Censorship on this news group

[volker_schier1]

I would like to notify everyone contributing to this newsgroup that there was a case of censorship which I think is unacceptable. Please view the following post "Rodinal 1+100 & Bergger BRF200 (SCB)" and please post your response to this issue. I do hope that everyone contributing here agrees that free speech is a basic right.

[sal_santamaura]

Volker, I have read the thread you reference. I did not see the

deleted post(s). I have no connection with anyone in the photo

industry or this forum. This post is to clarify one point. We are

all guests here of a privately owned bulletin board. It is the

prerogative of the board's owner (and his/her agents) to censor at

will. Free speech, at least here in the US, is definitely a basic

right, but not broadcast on someone else's communication medium. The

medium owner's right of free speech, including censoring what goes out

on his/her board, is a higher right. IMHO.

[richard_ilomaki]

Volker:

 

<p>

 

Bergger is made in France by the successor to the comany that made

Zone VI Brilliant-I can't for the life of me spell the old name but

it had about 15 syllables. They were the oldest manufacturers of

sensitized materials in Europe, or so I was told.

 

<p>

 

Forte is made in Hungary in an old Kodak plant set up in the 30s and

nationalized in the late 40s. It is now returned to private hands and

is making good stuff.

 

<p>

 

Bergger film and paper are the darlings of the ultra-large format

guys as they make sheet film in all conceivable sizes.

 

<p>

 

Censorship-no.

 

<p>

 

Fact checking-yes.

[wilhelm]

Dear Volker, I read your original post before Ed deleted it, and also

John's reply. I filed the information away in my FWIW compartment.

As my Father would say "Don't get your bowells in an uproar over

this." Calm down. Chill out. It's not worth raising your blood

pressure over. I enjoy reading your informative and practical posts,

please don't make a mountain out of this molehill. This is the

Internet -- it isn't perfect, mistakes can and will be made. Some

information presented as factual is actually speculation -- who knows

which is which. Ed did what he thought was right to defuse a

fractious situation -- (no one ever said that being a moderater is

easy, and thank you very much Ed for all the work you do). It's not

really important.

[jorge_gasteazoro]

Volker, bottom line you were speculating about the provenance of a

certain film without firm facts. If Ed felt that this could harm or

damage or in anyway create a rumor that could be deleterious to a

film maker and decided to delete your post it is his choice, after

all WE ARE his guests and we do not pay anything for this forum. I

actuallly think we should be grateful he takes the time to monitor

and upkeep this forum for all of us!

Second the practice of having a major film producer manufacturer make

runs for a smaller one which cannot afford the labor, materials, and

machinery to produce the film to their specifications is nothing new.

If for example, Bergger is having Forte manufacture their film and

Forte is doing it according to the Bergger specifications and Bergger

quality control, then it is a Bergger film. I for one doubt very much

that Forte is making Bergger film but if they are so what? If I like

the film (which I don't) I would use it regardless of who makes it. I

still buy Hasselblad lenses even though some are now being made in

Japan! and Hasselblad has acknowledged that in the US market.

Although free speech is a basic right, it is a right that is to be

used responsibly, if you have a Bergger film box and it is

stamped "Made in Hungary" then I would be giving serious

consideration to your claims, but just because you are getting the

same results with both films you conclude they are made by the same

manufacturer seems rather thin to me. If we use this criteria then we

could say HP5 and Tri X are made by the same people.....both films

have similar qualities and produce similar results! This is precisely

the job of a moderator to make sure all the claims and statements in

this forum are factual. As long as you can support your claims with

concrete facts I am sure Ed would leave your posts alone, but if you

are engaging in wild speculations, I agree with him he has every

right to pull your post until such time that you provide proof

backing up your claims.

In the end we have a saying in Mexico that goes " As your hosts it is

my duty to make you feel at home, as the guest it is YOUR duty to

remember you are NOT!". You are a Ed's guest, playing in his field

with his ball....so I hope I don't have to spell it out for you!

[fw1]

Take a deep breath - can you? - you haven't been censored. Comments

you made earlier which may or may not be factually accurate have been

removed in order that potentially misleading information is not

disseminated. That's all. Elsewhere you've also managed to imply that

it is possible that Ed "interferes" (your word) with posts because of

connections with manufacturers of photographic products - that's

rather a lowball comment, and one I am sure that as a gentleman you

will retract. You need to remember that with free speech comes the

need for self discipline, internet or not.

[george_papantoniou]

I am afraid I will have to disagree with all you guys and give reason

to Volker. After all, if he wants to express his opinion (that

Bergger film is made by Forte, which is probably true) on this forum,

he should be free to do it, otherwise we shouldn't consider it an

open disussion forum. If Bergger people complained to the moderator

about this comment being shown and he obediently deleted it from his

server, this is - I believe - quite undemocratic and can be called

censorship.

As for the propability of a manufacturer making some kind of material

for another firm, this is very usual in our days, and I don't believe

it being something the companies shoud keep secret. I know very well

that Ilford, for instance has been making B+W paper for another BIG

photo manufacturer (I will not mention the name, in order not to be

censored) and Agfa was talking with another BIG manufacturer in order

to agree that he starts making the Multicontrast paper for them (I

don't know if they came to an agreement, finally) a few years ago. I

have also heard about Tetenal and Forte making stuff for other

companies and so the hypothesis that Forte is making the Bergger film

seems to me quite plausible. It seems that Forte has a fine setup for

making classic, old tech B+W stuff and I would very much appreciate

any kind of classic B+W product that would be offered to me as a

consumer. As for the fact that Volker assumed that this hypothesis is

true just because he found the two films being similar, I don't think

it is a sin, we all came sometime before some kind of doubt of this

kind (for example, "is TMax P3200 different that the 400, or are they

the same film in different packages") and we sometimes drew some

conclusion that we kept on believing aftewards as if we had seen

proof about it. I think it is the result of the past experience that

we all have of cheating from the big companies (not only those in the

photographic industry) that has taken place so many times in the

past. We have to defend ourselves in some way, otherwise we will all

be used any way they like and not even be aware of it. I am certainly

not talking here about small companies like Bergger, that I like very

much, but about much bigger ones, like Mc Kodak's for instance.

Finito.

[volker_schier1]

Just one short comment: Why didn't Bergger just say that their film is

not made by Forte? I did not see this. What is certainly

easier with paper is very hard with film: Custom

manufacturing in a pretty large setup plant like Vacs. The

paper may by Bergger may be custom coated at Vacs, but I

do not believe that this is done in the case of film. Additionally I

would suggest that the "open" newsgroup is changed into an "invited"

or "closed" newsgroup if only things can be posted that the owner

approves. It is as simple as that and the bottom line. It is not for

the list owner to decide which information is right or wrong, he

clearly cannot do this. If anyone has a problem with my view, than he

can let me know and take appropriate steps. What the listowner cannot

do is to censor my view, simply he "believes" it might be wrong. This

is censorship.

[david_parmet1]

Calm down Volker. Throwing words like 'censorship' around is

absurd. This is a privately owned and operated forum and you

made an assertion about a company that you had no basis in

fact to support. Ed was obligated to delete it.

[ed b.]

I'll make one final comment in regard to this issue. I did not, and

have never, deleted anything at the request of a manufacturer, nor am

I anyone's lackey. I deleted a post that I felt was inflammatory and

unfriendly, and in addition I deleted Volker's very brief post, which

had provoked it. I have apologized to Volker for deleting his post,

and in retrospect it obviously should have been left alone. I am

perfectly capable of making a mistake and assume most of you make

mistakes now and again also. It angers me greatly to be accused of

censorship and partisanship, and to have my integrity called into

question. I have tried very hard to keep a low profile as moderator--

at this point I would very much enjoy a return to relative obscurity.

When this forum degenerates into accusations and backbiting, it

ceases to be of value to any of us--I, for one, have better things to

do than to argue with a bunch of people I've never even met. Once

again, I appeal to everyone who participates in the forum to return

to a friendly exchange of relevant information.

[volker_schier1]

Thank you Ed, accepted and forgotten! Lets return to more rewarding

discussions.

[volker_schier1]

One very final last word to David Parmet. I simply have to, I guess

the group will not mind: Ed, if I were to say in your house � this is

privates pace � that Ford, GM and Chrysler are bad cars (which they

are off course not, but only as an example) you would be obliged to

throw me out because this statement is unfounded? This is basically

what you say in your email if I transfer your view to verbal

communication. Maybe you should think about this a little. I feel that

your views about free speech are dangerous. This newsgroup is on the

internet and invites discussion. Even if someone has to put it on the

net and the server (in a strict sense only the computer that holds the

data, not the net, which is public domain) may be privately owned, all

the information contained is not his private property, but as

expression of private thoughts are subject to the copyright (look it

up if you do not believe this). It is a different issue if Ed Buffaloe

has to publish information, but again the internet is the publicly

spoken word. I think Ed Buffaloe will agree. You see, it is getting

rather complex, but I have to do with these issues and maybe due to

this am rather sensitive about it, but I feel everyone should be. I

think democracy has nothing do to with founded or unfounded arguments

� at least up to know this is what the majority still seems to thin �

, but with the right to say what one wants, otherwise it would hardly

work (or many jokes about George Bush would have to be taken of the

net, since many of their basic statements are clearly

"unfounded"....... or are they? - who decides OR who has the right to

decide). Since I write about issues of mystification -

demistification, cult etc. this discussion was highly interesting for

me, not because of founded or unfounded arguments, but because of the

overall views. I will surely use some of this material in the future.

Thank you for everyone contributing!

[don_spangler1]

I have been following all this with interest. I must fully agree

with George Papantoniou (papanton@hol.gr). Volker has made a point

that is very important. Censorship is not part of democracy. Yes

there can be excesses like the proverbial crying fire in a publis

place when no fire exist. But Volker only raised questions that are

very interesting. He did not harm anyone. We have a right to

speculate on product manufacturing and free flow of information.

But I would like to take this discussion further. In the USA we are

the victims of censorship from large companies. The USA does not have

any significant manufacture of B & W materials and chemicals.

Without Europe there would be a huge void. There are many wonderfjul

products in Europe that never reach the USA. I know of one very

excellant film that stepped on the toes of the Yellow Father. Thus

it was not available. But justice was served. The Yellow Father was

shut out of Japan by Fuji. I understnad that dealers in Japan were

told they would not receive Fuji Product if Yellow father products

were sold. This is a kind of censorship that hurts the free flow of

products. I can understnad that many fine products do not reach the

USA because of economic reasons but I wonder if the reasons go beyond

that fact. The world gets smaller and smaller and we get closer

to "One World". Take the EU for instance.

So what we need is free flow of Black and White information and

products.

[jorge_gasteazoro]

"but the right to say what one wants"

 

<p>

 

No bubba, you don't have that right. You have the right not to be

persecuted for your views or comment, BUT you dont have the right to

say anything you want, you cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie

theater, you don't have the right to insinuate things or make

statements about a person or company without proof, etc.

 

<p>

 

I think you just don't get it, Ed deleted the messages for the

response to your post, and he has already told us he made a mistake

and deleted yours too, which aparently was inoffensive.

 

<p>

 

But you don't seem to understand that Ed first has a responsibility

to himself ( he does not want to get sued), second a responsibility

to all of us in keeping this Forum free of inflamatory and offensive

posts, third and LAST he has a responsibility to your right of free

speech. If the first two outweight yours, since this is a private

forum he has the right to pull whatever post he wants, as you have

been told already as a PRIVATE forum he has the RIGHT to do this! the

same way he has the right to tell people to get out of his house if

they are saying things that are inflamatory or offensive to him.

[volker_schier1]

Sorry Jorge, you are wrong! If I do not like my car, to come back to

example, I may say so. I even may say that it is a louzy car, without

penalty. Companies and persons do not live in an aquarium and the

"restriction" that apply in what I may say or not are very narrowly

defined, especially in the US, were it is legal to say things that are

illegal in some European countries. Again, since you obviously did not

read what I wrote: If a company has a problem with what I say, they

can take the appropriate measures themselves. I still must say that

what I initially wrote must have some thruth, since Bergger oviously

is not a manufacutring company, at least according to the email I got

from the directly. So, who makes their film if it is not them.......?

[jorge_gasteazoro]

you may say so when you are taking responsibilities for your actions,

when you post in a Forum you are placing that burden on someone else,

besides it seems you are unable to grasp the point, Ed deleted your

message as a mistake because of the response it generated, BUT even

so you he has the right to do so! it is not censorship it is good

monitoring. We are not talking about your comment, we are talking

about your complaining about censorship and your right to say

anything you want on this forum which you dont have!

 

<p>

 

Look this will be my last post on this subject as it seems you are

one of those people who ablsolutely has to be right all the

time....and is unable to recognize when mistaken, so bottom line for

me, I agree with Ed 100% and no, it was not censorship it was common

sense along with a mistake, and now I understand why you generate the

kind of responses you get!

[sal_santamaura]

Perhaps since I posted the first response, this one can be last.

Volker, you may freely say anything you wish on the Internet about

your car, film, or any other subject. Just as long as you say it on

one or more Volker Schier bulletin boards. With this I suspect

everyone would agree. However, censorship is neither a bad word nor

illegal/unconstitutional (in the US, where Black and White World is

located) when practiced by a private entity controlling its own

bulletin board. Only censorship by government is prohibited. I

believe Ed has gone well beyond the call of duty - - and, as a

volunteer he really has no "duty" - - in making public statements of

regret here. If you think your words are unjustifiably censored

(again, not inherently a bad word) on this board, try saying something

remotely negative on the Mamiya/Toyo boards and see how long that post

survives!

[volker_schier1]

Well, but private entities not willing to have opposing views usually

do not invite a free exchange of views. I think that several people

would oppose your views, which off course you are free to have.

[david_parmet1]

Volker, you really need to drop it. Stop emailing me and using

me as your whipping boy on this forum.

 

<p>

 

For what it's worth I agree with Ed - it's his forum and he's been

running it as he sees fit and for what it's worth I'm very very

grateful to him for taking the reigns of BW world.

 

<p>

 

Considering his depth of knowledge and experience on the

subject of black and white photography he's got the right and the

obligation to make judgement calls on the appropriateness of

posts to this forum.

 

<p>

 

Now please just drop it. And please don't email me with silly

consipracy theories about Ed and Bergger.