>>>So what weight do others place on their opinions / comments?
My, what a problem I present. I can appreciate the point being made because I see parallels to situations involving other big mouths on other lists. So allow me to drag you screaming through yet another long-winded reply I feel certain some of you will likely not trust or believe.
I am a freelance writer. I write for large corporations and a few smaller companies. Mostly manufacturing and training materials; occasionally some end-user manuals. Or so says Bob, the blithering liar. What actual proof could be posted to prove I am indeed a writer with unquestionable knowledge? Not much because I am not allowed. Another empty boast perhaps. Again, no proof.
"So Bob, You say you are a writer, but where are your books?" I do not write books except for the few under contract; one being a History of American Motorcycles." So where is your proof, Bob?"
I will soon shoot an aerial assignment, but you will not see those images. I will soon shoot photographs to illustrate operation manuals for a manufacturer of surface mount machines. You will not see those images, either. You will not see my bike images, images of factory production lines, and product assembly photographs. Nothing I do is available for public consumption.
I have no bestsellers available on Amazon and I cannot post samples because of NDAs. My client list is certainly none of anyone's business. So what to make of Bob's empty boasts and long-winded BS? I am a liar, I suppose. I never post my writing to web sites, because it is not allowed. I do not post articles I might pen because lazy people steal writing Like my articles on celluloid and casein plastics; my Vectograph tutorial, my historical look at Dr. Edwin Land, and other materials.
My approach is to avoid posting anything I might write or photograph.
I meet lots of people claiming to be professional writers and sans proof or reading samples or seeing their books and articles in print, I have only their word. I can certainly appreciate the problems of not having proof to support the claims people make on Internet Mailing Lists.
I say rather than dismiss me, try listening and then you rip me apart when I post something that you think is wrong.
Fortunately, I can tell from the way some writers talk that it is doubtful they are capable of writing for market and have never sold a piece to a publication. I do not need to read their writing samples. I know the business and I know how editors work and think; some pretenders will explain how to "properly" query editors and I can immediately tell that they have never had a success because they clearly have no clue about the business. Usually, they are parroting what they read on the web. I seldom need proof.
I can almost always tell if a writer I do not know and I have never read is likely telling the truth or posting BS. I usually do not need to read the work. Like the "literary lawyer" that advised mailing materials to yourself to secure a copyright. I am not a lawyer, but I know they are lying or full of it and there is no need to see their bar card. At the very least, I know to steer clear of their law firm and their advice.
The same exact problem exists with myself and this list.
So what about me and my silly opinions? Others have posted images and I have not, therefore, Bob is full of crap and those that have posted are A-OK. Nothing Bob can say is valid because he has not posted images. Despite that posting images is not a list requirement.
Perhaps it should be a membership requirement; I will leave and everyone will be far less frustrated. Win Win.
If you review the archives, you can read my past posts and if you wish to challenge anything I have said, go for it. Hell, Google me and challenge anything I have ever posted to any mailing list. If you think I am an arse on this list, ask Mr. Google.
When I post information one cannot argue with, is everything I say suddenly invalid because I have not posted my work to the site? I have a photograph of the SLC Tribune building I took with a Hypergon. Do I need to post it to prove I know (and own) what a Hypergon is?
Should I post images of my work with photochemical milling to prove that I understand and have used the process? What about my stereo slides to prove I know how to use a Stereo Realist? The Agfacolor process perhaps? If you choose to doubt me because I cannot prove what I say owing to a lack of images you do not know anything about, feel free to challenge me.
I could post some images but how do you know they are my images? I have thousands of images and I could simply claim that the images I post are my work product. I have hundreds of glass plates and nitrate negatives and I could make prints from my collection and lie about the work. I have some amazing 5x7 snow scenes I could pass of as my own.
Posting my images would solve the problem of proof and you would likely say they are nice images and still, you would not know if they came from my camera. I can talk about many techniques I have not used for many years and I dare you to tell me I am wrong. Vectograph production, Cirkit photography, lots of stuff.
By the way, I AM NOT accusing anybody of posting images they did not create.
It is easy to be something you are not on the web. I understand this all too well
I can talk a blue streak, dispensing photographic advice, but without some photographic proof, who is to say just who the hell I am; the truth of my past, or how much BS I might post really cannot be proven with a few sample images. IT is up to you to determine what I know. I am usually accurate.
Earlier today, I was looking at a negative showing an empty ballroom. The people are "invisible," even though they were there when the image was made. I could post that image and then lie about it. I can tell you exactly how the picture was made, yet I would be doubted because I did not post the image.
Apparently reliable historical information, my love (and preference for) of old technology and accurate and unquestionable data is not enough for the list.
Apparently, my saying that I am not impressed with much/most of the images I see on the group web site bothered some of you. Apparently I need to tell you all why I do not like what I see. Apparently, some of you took it personally.
I also explained my narrow view and some of you took it the wrong way I like what I like and my narrow view should not be your red flag to give me all sorts of heck. As though I cannot prefer "old school" technique to digital and dismiss images I do not like. As though my narrow view is a bad thing. As though having an opinion is terrible and needs example after example after example to explain it. I like what I like and too bad if some of you do not like my view. It was nothing personal.
I prefer to avoid commenting because I do not like the images. I seldom critique writing if I do not like the subject; in some cases, I find so many flaws that the work deserves dismissal. I do not need to explain why.
I did not say everything I saw on the group site was bad; I added a few comments in an earlier message and told the group I found a few images I like and why. I also told you why I did not like the images I mentioned. Some of you missed my comments and think I was saying i do not/did not like all images on the site.
By the way, I made a passing comment regarding Kodachrome sheet film and I was chastised because "Kodak never made sheet Kodachrome." The message, although polite, came from a member and it was dead wrong. I am oftener dismissed because I say things others cannot believe, yet I can absolutely prove what I say. So be it.
So the question is rather simple: can some member participate without having posted sample images? I suppose not.
Bob ... Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com |
