National Zonalism

On 10/7/2004 9:32 AM Gregory Blank spake thus:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Annoying as M.S. may be, his postings fall squarely under the category of
free speech. Until someone in the Dep't of Homeland Security declares those parts
of the Constitution null and void (any day now, folks!), I'm going to respect
them as such.

I agree, but Don is not saying kill file him (Although apparently he
did.)

Right; he's saying, basically, freeze him out of the newsgroup by ignoring him
(collectively).

If you don't like what someone posts, there's a really simple solution, and
you know damn well what it is (and it doesn't even require filtering or
killfiles or any such).

(Well its grade school-so stated simply IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE :-D

Glad at least someone got that!

Besides, what do you all think this is he the ****ing Algonquin Round
Table? The faculty club at the Rochester Institute of Technology? It's
Usenet,
remember? The place where every idiot with an internet-capable computer can
post stuff. I think your expectations are just a wee bit too high for this
venue.

Well all know you have LOOOOO standards David,.....never the less YU OK.

Well, thanks for the backhanded compliment, I guess. One takes what one can get.

And I must say that as much as I disagree with *most* of MS' rantings (which
can be condensed as follows: The Zone System is evil and demented; Leicas
rule; always use tanks and hangers to develop sheet film; and most
importantly, I Know More About Photography Than Any of You Assholes), I
happen to agree (ruefully) with his assessment that Photography is Not Art, and
therefore will allow myself to participate in exchanges with him if and when
he should post a suitably provocative and meaningful message.

I know, I know you were misguided at birth,...any way part of me
agrees,... And part says Don is a good guy worth listening to ,...
a quandary-Eh?

I'm glad you at least have a smidgen of a particle of doubt about this
Freezing-Out campaign of Sheriff Qualls. Something about that kind of
group-think gives me the creeps: We're all OK, we've got to expel the nasty
pervert who's ruining everything for us. Brings to mind that great scene from
the original _Frankenstein_ with the demented villagers chasing the pathetic
monster with torches.

The main thing about this campaign that bugs me is that it's so completely
unnecessary. I honestly don't see what the problem is.

If you look at this group (and rec.photo.equipment.large-format, which M.S.
also frequents), you'll see that *most* of the threads are "uncontaminated"
(meaning no posts by M.S., indeed no flaming of any sort). Plenty of
information is being communicated here; lots of questions being asked and
answered, and much information being offered and subsequently commented on. As
I remember, that's pretty much the function of Usenet. In fact, it's probably
as close to Usenet nirvana as anyone's likely to get. So my answer is
basically, quitcherbellyachin'.

I also think "killfiles" are stupid and unnecessary: why the need to view the
world through killfile-colored glasses? Does the very existence of messages
with you disagree--even vehemently--absolutely spoil the whole deal for you?
If so, your threshold of pain and suffering must be incredibly low.

All this, for me, feels like a tendency towards censorship, and reminds me of
why I left Photo.net with much loathing after I saw their heavy-handed
censorship in action. And let's be a bit more specific about just what free
speech means, since people tend to forget (some never knew in the first
place): it means the freedom to say (write, post) things that other people
disagree with--even violently disagree with. Opinions that "everyone" agrees
with need no protection; it's exactly those opinions that cause disagreement
and provoke argument that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they enshrined
this right in that 18th century document.

So enjoy free speech while you still can, folks.


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

On 10/7/2004 9:37 AM Gregory Blank spake thus:

Ovens huh;

To make light of so much suffering openly and
without sense of remorse. You truly are a piece
of human crap. Maybe you just need a good
shrink.

As in shrink-wrap?


--
Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a
really easy way: stop participating in it.

- Noam Chomsky

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
...
On 10/7/2004 3:43 AM Donald Qualls spake thus:

OK, that does it for me. Tell me this: who went and appointed you sheriff
of
r.p.d. anyhow? I don't remember there being a vote on that.\

What is this, some Wild West town that you're going to ride into and clean
up?

High noon by the clock towerf, pardner. Six-packs at ten yards.

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
...
On 10/7/2004 3:43 AM Donald Qualls spake thus:

OK, that does it for me. Tell me this: who went and appointed you sheriff
of
r.p.d. anyhow? I don't remember there being a vote on that.\

What is this, some Wild West town that you're going to ride into and clean
up?

High noon by the clock towerf, pardner. Six-packs at ten yards.

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 10/7/2004 3:43 AM Donald Qualls spake thus:

Robert Vervoordt wrote:

John Douglass and Pete De Smit can watch us and each other. Someone
else
can watch jjs, Ude Lafing and the Wogster. Don?

I'm trying to watch everyone, here, on r.p.e.large-format and
r.p.e.medium-format, where Mr. 35 mm keeps dropping in stuff and getting
people riled up...

OK, that does it for me. Tell me this: who went and appointed you
sheriff of
r.p.d. anyhow? I don't remember there being a vote on that.\

What is this, some Wild West town that you're going to ride into and
clean up? Give me a break!

No one has given me the power to prevent anyone else from posting on any
subject they like. All I'm doing is reminding people of what's been
found to work in newsgroups over the past 10 years they've been public,
and the 15 or so years before that when they had a large enough
population to need things like killfiles, but weren't available to
anyone with a modem: if you feed the trolls, they'll keep it up, and if
enough people get drawn into their cycle of anger and contradiction, the
entire group can be destroyed by the resulting reduction in signal/noise.

Now, we have a situation here analogous to the Tragedy of the Commons.
Either we can all work together to preserve something that benefits us
all (Usenet in general, and this group in particular), or we can each
ignore the problem until the shared resource (the Commons) is destroyed
by each using it without regard to the others. With a common grazing
ground, this must take the form of group regulation (whether voluntary
or with the threat of force behind it) to prevent overgrazing; with
Usenet, it requires the group, as a whole, to unite in ignoring and
ostracizing troublemakers -- and it only works if we all do it, because
otherwise, the troll still gets fed.

Besides, what do you all think this is he the ****ing Algonquin Round
Table? The faculty club at the Rochester Institute of Technology? It's
Usenet, remember? The place where every idiot with an internet-capable
computer can post stuff. I think your expectations are just a wee bit
too high for this venue.

Well, and that's just the problem -- every *idiot* with an internet
capable computer (which, I might add, could include computers much older
than even the ISPs would like to admit; my first DOS machine could have
used this forum, and still could, a machine on which it would be
impossible to even install Windows 98SE (not enough hard disk space),
with 1200 bps modem. I don't even mind genuine idiots -- it's the
malicious ones who get their jollies from disrupting discussion,
misinforming newbies, and starting flamewars that need to be removed,
and the only mechanic available for that removal is to ignore them (best
accomplished by everyone killfiling them). What I said above was that I
had simply taken it on myself to remind the posters with a history of
getting caught up in the vicious cycle of baiting, personal attacks,
etc. that they had agreed it is best to avoid such things.

And I must say that as much as I disagree with *most* of MS' rantings
(which can be condensed as follows: The Zone System is evil and
demented; Leicas rule; always use tanks and hangers to develop sheet
film; and most importantly, I Know More About Photography Than Any of
You Assholes), I happen to agree (ruefully) with his assessment that
Photography is Not Art, and therefore will allow myself to participate
in exchanges with him if and when he should post a suitably provocative
and meaningful message.

We can disagree on the status of Photography as Art without disagreeing
that, when someone threatens to destroy a medium we share, we need to
take steps to prevent that destruction. Decades of experience on Usenet
suggests that the best way to deal with trolls is simply to quit feeding
their personal issues -- ignore them. If they don't get what they want,
they'll go elsewhere. I've personally seen it work (5-6 years ago) on
rec.models.rockets when I read and posted there. I've seen it fail, as
well, on alt.pyrotechnics, when knowledgable, experienced people
couldn't be convinced to simply ignore a troublemaker, with the result
that many of the rest became so upset with the noise level on the group
they simply unsusbscribed.

This group is important to me because I'm just starting up again, after
20+ years away, in the printing side of darkroom work. I'd like to keep
the from driving away the people with experience and knowledge to share.
IMO, the way to do that is to help everyone remember the basic rule:
Don't Feed the Troll.

If you decide you'd like to feed the troll *just because* I've taken it
on myself to help remind people they shouldn't, then perhaps you can
suggest who'll answer questions on the group six months from now, when
those who've been printing and developing all the years I've been away
from it have decided to spend their time more productively (and less
stressfully), in their darkrooms?

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

David Nebenzahl wrote:


and therefore will allow myself to participate
in exchanges with him if and when he should post a suitably provocative
and meaningful message.

Oops, missed this last bit -- if and when he manages to do this
consistently, there'll no longer be a need to ignore him en masse, and
I'll likely let him out of the killfile. I've seen it happen, other
times on other groups, with other posters. In the meantime, there's a
lot of difference between discussing things rationally with him, and
feeding the troll. Rising to the bait is bad -- open discussion, when
possible, is good.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Gregory Blank wrote:

Ovens huh;

To make light of so much suffering openly and
without sense of remorse. You truly are a piece
of human crap. Maybe you just need a good
shrink.


If this is replying to who I think it is, it's still feeding the troll,
even if you've trimmed all his post. If you contradict him, if you get
angry, if you call him names, you've fallen into his trap, you've made
his day. It's like training a dog to jump through a flaming hoop -- you
reward only behavior shaped toward what you're after; if the dog walks
through a hoop on the ground, he gets fed or praised (and next time, the
hoop's higher, or he has to jump, or the hoop has a little fire right at
the top), but if he nips at you, he gets scolded or sent back to his
kennel. Problem is, this one likes being scolded, so the only negative
feedback is silence.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/7/2004 9:32 AM Gregory Blank spake thus:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Annoying as M.S. may be, his postings fall squarely under the category of
free speech. Until someone in the Dep't of Homeland Security declares
those parts
of the Constitution null and void (any day now, folks!), I'm going to
respect
them as such.

I agree, but Don is not saying kill file him (Although apparently he
did.)

Right; he's saying, basically, freeze him out of the newsgroup by ignoring him
(collectively).

If you don't like what someone posts, there's a really simple solution, and
you know damn well what it is (and it doesn't even require filtering or
killfiles or any such).

(Well its grade school-so stated simply IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE :-D

Glad at least someone got that!

Besides, what do you all think this is he the ****ing Algonquin Round
Table? The faculty club at the Rochester Institute of Technology? It's
Usenet,
remember? The place where every idiot with an internet-capable computer can
post stuff. I think your expectations are just a wee bit too high for this
venue.

Well all know you have LOOOOO standards David,.....never the less YU OK.

Well, thanks for the backhanded compliment, I guess. One takes what one can get.

And I must say that as much as I disagree with *most* of MS' rantings (which
can be condensed as follows: The Zone System is evil and demented; Leicas
rule; always use tanks and hangers to develop sheet film; and most
importantly, I Know More About Photography Than Any of You Assholes), I
happen to agree (ruefully) with his assessment that Photography is
Not Art, and
therefore will allow myself to participate in exchanges with him if and when
he should post a suitably provocative and meaningful message.

I know, I know you were misguided at birth,...any way part of me
agrees,... And part says Don is a good guy worth listening to ,...
a quandary-Eh?

I'm glad you at least have a smidgen of a particle of doubt about this
Freezing-Out campaign of Sheriff Qualls. Something about that kind of
group-think gives me the creeps: We're all OK, we've got to expel the nasty
pervert who's ruining everything for us. Brings to mind that great scene from
the original _Frankenstein_ with the demented villagers chasing the pathetic
monster with torches.

The main thing about this campaign that bugs me is that it's so completely
unnecessary. I honestly don't see what the problem is.

If you look at this group (and rec.photo.equipment.large-format, which M.S.
also frequents), you'll see that *most* of the threads are "uncontaminated"
(meaning no posts by M.S., indeed no flaming of any sort). Plenty of
information is being communicated here; lots of questions being asked and
answered, and much information being offered and subsequently commented on. As
I remember, that's pretty much the function of Usenet. In fact, it's probably
as close to Usenet nirvana as anyone's likely to get. So my answer is
basically, quitcherbellyachin'.

I also think "killfiles" are stupid and unnecessary: why the need to view the
world through killfile-colored glasses? Does the very existence of messages
with you disagree--even vehemently--absolutely spoil the whole deal for you?
If so, your threshold of pain and suffering must be incredibly low.

All this, for me, feels like a tendency towards censorship, and reminds me of
why I left Photo.net with much loathing after I saw their heavy-handed
censorship in action. And let's be a bit more specific about just what free
speech means, since people tend to forget (some never knew in the first
place): it means the freedom to say (write, post) things that other people
disagree with--even violently disagree with. Opinions that "everyone" agrees
with need no protection; it's exactly those opinions that cause disagreement
and provoke argument that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they enshrined
this right in that 18th century document.

I'm trying to do my part to not fan the flames any more, but I have to
disagree with this. This has nothing whatever to do with censorship.
Censorship occurs when the government or someone else decides to shut someone
up by force. MS, or you, or me, have any right to say what we want here,
but no one is compelled to read anything MS, or you, or me says. If a person
wants others to read their posts, then they need to try to write posts that
are worth reading. Again, MS for instance is free to post anything he likes,
but none of us have any duty to read it.

MS is not simply someone with an unpopular opinion, but someone who
expresses contempt for others, is annoyingly boastful, calls Zone System
users 'nazis' in some sense, etc. That's not very cooperative newsgroup
behavior; it's absurd to act so rude, and then complain people don't want to
talk to you anymore. I'm too much the neophyte to have even been a target of
MS myself, and I've not hesitated to chime in my 2 cents a few times, but
as a neophyte and newcomer here, I respect the consensus of the group.

Every newsgroup tends to disintegrate over time due to spam and trolls, and
the only thing that prevents this is a kind of collective attention to these
issues specifically. If it's more or less the consensus of the newsgroup
that there are too many pointless arguments that are wasting time, then
I want to respect that. There are lots of helpful well-informed people in
this group, and I want to read what they have to say. If they decide that this
forum has become a snickerfest for a bunch of children--and leave--then we'll
all be the poorer for it.

my 2 cents
standard disclaimer here
--travis

In article , Donald Qualls wrote:

Gregory Blank wrote:
Ovens huh;

To make light of so much suffering openly and
without sense of remorse. You truly are a piece
of human crap. Maybe you just need a good
shrink.

If this is replying to who I think it is, it's still feeding the troll,
even if you've trimmed all his post. If you contradict him, if you get
angry, if you call him names, you've fallen into his trap, you've made
his day. It's like training a dog to jump through a flaming hoop -- you
reward only behavior shaped toward what you're after; if the dog walks
through a hoop on the ground, he gets fed or praised (and next time, the
hoop's higher, or he has to jump, or the hoop has a little fire right at
the top), but if he nips at you, he gets scolded or sent back to his
kennel. Problem is, this one likes being scolded, so the only negative
feedback is silence.

That's what the Catholic church said in Germany. No disrespect
here but sometimes people need to be pushed to stay in line
(Not you, but you know who!!!).

--
Check out my website @
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

(Travis Porco) wrote in message ...


Travis:

With all due repsect, the OTHERS spend far more time talking about and
complaining about ME than anything I could possibly do (if I so
wished, and I certainly do not) to destroy the 'harmony' that members
of this group professe to have. The sad fact is that there is an
abundance of misinformation in circulation at any given time in the
field of photography. Even pros hold beliefs that are not only false,
but violate causation. Photography is probably the activity most
ruthelessly governed by physics in which most people participate. Film
and cameras are governed by cause and effect, not mysticism.
Understanding those causes and effects will help make you a better
photographer and darkroom technician.

Unfortunately, there are many, many people who VIOLENTLY object to my
calling this to their attention. Photography is one of the few fields
in which the inner workings are in principle indiscernible. You cannot
look at film while it is being exposed. You cannot touch or feel the
image, or sense its warmth. It's not like working on a car or a stereo
system. It's all invisible until the last step. That state--that
mystery--allows many to succumb to imaginary or incorrect explanations
about what causes what.

It has been my experience that photography also appeals to people
(especially youngish men) with low self-esteem. Outcasts, unable to
make the football team ('jocks'), or join the band ('nerds') they hang
around a few other loners. They take pictures of OTHER people doing
things they'd like to do themselves, but are too timid to try.

Such people respond very sharply to criticism of any sort. If you say
that their cherished belief system is based on false premises and
amounts to a religion (or political party) with its own rituals,
masters, language, and sacred texts, they cannot help but feel angry.
I don't really let it bother me.

I really don't.


In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/7/2004 9:32 AM Gregory Blank spake thus:

In article ,
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Annoying as M.S. may be, his postings fall squarely under the category of
free speech. Until someone in the Dep't of Homeland Security declares
those parts
of the Constitution null and void (any day now, folks!), I'm going to
respect
them as such.

I agree, but Don is not saying kill file him (Although apparently he
did.)

Right; he's saying, basically, freeze him out of the newsgroup by ignoring him
(collectively).

If you don't like what someone posts, there's a really simple solution, and
you know damn well what it is (and it doesn't even require filtering or
killfiles or any such).

(Well its grade school-so stated simply IGNORE IGNORE IGNORE :-D

Glad at least someone got that!

Besides, what do you all think this is he the ****ing Algonquin Round
Table? The faculty club at the Rochester Institute of Technology? It's
Usenet,
remember? The place where every idiot with an internet-capable computer can
post stuff. I think your expectations are just a wee bit too high for this
venue.

Well all know you have LOOOOO standards David,.....never the less YU OK.

Well, thanks for the backhanded compliment, I guess. One takes what one can get.

And I must say that as much as I disagree with *most* of MS' rantings (which
can be condensed as follows: The Zone System is evil and demented; Leicas
rule; always use tanks and hangers to develop sheet film; and most
importantly, I Know More About Photography Than Any of You Assholes), I
happen to agree (ruefully) with his assessment that Photography is
Not Art, and
therefore will allow myself to participate in exchanges with him if and when
he should post a suitably provocative and meaningful message.

I know, I know you were misguided at birth,...any way part of me
agrees,... And part says Don is a good guy worth listening to ,...
a quandary-Eh?

I'm glad you at least have a smidgen of a particle of doubt about this
Freezing-Out campaign of Sheriff Qualls. Something about that kind of
group-think gives me the creeps: We're all OK, we've got to expel the nasty
pervert who's ruining everything for us. Brings to mind that great scene from
the original _Frankenstein_ with the demented villagers chasing the pathetic
monster with torches.

The main thing about this campaign that bugs me is that it's so completely
unnecessary. I honestly don't see what the problem is.

If you look at this group (and rec.photo.equipment.large-format, which M.S.
also frequents), you'll see that *most* of the threads are "uncontaminated"
(meaning no posts by M.S., indeed no flaming of any sort). Plenty of
information is being communicated here; lots of questions being asked and
answered, and much information being offered and subsequently commented on. As
I remember, that's pretty much the function of Usenet. In fact, it's probably
as close to Usenet nirvana as anyone's likely to get. So my answer is
basically, quitcherbellyachin'.

I also think "killfiles" are stupid and unnecessary: why the need to view the
world through killfile-colored glasses? Does the very existence of messages
with you disagree--even vehemently--absolutely spoil the whole deal for you?
If so, your threshold of pain and suffering must be incredibly low.

All this, for me, feels like a tendency towards censorship, and reminds me of
why I left Photo.net with much loathing after I saw their heavy-handed
censorship in action. And let's be a bit more specific about just what free
speech means, since people tend to forget (some never knew in the first
place): it means the freedom to say (write, post) things that other people
disagree with--even violently disagree with. Opinions that "everyone" agrees
with need no protection; it's exactly those opinions that cause disagreement
and provoke argument that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they enshrined
this right in that 18th century document.

I'm trying to do my part to not fan the flames any more, but I have to
disagree with this. This has nothing whatever to do with censorship.
Censorship occurs when the government or someone else decides to shut someone
up by force. MS, or you, or me, have any right to say what we want here,
but no one is compelled to read anything MS, or you, or me says. If a person
wants others to read their posts, then they need to try to write posts that
are worth reading. Again, MS for instance is free to post anything he likes,
but none of us have any duty to read it.

MS is not simply someone with an unpopular opinion, but someone who
expresses contempt for others, is annoyingly boastful, calls Zone System
users 'nazis' in some sense, etc. That's not very cooperative newsgroup
behavior; it's absurd to act so rude, and then complain people don't want to
talk to you anymore. I'm too much the neophyte to have even been a target of
MS myself, and I've not hesitated to chime in my 2 cents a few times, but
as a neophyte and newcomer here, I respect the consensus of the group.

Every newsgroup tends to disintegrate over time due to spam and trolls, and
the only thing that prevents this is a kind of collective attention to these
issues specifically. If it's more or less the consensus of the newsgroup
that there are too many pointless arguments that are wasting time, then
I want to respect that. There are lots of helpful well-informed people in
this group, and I want to read what they have to say. If they decide that this
forum has become a snickerfest for a bunch of children--and leave--then we'll
all be the poorer for it.

my 2 cents
standard disclaimer here
--travis