Tangent

[marshall]

great idea.<div></div>

[pyramid_head]

<div></div>

[EricM]

<div></div>

[r.m.]

hehe...<div></div>

[Brian1664876441]

<div></div>

[EricM]

The idea of this thread, from what I�ve read and understood, is to

take an element of the previous photo and then post a photo with

that element that you identify with. This has now become a W/NW�s

thread on kid snaps.

[EricM]

<div></div>

[r.m.]

Full circle - sorry, but all I shoot are snaps....<div></div>

[EricM]

Sorry? Disrespectful comes to my mind. I think you could have

refrained from posting another child photo Reina. Great thread while

it lasted�

[EricM]

Also, for what it�s worth Reina, you take more than just �snaps�;

you have the ability and eye most only dream of attaining. My

earlier comment comes from a position that how infinite the subjects

are to photograph, and was looking forward to the creative responses

that may follow.

[absinthe]

Actually, Rena took this thread full circle since it started out with

a Candyland figure. Good note to end it on.

[r.m.]

Disrespectful? Again, sorry, but I don't see it that way. It's a no

words thread inviting individuals to participate in a conversation by

way of their photos. 'Kid pics' is what I do. If I'm participating

in the conversation, chances are my photo will have a picture of a

child in it. Should I be restricted from participating because of

this? Does it make my response any less creative? Well, apparently so

in your eyes, and that's fine. Out of respect to you, I will restrain

from posting images in any of your threads. No worries.

 

Best regards.

[EricM]

I�m confused. First, I never intended to rock the boat or butt

heads. Second, this was a thread that was contrary to the typical

W/NW�s thread were we run away with a theme and post away. Many

posted here finding it a refreshing change to go off on a �tangent�.

Great. But to intentionally post another child photo after my

expression of this thread returning to a typical W?NW�s thread with

a single theme, and then say sorry for doing it while going ahead

anyway, well, is the farthest thing from being sorry.

 

�Should I be restricted from participating because of this? Does it

make my response any less creative? Well, apparently so in your

eyes, and that's fine. Out of respect to you, I will restrain from

posting images in any of your threads. No worries.�

 

Of course you shouldn�t be restricted. Stop being silly. Less

creative? I just feel you�re being condescending in nature, and is

contrary to the image of you I have formed over the last few months

with reading your words and seeing your images. But now, whatever, I

could care less as I�m only here for a good time� No need to abstain

from �my� threads, they�re everyone�s threads.

 

This thread had the potential to run on for quite some time. I was

just looking forward to seeing the different elements that a variety

of shooters could pull out and link together in the infinite amount

of subjects available. A nice change from the usual, and not too

much to ask I think. That�s all.

[Brian1664876441]

So much for it being a No Words thread.

[Brian1664876441]

Now that the photographic portion of this thread has been ended in

the "Leica Forum Style" (you know, some professional photographer or

misunderstood artist complaining that people have the nerve to post

pictures of their kids and crippling their creative spirits) I am

putting up a "postscript" to my photo "Sandy". After all, it was the

Kid Snap that so wounded Mr. Milner.

 

Walther Benser, Leica enthusiast and author, wrote many years ago

that the photographer is attached to the events surrounding an

image, and a successful photograph must stand on its own; ie without

the benefit of this emotional attachment.

 

However, in the case of "Sandy", I gain satisfaction that a casual

observer would judge it to be just another Kid Snap of a happy kid

at the beach. Enough "information" is left in the photograph for

anyone who knows my daughter to understand the importance of her

having a good time at the beach. That little streak of "Brown-25" at

the bottom of the photo is her "Ostomy appliance" peeking through

her cute little Hello Kitty shorts. Save you the trouble of a Google

Search; she has to poop into "Mr. Bag" and it is the end result of

years of Medical Hell. You would not think it possible that a four-

year old would need four transfusions in one week from blood lost to

a toilet. So the fact that she is well enough to play at the beach,

and can do things that other kids can do, is pure joy. But, that

little streak is there for "us insiders".

 

This is a full-frame shot, and I had to work hard to get the right

angle for "Mr. Bag" not to be in all of his glory and detract from

that happy, smiling face.

 

I also gain satisfaction that the shot is made with a 65-year old

Leitz 9cm Elmar lens on a 40+ year old Canon, using its selenium

meter. That is a small, petty, selfish point-of-pride. I enjoy using

old gear for my "Kid Snaps", and my daughter has had most of the

classic cameras aimed at her. She likes using them too, and prefers

a Leica M3 and Retina IIIS.

 

Moderators, feel free to delete this post before archiving. But if

you do, please take out Mr. Milners comments with it. These final

words ruin a perfect thread.

[EricM]

�Now that the photographic portion of this thread has been ended in

the "Leica Forum Style" (you know, some professional photographer or

misunderstood artist complaining that people have the nerve to post

pictures of their kids and crippling their creative spirits) I am

putting up a "postscript" to my photo "Sandy". After all, it was the

Kid Snap that so wounded Mr. Milner.�

 

 

Insulting and labeling me without a valid argument is �Leica Style�

Brian.

 

It had nothing to do with children, the argument at hand, or my

complaint albeit it, has to do with being top heavy with a certain

subject. Get it? Perhaps it�s my writing style, or lack of voice

inflections that the typed word is void of? I�m surprised at the

reactions of my request. Perhaps if the thread started out with six

similar subjects in the postings, I wouldn�t be the only one

frowning. Perhaps the thread wouldn�t have been so involved, and

praised on how refreshing of a change this �tangent� is? Don�t whine

to the moderators for refereeing. My complaint about this thread

becoming top heavy could have been on reflections in puddles or

dogs. Remove your personal interest in the argument at hand Brian.

Objectively if you may, start from the very top of this thread as if

you�ve just entered for the first time. The last several pics are of

the same subject. Yes or no Brian, did it stop flowing and become

just another W/NW�s thread? That�s all I was trying to politely

bring up.

[Brian1664876441]

Starting from the top; strands containing equal number of successive

building pictures and pictures of plants as did two strands of "Kid

Snaps". Each "morph'd" from one to the next; as were the Kid Snaps. No

complaints of pictures posted, until the end.

 

And, as on the Leica Forum, complaints about kid snaps. No

other complaints such as "this is now a thread on buildings" or "this

is now a thread on plants". According to Photo.net, most users are

non-profesionals. It is likely that there are more "kid snaps" than

anything else.

 

And, no one else making "Leica Forum" remarks on pictures posted.

 

And yes, the archived version of this thread will be much better with

these words at the end removed.

[EricM]

You�re having a great time getting defensive over your �kids snaps�.

Again, and for the last time, it has nothing to do with children as

the subject. It has nothing to do with �professionals� or artists or

majority of users, or whatever other off topic label you attempt to

distract with.

 

If you�ve experienced a battle or two with people over in the Leica

Forum that are opposed to kids photos, at least have the capacity to

remember who�s made comments about them. I�m not one of them. At

least have the capacity to remember who contributes to the �kid

snaps�, as I am one of them. Perhaps you�d remember if I posted the

same subject with same lens and the same film over and over?

Assuming I am for or against something is only limiting to you. With

every new thread, please leave your contamination at the door.

[Brian1664876441]

1: I found the comment posted against my photo to be insulting. At a

minimum it was unnecessary.

 

2: If you wanted to steer the thread away from Kid Pics, posting an

image of toys was not going to do it. The logical reply was a kid

snap.

 

3: Ms. McCuskey's post brought the thread to a logical conclusion,

there was no disrespect to you made in her post. The originator of

the thread commented on the insight of the post.

 

4: If you do not want to butt heads with people, don't insult them.

Labeling a post as disrepectful to you calls for a rebuttal; as Ms

McCuskey did along with a vow not to post on any of your threads.

Your comment made against my post resulted in an exchange of

insults. That is what we cranky old men do.

 

5: The "No Words" forum appeared to be started as a result of the

continuing flame-wars on the Leica forum. I reacted to your comment

against my post on its own merit. My exchanged insult was the

product of the Leica Forum flamewars. I suspect that you do not view

your statement as others did; but consider that your posts resulted

in a three-way flame-war and in the conclusion of the thread.

 

6: This place is not "Fun" anymore. It is a place where cranky old

men make unnecessary comments and exchange insults. It is a place

that women stay away from by a margin of 4:1. And one of the best

that posts here vowed came away from this thread very ruffled.

 

7: "With every new thread, please leave your contamination at the

door."

I will, Mr. Milner, if you can leave your unnecessary comments out

of them.

[EricM]

Yesterday, I was bothered for most of my day after leaving the house

and this thread. I was bothered that somehow I had stirred the pot

with Reina and Heather a few days ago with my words. These are two

individuals that I respect and also appreciate their involvement,

especially in a gender biased forum. I don�t carry on in the real

world (nor feel a keyboard should change ones demeanor) achieving

this kind of reaction to my words or behavior. With the hindsight of

past reactions in The Leica Forum, my first post, in regards to

posting the photos of children, should have been worded differently.

I didn�t realize at the time that my careless wording of ��now

become a W/NW�s thread on kid snaps� could be inferred as

derogatory. I take snaps of children. I take snaps of dogs. It was

never intended as demeaning or to belittle ones work. Heather and

Reina, no offence ever was intended.

 

Brian, you could of just let sleeping dogs sleep. It wasn�t a flame

war; it was a couple of opinions and rebuttal exchanged. I did my

best at damage control with two of the regulars I share space with.

However, you returned two days later responding to something that

wasn�t addressed to you, with;

 

�Now that the photographic portion of this thread has been ended in

the "Leica Forum Style" (you know, some professional photographer or

misunderstood artist complaining that people have the nerve to post

pictures of their kids and crippling their creative spirits) I am

putting up a "postscript" to my photo "Sandy". After all, it was the

Kid Snap that so wounded Mr. Milner.�

 

As far as I�m concerned, you flew off the handle and offered the

first insult. As mentioned previously, I�ve never had any

involvement with the �anti-kid-snap� movement. Words, depending on

ones orientation, can be inferred ambiguously. You assumed and ran

with it.

 

�1: I found the comment posted against my photo to be insulting. At

a minimum it was unnecessary.�

 

It was intended as an insult. You gave the first poke remember?

 

 

�2: If you wanted to steer the thread away from Kid Pics, posting an

image of toys was not going to do it. The logical reply was a kid

snap.�

 

Your imagination must be very limited to not draw an element out the

toy pic and feel that something other than another typical child

with toys is fitting.

 

�3: Ms. McCuskey's post brought the thread to a logical conclusion,

there was no disrespect to you made in her post. The originator of

the thread commented on the insight of the post.�

A logical conclusion? There never could be one with this theme.

Someone even commented on it�s potential to run on forever and

suggested an experiation date because so. Imagination�The �sorry,

all I shoot is snaps� after my expression of the thread was becoming

single subject heavy, was a statement Brian. The originators comment

was a �strength in numbers� comment, nothing more, nothing less.

�4: If you do not want to butt heads with people, don't insult them.

Labeling a post as disrepectful to you calls for a rebuttal; as Ms

McCuskey did along with a vow not to post on any of your threads.

Your comment made against my post resulted in an exchange of

insults. That is what we cranky old men do.�

No insults were intended, and I�m not tired of saying this, �as

mentioned before�� I agree with everything else you say, except I�m

far from old. You�re old enough to be my dad Brian.

�5: The "No Words" forum appeared to be started as a result of the

continuing flame-wars on the Leica forum. I reacted to your comment

against my post on its own merit. My exchanged insult was the

product of the Leica Forum flamewars. I suspect that you do not view

your statement as others did; but consider that your posts resulted

in a three-way flame-war and in the conclusion of the thread.�

I�m new here Brian, hence not familiar with the flame wars. I�ve

seen a few. But just as I was getting to know everyone, the xmas

season explosion began. �My exchanged insult was the product of the

Leica Forum flamewars.� Exactly. Please leave your contamination at

the door. I�ve not been involved here long enough to witness, or

stoop to getting involved with flame wars on children photos.

Sometimes newbie�s make stupid and naive references to a particular

genre of photos?

�6: This place is not "Fun" anymore. It is a place where cranky old

men make unnecessary comments and exchange insults. It is a place

that women stay away from by a margin of 4:1. And one of the best

that posts here vowed came away from this thread very ruffled.�

Then leave! What does it say about people that continually return to

a voluntary place and complain about the décor and are generally

disgruntled? Not very much�

�7: "With every new thread, please leave your contamination at the

door." I will, Mr. Milner, if you can leave your unnecessary

comments out of them.�

And look who�s calling the kettle black�

 

[r.m.]

Wow...this has gone way off course. I, for one, cannot believe that

any of us ever intentionally meant to offend or insult the other. Do

you suppose we can put this behind us? If I may...

 

Eric - my comment to you was condescending & dismissive. Please

accept my apologies. I hold no ill will towards you & hope that we

can move beyond this.

 

Heather - I'm *really* sorry about the way this thread has ended. It

is a great idea, and I hope you'll start one up again soon.

 

Brian - your daughter is beautiful, and your story behind the image

was a wake up call to me that there are more important things we

could be doing than sitting at a keyboard exchanging angry words. I

don't know Eric, and won't presume to speak for him, but I believe in

my heart that he never meant to offend you or anyone else.

 

Please let us try to put this behind us.

 

Best regards to all.

[EricM]

I�m in! And I hope we all can share future threads with a nod and a

smile. Truce.

[jbs]

Wow,been off on a "Tangent" haven't we?..........<div></div>