DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Disappointed
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 82, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/05/2006 09:45:41 PM · #26
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by yanko:
I made a comment in a joking manner (apparently you didn't get it) about the thread in general.


Apologies: I think that the ambiguity relates to the interpretation "look at *me*, rant forum" v "look at me *ranting* forum". I hadn't picked up on the subtlety, as on my reading it reflected a couple of earlier comments suggesting that ergo was merely attention seeking.

As for calling out, I meant that I did not want to highlight individuals, or focus undue attention on specific people (that would quickly devolve into a personal attack itself, no dount). However, I don't pretend to want to anonymise them.

I would agree with others that ergo's comment deserved debate and possibly disagreement, but not personal attack. I would never interpret someone's invitation to "flame on" etc as an invitation to personally abuse that person, but to have a vigorous discussion with them, and perhaps to disagree vigorously. It seems that some others have less regard for the people around them, or perhaps do not see the distinction.


That's fair. Btw, if you look back at my first post in his rant thread I pretty much agreed with him on some points as I tried to discuss the issue. However, he didn't use good judgement in the tribute thread, IMO. Clearly nobody wanted to discuss his views in a civil manner only to mourn but he kept repeating them over and over. I'm not really sure what you would expect to achieve doing that except to get the results he got. What I find ironic in all of this is his fate was similar to Steve's in that he played with fire and got burned. I'm exaggerating of course but I can't help but think of the similarities.

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 21:46:16.
 09/05/2006 09:48:32 PM · #27
Originally posted by coronamv:
But you know a month from now Ergo will be forgotten and its sad that he could not find a way to cope with any issue that arises from a chat forum. Most of us will have moved on to agree or disagree on another subject. I guess in short Life is short why are we worring about this. Enjoy it and go one livin. Peace Out PS remember the opossum from Ice age 2!!! Laugh and have a good time


I am not trying to put you down by quoting you...but I think maybe there is a general lesson to be learned here. Look at where ergo (Robert) is living and the incredible human suffering that goes on around him (Sri Lanka). Consider for a moment what he must see on a daily basis. To simply state "Laugh and have a good time" while people are suffering all around you is not looking at the whole world with open eyes. To judge someone as one person did "Your inappropiate rant so soon after Steve's death shows your total lack of respect for human life"; isn't something to just move on from. It is a personal attack on someone whom I personally highly respected, whom I found inspiring...an intelligent caring person. I am not arguing he may have offended some people...but I do think such responses are heated, distasteful, and damaging.

And I won't be forgetting him anymore than I do Ubique...
 09/05/2006 10:16:08 PM · #28
Originally posted by bucket:
Originally posted by coronamv:
But you know a month from now Ergo will be forgotten and its sad that he could not find a way to cope with any issue that arises from a chat forum. Most of us will have moved on to agree or disagree on another subject. I guess in short Life is short why are we worring about this. Enjoy it and go one livin. Peace Out PS remember the opossum from Ice age 2!!! Laugh and have a good time


I am not trying to put you down by quoting you...but I think maybe there is a general lesson to be learned here. Look at where ergo (Robert) is living and the incredible human suffering that goes on around him (Sri Lanka). Consider for a moment what he must see on a daily basis. To simply state "Laugh and have a good time" while people are suffering all around you is not looking at the whole world with open eyes. To judge someone as one person did "Your inappropiate rant so soon after Steve's death shows your total lack of respect for human life"; isn't something to just move on from. It is a personal attack on someone whom I personally highly respected, whom I found inspiring...an intelligent caring person. I am not arguing he may have offended some people...but I do think such responses are heated, distasteful, and damaging.

And I won't be forgetting him anymore than I do Ubique...


If you believe that its not better to laugh then to cry then I do truly feel sorry for you and sympathize. Also if his life was surrounded by such pain and sorrow then he of all people should understand compassion. I say he does not based purely on his comments so I can say I could very likely incorrect. But I do agree with you on the fact that any statement made with heat, distaste or in a damaging manor is wrong. So tell me something who was the first person In your oppinion to say something in those manors? Like I stated above the rant thread was created by the instigater not by anyone else that I know of. If it's not what he ment then he should have restated in a more understandable way. My point is I do not know the guy personally but from his post he seems to have a very bad distaste for many things. Now that being said some of you may know him better. Thats great that he shared that side with you but all I have to go on is his statements. Have you ever heard the comment if life serves you lemons make lemonade then add vodka and have a party!..Leavity and laughter never hurt anyone as long as its done in good taste.
 09/05/2006 10:24:00 PM · #29
I won't forget ergo, either. He's on my favorites list. Another favorite lost. Sigh...
 09/05/2006 10:49:13 PM · #30
Originally posted by coronamv:
If you believe that its not better to laugh then to cry then I do truly feel sorry for you and sympathize.


Look I am not really thinking there is anything wrong with you taking the side you are taking..but this statement is poorly conceived...think about what I said. There is big difference between understanding how someone may not always be able to laugh off suffering and choosing to cry. And from what I sense you are intelligent enough to understand this...so please don't feel a need to proselytize me with your sayings.
 09/05/2006 10:54:10 PM · #31
I just have to understand one thing, why is it okay to say that a person "got what he deserved" (before his body is even laid to rest) but it is censorship if you tell that same person that their comment is insensitive and inappropriate at a time of grief. I guess you can only say what is on your mind if you say "flame away" when you are all done with your comments.
 09/05/2006 10:57:21 PM · #32
There is a difference in the choice of words.

Calling some one insensitive is one thing, calling them derogatory, insulting things is another.
 09/05/2006 10:59:51 PM · #33
Originally posted by mrsmaxsmart:
I just have to understand one thing, why is it okay to say that a person "got what he deserved" (before his body is even laid to rest) but it is censorship if you tell that same person that their comment is insensitive and inappropriate at a time of grief. I guess you can only say what is on your mind if you say "flame away" when you are all done with your comments.


I don't think there is anyone arguing that it is inappropriate to say "their comment is insensitive and inappropriate at a time of grief"...this hasn't even come up. I for one think it totally appropriate to state this, if this is how you feel.
 09/05/2006 11:01:52 PM · #34
Originally posted by pidge:
There is a difference in the choice of words.

Calling some one insensitive is one thing, calling them derogatory, insulting things is another.


You are right and his words were poorly choosen. Irwin did not "get what he deserved."
However Ergo said "flame away" and people did.

I think there is one thing people are forgetting. Ergo may have left but he did not think of all the people (like our friends from down under - not to mention other fans) who might leave when he made is comments.
Ergo chose to leave. Irwin did not.
RIP Steve Irwin!

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 23:02:47.
 09/05/2006 11:03:08 PM · #35
Originally posted by mrsmaxsmart:
I just have to understand one thing, why is it okay to say that a person "got what he deserved" (before his body is even laid to rest) but it is censorship if you tell that same person that their comment is insensitive and inappropriate at a time of grief. I guess you can only say what is on your mind if you say "flame away" when you are all done with your comments.

It's not censorship -- it's harassment. There is a difference between "your comment was insensitive" and "you are insensitive" -- perhaps especially to someone who may speak "formal" English as a second (or third or more) language.

Regardless of whether the OP "invited flaming" it does not give other members the right (or obligation) to break the rules and do so -- you are still expected to respect the OP, the site, and yourself by expressing yourself within the written rules and guidelines.

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 23:03:51.
 09/05/2006 11:17:14 PM · #36
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
He asked to be flamed, not for a debate.

He doesn't have the authority to waive the rules/TOS for other people.


Agreed.

However, ergo's invitation to "Flame Away" certainly served to provoke people to cross the line.
 09/05/2006 11:25:48 PM · #37
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
He asked to be flamed, not for a debate.

He doesn't have the authority to waive the rules/TOS for other people.


Agreed.

However, ergo's invitation to "Flame Away" certainly served to provoke people to cross the line.

Hence the fact that you only have to deal with me spouting of my opinion here, instead of encouraging Langdon to suspend you all for TOS violations ... : )

And while I acknowledge the mitigating circumstance, a victim who meets their demise by manslaughter is just as dead as one murdered in the first degree ... : (

Message edited by author 2006-09-05 23:26:10.
 09/06/2006 08:19:38 AM · #38
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
He asked to be flamed, not for a debate.

He doesn't have the authority to waive the rules/TOS for other people.


Agreed.

However, ergo's invitation to "Flame Away" certainly served to provoke people to cross the line.

Hence the fact that you only have to deal with me spouting of my opinion here, instead of encouraging Langdon to suspend you all for TOS violations ... : )


You show me where I crossed a line! I am insulted by that blanket statement from a member of the sc. Its a threat in my opinion and should not go unheaded. When you are in a position of authority and you say things like that it crosses a very fine line. This thread would have died if ergo would have let it go. Thats the basic fact now we need to move on.
 09/06/2006 08:48:41 AM · #39
To rip on anyone because of the way they are effected by a tragedy just because it didn't effect you in any way is pretty lame, selfish actually,...

that was my line. can you please underline where I made a personal attack? I hardly find it to be a personal attack. I was just pointing out a fact.

The guy was insensitive at a time when he should have bit his tongue.

For what it is worth I am sorry if I hurt Ergos feelings But is Ergo sorry for his words to all the people who he offended?


09/06/2006 09:05:28 AM · #40
Originally posted by coronamv:
You show me where I crossed a line! I am insulted by that blanket statement from a member of the sc. Its a threat in my opinion and should not go unheaded.

legalbeagle summarized it well earlier. Neither of us names anybody, so who could you feel threatened unless you have guilt?

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by scalvert:
I must've missed the personal attacks and name calling. All I saw were vociferous disagreements.


Part of it was the personal attacks:
"Are you insensitive or something? Grow up man and get off the guy's back.", stated once, supported by many (inc SC);
"This thread screams out to me, "Hey look at me, I didn't get enough attention with my inappropriate rant.";
"To rip on anyone because of the way they are effected by a tragedy just because it didn't effect you in any way is pretty lame, selfish actually,..." ;
"Your inappropiate rant so soon after Steve's death shows your total lack of respect for human life";
"Maybe it should be moved to the "Look at Me Rant" forum? ".

I have not used "originally posted by" quotes because it is not useful to call people out individually.

Part of my problem is the nature of the attacks: ergo's point was a rational, well made point, whether you agreed with it or not (personally, I am fairly ambivalent). The responses were emotional (which is odd, given that most people did not know Steve Irwin other than as a tv presenter) and reactive.
 09/06/2006 09:13:12 AM · #41
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
He asked to be flamed, not for a debate.

He doesn't have the authority to waive the rules/TOS for other people.


Agreed.

However, ergo's invitation to "Flame Away" certainly served to provoke people to cross the line.

Hence the fact that you only have to deal with me spouting of my opinion here, instead of encouraging Langdon to suspend you all for TOS violations ... : )

And while I acknowledge the mitigating circumstance, a victim who meets their demise by manslaughter is just as dead as one murdered in the first degree ... : (

Sorry but you all refers and includes myself and anyone else who differ in opinion with you. I think your just back peddling now. Also no guilt since if you go and read my posts you will not find any derogatory statements about ergo. I actually said we should all laugh and let it go. So do you want that or do you want to keep argueing. I believe langdon stated it well when he said the person that started this left of their own free will so there is no need to continue the thread.
 09/06/2006 09:22:26 AM · #42
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
He asked to be flamed, not for a debate.

He doesn't have the authority to waive the rules/TOS for other people.


Agreed.

However, ergo's invitation to "Flame Away" certainly served to provoke people to cross the line.

Hence the fact that you only have to deal with me spouting of my opinion here, instead of encouraging Langdon to suspend you all for TOS violations ... : )

And while I acknowledge the mitigating circumstance, a victim who meets their demise by manslaughter is just as dead as one murdered in the first degree ... : (


I don't believe that I took ergo's bait.
 09/06/2006 09:35:05 AM · #43
Originally posted by coronamv:
Sorry but you all refers and includes myself and anyone else who differ in opinion with you. I think your just back peddling now. Also no guilt since if you go and read my posts you will not find any derogatory statements about ergo. I actually said we should all laugh and let it go. So do you want that or do you want to keep argueing. I believe langdon stated it well when he said the person that started this left of their own free will so there is no need to continue the thread.

Perhaps you didn't read my post carefully enough:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hence the fact that you only have to deal with me spouting of my opinion here, instead of encouraging Langdon to suspend you all for TOS violations ... : )

And while I acknowledge the mitigating circumstance, a victim who meets their demise by manslaughter is just as dead as one murdered in the first degree ... : (


Message edited by author 2006-09-06 09:35:25.
 09/06/2006 09:50:32 AM · #44
No I did read your thread It is a blatent Threat. Yeah you did not come out and say but inferring you could have done is threatening and thowing your weight around. So keep up the back peddling..
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by coronamv:
Sorry but you all refers and includes myself and anyone else who differ in opinion with you. I think your just back peddling now. Also no guilt since if you go and read my posts you will not find any derogatory statements about ergo. I actually said we should all laugh and let it go. So do you want that or do you want to keep argueing. I believe langdon stated it well when he said the person that started this left of their own free will so there is no need to continue the thread.

Perhaps you didn't read my post carefully enough:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hence the fact that you only have to deal with me spouting of my opinion here, instead of encouraging Langdon to suspend you all for TOS violations ... : )

And while I acknowledge the mitigating circumstance, a victim who meets their demise by manslaughter is just as dead as one murdered in the first degree ... : (
09/06/2006 09:59:45 AM · #45
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Hence the fact that you only have to deal with me spouting of my opinion here, instead of encouraging Langdon to suspend you all for TOS violations ...


I understand that you didn't mean it the way it sounds, but nevertheless this was IMO a VERY ill-advised comment. A reasonable person can see an implied threat in that statement, And it rubbed me the wrong way when I read it also. Not only that, it makes no SENSE any other way, since each one of us has the power (and arguably the obligation) to report any TOS violations we encounter via the "contact us" or "report post" features, so it's perfectly reasonable for a neutral observer to see your statement as implying that you have substantially greater power to influence Langdon as an SC than you do as a site member.

I'm not surprised coronamv is offended by this, and I wish you hadn't said it at all, general.

Robt.

Message edited by author 2006-09-06 10:00:05.
 09/06/2006 10:04:21 AM · #46
Regarding the overall tenor/substance of this thread, although I'm one who very much appreciated ergo's work and his contributions, I don't completely understand what he was fussing at. This seems to me a case of splitting hairs and then acting rashly, sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. He started a thread expressing an opinion he KNEW would be wildly unpopular, he actually CHALLENGED people to confront his opinion, and when they did so he got angry and left the site. The decision was entirely his, and it seems to me a very short-sighted one. But of course he has to do whatever feels right for him. I just don't see why we, collectively, should be blamed for this.

Robt.
 09/06/2006 10:17:32 AM · #47
Couldn't have said it better myself.


Originally posted by Bear_Music:
He started a thread expressing an opinion he KNEW would be wildly unpopular, he actually CHALLENGED people to confront his opinion, and when they did so he got angry and left the site. The decision was entirely his, and it seems to me a very short-sighted one. But of course he has to do whatever feels right for him. I just don't see why we, collectively, should be blamed for this.

Robt.

09/06/2006 10:24:39 AM · #48
I think that the distinction is that ergo was arguing that it is a reasonable thing to critically assess the dead, rather than (in his words) lionize them.

I share ergo's confusion at the world that people become grief stricken when a media celeb dies. It is normal to be saddened, or dissappointed, but struck with grief? This is not to suggest that death is not a personal tragedy for the family. However, some people seem to consider themselves akin to family members, which is very odd when they are in reality nothing more than audience members.

A consequence of the oddity is that the normal conventions respecting the dead that would be observed when dealing with a close relative or friend of the deceased must be extended to people who have adopted this affinity. Objective criticism is therefore very difficult (even in a community that is in no other way connected to the deceased).

I think that perhaps ergo's mistake was to confront that oddity, rather than acknowledge that (even though it is very odd) it happens and people get upset about these things. The same happened for Diana and JFK Jr.

As for the angry statements made earlier in this thread, they too are unproductive. It would be great if people were a little less prone to responding vigorously to perceived slights and insults, especially as text (and especially in the casual tone often used here) is so open to interpretation.
 09/06/2006 10:34:36 AM · #49
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
I share ergo's confusion at the world that people become grief stricken when a media celeb dies. It is normal to be saddened, or dissappointed, but struck with grief?


I think it's a religion thing. Celebrities have taken the place of Heroes, Minor Deities and Saints in a culture that we think is secular.
 09/06/2006 11:09:31 AM · #50
Comments about Ergo’s character are in no way relevant to the topic of Steve Irwin’s death or his methods. They were simply personal attacks with the intention of diminishing Ergo’s opinion by diminishing Ergo’s character. This is a very poor debate tactic that seems to be getting popular here. Shame on SC for allowing it to happen.

You’re wrong because you’re stupid/insensitive/uneducated/a nazi/liberal/conservative/closed mindedâ€Â¦ = personal attack

You’re wrong because even though titanium is less dense then gold, it is harder and stronger. = solid argument based on facts.

It’s great to disagree, but stick to facts relevant to the topic. If your opinion holds water you should not have to resort to personal attacks to diminish the other person’s opinion to show you are right. Anytime you are talking about the person you are debating with and not the topic you are debating about you are probably making a personal attack.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 05:30:10 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 05:30:10 PM EDT.