Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Austin, I refuse to get into a silly fight over this. Yes, yes, I know, that's only my opinion.... Allan On Saturday, February 2, 2002, at 07:42 PM, Austin Franklin wrote: > Allan, > >> There is nothing insulting in what I said. > > Well, that's only an opinion, and others opinions differ from yours. > >> What was asked was whether >> there was something to be learned from that site. I said, yes. > > If that were all you said, no one else would have been "insulted". > >> Some >> others became rabid in their disapproval. > > And you don't think calling someone's remarks "rabid" is insulting? If > you > don't, you are wrong. Somehow I think this isn't the first time > someone has > told you that what you said (or wrote) was insulting...and that you > didn't > see it that way... > >> Disapproval of what? The >> style? They were not asked about the style, > > So what if someone didn't ask about the style? That doesn't mean others > can't express their like or dislike of the style! > >> Why the emotions? > > I would say you're the one who started the "emotions". What is the big > deal > with someone saying they don't like that style? As you say "so what"? > >> It was a simple question. So >> what, > > The comments had nothing to do with the question. You apparently don't > get > that. Is there some rule that people can't express their opinions, and > that > those opinions have to be solicited by direct question? > >> Franklin gets insulted? > > My first name is Austin, Franklin in my last name. I would appreciate > if > you address me by my first name. And yes I was insulted, because your > comments certainly could be take as being insulting. > >> There is nothing to be insulted about. > > That's only YOUR opinion. Again, telling people they are "venting" when > they are not (and "rabid" in this post of yours!), much less "venting > hatred" when there was clearly none expressed (and again, these are YOUR > emotions, not anyone else's...you are the one who apparently got > defensive > and "personal" about this), and then claiming that "it is due to lack of > formal training", though you did say "you think", and clearly that is > your > opinion, but that doesn't mean it isn't presumptuous, as well as > insulting > (plus a few other things). Even if I say "I think [someone] is an > idiot", > that certainly would be insulting...and I'm not saying you or anyone > else is > [an idiot], it's just an example. > > You made up things that clearly weren't said and criticized people for > expressing their opinion of the images and style. NO ONE that I read > criticized YOU or the author of the web site. Please go back and > re-read > the posts before responding, I think you need to get a clear head as to > what > was actually said. Better yet, just drop it. > > Austin > >> Allan >> >> >> On Saturday, February 2, 2002, at 09:33 AM, Austin Franklin wrote: >> >>> >>>> I think that some of the hatred you hear >>>> vented against it is due to lack of formal training by the ventees. >>> >>> That's really quite insulting. No one said the lighting was bad at >>> all. I >>> believe most people don't like THAT "style" (I know I don't), and that >>> has >>> nothing to do with lack of formal training. BTW, I have had a LOT of >>> "formal" training (though NOT in "brown" portraiture), and have a LOT >>> of >>> personal experience (none in "brown" portraiture). Neither of those >>> make or >>> break what I think of those shots. >>> >>> Austin > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html