after repeatedly attempting a dialogue with Michael himself at his own site(to no avail). So, as all of us in this and those other threads are doing, I have freed myself to join the discussions about one of the major personalities in the internet photo-world (You're welcome, Michael ;-). I require of myself only that my remarks be sincere, and that I make an effort at accuracy in my observations.
Regarding the hoopla in-general, ...I agree wholeheartedly with Galileo!
Best wishes,
Larry
