| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/04/2006 06:46:11 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
god you people don't know what whining is....if you would like an example i will mail you my 18 year old daughter, who thinks the world should conform to her, and if you survive her i bet you will never whine again!!
any takers??????? oh please i need a vacation |
I'll take her if your take my whiny husband
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 06:46:57 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
Originally posted by o2bskating:
god you people don't know what whining is....if you would like an example i will mail you my 18 year old daughter, who thinks the world should conform to her, and if you survive her i bet you will never whine again!!
any takers??????? oh please i need a vacation |
I'll take her if your take my whiny husband |
you know you love him. :P |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 06:49:20 PM · #28 |
if you say so????
Message edited by author 2006-02-04 19:00:19.
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 06:50:28 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Would you like some cheese to go with that whine?
~Terry |
Extra Sharp Cheddar...MMmmmm love the stuff!
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 06:51:43 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by ShutterPug:
if you says so???? |
well, cept for the smelly feet of course. :-D |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 06:51:52 PM · #31 |
But do we want red whine, white whine, bubbly........ so many whines.....
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 07:07:57 PM · #32 |
Can I whine about this not being in rant? :D
|
|
|
|
02/04/2006 09:58:13 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
god you people don't know what whining is....if you would like an example i will mail you my 18 year old daughter, who thinks the world should conform to her, and if you survive her i bet you will never whine again!!
any takers??????? oh please i need a vacation |
Hang in there! I used to have teenagers.
In two or three years she'll be truly amazed how smart you got! |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 10:15:58 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by C_Steve_G:
Hang in there! I used to have teenagers.
In two or three years she'll be truly amazed how smart you got! |
"When I was fourteen, my father was so stupid I could barely stand to have the old man around. By the time I turned twenty-one I was astonished at how much he had learned in the last seven years."
--Mark Twain |
|
|
|
02/04/2006 11:16:04 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by o2bskating:
god you people don't know what whining is....if you would like an example i will mail you my 18 year old daughter, who thinks the world should conform to her, and if you survive her i bet you will never whine again!!
any takers??????? oh please i need a vacation |
Can she model? Oh and how much does she eat... |
|
|
|
02/05/2006 12:13:15 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Please, for the love of all that is good, can we just try to live with it an learn from it instead of stirring up hysterical mobs to force your interpretation of right and wrong onto everyone else? If you want more say in the Site Council's decisions, maybe you should join it, do the work, and earn your influence, or start your own photography website that you can operate any way that you like. |
Nice to see that you are all for open discussion. I am a strong supporter of the SC and what they are striving to accomplish. However, having said that, there is always room for improvement in this venue as there is in others.
I am sorry, but I cannot support your premise that we should all sit around silently, gazing our navels and telling each other that everything is perfect, because if it was there would be no comments in this regard.
While I can readily agree that there is some unfounded bitching, one must consider the fact that a great deal of comments made were absolutely altruistic in nature and that constructive criticism will only benefit this venue. It is only through open discussion that we can hope to address some of the contentious issues that arise from time to time.
Just a thought,
Ray |
|
|
|
02/05/2006 12:47:28 AM · #37 |
I'l swap you my 2.5yr grand daughter Cheeezzz she can tantrum comes from the grand mothers side of course Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by o2bskating:
god you people don't know what whining is....if you would like an example i will mail you my 18 year old daughter, who thinks the world should conform to her, and if you survive her i bet you will never whine again!!
any takers??????? oh please i need a vacation |
What's she look like? |
|
|
|
|
02/05/2006 12:49:36 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by kiwinick:
I'l swap you my 2.5yr grand daughter Cheeezzz she can tantrum comes from the grand mothers side of course |
Can she model? Oh and how much does she eat...
|
|
|
|
02/05/2006 01:30:10 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Please, for the love of all that is good, can we just try to live with it an learn from it instead of stirring up hysterical mobs to force your interpretation of right and wrong onto everyone else? If you want more say in the Site Council's decisions, maybe you should join it, do the work, and earn your influence, or start your own photography website that you can operate any way that you like. |
Nice to see that you are all for open discussion. I am a strong supporter of the SC and what they are striving to accomplish. However, having said that, there is always room for improvement in this venue as there is in others.
I am sorry, but I cannot support your premise that we should all sit around silently, gazing our navels and telling each other that everything is perfect, because if it was there would be no comments in this regard.
While I can readily agree that there is some unfounded bitching, one must consider the fact that a great deal of comments made were absolutely altruistic in nature and that constructive criticism will only benefit this venue. It is only through open discussion that we can hope to address some of the contentious issues that arise from time to time.
Just a thought,
Ray |
Ray, I couldn't agree more. Thanks for posting.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2006 02:08:34 AM · #40 |
| You all should go into comedy. You are too funny!! |
|
|
|
02/05/2006 03:51:05 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by TooCool:
Originally posted by kiwinick:
I'l swap you my 2.5yr grand daughter Cheeezzz she can tantrum comes from the grand mothers side of course |
Can she model? Oh and how much does she eat... |
She can model all Right just like Naomi Campbell,and eat.Man that as well she has 3 weetbix for Brekkie, I can manage the one
Message edited by author 2006-02-05 03:56:51.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2006 06:19:42 AM · #42 |
Open discussion, blind acceptance and what went on in the recent thread about a DQ are all points on a spectrum. We need to keep toward the middle ground and avoid naval-gazing as well as the almost abusive second-guessing of that thread. Mob rule in the face of a perceived injustice is just as objectionable as silent indifference.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2006 06:29:47 AM · #43 |
I have. I've even taken it out of my tag lines.
|
|
|
|
02/05/2006 06:31:55 AM · #44 |
| Oh come on s/c this is clearly a rant does it not need to join the rest:) j/k |
|
|
|
02/05/2006 10:23:38 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Open discussion, blind acceptance and what went on in the recent thread about a DQ are all points on a spectrum. We need to keep toward the middle ground and avoid naval-gazing as well as the almost abusive second-guessing of that thread. Mob rule in the face of a perceived injustice is just as objectionable as silent indifference. |
I agree there's a point at which it's a rant, but they were far from it.
Calling someone a whiner, or labeling their activity whining, is only aimed at hurting someone, or suppressing their point of view and limiting their participation.
And then we got this whole thread, which elevated the discussion suppression to it's own topic, albeit on a "general" level. I personally find it distasteful, even though I wasn't a party to the original discussion.
I have not yet voiced my opinion on the subject mainly because I am waiting for the final word from the site council. It's too late for the the original poster's shot but I am mainly interested to see what they decide on Goodman's photo given all the DQ's I've seen on background obscuring. I don't have a photo in that challenge, and I don't particularly want to see Leslie DQ'd, but on the other hand, I've seen a lot of photos DQ'd for exactly the same reason. I do trust that the site council will do the right thing. Personally, I'd like to see them get rid of that rule--most of the photos that have obscured backgrounds, even major elements are better off for it. Including Leslie's.
But perhaps that's off topic here. What bothers me is all the efforts to suppress the discussion. Why? Who did it hurt? I was very interested in what was being said, even though I chose not to participate because I didn't want to second guess the site council before they decided. It WAS a good discussion. Is this thread more informative or interesting? Will it help you understand the rules better next time?
|
|
|
|
02/05/2006 12:23:13 PM · #46 |
I got an idea. Let there be winning!
The SC should be forbidden to stop it but allowed to put a little winning sticker on the tread. Then it would be easy to identify. If you then can not handle it then don't click on it.
Pretty simple huh?
|
|
|
|
02/06/2006 11:01:54 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Open discussion, blind acceptance and what went on in the recent thread about a DQ are all points on a spectrum. We need to keep toward the middle ground and avoid naval-gazing as well as the almost abusive second-guessing of that thread. Mob rule in the face of a perceived injustice is just as objectionable as silent indifference. |
I agree there's a point at which it's a rant, but they were far from it.
Calling someone a whiner, or labeling their activity whining, is only aimed at hurting someone, or suppressing their point of view and limiting their participation.
And then we got this whole thread, which elevated the discussion suppression to it's own topic, albeit on a "general" level. I personally find it distasteful, even though I wasn't a party to the original discussion.
I have not yet voiced my opinion on the subject mainly because I am waiting for the final word from the site council. It's too late for the the original poster's shot but I am mainly interested to see what they decide on Goodman's photo given all the DQ's I've seen on background obscuring. I don't have a photo in that challenge, and I don't particularly want to see Leslie DQ'd, but on the other hand, I've seen a lot of photos DQ'd for exactly the same reason. I do trust that the site council will do the right thing. Personally, I'd like to see them get rid of that rule--most of the photos that have obscured backgrounds, even major elements are better off for it. Including Leslie's.
But perhaps that's off topic here. What bothers me is all the efforts to suppress the discussion. Why? Who did it hurt? I was very interested in what was being said, even though I chose not to participate because I didn't want to second guess the site council before they decided. It WAS a good discussion. Is this thread more informative or interesting? Will it help you understand the rules better next time? |
How many times does a person have to have their question answered before it crosses over the line from legitimate inquiry into whining? It seems to me that he got at least a half dozen, or more, answers and he just kept coming back with the same stuff, saying the SC was wrong. Certainly he was egged on by the vocal but irrelevant suportive posts of others. Even now he stands not "getting it", portrayed as a victim of some sort of uneven treatment, and a martyr to a rules revision.
Sometimes people need to be made aware that they've beaten the horse to death. And the more they persist, the ruder those remarks will become. People who start using the term whine are just saying that, in their opinion, "you've had your say now move on". Some come to that opinion before others do. No one on SC locked the thread, or even moved it ot the Rant section. I never felt their was any intent to quell legitimate inquiry or discussion, but only a mild level of scorn in the face of someone refusing "to see the forest for the trees".
|
|
|
|
02/06/2006 12:09:23 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
I agree there's a point at which it's a rant, but they were far from it.
Calling someone a whiner, or labeling their activity whining, is only aimed at hurting someone, or suppressing their point of view and limiting their participation. |
Fantastic, well done mate! You eloquently put your finger on what it is I hate about the DPChallenge contingent who constantly put down people who care enough about this site to try and take it forwards.
People here are all too ready to break out the 'whine and cheese' posts at the drop of a hat.
|
|
|
|
02/06/2006 10:09:05 PM · #49 |
Everyone complaining about my earnest suggestion to improve the tenor of these forums should stop trying to suppress my ideas. Because, of course, every request for a change in behavior is quite obviously a suppression of ideas, and you're just as bad as I am. Right? Fascists!
Coolhar has it spot on, by the way... for me this has never been about the voicing of disagreement in the forums, but the way in which it is voiced, and how legitimate responses are often ignored in poster's rush to not clarify a situation but create a stink until they get what they believe they deserve.
In any case, there is no perfect set of rules here, and there never will be. All interpretation of the rules will be inconsistent, on the part of the photographers as they create their images, the voters during their judging, and the site council in their resolution of problems as they come up. We will never have a uniform idea of what the rules are and how they apply, and to blame the site council alone for the problems this causes is ridiculous, particularly while attempting to stir up factions and drawing meaningless comparisons to the past.
At what point do we go from "clarifying the rules" to "whining until we get what we want, because if we keep digging up more and more examples of 'inconsistent' decisions you'll just HAVE to accept our opinion"?
And finally, who the hell moved this from the website suggestions forum? What gives you the right??? My post was obviosuly a suggestion for the website!
|
|
|
|
02/06/2006 10:55:43 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
How many times does a person have to have their question answered before it crosses over the line from legitimate inquiry into whining? It seems to me that he got at least a half dozen, or more, answers and he just kept coming back with the same stuff, saying the SC was wrong. Certainly he was egged on by the vocal but irrelevant suportive posts of others.
Sometimes people need to be made aware that they've beaten the horse to death. And the more they persist, the ruder those remarks will become. People who start using the term whine are just saying that, in their opinion, "you've had your say now move on". Some come to that opinion before others do. No one on SC locked the thread, or even moved it ot the Rant section. I never felt their was any intent to quell legitimate inquiry or discussion, but only a mild level of scorn in the face of someone refusing "to see the forest for the trees". |
Let us look at what you said and see if we can arrive at some amiable solution:
How many times does a person have to have their question answered before it crosses over the line from legitimate inquiry into whining?
The sad fact about the issue at hand is that there has yet to be an answer that could honestly withstand close scrutiny. While it is true that the SC did indeed review the photo at hand, there was nothing that the individual did that was in contravention of the rules... hence the problem. The current state of affairs is such that no one seems certain as to what is acceptable or not. Perhaps a review of the rules might be in order.
It seems to me that he got at least a half dozen, or more, answers and he just kept coming back with the same stuff, saying the SC was wrong.
Yes it is true that the aggrieved party did return on several occasions, but we must also take into account the fact that he had NOT violated any rules. His determination is indeed understandable if we consider that other images, containing almost, if not identical, post processing were not DQ'd. The question which needs to be addressed is why does such inconsistency exist.
Certainly he was egged on by the vocal but irrelevant suportive posts of others.
I am somewhat baffled by this comment of yours. Surely you are not suggesting that individuals who shared this person's concerns about the lack of consistency should be perceived as "Trouble makers" who have nothing better to do with their time but to stir trouble within DPC.
Quite to the contrary Sir... I would suggest to you that these very people are caring individuals whose primary ambition is to ensure that all players on this site are treated equitably and fairly.
I find it rather offensive that you would consider the thoughful considerations of others as being "irrelevant" Irrelevance occurs when when proffers unsubstantiated, frivolous and/or callous comments that are not at all germaine to the issue at hand......and such is not the case in the present scenario.
Even now he stands not getting it, portrayed as a victim of some sort of uneven treatment, and a martyr to a rules revision.
The fact is Sir that it can be argued that yes indeed he is being subjected to uneven treatment, since he was DQ'd for something that is NOT against the rules. As things now stand, the decisions made are subjective and not clearly defined. He certainly is NOT a martyr to a rules revision, since a revision has yet to be undertaken. I for one would love to see more clarity in the rules, and a consistent application of same.
Sometimes people need to be made aware that they've beaten the horse to death. And the more they persist, the ruder those remarks will become.
I would readily agree with this comment were it not for the fact that the issue at hand is of monumental proportions and could affect each and everyone within DPC. This is a problem, and it will not go away unless we deal with it. I know that I for one would be more than willing to sit down with SC members and others with a view of devising rules that would address issues of contention. We cannot simply ignore matters of this nature... hoping that they will not revisit us. The rules and regulations within DPC should be a living document, capable of changing with the times.
We ought not to cast aspersions on the character of the aggrieved person in this instance. Rather, we should strive to develop a process that would remedy the current requirement for the SC to proceed on an Ad Hoc basis, which in fact is what does transpire when incidents of this nature currently occur. Active participation on our part, coupled with a discussion on acceptable mechanisms and and entrenchement of the rules would give rise to clarity and significantly reduce some of the bickering we are now witnessing.
I would end this response by saying that I have nothing but admiration for the SC, and have expressed my feelings to some members both publicly and in private. Having said this... I honestly believe that there is room for improvement, and that we truly need to consider revisiting some of the rules in effect in DPC. It would be a shame to see individuals leave this wonderful site out of frustration.
Just a though.... albeit a rather long one.
Ray |
|
