Annoyed by topic criticizers....

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

09/24/2006 06:16:41 PM · #1

Okay, I am kinda getting ticked and annoyed at people who enter threads simply to denigrate the topic.

It's one thing if it's a rant type political discussion. But if it's just a thread. Can you keep your whiny runny noses out of it, if all you're going to do is post smart alec remarks and back-handed criticisms.

If people want to discuss a topic and are not discussing it from a political stand point (ie: guns, SUVs, etc.) then don't come in and make your smart remark. Start your own thread regarding the politics that you wish to discuss.

If someone asks for advice on which SUV to buy please don't try insert your little snide remark against SUVs. Some people have valid needs for such vehicles. Same thing happened in the hand gun thread. Look, if you object to handguns start a thread on politics of it all.

The same goes for photography threads. If someone starts a thread about "which Canon lense should I buy?" And you pop in and say you should get a Nikkor or Carl Zeiss lens. You're not adding anything but strife to the discussion. And it never fails, that after someone comes in and makes their witty smart @$$ remark and then gets told they're being lame. Or garner an equally witty response in return - no sooner do the same start whining.

Then feelings get hurt. And talk of locking the thread come up.

DON'T ATTACK NON-POLITICAL/NON-DEBATE THREADS!

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

09/24/2006 06:18:57 PM · #2

you should get a Nikkor or Carl Zeiss lens
:P

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

09/24/2006 06:26:43 PM · #3

You're probably right...

In fact, I've half debated whether I want to go Nikon with future purchases. *shrug* Both have their advantages. It's so bloody confusing that I think it might simply be less stress to buy both.

*lol*

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

09/24/2006 06:29:20 PM · #4

2 of each to be sure.
:)

ShutterPug

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/24/2006 06:33:30 PM · #5

Originally posted by theSaj:

David.C

09/24/2006 06:44:42 PM · #6

The forum rules include an implication keep all discussion of a single topic to a single thread -- it does not contain a rule to keep the thread on-topic.

I do not understood why.

David

ralph

Nikon Z9

09/24/2006 07:16:05 PM · #7

partially - when a topic purcolates to the top in recent threads & stays there it can be offesive
yes yes one can always put them in ignore modes but the topics that one usuall finds offensive/have stong feelings about / divisive & people usually have strong felt feelings over them, to the point were it is fun to bait the opposing views
be it nudity/handguns/abortion/sex/homosexuality/purple\green/red\blue/toilet paper roll direction/ford\chev/nikon\canon/paper\plastic/ or etc ..

oops i forgot politics & religion & us vs. them & film\digital...

bait bait bait .. if you don't want to be caught DON'T take the bait

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

09/24/2006 10:23:50 PM · #8

Yes, but not all such threads are bait. Sure, "George Bush Sucks!" "John Kerry is a Waffle" and other threads perhaps more politely titled but clearly a political diatribe and discussion are sure to cause a flurry of debate and discussion.

But discussion of a technical topic (which both the handgun and my SUV thread were) should not have to be killed.

*shrug*

So yes, I'm pissed. Because we who were discussing in the handgun thread were not trying to bait people or start an anti-gun debate. So yes, I'm miffed and annoyed.

- Saj

Qart

Canon EOS-30D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/24/2006 10:41:23 PM · #9

You learn quick enough that you could put a 'Do Not Enter Sign' ten feet tall at the start of your thread and offended people will still HAVE to enter. Figure they'd want to avoid a conflict... :)

ralph

Nikon Z9

09/24/2006 10:44:27 PM · #10

i think you are missing part of the point
in many places guns / handguns (oh and add nudity/abortion/sex/homosexuality/religion or etc ..)
are political issues
so are SUV's if you consider the economics of them (have/have nots & etc)
(though i didn't see that particular thread)

specificlally about the handgun thread
most of the world is very 'weird`ed out' about the gun culture
and as i mentioned it evokes strong feelings

i expect the same baiting if there was a technical discusion about anything on the (incomplete) list above PRO or CON

shamrock

Nikon D300

09/24/2006 10:45:21 PM · #11

Wouldn't this be more appropriate for "Rant"?

;P

David.C

09/24/2006 11:08:26 PM · #12

Originally posted by Qart:

You learn quick enough that you could put a 'Do Not Enter Sign' ten feet tall at the start of your thread and offended people will still HAVE to enter. Figure they'd want to avoid a conflict... :)

Some beliefs (such as anti-gun) do not stand on their own, but require conflict to exist. That is, someone wanting to own a gun (for example) does not require another not wanting them to own it in order to exist. Owning a gun has it's own benefits for those that desire them. However, being anti-gun can not exist without someone wanting to own a gun -- it does not exist on it's own.

Those that hold such beliefs seek out the opposition required for the continuation of their belief because the conflict validates that belief. Not any sort of resolution of the conflict -- just the conflict itself validates the belief. So they actively promote the conflict.

Ignore them and the conflict never occurs and they go away. Respond to them and they have what they need for their belief to exist -- conflict. Start a thread against them and ...

*shrug*

Yeah, I'm a bit bored.

David

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/25/2006 11:08:03 AM · #13

"in many places guns / handguns (oh and add nudity/abortion/sex/homosexuality/religion or etc ..)
are political issues so are SUV's if you consider the economics of them (have/have nots & etc) "

No, I'm not...

There is a difference between technical and political threads. If someone says "My mother is sick and in the hospital...please pray!" That is not the thread to come in and start a political diatribe or smart remark about religion, etc.

Jut as "What lense should I buy for my Rebel?" is not the place to post "You should have bought a Nikkor 70-200mm"

My gripe is that the instigators aren't the ones who lose out.

****

"Wouldn't this be more appropriate for "Rant"?" Probably, but I knew it would get moved there so why bother placing it there myself. I'm annoyed.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

09/25/2006 11:26:47 AM · #14

Some people are just superior to the rest of us so they have the moral obligation to preach to us at any given opportunity to prevent us from making mistakes such as buying a gun or SUV.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

09/25/2006 11:30:13 AM · #15

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Some people are just superior to the rest of us so they have the moral obligation to preach to us at any given opportunity to prevent us from making mistakes such as buying a gun or SUV.

You're right...I keep forgetting how stupid and unenlightened I am. *lol*

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/25/2006 12:15:52 PM · #16

I thought that the handgun thread was pretty restrained. One person asked why a gun was needed, another came up with the old "why discuss this on a photography site" query, and one person claimed to be glad to live in the UK and... well (unless the thread has been heavily edited) that was it.

Those posters were rounded upon quite vigorously in defence of the right to carry guns (not something that had explicitly been criticised). Jason, you yourself said "So for all those who are against guns...please just tell me who the heck I am supposed to trust?" - challenging perceived detractors to a debate.

If the thread has been moderated then I take this sentiment back, but as it stands it appears that everyone other than the defenders of gun rights were well behaved in that thread.

Message edited by author 2006-09-25 12:16:37.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

09/25/2006 12:29:11 PM · #17

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

It was a question seeking a recommendation for a future purchase, not a political rant about 2nd Amendment rights. Yet, someone chose to throw out a politically charged snipe.

The comment that started all of the bickering was not related in any way to Jason's comment about who he is supposed to trust. It was a snide remark about high-capacity magazines. Until that post, the thread was entirely civil.

09/25/2006 12:31:35 PM · #18

"why discuss this on a photography site" query,

I actually had no real criticism of the above, other than many threads are not about photography and DPC.

There were a couple of other quips that were bothersome and rather instigated it from a technical topic into an unasked for debate.

One was a seemingly snide remark about the original clips sufficiency or lack there of. Another was an insulting remark associating gun owners and darwin awards.

Then when the people received flak over their comments they complained. They made insults to the group and then complained about their comments being called lame.

I do not know if those comments were removed or not.

To me, it is really annoying to call people lame or make insults to a whole group. And then raise your arm in a flurry if your insults are labelled lame. And then 'lock goes the thread".

If the only debate was regards to the first question of discussing on a photography site. I'd not have been bothered. Other than question why allow any non-photography related topics at all.

The point is that the thread was not a political one...

deapee

Kodak V803

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

09/25/2006 12:36:15 PM · #19

I agree with the original poster...I mean what's the point of someone telling me that I'm not allowed to discuss firearms with some of the folks here at dpc? Like I've said, this community is filled with a lot of very smart people who know a lot about a lot of different things.

If I don't like a topic, about say ... someone's new job that they got, I simply don't read it. I don't go in and start telling them to go discuss it at a job message board.

The fact of the matter is that a lot of us have been members of this particular community for a very long time. Some of us stay the same, some of us have changed tremendously throughout this time, and it's just what we do to keep people informed and up to date on who we are and what we're about.

I look forward to reading a lot of people's opinions on a lot of different things that I've come to know a little bit (or sometimes a lot) throughout my years here. And it is the same people over and over again that pollute threads with their disagreements and lack of respect for others.

I'm not asking anyone to be perfect or to never disagree with anyone about anything, but in the firearm thread, just as an example, I was asking about a specific thing...that was the legality of a high-capacity (which I now know is a standard capacity and not illegal) magazine size, at least here in my state, and people had to bust in with their opinions and snide remarks about firearms being pointless or dangerous, in a round about way.

Like I said...if you're discussing the coffee party you're having next Saturday, I don't go in and butt my nose in telling you how much better water or tea is for you. I keep my opinion to myself. Now if you asked which was better for you, coffee or tea, I'd be sure to give my opinion.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

09/25/2006 12:59:40 PM · #20

Originally posted by theSaj:

One was a seemingly snide remark about the original clips sufficiency or lack there of. Another was an insulting remark associating gun owners and darwin awards.

Sounds like the thread was moderated and I withdraw my comment - I had a quick look at the thread and could not see what was being complained about, nor any obvious signs of moderation.

I agree that the "why discuss this here" question is misconceived for the same reasons as deapee says (and more), but the question can be answered quickly and sharply - I couldn't see why that sparked the vigorous defence of gun ownership (ie P1 "why discuss this here" P2 "don't tell me I should not own a gun" etc).

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

09/25/2006 01:33:46 PM · #21

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Sounds like the thread was moderated...

I'm having nightmares about "moderated" being added to the NewSpeak dictionary.

"What happened to Jimmy?"
"Shh! Do not speak of him. He was moderated."

oh wait... was there an OP... oh, yes, well I agree with the OP as a call to courtesy but not as a call to censorship. I think people should develop the ability to ignore inane/off-topic posts and then threads will not veer off-topic, just vibrate a little. I do it all the time... but perhaps I should do it even more.

edited to add: I ignore inane posts all the time... I don't vibrate all the time!

Message edited by author 2006-09-25 13:34:33.

lifternessjt

Canon EOS-50D

Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

09/25/2006 05:57:52 PM · #22

Originally posted by deapee:

David! Jason!...I tend to agree. Sometimes you just have to mind your own buisness. Like you said, If you don't like coffee, don't go to a coffee party. If you don't like handguns, don't participate in the thread!
I read with interset your handgun thread, out of curiosity. Being Canadian, I haven't been exposed to handguns, so I learned from this thread. I can't say I necessarily agree about 'em, but it's none of my buisness, and I'm far from passing judgement.
That whole thread, I believe, was highjacked from you and turned into a debate that you didn't ask for. Only hope your question got answered ok.
By the way, I own a Santa Fe...Is that considered a SUV?

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

09/25/2006 06:18:25 PM · #23

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I thought that the handgun thread was pretty restrained. One person asked why a gun was needed, another came up with the old "why discuss this on a photography site" query, and one person claimed to be glad to live in the UK and... well (unless the thread has been heavily edited) that was it.

Those posters were rounded upon quite vigorously in defence of the right to carry guns (not something that had explicitly been criticised). Jason, you yourself said "So for all those who are against guns...please just tell me who the heck I am supposed to trust?" - challenging perceived detractors to a debate.

If the thread has been moderated then I take this sentiment back, but as it stands it appears that everyone other than the defenders of gun rights were well behaved in that thread.

It was a question seeking a recommendation for a future purchase, not a political rant about 2nd Amendment rights. Yet, someone chose to throw out a politically charged snipe.

The comment that started all of the bickering was not related in any way to Jason's comment about who he is supposed to trust. It was a snide remark about high-capacity magazines. Until that post, the thread was entirely civil.

No you and theSaj THOUGHT it was a snipe when it wasn't. I have no idea what a high capacity clip is let alone why someone would need one hence why I asked and deapee, who the question was DIRECTED TO answered it or tried to anyway. If I wanted to make a political statement about guns I would have stated such. Maybe next time you and theSaj could practice a little caution before quickly attacking me with things I didn't say?

Edited to add a question mark.

Message edited by author 2006-09-25 18:19:15.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

09/25/2006 06:29:27 PM · #24

Off topic and on topic but it is bugging the poo out of me.

The thing that holds ammunition and goes into a pistol such as the XD is a magazine NOT a clip.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

frisca

Nikon D70