Ken Rockwell coming to NYC @ Adorama

[phule]

<p>[[Guess we know where you're coming from...]]</p>

<p>You have no idea where I'm coming from, Brad. But you should feel free to continue to make assumptions as often as you want. One day, you'll get one right. Just not today. </p>

[Brad_]

>>> But you should feel free to continue to make assumptions as often as you want.

 

Thank you, and I will. However, whatever you think my assumptions are, is certainly not important. Your words by

themselves connecting the two individuals speak volumes.

[phule]

<p>Your belief that anything less than fully agreement with your opinion is nothing more than a show of anger, contempt, insecurity, and jealousy is all that needs to be said in this thread, Brad. </p>

<p>[[...connecting the two individuals...]]</p>

<p>You're not so stupid as to believe that, Brad, so why do you continue to pretend to be? </p>

 

[Brad_]

>>> Your belief that anything less than fully agreement with your opinion is nothing more than a show of

anger, contempt, insecurity, and jealousy is all that needs to be said in this thread, Brad.

 

Calm down, Rob. Try something original. That's just a big bowl of buh-blah...

 

Full agreement? I was expressing an opinion about Rockwell, like everybody else. I'm not asking anyone to fully or even partially agree. I apologize that my opinion has upset you so much.

[phule]

<p>[[i was expressing an opinion about Rockwell, like everybody else]]</p>

<p>You were expressing an opinion about people having opinions different than yours. </p>

<p>You made that very clear when you stated: "...there will be befuddled haters showing anger and contempt. Insecurity and jealousy, IMO..."</p>

<p>[[Calm down, Rob. Try something original. That's just a big bowl of buh-blah...]]</p>

<p>Hahaha, oh Brad. You really should pick something less hackneyed than "try something original." Though I do appreciate the irony.</p>

<p> </p>

[Brad_]

>>> You were expressing an opinion about people having opinions different than yours.

 

Is that supposed to be a "gotcha?" Or is that not allowed in your book.

 

 

>>> You really should pick something less hackneyed than "try something original."

 

Not trying to be original or clever. Just accurate using simple words. Again, you're getting way more worked up then is necessary. You seem to only

know insults, and resort to them far too quickly.

 

Instead, express an opinion about Rockwell, like I did, rather than go for the implied reference/connection to Madoff as if what

Rockwell does and how he goes about it; ie "works hard and takes risk to to craft a novel and successful business allowing one to

earn a living" has anything whatsoever to do with Madoff. Thats just a cheap shot.

[david_smith35]

<p>I've nothing against Ken Rockwell per se, but I do think he has a nerve begging for money and donations to fund his ever increasing family (his own choice) when in fact it's obvious he has a relatively wealthy middle class background and lifestyle.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>He can <em>ask</em> for whatever he wants. He provides a service and asks for money - that's fine, it's a business model. You don't have to give him anything if you don't want to.</p>

<p>Even if he just goes to Adorama and gives a presentation on "FART" (which seems to be an acronym for something that boils down to "think and visualize your shot instead of just pointing and shooting") that's a valuable service for the surprising number of people who don't understand that. Probably what will happen is he'll talk about that for a while and give some kind of demo, and then a bunch of people will ask him questions about what kind of gear they should buy.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I've nothing against Ken Rockwell per se, but I do think he has a nerve begging for money and

donations to fund his ever increasing family (his own choice) when in fact it's obvious he has a relatively

wealthy middle class background and lifestyle.

 

In a world of hidden agendas, I kind of admire that refreshingly upfront approach. Whether one thinks the

information/reviews/assessments he offers are good or bad (which is of course debatable), his pitch for

support in exchange for that information is very transparent and unique.

 

If people find little or no value,

they don't need to go further and can keep their wallet shut. Others, who might not be as up-to-date on

camera tech and the myriad of choices out there, and find his information useful, can choose to donate or

not. Sounds good to me...

[pge]

<p>Controversial? He talks about cameras and camera settings. Us on this forum need to get out more.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Stuff like this:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Men can think about only one thing at once. We think far more deeply than women, which is why we can invent computers, automobiles, calculus, nuclear weapons and spaceships that fly us to the moon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He softened it a bit after I screamed at him, but it's still sexist. Sorry, but I'm not going to like a guy who says stuff like this. I'm also not going to be very fond of anyone who doesn't consider a statement like this controversial, if not down-right ignorant.</p>

[david_smith35]

<p><em>"He provides a service and asks for money"</em><br /> He doesn't provide a service - just a personal website offering his opinions. Sure, he can ask for whatever he wants, but I can't believe anyone would be stupid enough to give him money when he obviously doesn't need it.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Stuff like this:<br>

<em>Men can think about only one thing at once. We think far more deeply than women, which is why we can invent computers, automobiles, calculus, nuclear weapons and spaceships that fly us to the moon</em><br>

He softened it a bit after I screamed at him, but it's still sexist. Sorry, but I'm not going to like a guy who says stuff like this. I'm also not going to be very fond of anyone who doesn't consider a statement like this controversial, if not down-right ignorant.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You fell for his purposeful pot stirring sarcasm. Right on cue and adding to the publicity machine.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Sarcasm?! No, he's serious.</p>

<p>If I'm guilty of anything, it's trying to engage him seriously when he asked me for an informed rebuttal to the "thinking more deeply" thing. (My email to him had simply called him a "sexist pig.") I told him that in many ways women think more deeply than men, but that it's mostly just a difference in cognitive style, with women processing many data streams in parallel and men processing more serially. And that became the origin of his "men can only think about one thing at once" modification, which is still wrong. He didn't retract a bit of the ignorant sexism in his comment, but rather added a simplistic, and only half-correct modification based on my discussion with him.</p>

<p>But he was in no way trying to be sarcastic. He really believes that crap. I didn't fall for anything. I simply wasted my time trying to explain a bit of neurobiology to a sexist moron.</p>

[David_Cavan]

<p>KR is someone I can't even get excited about, one way or the other. As some point out he has figured out how to use the internet and controversial comments to increase his hit count. He got everything he needed for his brand when this thread started. It is now google-able and part of his lore. I feel I should type his name eight times just to make sure "the google" questions why that repetition is happening and maybe pushes the thread down the list. Just for fun.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Rockwell? I prefer Norman. And he's <a href="http://uploads2.wikipaintings.org/images/norman-rockwell/the-runaway-1958.jpg">much more interesting</a> from a photographic standpoint.</p>

[vivid_earth_photographics]

<p>Well, we apparently have not repeated Ken Rockwell's name enough in this thread to cause it to pop up when you google his name "Ken Rockwell" (if that is even how google works). But if people here keep writing about Ken Rockwell, then searching for Ken Rockwell will produce yet one more hit for sites discussing Ken Rockwell.<br>

Still amazes me how riled up he gets you guys on photo.net. I mean really, likening him to Bernie Madoff? Wow. Ken Rockwell sure has got under the skin of some posters. </p>

[goldbergbarry]

<p>I'm always amazed at the large number of Ken haters. I for one, will be at Adorama to see him. Yes, he does have a strong opinion about everything related to photography, and while I do not always agree with him, I do find him entertaining and cannot wait to see him in-person. I also find him to be entertaining.</p>

 

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>If I'm guilty of anything, it's trying to engage him seriously when he asked me for an informed rebuttal to the "thinking more deeply" thing. (My email to him had simply called him a "sexist pig."... ...He didn't retract a bit of the ignorant sexism in his comment, but rather added a simplistic, and only half-correct modification... ...I didn't fall for anything.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He's playing you. For that, I now have a reason to dislike him.</p>

 

[steve_levine]

<p>He'll be easy to spot by the missing lens hood. (He insists these are superfluous and unneeded.)</p>

[Mike D]

<p>Sara and John, I've been on a couple Yosemite trips with Ken and he is a very interesting person with ideas that should make you question your photography, hopefully in a positive manner. He is an equal opportunity insulator and you can take his comments and grow personally or just think he's a bad person. Your choice. </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Michael, my point to KR, which totally flew over his head, was that ignorant, sexist comments like his are in fact the very <em>reason</em> why men, and not women, are responsible for most of the technological breakthroughs he cites. Half of the population is berated constantly by the other half, to the point it becomes brainwashed into subservience. Young girls are told they cannot. Then if they dare to insist they can, they eventually bang their heads against a glass ceiling and are told more forcefully, "No, you really cannot." I believe the pope recently said this to Catholic women who might aspire to the priesthood. (Never did I imagine that gay people would catch a break before women!)</p>

<p>Excellent photographers are a dime a dozen. Photographers who can make you think are plentiful as well. Sexist jerks with an audience are much more rare. So what makes KR stand out to me is that he's a sexist jerk with an audience -- a polite one, but still a sexist jerk.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Sara and John... ...He is an equal opportunity insulator and you can take his comments and grow personally or just think he's a bad person. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>I discussed his behavior, not his comments.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Heck, if we look at this from another angle, would something like this also be acceptable?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>White men think far more deeply than black men, which is why we can invent computers, automobiles, calculus, nuclear weapons and spaceships that fly us to the moon.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmmmm...</p>

<p>But alas, this is an audience mostly of men, so perhaps I shouldn't expect many here to be persuaded.</p>

[dave_s]

<p>A tangential question: do you folks think he actually makes a living from his website? I always figured putting all the revenues together he might be making a few hundred a month. Am I wrong?</p>

<p>I had him pegged for a stay-at-home dad with a bit of time on his hands. Not that there's anything wrong with that.</p>