Number of ratings reported do not match no of people.

[mottershead]

Alton, if you rate more than a couple of favorite photographers, you don't have to worry about your ratings being disqualified. We're talking about accounts that basically only rate one photographer. As for the exchange-of-sevens heuristic, that only applies if the people to whom you give sevens give them back. In that case, the ratings are disqualified if there is a large exchange. This would make a difference to you (and them) if the only sevens you were getting are from each other. In that case, you are a mate-rater. If you aren't a mate rater, then it isn't anything to worry about.

[kslonaker]

Brian, how about if you gave a photographer a 7 a long time ago, or with a time difference - say he gives you one this week and you rate one of his with a 7 in 2 weeks? Just curious as to how this works.

[bens]

reading this thread, the terms professionals and followings turn up in a discussion about the configuration of the photo.net feedback system. to me, the discussion implies the desire for a "fair" ratings system because of a business use of the site. this concerns me, and the site's implicit bending to this desire concerns me. brian for a long time you said ratings were for the site not the members. yet i see for the past year that you are VERY responsive to most postings about ratings, including your present calvinball game, but i've not seen any attention paid to encouraging and incentivizing the dialogue between participants about their photos. i agree tha there is ratings abuse; i do not agree that it should take a disproportionate amount of the site's attention and time. please clarify the site's policy about business use of the site. and please, i would greatly appreciate, finally, your thoughts about encoraging and incentivizing dialoguing on the site. thanks.

[bens]

to be fair, yes, in the past year, the critique forum was provided, which i think has for a variety of reasons been of mixed success; hence my urgings over the past six months that the site do more within the present system. look forward to your reply, brian, thanks.

[Landrum Kelly]

Ben, thanks for reminding us that the quality of the "dialogue between participants" is at least as big a problem as the ratings.

 

Here are the latest verbal assaults against me in the guise of being critiques of one of my photos:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3102096

 

One of these two fellows also leveled a false accusation against Asier Castro, the winner of this week's PoW. The other is on his second crusade to convince me that I am not a good photographer.

 

I already knew that.

[bens]

i started a new thread on "enabling dialogue in an international community" because i realized the second part of my message might be seen as pulling too far off the point of this thread, and welcome everyone's participation in that thread on the subject raised. i would appreciate a clarification on business use in this thread though, as i think it is on point given the discussion above.

[akochanowski]

many of the people who participate in what is called the mate-rate game really cannot understand that it is possible to post a photo and have someone leave a comment that is negative without a hidden agenda. Lannie is unfortunately too prone to leave enthusiastic comments and ratings on very, very average photographs and photographers, and consequently seems to draw a lot of bland praise from some prime mate-rate gamers on his many photos. With all due respect, the comments he seems to think warrant removal by abuse@net are mild compared to what he would hear if he showed his portfolio to any qualified reviewer in a juried event. I've always thought posting here implied a readiness to have any and all people, from intelligent published photographers to kids with a camera leave comments. Some are good, some are bad. Some are inteligent, some are stupid. It has never even occurred to me to ask Jeremy to ask to remove any comment anyone ever left me, even ones that I thought were plain dumb. This site is a great resource precisely so that you can get a reaction, not so your photos have an unbroken string of "great tree Lannie". To me it's real evidence why the mate-rate game is bad. Even those who are largely on the outside of the game, like Lannie, seem disinclined to accept anything short of praise on their photos. Get a grip and learn something.

[Landrum Kelly]

Andy, I don't mind the most severe criticism of photos. I do mind the sarcastic and biting attacks on persons. I come from the tradition of political philosophy, where rather severe disagreements are commonplace, but where persons agree up front to avoid ad hominem arguments. I have sufficient grip never to confuse an ad hominem attack with a rational critique, be it of a photo or of an idea.

 

By the way, the things that we discuss in political theory make disagreements about photos rather mild in terms of potential for abuse, but most of us have learned to take the high road, even when we must deliver a devastating critique. In "real life," I will call a liar a liar. When I do philosophy, I will simply say that the person in question is mistaken. It is a formal role that I play as a discussant or teacher, perhaps a reflection of the kind of person that I would like to be all of the time--but am not.

 

There are many truly civil persons on this site, of course, but there are those who have to get that last little line or phrase in that denigrates or insults the person. I say to them, "Grow up!" and I mean it. They are kidding themselves if they think that they have to attack the person in order to offer a valid critique of a photo. That little "dig" that many people feel compelled to add (usually in passing or at the end) would be for me an admission of failure that I could not factor out my revulsion of the person from revulsion of the idea or photo being offered--and I hate to fail in my sense of self-control in such a way, not least of all because thirty years in a college classroom teaches one rather quickly that the true teaching mission is never promoted by humiliating a student, and the same is true at professional conferences. I teach Spanish now, and only write in philosophy, and writing is good discipline for purging all the bile through good rewrites before trying to publish.

 

I don't like rationalizations for hostility, which is what I see in the ad hominem comments. I am not always rational or benign, but those are ideals towards which I aspire in all interpersonal interactions. I actually have a rather fiery temper, which is why I must try all the harder to maintain command of my emotions, and I despise myself when I let my negative emotions triumph over my rationality. Writing is good discipline, and even these fora on PN can be good opportunities for discipline in that regard, which is one reason that I enjoy participating in them. We all still have some rough edges that we could smooth off without becoming milksops. I doubt that anger and sarcasm ever accomplished very much, and I say that precisely because I am capable of great excesses of anger and sarcasm, and they have never helped my cause or won me any points in discussion.

 

When I write, here or elsewhere, I can momentarily be the kind of person I aspire to be. One last point: I don't typically engage in a lot of vitriolic controversy here for yet another reason. I get enough of that in my line of work, where I have been known most of my life as an acid-tongued controversialist. I come here to relax and have fun--in short, to recover. Photography for me is not a profession. It is my escape from my real profession. Again, however, when I write here or elsewhere, I have found that I REALLY CAN make my point just as well in a civil manner. I often walk away from controversies here because I have bigger fish to fry--and I fry them, preferably with logic rather than sarcasm. I do manage to get it said if it needs to be said.

[Landrum Kelly]

The infantile comments that I reported to abuse@photo.net are gone. Very weak criticisms remain, but they are very civil. What was there two hours ago was garbage in the guise of critique.

 

Try not to judge me, Andy. I can be just as abrasive as anyone on the site. I simply choose not to be, to the best of my ability. As for pompous art critics, they are probably a lot like some prima donnas in academe. We all have our crosses to bear. . . .

[WJT]

Regarding the comment above about appreciating Brian's efforts, I unequivocally state that I do. I have said that in past posts and I will say it again...<b>thank you, Brian</b>, for the work that you do. Perhaps this is the solution that will work. I have already stated my reservations.<p>

Regarding taking a wait and see attitude, well, what other choice is there? It's his game. Regards.

[Landrum Kelly]

I think that the best that any of us can offer is a qualified endorsement until we see what happens. Brian's "Calvin ball" comments suggest that he is not locked into any single strategy for dealing with these problems, and that he is pretty careful as to what the impact is. I was afraid that some of my friends' comments and ratings might have disappeared, not because they are high (I rarely get a single seven), but because I am a bit nostalgic about the exchanges I have had with some people since I started posting photos in February, 2002, three years ago! (I think that Perry Shillinglaw and Bill Gibson offered some of the first comments that I received.) Fortunately, those seem to be intact, and some of those early exchanges are dear to me. (I know, "Get a life!")

 

Oh, well, PN is both reality and fantasy at once--a world unto itself, addictive at times, annoying at others, but not typically boring. I wish sometimes that we could have a PN Convention, where we could all come to meet one another and share ideas and prints. It would be interesting to see whether persons in the flesh were at all like the persons that we imagined from reading their comments or looking at their photos.

 

Who knows but what PN will become the sine qua non of photo sites. I know that it has changed a lot since I first started browsing it in the fall of 1999. Maybe there will be a Photo Net Building in Boston some day, and even a Photo Net Photo Marketing Association meeting. (Not all of us like Orlando.) Maybe the number one college team will someday be determined in the "Photo Net Fiesta Bowl" (gag).

 

Well, whatever happens, there will be change, and we will someday look back at these days as being the old "days of yore." Already Marc and some of the "oldtimers" are complaining that it just ain't the same as it used to be.

 

I say, enjoy it while it lasts. It will change, come under new management, or whatever, and someday we will indeed wonder what happened and why. All good things must come to an end.

[akochanowski]

All that may be fine and good, Lannie, but I'm afraid I don't buy what you're selling; in law there is an old adage, res ipsa loquitor that applies to your asking for negative criticism to be deleted, I'm afraid. From what I recall at least one of the comments you successfully got deleted told you you failed to get your message across to your audience-- isn't that preciselythe type of comment everyone claims to want to get on this site in the guise of getting better? Another comment you got deleted accused you of having thin skin since you reacted badly to an initial comment hat your photo was underexposed-- well, yes, that shoe seems to fit, doesn't it? I don't really mean to pick on you as you seem like a pleasant fellow, but I distinctly recall the sh*tstorm you put up when George Peterson left some critical remarks on your and some other people's photos last fall. George had a lot of intelligent things to say-- maybe he didn't say them in the falsely obsequieous voice you apparently want-- but I got to tell you, he was a hell of a lot more perceptive and made a hell of a lot more sense than 99.9% of the people who leave you the comments you seem to find acceptable.

 

I just don't buy the notion that you can only accept "civil" criticism. The ad hominem line you peddle makes no sense-- a photograph IS a personal statement and criticism necessarily goes not to the digital image on the screen but to its maker. Of course it's your perogative to call any negative comments "abuse" and aparently PN will heed your wishes and delete tham, but to me it just looks like an ego problem.

[howard_foto]

well, at least I'm not the only one whose had gallery photo comments deleted that were not ad hominem, but to the image and the failure (is use of that word ad hominem?) of an imperious maker to fool this naive observer of his 'clotheless' photography (not 'nude', if you get the allusion) into buying in to a nonsensical association between image and verbiage.

[john falkenstine]

Brian: Good Job. The results are visually noticeable.

[howard_foto]

<p>"<I>Some professionals will have a natural fan base simply because people appreciate the consistent quality of their work.</i>

<p>sad but true. true because we are conditioned by society to worship 'heroes' and assign to them 'role model' status, but they really have no direct relevance to our real photographic lives... sad because worshipping these same 'heroes' is more likely to stunt one's individual growth as a photographer. the distinction here is this: I am a baseball fan but I cannot (and could never) play the game nearly as well as the professionals do. not ever. compared to most pro photographers I probably lack only the means and the commitment. that's not to say I can't learn from them (and many who are not pros). but be one of their 'natural fans'? nope.

[Landrum Kelly]

Andy, there were ad hominem comments mixed in with the criticisms of the photo. The very same criticisms about light are still there on the photo in question, put there by persons who confined their remarks to the photo, abstaining from harassing and personal remarks. I did not ask that those remarks be removed, since they were to the point: criticisms of photos, not persons.

 

Howard, no offense, but I still think that your photo would be better without the pasted eagle.

 

Cheers. Now back to the pleasant side of photo.net: pictures.

[Landrum Kelly]

Oh, and Andy, I do remember "George Peterson," the mysterious man who never told us his real name and posted one photo. Our memories differ, but I recall his arriving and leaving on the kind of storm you describe, one of his own making in each case.

 

Andy, at the risk of psychologizing myself, are you possibly still smarting because I said that you should learn to frame and focus, and because I said that your PoW was the worst picture of a bubble-gum-chewing teeny bopper that I had ever seen?

 

Ah, beauty is all around. Let me see if I can find some. . . .

[Alex_Es]

When abuse is ad hominum, hence potentially libelous, it should be deleted. I've never asked to have negative comments or ratings deleted from my Gallery photos because I believe feedback is valuable, even when it is utterly stupid. And, for the record, I've had NO stupid verbal feedback on my work in Gallery--mildly negative on a few shots, but well considered. The only time I'd insist on negative criticism being deleted that wasn't out and out slander would be when an attack seemed like a group effort and consisted of vague insults rather than concrete criticisms. To wit:

 

A. Another stupid street shot. Use your expensive equipment for something better.

 

B. Ouch! (Tee hee).

 

C. Yeah, stop wasting bandwidth and sell vacume cleaners, you troll.

 

B. Ouch! Ouch. (Tee hee.)

 

D. Abababa.

 

B. (Hee. Hee.)

 

Outside of something like this, I prefer stupid verbal criticism to drive-by ratings that are obviously the result pavlovian responses rather than reasoned thought. But even these numerical slobbers are useful because they remind you there a lot of slobbering idiots out there who think they are brilliant critics. Some these (not infrequently) become featured critics in otherwise intelligent publications.

 

In my life outside of this website I am a writer of non-fiction and fiction. In that world you have to deal with rejection slips (a lot for fiction), loutish, obtuse and commericially crass literary agents (most of the lot), cowardly or money-blind publishers (whom one learns to instictively identify and avoid) and, sometimes, idiot editors (99% of my editors have been great to work with). Since accidently falling into the American fiction market a few years ago (a story in itself) I had my share of rejection slips, some abuse (very little), publications of varying status, including short stories in two anthologies, and an honorable mention from the O. Henry Awards. The response I've gotten in Gallery more or less reflects by experiences as a fiction writer in the American scene (Japan is another story). I have also done political writing, for which you need a very thick skin. Debate can become down and dirty and utterly childish: good preparation for life in some of the Forums here. I'm also an academic. It is a life where you have to expect smiles up front and daggers at the back.

 

The nice thing about Gallery and the Forums is that while your ego is always in danger of assault, neither power, social success nor money are ever issues. However people decide to regard your photography it makes you neither richer nor poorer--nor famous nor infamous as far as the real world goes.

[acearle]

Brian, thanks, I understand how you are going about it now. However, I *still* think that the fundimental concept on which the current rating system is based is one that is prone to creating a desire for abuse (errr, I have avoided putting links to other sites here, but photopoints.com has an interesting take on ratings, although it has its own inherent problems, it doesn't seem to engender the sense of competition which is absolutely insane in the arts--completition is fine in business and in football, which is my official request for season tickets to the Photo.net Bowl, but this competition does little positive for the arts, other than make 'em more commercial).

 

What I think is happening psychologically on the other site is that because people are giving from a central pot that doesn't run dry (unless someone chooses to be a member of a subgroup where the pot DOES run dry), and there is no maximum number of points a shot can get, people are less inclined to give low ratings for petty reasons (and I can imagine that getting insanely high ratings would get old after while thus naturally limiting the fake accounts created simply to add points to a shot or shots).

 

Hmmm, I wonder if a multi-tiered system here wouldn't make more sense? I do notice several things here that frustrate me in addition to what I see as a fundimental flaw in the ratings system (errr, off topic, and not fixable, so I won't harp, lol). Having a way to cordon off the people who are mainly interested in ratings, having a middle group of people who are intersted in ratings AND critiques, and having a third group interested primarily in comments and critiques...each group being only able to rate members of that group, and having the lowest group pretty much a free for all, with the highest group policed pretty harshly for mate/revenge rating?? Might actually make p.net admin easier in the long run as you'd be limiting the areas where you had to expend energy policing

 

Personally, another one of the reasons that I am doing far more on other sites is that I actually get useful feedback...the photo critique forum USED to generate useful feedback, but now bascially generate ratings and very little feedback (errr, for comparison...a shot posted here got 1500ish views in 2-3 days, 6-8ish ratings, and zero comments; same shot posted on another site...35 views, 4-5 ratings and 3-4 comments/critiques--the second site is far more useful to me...). Commentless ratings are less than useful, although I am as guilty as the next guy here for giving them, which gets me thinking about WHY I comment on the other site when rating, but not here...it is because the rating selection and comments are displayed together, with my name...there is a sense that comments/ratings are the same, and equally important...maybe its a UI thing, the fact that I have to go to two different places, one to rate, another to leave a comment, that makes me less likely to comment/critique here...hmmm, hadn't thought about that...

[akochanowski]

No Lannie, I'm not "smarting" from anything. I'd forgotten you even had an opinion about my pic. Frankly I think it sucks too, and have said so, many times. Why would you even bring that up? You've left me any number of comments on my more recent photos over the past year in which you were very positive. Do you think I am nevertheless holding some kind of grudge because of something you said a year ago? Do I sound like a total idiot? Please, do get a grip. With the exception of maybe 10 photographers here on PN (and you are not one of them) I am utterly indifferent to opinions about my photos.

[Landrum Kelly]

Ah, Andy, I went looking for beauty on your site and found myself pulled back to your PoW, in hopes of finding some new great source of beauty in the young woman's static dancing image, although, alas, she still seems to be looking around for the bubble gum that she lost.

 

Marc G summed up the contribution of your PoW thus: "If this is great, what isn't?" Now, you might not be able to factor out that kind of criticism of the photo from a criticism of yourself, but the distinction between a criticism of the work and the criticism of the person stands--even if you cannot fathom it, even if you vehemently deny that it is real and meaningful.

 

Of course persons take criticisms of their work personally, since they invest themselves in their work, but taking that kind of criticism personally is precisely what they must not do if they are going to benefit from good solid criticism. Ego tends to stand in the way but cannot be allowed to, if we are to improve. Lawyers are masters at pushing persons' buttons to get them angry on the stand. I should think that the goal of valuable criticism is, to the contrary, to make persons think rationally rather than to get angry. When anger comes welling up, rationality goes out the window--and that is the single best reason to avoid the ad hominem at all costs, that is, precisely so that the criticism can be constructive rather than destructive.

 

To paraphrase my most critical true hero on this site, Marc Gouguenheim himself: "Thanks to all who came to learn and share." Marc made (and makes) enemies in his direct, blunt criticisms, but making persons angry has never been his goal. He sincerely wanted and wants to help persons become better, but he was and is often hated for his greatest virtue. He never attacks persons or their "egos," as you attacked mine. He is always to the point: this photo has such and such flaws and would be better if thus and such were different.

 

I recommend that you emulate him. He has a great deal to teach, and a genuine desire to teach it. If he is not always tactful, at least he is never vicious. Much to learn there, indeed. . . .

 

I'm no saint, Andy. I can get as steamed as the next guy, and, yes, I can push the buttons, too, as when I sent you into that tornadic fire storm that you have characterized in less appealing terms. I'm truly sorry for that, and sorrier still when I do not live up to my own teachings. I still maintain, however, that we should STRIVE to do better, and I do not see how that is possible if we do not recognize the force of a distinction between criticism of the work and criticism of the person.

 

Psychologizing about motives as photographic criticism is for the birds, and, yes, I know that I, too, can be a bird brain at times. Here's to a more constructive conversation between us in the future.

[Landrum Kelly]

Andy, it seems that we crossed paths, both writing at the same time.

 

"Get a grip. . . ." There you go with the ad hominem at the end, the stinger in every one of your rejoinders. In the other one it was--at the end--a reference to my "ego." How's your own "grip" doing these days? How's your own "ego" holding up? I hear that lawyerly psychologizing and button pushing once again.

 

As for photos, it is not the "dancing" girl that puzzles me. It is the stuff you are doing now, in the same way that you said that you could never understand why I shoot the subjects that I do.

 

Surely we can agree to disagree on what is worth shooting and how best to shoot it. Surely we can above all agree that sniping at each other's psychological frailties is the least productive path that we could possibly take.

[vincetylor]

I read the thread and comments before they were deleted Lannie. With no axe to grind, and no issues with you (that I know of) I thought you were far out of line. That was just my honest opinion. From what I read they did criticize the photo, and not you UNTIL you started telling them to go elsewhere, were not welcomed. That was not right either.

 

Now, bringing that image/issue over here, what was the reason for that?? This thread had nothing to you with your issues. That too was unnecessary and really unfair as well.

 

You continue on, with telling "Andy" to act like Marc G. Well, I think Marc has some nice qualities, but would not make him the "role model for critique on Photo.net". You have quite a bit of nerve actually to tell anybody how to act.

 

If it's true that you did say: " I said that your PoW was the worst picture of a bubble-gum-chewing teeny bopper that I had ever seen?"

 

Then this would be far more offensive behavior than what the two gentlemen visiting your work said earlier. The fact those comments were deleted does not mean the they were inappropriate, it means that whoever you whined to and sent in to, didn't feel like worrying or hearing about it anymore. Easier to zap than listen further. Again, I thought those comments were perfectly legit. The image is dark, very dark. It's nice you like it, but if you post one that dark, count on some strong negative comments. I'd be surprised otherwise.

 

This was my fav of yours today;

 

" I often walk away from controversies here because I have bigger fish to fry--and I fry them, preferably with logic rather than sarcasm. I do manage to get it said if it needs to be said."

 

Well I am sure you must feel like "The Man" since (in your mind) your powerful logic can fry those bigger fish. Bet you think you are humble too...

 

Looked to me, from what I have read today that your two visitors on your image, and Andy above (here) did a little frying themseleves. How's it feel to be on the menu Lannie??

 

Guess my mini retirement from the forums has to wait another day...just couldn't resist. You really set yourself up.

 

heh...

[guyscrivner]

I admit that I am new to PhotoNet and probably do not have a complete understanding of the process but I have experienced enough and witnessed enough to know that there is something fundamentally wrong with a critique and rating system that creates this much heated debate.

 

In my humble opinion I believe that in any organized, well-intentioned structure there are always those that are willing to shoot it down. That is to be expected and that is what is happening here. In addition to the above-mentioned mate rating and manipulation of the system to impact the TRP, POW, etc there is also bots and malicious low ratings. None of this is very satisfying to serious photography professionals or new photographers attempting to improve their skills.

 

Now some would say that ratings are not important and you should just ignore them. Others want to throw up their hands and walk away. Other still would say that if their seven ratings are taken away then no harm done. I say that ratings are very important. I for one want to know when a photographer that I admire views my images and feels good about them that he/she can express a 7 rating without fear, retribution of nullification. If I feel the same about their work I want to be able to give them the same feedback. This is how I will improve. On the other hand, when a member is using my image to accomplish an agenda that has little to do with the quality of my work then I have every right to get angry. I also feel very offended when someone gives me a 1 rating and provides no explanation. In this environment I can?t even ask why without fear of retribution even if I knew who the rater was. In addition, whether it is my work or others, there is no rational for an image getting a dozen ratings of five or more and then have some yahoo rate that image a one. The same applies to images that get nothing but fours and below and then up pops a pair of sevens.

 

So, why are these things happening in the first place? I believe it is all because of the rating system currently in use. It is fundamentally flawed and should be replaced immediately. With this rating system PhotNet is not only providing abusers with weapons but they are passing out the ammunition. Look at it. What does it really have to do with a good photography critique? I am not an expert at this but I thought a good rating or critique should include a few of the basics. Is the photo technically correct? Is it in focus? Does it have the right DOF? Are the colors appropriate? Is the composition pleasing? Is the subject treated respectfully and in good taste? Is it creative or a clich鿠Is it cropped properly? Is it the proper perspective? Does it have emotional appeal? Does it use the rule of thirds? Does it break all the rules and still stand out from the crowd?

 

Not only does this rating system do nothing for the serious photographer but it encourages juvenile games to be played and offers the offenders a psychological reward for their abuse. If you get angry with someone or want to hurt someone it is to easy to place a 1,2,3 or even 4 rating on their work that spells out in simple graphic terms, VERY BAD, BAD, Below Average, or Average /Fair. With these kinds of subjective ratings the rater isn?t even challenged to defend their ratings and that is rightly so. This rating system reflects subjective feelings. Feelings do not have to be justified. . Plus, it is so easy to do. Just Click. A single click that can demoralize, de-motivate, discourage, and anger for no good reason.

 

For those who wish to manipulate the system using BOTS the numeric rating comes in handy also. After all, that is what computers do best is manipulate numbers. To me, photography is not now, nor will it ever be, best judged using numbers. Leave those to the scientists and mathematicians. Photography is an art and should be judged as art.

 

It is for these reasons ( and others if given time to think about it more) that this rating system should be based on a system that (1) helps members improve (2) encourages everyone, (3) minimizes the rewards for abuse, (4) discourages abuse, and (5) is based on objective versus subjective criteria .

 

It is for these reasons that I also wish to make the following proposal. I would like to see a panel of well-respected senior dues paying members appointed to recommend a new rating system for management consideration. I think several members of this forum would be very appropriate. I think their collective talents can come up with a new system that would provide solutions, make for an easy transition and be cost effective.

 

I would also like to propose for consideration that the computer continue to select the Top Rated Photos but before a final decision is made that a rotating panel of volunteer judges sort and rank them. What success would the bots have if they were policed by people?

 

I hope that my rant has made some since. I apologize in advance if I have offended anyone. I thank those who have taken the time to digest this and perhaps give it serious consideration. Also, even if nothing is done, I like this site and will live with its weaknesses for a while. In the meantime, I will go back to my photography. My best to everyone.

 

[Landrum Kelly]

Vince, I didn't bring these issues up. Ben S. brought them up, I responded, and then Andy responded, and I responded to him. (Check the thread.)

 

As for the deleted posts, I know when I am being harassed, and Jeremy seconded my opinion by deleting the posts. Jeremy obviously could see the larger context as you cannot, nor do I expect you to. (The harassment continues as we speak, by the way.)

 

I do know that I come here to relax so that I can return to my writing, which is very draining.

 

I love photo.net, but few if any issues on photo.net are life and death issues. The issues that I deal with in my writings are life and death issues. (Check me out as J. Landrum Kelly on Amazon.com and decide for yourself.) It matters somewhat if I get those larger issues right, although I do not overestimate my signifance to the history of social thought. I just do the best I can.

 

I'm sure that you do the same in your own field.

 

By the way, I have always admired your work.