BTW, and I do not mean this to be in any way insulting, but I have searched high and low for a definition of "FFP" that seems to fit in a signature and failed. Can anyone enlighten me?

Yes, I can - and this is nothing like an insult.

Some time ago, there was a discussion regarding "titles", in the form of letters attached after one's signature - to establish/ accentuate one's image.

In considering the choices available to me, based on what was important TO ME, I first selected "H.B."; an acronym for Human Being.
Later, I decided that was a bit too pretentious, (and a little too easily confused with "HCB"), so I selected something that was closer to my interests in photography: "FFP"; Fabric Free Photographer. ;)

Isn't it bad enough that they've now created the "cool table" in the cafeteria and it only has 14 seats!

I don't know... it seems to me APUG is the "cool table" of internet photo fourms. Well, if not "cool" then at least my favorite table. I hope all feel welcome to pull up a seat.

Am I banned yet?

Ya know, that would make a pretty cool sig line....

George I am rather bemused by your sudden change of heart, from:

Congrats to the new Council. I truly look forward to having your guidance. With nearly 21,500 members - this site is becoming enormous - your presence will be very helpful.

But truly, I respect all of you and know you support the interests of APUG and it's goal/mission.

To:


Isn't it bad enough that they've now created the "cool table" in the cafeteria and it only has 14 seats!
(...)
I guess the best thing is to never post in a thread with a Councilor.


In the first 24h that the council's been installed. (25, to be exact)

Michel, that's a lawyer's mind for you.

Michel,

Within an hour of posting my first hopeful comment I experienced one Council member, who, although not even subscriber of the publication deride Emulsion as a mere dilletantish exercise. [see the Outdoor Phototgraphy thread]. As if the film photography community needs to rend itself apart. Such a comment was an invitation to a flame war - fortunately declined.

Then, in this thread, I'm responded to by another Council member as if I'm an unruly child because I object to someone trying to drag me into his argument with someone else!

It's beginning to seem as if this site now has a whole bunch of classroom monitors marking demerits on the blackboard.

Kind of like what Bjorke said....

Within an hour of posting my first hopeful comment I experienced one Council member, who, although not even subscriber of the publication deride Emulsion as a mere dilletantish exercise. [see the Outdoor Phototgraphy thread].

Moderators and council members are entitled to their own opinions are they not? They are after all still members of this site.

Michel,

Then, in this thread, I'm responded to by another Council member as if I'm an unruly child because I object to someone trying to drag me into his argument with someone else!


I didn't see anything wrong with what Jeanette said, just light-hearted kidding. Sometimes we need this to break the tension, just like Bjorke's comment, (which I got a chuckle out of).
Life is too short to get upset over it.

--John

George-you've been here a long time. are you being serious? this is the internet man. go have a martini....
Peter

Yes, I can - and this is nothing like an insult.

Some time ago, there was a discussion regarding "titles", in the form of letters attached after one's signature - to establish/ accentuate one's image.

In considering the choices available to me, based on what was important TO ME, I first selected "H.B."; an acronym for Human Being.
Later, I decided that was a bit too pretentious, (and a little too easily confused with "HCB"), so I selected something that was closer to my interests in photography: "FFP"; Fabric Free Photographer. ;)

That makes more sense than the first four uses I could find: Fresh Frozen Plasma, Food for Peace, Frequent Flyer Program, and Firm-Fixed-Price. Though the first and third are funnier.

one Council member, who, although not even subscriber of the publication deride Emulsion as a mere dilletantish exercise. [see the Outdoor Phototgraphy thread]. As if the film photography community needs to rend itself apart. Such a comment was an invitation to a flame war - fortunately declined.

That is a very, very strong overstatement, George.

I didn't see anything wrong with what Jeanette said, just light-hearted kidding. Sometimes we need this to break the tension, just like Bjorke's comment, (which I got a chuckle out of).
Life is too short to get upset over it.

--John

John,

You raise an interesting question. How is one supposed to discern when a Councillor is "kidding" and when (s)he is performing her/his monitor/guidance etc. role?

If a Councillor posts a reply to a post of mine that disagrees with me - does that mean I've been admonished?

That is a very, very strong overstatement, George.

Michel,

Here's what was said:

I think Emulsion is entirely a labor of love. Unfortunately, love's labor may be lost when the folks who have undertaken to publish it are part time in every sense of the term. I've not yet chosen to subscribe for that reason. I wish Aggie well, but have not yet been convinced that Emulsion is anything more than the project of dilettantes. I hope I'm proven wrong.

I did not post a reply to this then but will note here:
1) I am a subscriber to the magazine.
2) I have received three quarterly issues.
3) The fourth quarter is due soon and that will coincides with one-year of publication.

Now, if jovo were a subscriber and had not received some or any issues - I'd perhaps see validity in his comments. And, if jovo were not a Councillor, I would see his comments as strictly his own.

But now that he's wearing the Council label - how am I supposed to know when he's speaking for himself versus when he's speaking with "authority"?

John,

You raise an interesting question. How is one supposed to discern when a Councillor is "kidding" and when (s)he is performing her/his monitor/guidance etc. role?

If a Councillor posts a reply to a post of mine that disagrees with me - does that mean I've been admonished?


George...
really, I dont even think theres any reason to worry about it. Just to clarify. The Council doesnt even really have any "power" at least not that I can gather. Aside from having the semi-attentive ear of the mods and sean. But really, EVERYONE whos a member here has the attentive ear of the mods and Sean, I know they receive LOTS of PMs and emails... and I know they make a concerted effort to be attentive to them all.
I dont think of myself any different after being asked to be a council member. Its not a big deal. I think that most of all the council was chosen because of just that, we are not going to let the power go to our heads, there is no power. Merely just a resource for a larger population. I mean APUG, while it is a community, still follows the same growth rules as say a business or organization.... when a business or organization grows, the "board" always grows along with it. A greater population would seem to naturally require a great advisory board to better represent it. But a board member doesnt have control over business/organization, and neither does a council member have control over APUG.

I wouldnt worry about offending a council member or "upsetting" them, or being admonished by them. That one individual wont have some all powerful control over you or your membership and if the council members expects too, then they will likely be informed by sean and the mods that, in fact, that is not how this works.

Now, if jovo were a subscriber and had not received some or any issues - I'd perhaps see validity in his comments. And, if jovo were not a Councillor, I would see his comments as strictly his own.

But now that he's wearing the Council label - how am I supposed to know when he's speaking for himself versus when he's speaking with "authority"?

I have read the comments before posting, thank you. I reiterate my point: you are overstating it.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm a subscriber to Emulsion and I shared my points of view about it to them a while ago. They have not changed, and they resemble John's.

I don't see what the "authority of the council" has to do with it. John clearly called it an opinion, and he surely did not waved any air of superior authority in the face of others by doing so.

John,

You raise an interesting question. How is one supposed to discern when a Councillor is "kidding" and when (s)he is performing her/his monitor/guidance etc. role?

If a Councillor posts a reply to a post of mine that disagrees with me - does that mean I've been admonished?

If a Councillor disagrees with you in a public thread, it means they disagree with you. None of us have Moderator authority to take any action, so we're not going to be running around issuing citations for holding contrary opinions. As I understand the Concil's charter, nothing happens until there is consensus and/or majority rule plus concurrence of the Moderators AND Sean. I don't know that we've worked out a procedure for "admonishment" other than what already happens, when a Moderator would PM someone to discuss an issue. Certainly this would never happen in a public forum, out of respect for the privacy of the individual and for the overall cohesiveness of the forum.

How is one supposed to discern when a Councillor is "kidding" and when (s)he is performing her/his monitor/guidance etc. role?

You think just maybe the not one but TWO smileys on Jeanette's post may have been a clue?! :o

Good Lord!

George,
You ask two interesting and valid questions:

__________________________________________________ ___________
"How is one supposed to discern when a Councillor is "kidding" and when (s)he is performing her/his monitor/guidance etc. role?

If a Councillor posts a reply to a post of mine that disagrees with me - does that mean I've been admonished?"
__________________________________________________ ____________

It is my understanding that IF a council member/mod needs to have a word with you or any other member it will be done off list, in PM or email. Not in a public manner which we have here. Which means a council members input to a thread means absolutely nothing more than any others' input. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe we need a new smiley face...like someone flogging a dead horse:)

None of us have Moderator authority to take any action, so we're not going to be running around issuing citations for holding contrary opinions.

"Pull over, buddy. Do you know how fast you were posting back there?"

"Pull over, buddy. Do you know how fast you were posting back there?"


and 'Got a permit for that viewpoint?'

Badges? BADGES? We don' need no steenkin' BADGES!!!

Definitely no badges - I had four forms of work related ID hanging from my pocket at one point - one for each building plus a "common access card", which none of the buildings I worked in allowed as as form of access. Things have improved since, as I am now down to two.

I once had three- a building badge, a badge to access my room within the building, and a computer network access badge. That got tedious. That scene from Blazing Saddles would come to mind whenever I had to go down to the badge office to get one renewed.

and 'Got a permit for that viewpoint?'

Not least: "Can you maintain your position without wavering while touching your nose?"

"Please blow some hot air in this balloon, sir"