m_stephens

October 25, 2013

Argument for the sake of argument.

</blockquote>

Mike,

That's the refrain of every single person who can't keep up with the issues in a debate. I'm not kidding - every single one! No, it's not argument for "argument's sake". The arguments here are clear, important, relatively simple and concise, but contested hotly. Knowing if the stash of anus and vagina photos I linked would be offensive to others is not just "argument for argument's sake." If you think so, I have to wonder why you even keep posting? WW is able to argue his point. Bob was able to argue his. Martin his. Fred his. But, you and Lex can only stand back and write about my personality. Hmmm?

October 25, 2013

How 'bout we drop the pretense. You're not a polemicist. You're a gigantic chip on a shoulder worn by a guy who likes to argue and make up, amend and append the rules for arguing as he goes along. And you're not here for the photography, you're here for the arguments. And to write the words for human anatomical bits as often as possible. Congrats on your new copypasta keyboard macro.

</blockquote>

Keep going Lex. You're managing to write one of those character attacks EVERY SINGLE DAY! I keep my arguments to the subject matter, and obviously you can't. WW made a logical error in his argument that anyone could drive a truck through, and I pointed it out. That's what a debate is Lex.

October 25, 2013

Nonsense. That’s just a silly extrapolation and is purposely set as bait. I argued no such thing about women; nor religious people; nor grandmothers. As previously mentioned the Nudes section is secluded – one choses to go there and view those images - or not.

WW

</blockquote>

The choice to go to that section was not being argued. Only the offensiveness of the photos themselves. Here's what you said: "None of the listed 13 images would qualify as shocking, pornographic and blatantly offensive to a mature, adult viewer."

Fred claims many women have complained frequently about being offended. So, what's it going to be? Are they just immature, or are they not adults? Your argument leaves no other choice.

I'm a mature adult, and I find them ridiculously offensive for being posted here. Not because I am offended at human bodies, but because I am offended as a living, breathing, sentient being by the gross exploitation they represent. I'm offended that others with cameras find it thrilling to turn women into hanging meat displays. But, that's just me as an individual. I know my mom would be offended by them too, and she is a mature adult. I know my sister would be offended by them too, and she also is a mature adult.

What you aren't grasping is that the standard for offense is relative, and based on the set of belief systems held by any given specific mature adult.

October 25, 2013

If a person doesn't want to look at those images, then they simply don't go there.

</blockquote>

Yes. That's the exact argument which was rejected by the mods considering the OT forum. Don't like it, don't read it. Simple.

In this thread, the point being made is that many people would be offended at the vagina anus photos and they are told, "don't look at them." But in the OT Forum, that concept was rejected.

As an aside, I completely reject your proposition that none of those photos would be offensive to mature adult viewers. Some would not be offended and some would. And with no standard declared for maturity there's no point in arguing about it, other than to simply disagree.

October 25, 2013

Many, many women have expressed offense at the nudes section. I've read them countless times on a variety of photo pages and in a variety of forum threads, yet it rightfully hasn't led to deletions.

</blockquote>

As I would expect they would by a large ratio. Thanks. Now William W. is going to argue the women aren't "mature adult viewers," based on his post. In which we now can finally understand that maturity is a relative, not absolute condition. I am sure it feels very sophisticated and mature to be blase about genitalia photos, because you know, it's "black and white art." But to any person steeped in the deeper values of humanism, which I assure you takes quiet a bit more maturity than simply acting hip at the art museum, these photos represent well understood forms of human exploitation, male dominant society, and repression. But you know, carry on boys.

Now it is also painfully obvious to all that the minute a discussion is going to become serious about any art, or artists, politics is the immediate currency. Because art is nothing more than graphic politics. This recent obsession to scrub politics, to be offended and righteously indignant about political posts, is inconsistent with any serious notion of talking about art. But then again, does anyone posting here consider photography to be art? Not too many.

October 25, 2013

None of the listed 13 images would qualify as shocking, pornographic and blatantly offensive to a mature, adult viewer.

</blockquote>

What percentage of the Photo.net MEMBERS would you think qualify as "mature adult viewers then?"

Would the Quakers and Baptists and Mormons qualify as mature adult viewers? Would they take offense? How about the grandmas out there? Can pnet run these photos across the "daily photo sampling" banner? If not, why not?

October 25, 2013

I do have the ability to remove images from the gallery, so if you find anything truly shocking, pornographic and blatantly offensive to a mature, adult viewer, I will certainly consider excising it from the site. Yes, I know, censorship, but I assume you'd be in favor of that.

</blockquote>

One more demonstration that this is not a community, but a common dictatorial business. A legitimate community would create and maintain their own standards on such issues, not rely on petitioning one guy to "consider" excising the offending photograph. "One guy" a community does not make.

October 25, 2013

None actually offend me

</blockquote>

So what? Have you missed the point still again? I never questioned whether they would offend YOU, (or whomever else represents the business interests here). That was never a position I took. I posited that those photographs would offend more of the public than a post on politics or economics found in the OT Forum. Your tastes in porn are of absolutely no interest to me Bob.

It might simply be impossible to catch you up on all this. I'll try once more because I am usually pretty good at explaining things when people "just don't get it."

1. People have been posting in the OT Forum for years. The mods claimed that it had to be shut down because other members were "offended by the content" of the OT forum. Take note - "offended" was the term used repeatedly. They (members) were offended to have to read about the economy, the FED, the money supply, civil rights, spying, God, and so on.

2. I was one of those who posted in the OT, and I took umbrage at being scolded for creating by inference "offensive content", when in fact my posts were well within any civil boundaries common in our daily lives. e.g. I had never called people names and so on. I do argue strongly, and with much conviction, however.

3. After a few days of this harassment over perfectly good OT posts made in a space provided by the business here, I challenged the mods by asking what is more offensive to members - photos of anuses and vaginas, or a post about the money supply? I suggested a thought experiment in which we put them side by side on the home page, and see which gets the most complaints as "offensive." I found it unbelievable that the mods would claim that a post about economics was more offensive to members than these anus and vagina photographs.

4. Then in this thread, as a part of my complaint about the mods and the claimed offensive OT posts, I once more mentioned the existence of the pile of anus and vagina photographs. You then essentially inferred I was a liar (Tsk, Tsk, not very nice!), and challenged me to find them for you. I did find them for you, and list them for you to demonstrate that no, I am not a liar. Then for some weird reason incomprehensible to me, instead of simply acknowledging that I am not a liar, you launch into a rather creepy embrace of these photos, and want me to find you penis photos also. I'd like to suggest you read the posts much more carefully, and understand what actual arguments I am making, because I assure you, your taste in vaginas and penises was not part of any argument I presented.

As for being prurient, the definition of 1. having or characterized by lascivious or lustful thoughts, desires, etc. 2. causing lasciviousness or lust.

really says more about the viewer than the image doesn't it?

</blockquote>

No Bob. It speaks volumes about the photographer though. Do you regularly go around asking women (or worse, paying them) to spread their legs so you can capture high res photographs of their genitalia as trophies of your domination? Because I don't. And here's why. It indicates a stunted emotional growth - an emotional midget. A need for extreme control and power over women through dominance and humiliation. Would you spread your legs so someone could photograph your genitalia for a web site like pnet? Sounds like you see no problems with any of this. Again, I would not do that. I don't need to be humiliated in exchange for some approval by a stunted, emotionally crippled exploiter. Don't tell me you are fooled by the smiles on the women's faces, are you? You think they're having a ball, do you?

Obviously, some people will do anything to turn a buck. I am fortunate as the dickens that I am not one of them. Sorry there Bob, you'll have to go hunt down your own penis photos.

October 25, 2013

Nope. I want to know where they are. You said there were piles of them. Were you lying?

</blockquote>

No Bob, I don't lie. I also don't give in to weak attempts at intimidation. You'll discover that when I post about such things, I have generally done my homework in advance, and have the evidence at hand just in case someone suggests I was lying.

I said there was a pile of prurient anus and vagina photographs on the site. For me, a pile means about 10. 10 photos on the desk makes a nice neat pile. For you, I went the extra mile, and figured I give you a dozen, and not just any dozen, but a baker's dozen for extra measure. If you really don't think that's a pile, I suspect I could make it 100 photos if only I could stomach this infantile rubbish.

And to think I had to listen to Mr. Jenkins lecture ME about my contributions on this site. For the record Bob, I am proud that none of that crap is mine.

P.S. Thank you Martin S. for the support there, but I find it much easier to just make sure I do my homework before making claims.

October 25, 2013

I believe that's called "not clicking on the OT forum link". I can manage to do that quite easily myself. Maybe those with no self control need OTA (as in AA). I suppose it would be easy to remove all links to an OT forum, but then what would be the point of having it and how would it benefit the site? Might just as well make life easier for everyone and not have it at all.

</blockquote>

(Laughing loudly now) Well doesn't that take the cake! When OT posters were roundly thrashed because some people were offended, I advised this utterly common sense wisdom - don't read what you don't enjoy! That was ridiculed by the mods who insisted that only removal of this foul and "offensive" material was warranted. That's when I cruised through the galleries for 20-seconds to discover enough photographs of anuses and vaginas to last a very long lifetime. I then asked the simple and obvious question: Which is more offensive to the public (never mind humanity writ large) - an argument over FED policy, or high resolution photograph of a woman's anus and vagina? Needless to say, there was "no answer" from the uh, "business."

I understand that no matter what your role is or isn't, it would be unfair to have expected you'd be familiar with those recent arguments. None the less, your logic here was proposed and rejected by your moderators who said they had talked it over thoroughly with management/owners/whomever.

I did not enjoy being lambasted and insulted by your mods for posts I made in OT which were polite, detailed, not personal attacks, and yet were categorized as "offensive," all the while existing in the midst of a smoking pile of obvious smut hiding behind the moniker, "fine art", which no one dare to criticize. I could care less that such garbage is an obviously central part of pnet as it carries no interest to me. But for my postings on say, "quantitative easing" to be referred to as "offensive" in such a light was more than a bit irksome.

October 25, 2013

Also, please tell me where the piles of prurient photographs of vaginas are? You seem to be very knowledgeable on that subject, of which I admit to complete ignorance. Despite being on the site for many hours every day, I don't recall seeing one, nevermind loads (or even binders full) of them. I guess maybe you see what you look for?

</blockquote>

Being somewhat new here, I don't know who you are, or what your role is in this site, or even in this thread. I assumed by some of your previous comments that you had some role in operating/owning the site when I answered your previous posts. However, if you don't have any operational role, then it doesn't matter what pornographic photos are posted, or how many there are. If you are in an operational role, and don't know that such offensive images are posted, then any argument about the events and discussions over "who offended who with what kind of post in what part of the forum" is utterly pointless, isn't it?

October 25, 2013

Q:What's a community on the web?

A: I've seen various blog sites that are not businesses. Although anymore that are rare. Communities, wherever they occur, do not involve TOS agreements, for starters.

Q: Everything is a business. Facebook is a business, Twitter is a business. All social networking sites are businesses. Any site carrying any advertising is a business. Are you objecting to photo.net not being a community or just that it shouldn't be called a community.

A: No, 'everything' is NOT a business. My weekly photo critique group is not a business. I think I was perfectly clear - call this thing a business because it is one, and not a community because it isn't one.

Q:What would you call it.

A: I'd call it what it is...a business.

Q: Are you saying there is no sense of business here, or that there is no business spirit.

A: Neither. I said it wasn't a community in the sense that community is commonly understood as containing some "self government" as an example.

Q: That participants here are not getting the true spirit of a business. Maybe we should send out messages to new users saying "Welcome to the business". Would that make you happy?

A: What would make me happy is for you to direct your employees to stop endlessly hounding, scolding and insulting a group of members who were merely posting a forum that was created by the company for Off Topic posts. That you want to end it is fine with me, but that people need to be accursed and accused by your mods is frankly ridiculous behavior for ANY business who wants to keep their content creators.

October 25, 2013

PS. I prefer to call Photo.net retro...not clunky. Don't worry 2.0 is on the way...the costly designers and programmers are ringing up a huge bill which will pay with....ummmm I don't know....money.

</blockquote>

Once more, you seem to not understand that I don't care how much money you make. To the contrary, my argument has consistently been to stop calling yourself a community and call yourself a business. Stop claiming people are offended by a discussion of economics (OT Forum), but somehow no one is ever offended by ummmm I don't know, piles of prurient photographs of vaginas? when the far simpler truth to be explained is that you feel you can make more money by eliminating the OT forum than with it. A very simple proposition for anyone to understand - business is business. Instead, those of us who post regulary in that company supplied space called OT had to listen to days of insults and scolding by the mods for "shouting, arguing, creating disruptive mean environments," and a whole litany of horrors about disrupting some community which doesn't exist!

Sarcasm works when the basis lies in fact. Sadly, I have never complained about your company making money, so the attempted sarcasm falls flat.

October 25, 2013

@ m stephen - does a healthy community have laws? This one does and it comes in the form of our terms of use that community members agree to when they sign up. If they violate those laws/rules then someone must enforce them otherwise you are on the road to anarchy.

</blockquote>

Who makes your laws - the members or the owners? There has been a debate of sorts about the closing of the OT forums. Many members wanting to see it continued. You know what the word was from management, right? "This is a private business and we can do what we want." Sorry, that's not community, aside from some management people simply proclaiming it to be so. Read any of Jeff's frequent, "Go somewhere else" rants and attempts at bullying people. Sorry, that's not a community builder. He makes it clear what kind of people are "ok" and what kind aren't. Sorry, that's not community either. The range of authentic human relations in a genuine community is very wide. The range permitted here by your laws is well, very narrow. And then there is the selective application of the laws. Members must "always be nice." Mods can be bellicose, belligerent and simply rude, and often are by my observation. In a real community, people don't allow themselves to be bullied that way. The idea of communities having democratic participation has nothing to do with "anarchy" - so dragging that strawman out is of no value here. I've seen no one suggesting or proposing anarchy.

Let's get technical. "Terms of Use," which must be agreed to by members, is a contract. Binding contracts are business arrangements, and are not part of genuine communities. For instance, when I move to a new physical community, I don't sign a TOS agreement in order to do so. The relationship of your members to your company is a business relationship. The word "community" has, since the early days of the Internet, been co-opted by business marketeers to make the arrangement sound like something it isn't.

Now, there's nothing wrong with business relationships. I use them as appropriate and useful to me. I don't become an Amazon Prime customer though, and then delude myself that I have joined a community, nor do I expect them to tell me I am a member of some Amazon community. However, in these richly monetized hobby forums, there is some historical overhang, probably from founders who didn't initially monetize the site, form corporations and go public, to continually represent the arrangement as being a community.

Does a community have a budget to pave the roads, build new ones, pay the town administrators and police...and etc. etc. The answer is yes and so does this community. Servers, designers, hosting, webmasters...all cost money. Without money there would be no site, there would be no communities online or in your own home town.

</blockquote>

You're conflating two different entities there. The city corporation collects money and builds roads, the community is the aggregation of all the inter-personal human relations experienced by those within the borders. These relations and arrangements are personal, not legal or financial. I don't sign TOS agreements with my neighbors to watch each other's homes when we travel, or keep an eye out for stray pets, or to have block parties. Do you?

So yes, I know this corporation needs money to run. It doesn't run on community love or goodwill. So logic dictates the best path is to be clear and concise when describing your operations, aspirations and goals to the members - the content creators. Example: "We want to make a lot of money here at ABC corporation, so we get thousands of content creators to sign contractual agreements that allow us to leverage the content to sell ad space. And, to perpetuate and control that goal we enforce strict rules on what those content creators are permitted to do here." That would be an honest description of the premise involved in running a monetized special interest site.

Now let's compare that to someone that wanted to create a community of photographers. To wit: "We want to create a space where all photographers can advance their art, and help others do the same, by forming a community run by those photographers who can evolve with the changing needs of the group." See the difference? The business example requires business structure, like contracts. The community structure involves human relations.

October 25, 2013

O/P: "Over the years I believe PN members have become more sedate. What I perceive now is that PN is still an excellent medium when forum discussions are concerned. One can still get an exciting discussion on photography subjects. Some exciting heated discussions too. But when it comes to pictures themselves, I feel the members' response is quite cold. A fairly good picture by any standards gets far fewer comments and clicks compared with other net forums. My recent pictures of California, Arizona and Utah have been languishing in my portfolio without much notice while the same ones have attracted thousands of clicks- in one case 30,000 plus- and innumerable comments on other forums."

</blockquote>

I am new, so my perspective is accordingly based on shorter exposure to the site.

As to the idea of too few critiques. This is my opinion:

1. The internet world is just jammed with too many photos. A stream turned into a river, which became a torrent, which is now a flood of Biblical proportions. So many sites filled with so many millions of photographs that it's now like asking fish to comment on water. The notion you can just grab 100 random, undifferentiated photos, and make a ribbon of images located somewhere on a web page for people to go critique is naive in the presence of the billions of images available on easily searchable sites. Marketing and technology problem.

2. Community or Business? - all sides are confused. We see many calling this a 'community.' But it is in fact a 'business.' Why is this important? Members want to act like it is a community, but that is in conflict with management, which wants to operate (of course) as a business. The two are incompatible ideas. Communities have some degree of self-governance, democratic principle and ownership of outcome. That's not the model here, however, where management (mods and others) dictate autocratically what will happen, what can be said, and what the goals are - just like any business. For example, just read Moderator Jeff's posts in this thread. Does that sound like a community? No, of course not. Sounds like a 'boss', doesn't it?

This tension, or major misunderstanding, confuses the participants. They're asking, "Do I want to invest heavily in an autocratic system where I am bossed around like that?" Some do, some don't. You don't see Amazon confusing it's customers this way. But for some reason these special interest forums continually put up this pretense of community. Serious critiquing takes the formation of real interest groups that invest in the kind of real (authentic) human relations that are discouraged and actually despised here. What the mods insist on is a kind of 'Stepford World' of happy, smiley-faced, tame participants. e.g. "It's ugly" is an unacceptable (and deleted!) critique. You can't possibly get meaningful critique of art under those conditions.

3. The site is clunky, and there is just no better word to describe it.

October 25, 2013

Lex thanked you in the other thread, and I should thank you in this one, for such a clear demonstration of why the Off Topic forum needs a "reincarnation cycle." You're actually proud of your self-important, disingenuous, tedious, insulting, and generally unpleasant style of "discussion."

</blockquote>

Yes, of course I am proud of it. My posting contains no insults and there is nothing disingenuous about it. As to self-important, I thank the gods I've learned my life is too important to waste it convincing women to spread their legs so I can make rolls of prurient photographs to post on web sites. Tedious? Indeed it is tedious to carefully construct a bullet-proof argument. Anyone who has studied say classical rhetoric, knows how tedious it can be. You can't make a convincing rebuttal with jibberish and juvenile GIFs when faced with such an argument, can you?

That leaves us with unpleasant style then, right? Yes, I can well imagine why you find my style unpleasant. I think it would be very unpleasant to be trying to figure out a rebuttal to my argument that, "a tall pile of prurient genitalia photographs may not make the best podium for finger wagging about the offensive nature of a discussion on quantitative easing." If I was on the wrong end of that argument, I'd think it was pretty unpleasant too! Thanks for noticing.

I seem to have ripped the scab off the unmentionable here. And having done so, I am all the more amused now by the relentless 'high-toned' hectoring and expressions of exasperation that the OT Forum gang received from the 'holier than thou' over these past days. As if any words ever written in those threads, by such sincere people, could possibly - under any interpretation - be declared "offensive" while in the very midst of a bottomless pit of exploitive vulgarities and graphical human insults, which ought to make any mature minded human being squirm in discomfort, if not pain and embarrassment.

I suggest this 'thought experiment' to prove my position. Take any post you like from the OT Forum - the one you think is the most offensive. And I'll grab a photo of my choosing from the so-called "fine art" section. Imagine (this is just a thought experiment) that we post them side-by-side on the home page. Which will get the most complaints for being offensive? Go ahead, take a guess. Better yet, show the comparison to your spouses, families, friends, neighbors and co-workers, and see which they find offensive.

Yes, companies can do whatever they like with their properties! I have no argument that they may choose to eliminate portions of their web site. That's not an issue with me. My only argument here is that the hectoring and denigration of the OT posters (including me) - for posting in a place provided by management - was absolutely unjust and inappropriate in light of the many piles of reeking rubbish posted daily by way of prurient photographs. And that to accuse the OT posters of being offensive in light of their being in the midst of a repository of graphical human insult, is itself an insult to all human intelligence. Relative to the other content on this web site, discussions of politics or religion can hardly be called out for special admonition and public mockery. Those posters are owed an apology.

October 25, 2013

No, more like: You guys are causing a lot of complaints from users, driving people away by contributing to a negative, combative atmosphere, and contributing little to nothing to the photographic goals of the site, so we're going to fix that.

</blockquote>

I am not privy to the complaints, and so I take your word for it. That said, I am proud as punch over every word I have posted in OT. I have taken a lot of time to post about the economy, national debt issues, operations of the FED, dangers of deflation, losses of civil rights. the monetary system, and other topics that will actually affect the lives of all people, not just photographers. I'd have no problem sharing any of my "contributions" here on this site with my mother, sister, little nieces and nephews, or school children of any age. I wonder if the thousands of photographers(?) here posting their rolls of filthy photographs, under the guise of (cough) "fine art photography," can say the same?

You may not like what I post. You may be frightened by some complaints by people who don't like politics. But, I will tell you this my friend, at least I don't have to wash my hands after every posting.

I showed a friend the OT forum. We read through some sample discussion in several of the threads. Then I showed him the so-called, "fine art" section until he screamed from nausea and cried "uncle". Then I showed him all the recent moderator complaints about the horrible nature of the OT Forum. After 10 minutes of him laughing and rolling around I had to scrape him off the floor. We spent the next 10 minutes talking about the word "hypocrisy."

I didn't bother to check how many of the men and women regularly posting in OT are also posting filthy photos. I sincerely hope against hope that it is "none" - I'd like to think the men and women I have been arguing economics, and politics with really are the best and the brightest here, and not part of the massive male infantile obsession with anuses and labia that passes under the flag of "photographic contributions." Yes, we argue, and maybe even toss an insult here and there - all in the spirit of battle. However, not one person there (OT) has ever been debased and objectified and exploited to the extent of a typical "doll" shots being drooled over by, I suppose, the dudes complaining that some of the bandwidth is being wasted for politics!

So, by all means, continue to scold me for arguing FED policy, and money supply issues with smart people who passionate about civics. I told one of the other moderators a few weeks back that this was the greatest theater one could see for free, and man, it just keeps getting better by the day.

October 24, 2013

On the other hand, a new user shows up and sees the Off Topic Forum and, well, there they go, off in search of a more pleasant place. Or an advertiser looks to see what they're paying for and find out it's something where one can be offended if one doesn't make the right "personal choice." -----------------

</blockquote>

Of course, users and advertisers would never show up and be offended by thousands of pornographic photos, right? No, not at all. But seeing a political discussion? - run and hide! Cover the eyes of the children! Call the bomb squad!

Let's put a level of honesty to all this way over the top ranting about the OT Forum, ok? This site is a 'money machine' (the original owner made over $5M when he sold it). The object is singular, and simple: get as many people as possible to click on as many ads as possible as often as possible - Ka-Ching! So, of the three categories - porn, politics and religion, porn works fine for advertisers (attracts males like flies), but religion and politics are deadly ingredients.

Politics is deadly because in any political forum, there will ultimately be an anti-capitalism sentiment expressed. Religion is equally deadly because anti-materialism will ultimately be expressed. OUCH! What would make an advertiser run away faster than seeing anti-capitalist or anti-materialist propaganda on a web site they pay to place their advertising? Well, certainly not porn!

There's nothing of course wrong with the owners wanting to get more Ka-Ching. What is insincere, and utterly disingenuous however, is this act of scapegoating some people who enjoyed arguing on an OT section of the forum provided by the owners! Whatever happened to good old honesty? e.g. "Hey, you guys are scaring off advertisers, costing us money, and we're going to fix that." The push-back you are now getting from a couple people here is because of this dearth of transparency. People don't like getting scapegoated. I know I don't. The motivation for closing OT has been obvious, and people are smart enough to know it isn't because they "offended" someone, considering this very same site is chock-a-block with offensive nude photos that would scare a sailor!

October 24, 2013

Thanks for helping to underscore my points, Mr. Stephens. It usually takes a bit more effort to draw out such examples. I appreciate the effort you put into those counterpoints without any apparent sense of irony.

</blockquote>

And why would there be any sense of irony when nothing of an ironic nature was demonstrated by the post? You preferred classic rhetoric (Ahem!), and such was the argument I made above: your complaint is chiefly an unreasoned one, because it is hinged on a not a single thing greater than some petty biases you have against topics "you can learn about on your own," or that you have "had your fill of from real life acquaintances." All of which we can boil down to simple personal preferences.

Given the OT Forum was rolling right along when I joined, and I posted to it with politeness and decorum at all times, (even when the site's moderators didn't follow that rule), I find it quite impossible to discover the logic behind your current attempt at scolding me in this thread about my posts in the OT forum! You do see this point, right?

October 24, 2013

I'd rather imagine a world of classical rhetoric and efforts at the art of persuasion.

</blockquote>

Well, that's nothing but a difference of opinion and taste then isn't it? It's about as useful as saying, "I prefer only moral arguments that are rooted in a Supreme Creator." So what? So you prefer classical rhetoric (but don't employ it, as far as I can tell). Are you the arbiter of style AND content? Polemics has played a major role in the development of modern civilization, and will continue to do so. Many of history's most influential writers and thinkers were polemicists.

Now *that's* a helluva lot more interesting proposition to ponder than anything I've read in five years on the OT forum about politics, most of which I'd already read in the news papers and commentary and policy magazines and sites I follow. In five years I never once learned anything about politics and hot button issues that I didn't already know or couldn't have found on my own.

</blockquote>

Once more - -so what? What you are saying is that if you know it, or if you have heard it, it need not be said to anyone else. Really? You're the sole arbiter also of what qualifies as new or interesting positions, or information, or opinions? I too can learn any of this on my own. Here, let me not exaggerate. Here's a quote from a photographic post today regarding the Contax 139Q:"It's hard to go wrong with either of the Carl Zeiss 50 mm lenses (1.7 or 1.4). The 25mm Distagon is expensive but excellent. But if watching budget the Yashica primes are a good value." Now there's a thrilling photographic detail. But, since I have already owned a Contax 139 and a Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.7, and a bevy of Yashica lenses, I already know this information, because, "I learned it on my own." So what do I do when I come upon this? Lecture they guy for posting stuff that, "I can learn myself," or do I do the common sense thing and move on to the NEXT POST under the commonly understood and pithy sentiment, "Read this, skip that."

"The camera introduces us to unconscious optics as does psychoanalysis to unconscious impulses."

</blockquote>

It's wonderful that you found that to be so intriguing and thought provoking! But I learned that at age 20, after the third roll of film through my first camera. I am not bragging Mr. Jenkins, but this is once more to point out that simple differences of opinion, experience, preference, or viewpoint, are not usually very profound. Will you just delete all the posts containing information that YOU already know?

I'd rather hear about what else we're passionate about.

</blockquote>

What posts did you make to explore that? What's stopping you now? I'd like to know too. I thought everyone was free to being such posts already. What's stopping them? Not me.

When was the last time you contributed anything to the photography aspect of photo.net? What's the ratio of your OT forum activity to photography related activity?

</blockquote>

Now we get to the metrics. Ok, what are the exact requirements? I read all the threads in the sub-sections that interest me, and I post where I have something to add of value. If there are requirements for 'post ratios' of some sort, as you are implying with this question, please say what they are, and if they are applied to everyone. I've reviewed cameras I own, I have done trouble shooting, I have posted in the Philosophy column extensively (does that forum still count?). What then are the requirements that you have now brought up?

In summary, your argument is you just don't like the stuff others are interested in.

October 23, 2013

This isn't true at all. This an incredible amount of confrontation, strong language and adult topics all over the web, particularly on political and news sites. That has nothing to do with photo.net though, which is supposed to be a photography site. Maybe you missed the name of the site.

</blockquote>

Your best sarcasm? Wonderful attempt. No Jeff, I didn't miss the name of the site at all. I am a photographer...AND I am a polemicist, artist, reader, observer of human nature, philosopher, engineer, inventor, writer, movie maker, entrepreneur, chef, traveler, engaged citizen, adventurer, husband, volunteer, and part time rabble rouser. In other words, your typical human being. May Zeus strike me stone dead when the day comes that all I can contemplate and engage my mind with is, what new camera to buy? The only reason I have interest in making photographs is that I am fascinated with the broader universe, and it's variety of inhabitants. I learn such matters by engaging the world in adult subjects, not asking them what f-stop they used to make a photograph.

Why this web site? I am not nearly as interested in the strong opinions of say, potters or weavers, as I am in photographers. I didn't create the web site, I just joined and posted in the places already provided. If you didn't want an OT, you shouldn't have made one! That's easy, isn't it? If I got this right now, the owners of the site don't like what they created, and are now mad at the people who post on it?

October 23, 2013

I wish there were some way to eliminate the polemics but not throw the baby out with the bath water.

</blockquote>

I can't imagine a world without polemics and polemicists! I really hope that wasn't a serious desire. You have me worried now more than before I began reading this thread.

The international folks know this all too well - Americans are being infantilized. It's a frightening process that is probably beyond the turnaround point already. "Happy talk" must be everywhere, at all times (anyone seen the morning shows lately on TV?). No confrontation! No adult topics (sex, religion, politics, morality) - even if they are the central point of life! No strong language! "Can't we all just get along?" they sang, languidly.

October 23, 2013

It is probably better that we don't get all that nasty with each other as we age into obscurity and irrelevance.

</blockquote>

(After much laughter) THAT's exactly the sort of thing I will miss by the drowning of the OT forum in the bathtub of righteous indignation.

October 23, 2013

Count me as sad to see the OT forum go. I believe it is a mistake to think of forums as "photography forums" or "gardening forums" or "classic car forums." The owners of such are kidding themselves. Forums are gathering places, "pickle barrels," around which people seek friends, chatter, gossip, entertainment, and a place to vent. Sure, the online version of this olde tyme social relation isn't the same as the corner bar, or the coffee shop, the general store. Sure, people adopt different rules of engagement than they do with in-person encounters, but that doesn't in the least change the meaning it has for people.

I have to imaging the biggest complaints about OT came from people who did not regularly post in OT. Why they can't simply skip it and move on is not too mysterious to me. It's a form of resentment that others are engaged in something they can't do well, or maybe dislike. Who was being harmed? The regular OT posters seemed to be having a swell time. If they weren't, why on earth were they posting?

Why would anyone consider that OT jibber-jabber as vicious or nasty, or dangerous? It's theater. People with some skills at writing, or debating, or arguing, love to play out their parts to the maximum. If you went to a fencing match, would you jump back in some exaggerated horror and wonder, "how can they be so violent to each other?" IT WAS FUN, people. No, not for you who don't enjoy verbal fencing, but for those who DO. I have never laughed as much at the keyboard as when reading and replying to posts in the OT forum. I don't know what kinds of sense of humor some of you have, but I have never taken anything as an actual offense. How could I? - it's impersonal.

We live in an era of righteous indignation at EVERYTHING! You name it, people are righteously offended. Breast feeding, smoking, protesting, political discussion, arguments, dissent, loud talk, religious discussion, and the Mother of All Offending Speech - any talk of "morality!" Why is this? Where did all this righteous indignation come from? It came from Corporate-America and their minions in public relations who are creating the culture of calm soothing InternetMuzak, and fun, and endless credit, and let's all go buy some new cameras! Let's be sure none of us risk offending anyone! Let's pretend with all out hearts and souls the whole world is nothing but a Big Happy Camera Store!

"Kettling" is a new term in our culture which describes how police physically manage crowds at protests. They form a chain or barrier and literally herd and funnel everyone into 'cold pools' to damp the ardour, kill the protest, quiet the angry voice, water down the dissent, dissipate the heat, far away from the center of the action. Well, there are more subtle forms of kettling too, which can be applied wherever there is heat of any kind. OMG! Some folks are saying disagreeable things in that thread! It's such a threat to our sacred peaceful commerce! Yes, yes, yes, let's all go buy a new camera and stop all this kicking and screaming - - it's dangerous!

August 11, 2013

Arthur,

I would hope I don't ignore it. But I would give consideration based on my style and sensitivity, not my ethics. So, I can see a situation where I might be saying internally that there's no ethical prohibition against me taking the photo, but out of consideration, politeness, empathy, sympathy or other emotions of the moment, I will pass on the opportunity. This means I am using a more casual and informal filter of my actions than ethics. Does that make any sense to you?

I suppose I am saying that our actions are moderating by a pyramid of constraints. At the top I could say is the Law. I don't want to break the law. Next is morality and ethics. I don't want to violate my ethics or commit immoral acts. And finally, there is my style (personality), in which I seek to "do good works," as an example, or treat people with compassion, or contribute to society, and so on. This final filter on my actions serves me pretty well. I've been taking photographs for 40 years and have only a few instances where I know I violated someone's interests in favor of my own. Like Fred says, we aren't perfect in this regard.

Although I take a lot of my photographs in the street, and in public, and of people without their permission, I wouldn't want you to go away with the impression that I am jamming my lens in people's lives against their will like a renegade paparazzi, or with their displeasure. My style prevents me from doing that - with the exceptional mistake as described. What allows me to do this kind of photography is my clear understanding of the ethics involved. I don't fret, I don't have self doubt, and I don't hesitate to pursue my art in a way that I think is a positive contribution to my existence.

We never have perfect information about anything. If we did, we might discover that many of our actions have some obscure harm to others. We'd be frozen like a centipede trying to decide which leg to move next. Life is a continuous stream of unintended consequences.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by m_stephens