Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/09/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]If this is how you feel then perhaps it would be best if you left. Barney Mxsmanic wrote: > I tend to value the quality of discussion more highly than the number of people > I can keep subscribed to a list; after all, if all one wants is numbers, it's > pretty easy to build a list that will have tens of thousands of members, but no > worthwhile discussion at all (cf. Usenet). However, you may have different > priorities, and perhaps having thousands of people calmly echoing each other's > opinions on liquors, lizard-skin camera bodies, and the bokeh of 55-year-old > lenses is more important and interesting to you than discussions of real-world > Leica-based photography involving include actual differences of opinion among > smaller numbers of more tolerant and individual participants who occasionally > take real pictures. > > For what it's worth, I note that out of 1200 people, only a dozen or so post > with any frequency. Personal attacks directed at me attract attention only > because so little else of substance passes over the list for weeks at a time, > and most of it is small talk and people patting each other on the back. > Virtually none of the active participants seems to be a real photographer, and > very few of the examples of Leica photography I've seen here seem to be much > more than test shots intended solely to redistribute the lubricants in someone's > Leica gear. In fact, I think that the overwhelming impression the average > person might get from reading this list and its many off-topic or extremely > esoteric threads is that Leica owners as a whole are indeed crusty old codgers > with money but no talent who fiddle with Leica equipment because they can afford > it and because they really don't know how to take decent pictures with it (or > with any other brand of gear). I'd almost say that the conversations I see here > are doing more damage than good to the reputation of Leica and Leica owners, as > they seem to involve just about everything except _Leica photography_. > > The only reason I've participated here at all is that I really do take > photography seriously and I happen to own some Leica equipment that I like to > use in that pursuit for a number of reasons (all of which are relevant to the > art and science of photography, and not to status symbols, investments, > collections of rare objects, scotch, obscure camera bags, the D-Day invasion, or > anything of that sort). There aren't too many Leica lists around, and very few > people actually own Leicas, so my choices are limited, unfortunately. I keep > hoping that Leicas might become interesting to a more varied and cosmopolitan > population of photographers, but I am not optimistic, and some of the drivel I > see here would probably scare off a lot of prospects, anyway, as it reinforces > the worst stereotypes of Leica owners. > > In any case, just remember that you often don't know what you've got until it's > gone. If you want a thousand dilletantes discussing how many angels can dance > on the shutter-speed dial of an M4 over cognac and cigars in the lodge, you're > on the right path; if you want any number of real photographers using Leicas > discussing photography and Leica equipment, I think the train left the rails > quite a while ago, and tossing anyone who doesn't want to follow the rules of > the old boys' club will only make it worse. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian Reid" <reid@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 23:41 > Subject: Re: [Leica] lower classes don't use leicas? > > > A year or two ago I booted Anthony from the LUG because his postings to it > always made it a worse place. I may or may not have formed an opinion about his > personality; my choice to remove him was based on the effect that his postings > have on others. There are 1200 people on the LUG, and perhaps only 1 or 2 or 3 > of them consistenly annoy others. Anthony, for whatever reason, seems to annoy > more people than anybody else. > > > > Anthony, I have no idea whether you understand the effect that your in-writing > personality has on people, so I don't know whether you are doing it on purpose. > If you are doing it on purpose, please take this as a warning to back off. If > you don't understand what we are talking about, don't do this on purpose, but > are simply doing what you do, then I have to warn you that I am seriously > contemplating blocking you again. In this forum you are defined by what you say > and not who you are, and what you say is, in my opinion, not valuable to the LUG > in toto. > > > > One of the intriguing properties of evaluating people by what they say and not > by who they are is that it doesn't really matter what email address you used. > When "mxsmanic" joined the LUG, it was instantly obvious that this was the same > person as anthony@atkielski.com. > > > > I've kicked about a dozen people off the LUG in the 10 years that it has > existed. I normally don't even announce it; I just do it. The person vanishes, > and nobody ever knows why. One person was kicked off for using an assumed name > to say obscene things about another LUGger; I guess he thought I couldn't trace > him. He has come back under a new email address but has totally behaved himself > since his return, so his staying here is fine with me. You came back under a new > email address and have not, in my opinion, behaved yourself since your return. > > > > I will decide what to do about 'the Anthony problem' this weekend. I would > like to remind everyone else that 'express scorn with silence' is a good policy. > > > > Brian Reid > > Barkeeper > >