David, Gene, John and Les,

Thank you for the replies. They are well-considered and worth further consideration.

To be frank about this, the choice of who are on this Council is not universally received with acclaim. More than one is seen as someone who has been quite willing to post provocative threads or "fuel the fires" in others.

In all honesty, I don't think this site suffers from a great deal of controversy. Yes the occasional thread "gets out of hand" (and that too is a subjective determination) - but most of the posters here are true to type: aging film photographers trying to keep an art form "alive".

It seems that there is either a desire to ensure that this site be totally placid or a misunderstanding that occasional controversies are de facto unacceptable when they are more likely a healthy sign of engaged participation.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your considered responses to my post - which is more than I obtained from the other response to my most immediately preceding post.

BTW: if you are going to have a "Council" perhaps then there should also be an "Ombudsman"?

.....will go directly to Dinesh's head..

My head has always been big! :p

It may but i suspect that the ID is far smaller than the OD would suggest.

I'm big boned dammit!

I pledge my loylaties to councilman Dinesh. I promise to consume more beers in his presence and I will not refer to him as my lab bitch anymore, at least in his presence.

Bob, I'll always be your lab bitch. You had me at hello....you had me at hello!


Oh, and I guess I'd better take Dinesh off my "Ignore" list! :o ;)

Alway go with your instincts George and I promise I will too.

It seems that there is either a desire to ensure that this site be totally placid or a misunderstanding that occasional controversies are de facto unacceptable when they are more likely a healthy sign of engaged participation.

Point well taken. An occasional stirring of the waters - "making waves" is probably essential to the health of the community. Without this stirring - agitation, if you will - the only result possible is an inert swamp.

I would suggest a limit - a line that should not be crossed: "ad hominem" attacks.

Now, before the volcano erupts, I'll call attention to one word: "SUGGEST".
My motive here is trying to do the best I can for APUG ... and participating in "improvement discussions" and "suggesting" is the best way - in fact, the only way I can think of to do so.

"Liberty is a boisterous sea. Timid men prefer the calm of despotism."

- Thomas Jefferson

BTW: if you are going to have a "Council" perhaps then there should also be an "Ombudsman"?

Interesting thought. I wonder how we could make that work.

Spirited discussion is great, there is no intent to impact such a thing. Trolling, baiting, spamming, ad hominem attacks, etc (the list is long) -in my mind that's what needs guidance.

David, Gene, John and Les,

Thank you for the replies. They are well-considered and worth further consideration.

To be frank about this, the choice of who are on this Council is not universally received with acclaim. More than one is seen as someone who has been quite willing to post provocative threads or "fuel the fires" in others.

In all honesty, I don't think this site suffers from a great deal of controversy. Yes the occasional thread "gets out of hand" (and that too is a subjective determination) - but most of the posters here are true to type: aging film photographers trying to keep an art form "alive".

It seems that there is either a desire to ensure that this site be totally placid or a misunderstanding that occasional controversies are de facto unacceptable when they are more likely a healthy sign of engaged participation.

Nonetheless, I appreciate your considered responses to my post - which is more than I obtained from the other response to my most immediately preceding post.

BTW: if you are going to have a "Council" perhaps then there should also be an "Ombudsman"?

My considered attitude to APUG after 2 1/2 years of participation is to focus on the relatively small part of its activities which interest me and where I feel I have something to contribute. Experience has taught me that to venture beyond this is inevitably to generate pointless disputes with the owners of closed minds.

I accordingly regard the formation of the Council with equanimity, since its activities are very unlikely to affect me directly. I would only observe that in my dealings with 2 or 3 of these people, my impression has been firstly that they are painfully short of management experience, both generally and in particular in the field of the arts, and that (to a certain extent because of this) their input consists only of attempts to secure conformity to their concept of APUG at all costs. My attitude to anyone who tries to tell me as an artist what I can or cannot do is one of outrage dissolving into derisive laughter.

Regards,

David

My attitude to anyone who tries to tell me as an artist what I can or cannot do is one of outrage dissolving into derisive laughter.

Regards,

David

Where is this coming from? I haven't even seen a jesting post that anyone would attempt to tell you what you can or cannot do as an artist. Did you read Sean's post, immediately preceding yours?

Where is this coming from? I haven't even seen a jesting post that anyone would attempt to tell you what you can or cannot do as an artist. Did you read Sean's post, immediately preceding yours?

It's coming from the fact that I have been forbidden by persons including 2 council members from showing film capture/digitally printed images at an APUG meeting (as the result of which I decided not to go). As a strict ultra-orthodox interpretation of APUG's objectives, I have no grounds to criticise this "decision", as a take on the photographic scene in the early 21st century, I can only laugh at it.

I must emphasize that APUG is something I would like to support, but in the long run, analog materials will continue to be used and therefore available IF and ONLY IF they clearly offer some concrete quality which digital materials do not. I simply cannot respect people who say things like "I tried to make some digital prints once, I didn't like them, so all other digital prints throughout the universe for all time are garbage" or "I would rather not have a print at all in a print exchange than a digital one," not to mention a further member of council who made a recent posting comparing digital printing to masturbation. There is also the bizarre corollary to all this in the implicit assumption that real photography = analog = black and white. Traditional analog color printing has been abandoned by professionals and other in the face of the clear technical superiority of digital. According to the orthodoxy of some APUGers, this presumably makes color photography beyond the pale. I just don't have the time to even attempt to figure out this mentality!

...real photography = analog = black and white . . . this presumably makes color photography beyond the pale.
Seems reasonable to me.

(Sorry, I don't do smilies)

Clear superiority? Well, there is Ciba, sorry, Ilfochrome, and more and more minilabs are scanning film (or starting with digital files) and printing on silver halide.

But like you, I am amused/bemused by those who are plus royalist que le roi.

While I don't personally use digital processes (except scanning for the internet, kid and work pics), I have nothing against them and I don't approve of digi-bashing. However, APUG is supposed to be an analogue site, and if the owner doesn't want to re-invent it that's his prerogative.
Photography is a hobby for me. I simply don't enjoy fooling with photoshop and printers, and have no desire to read about them, so I appreciate the site as it is.
Sean did create a site specifically for hybrid photography which I presume you are aware of.

Experience has taught me that to venture beyond this is inevitably to generate pointless disputes with the owners of closed minds.


This is an example of what is being discussed here. Because there has been disagreement, one side accuses the other of having 'closed minds', (or similar) and the ad homin, ad homo, ad himi, (oh sod it, I can't be arsed with fancy talk this morning!) the insults begin from there. That is what leads to threads going off the rails and I presume is what Sean wants an eye kept on.

... oh sod it, I can't be arsed ...

My sentiments entirely - have a nice day!

Sorry David I didn't mean to single you out personally. I used that quote as an example of something a poster might consider a harmless throwaway comment, but others might perceive as a direct insult, resulting in a thread going sour.

Should anyone wish to know what has prompted David Bebbington's post, the relevant part of the thread starts here: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum137/39911-canterbury-5-7-october-2007-a-8.html#post493985

Post 194 is the last on the subject (though you will have to wade through some on-topic silliness to reach it ;) ).

Bob.

In reply to David Bebbington's post.

On one hand I’m not sure that I should fuel your unwarranted, and scurrilous diatribe against myself and others any further, but on the other I feel it necessary to clarify my stance on the issues that you find so unpalatable.

Sean set up this forum as a bastion for traditional work, and as far as I am concerned that was a sound decision, and one which suits me and I continue to support. This same philosophy was carried through to our bi-annual weekend meetings. Incidentally, with the exception of organising the first UK APUG weekend, I have played a passive roll in their arrangement, and operation since, each having been arranged by a different volunteer member for the benefit of all others; including you. On the one occasion that you did attend you were made welcome along with everyone else that attended, and your verbal contributions enjoyed and respected. I, and it seems, others were surprised when you produced inkjets, but were constrained enough not to comment at that time.

I later felt it necessary to correct a statement made on-line that deemed them acceptable at these gatherings, by clarifying that they weren’t to me. Others have since concurred with my view point and amplified the ground rules.

If that criteria does not suit you, may I suggest that you use your managerial talents to organise a similar event via the offices of www.hybridphoto.com where dissection of the merits, or otherwise of inkjet printing is always very welcome.

The notion of a Membership Council does fit with my perception of APUG's sitegeist. Hegemonic. I also get the impression that keeping it clean, warm and fuzzy could be perceived as important for keeping the money coming in*. That is what needs to be protected.

*A major difference between APUG and the LF Forum - forums sharing similar membership, and currently entwined in unpleasant exchanges on the creation of the APUG Membership Council, with APUG Council having foolishly joined the LF Forum solely to wade into the mire.

Best,
Helen

The notion of a Membership Council does fit with my perception of APUG's sitegeist. Hegemonic. I also get the impression that keeping it clean, warm and fuzzy ....


How would you prefer the site to be other than comfortable for most of its members? Rancorous, bilious, hostile? APUG is likely to be the last, and only bastion of non-digital forums. Why on earth would it be in anyone's interest not to be sure it remains civil and true to its charter? (And btw, the 'money coming in' thing is a pretty cheap shot IMO)

I also get the impression that keeping it clean, warm and fuzzy could be perceived as important for keeping the money coming in


Hi Helen,

I would have to agree with you if Sean had changed the way he handled himself or APUG after he quit his day job and began sprucing up APUG full time. I sure don't think he has!

Murray

As best I can tell, the income that Sean earns from the site after covering the overhead (mainly the hosting service and paying freelance coders to work on software upgrades) is fairly modest. He recently announced that he was setting up a side business in computer repair, which I don't think he would do, if he were raking in the cash from APUG. If he were in it for the money, I suspect he could have kept his corporate IT job.

If the general approach is to keep the scope of the site limited to traditional photography, it is hardly hegemonic, which would imply that APUG is trying to spread this ethos to other sites. If anything, the emphasis on keeping the focus to traditional photographic media serves to resist the hegemony of the digital imaging industry, which attempts to invade and colonize every aspect of the medium. APUG, as best it can be in a digital environment like an internet forum, strives to be an oasis from the digital hegemony.

Should anyone wish to know what has prompted David Bebbington's post, the relevant part of the thread starts here: http://www.apug.org/forums/forum137/39911-canterbury-5-7-october-2007-a-8.html#post493985

Post 194 is the last on the subject (though you will have to wade through some on-topic silliness to reach it ;) ).

Bob.

I read through a lot of it and I have to admire how well the thread was handled and kept on subject. Hopefully I am not speaking too soon...:)

*A major difference between APUG and the LF Forum - forums sharing similar membership, and currently entwined in unpleasant exchanges on the creation of the APUG Membership Council, with APUG Council having foolishly joined the LF Forum solely to wade into the mire.

I have read that thread on rff. Looks like a bunch of people previously banned from APUG using the creation of the members council as an opportunity for some petulant whining and bitching.

I think that it is perfectly sensible for this particular forum to be run in the way that it is being run - and that keeping the money coming in is the responsible thing to do. Why should that be seen as a shot at Sean? Is it shameful?

Best,
Helen

How would you prefer the site to be other than comfortable for most of its members? Rancorous, bilious, hostile?

Lively, inquiring, challenging, innovative? Attempting to demonstrate that analog photography genuinely has something to offer in the future other than being a hobbyhorse for obsessives? Based on something more than sterile clichés and mechanistic formulae of the kind favored by retired accountants? Of course not - only a madman could ask for this;)

How would you prefer the site to be other than comfortable for most of its members? Rancorous, bilious, hostile?

Lively, inquiring, challenging, innovative?

I find myself to be quite comfortable in the environment you describe....don't you? :)

Perhaps it may be a good policy to forget the forums in question and get on with keeping APUG the very pleasant civil and informative site that Sean set out to create and has always been. Those who have been banned from APUG contributed little or nothing but agro while posting here so why should we vitually devote a thread to their petty minded whining elsewhere.

I find myself to be quite comfortable in the environment you describe....don't you? :)

But you don't come here to be comfortable, surely? Speaking personally I feel uncomfortable on APUG, but it really doesn't matter.

Best,
Helen