Responsibility of website owners

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

09/28/2008 05:00:47 PM · #1

This was previously intended for the General Discussion thread Ken Rockwell - Genius or Fool?

That thread while a magnet for arguing is not meant for arguing so I am moving this here.

For those who have not been following this topic, if brief; Ken Rockwell has a photography website where he shares his knowledge of photography with others. It is an extremely popular website and chances are searching for anything to do with Nikon will turn up at least one link to his website.

Ken is a fun loving guy not unlike our own

Art Roflmao. He enjoys making light of certain subjects and sometimes makes things up for fun. He also has a very slanted opinion on the way things should and should not be when it comes to photography.

Ken provides a disclaimer about his fun loving nature and changing facts to make them humorous, and that he is very opinionated and that his opinion may be wrong.

The disagreement, or one of them comes from where he chose to place such a disclaimer. Most of Ken's website visits come from Google to specific pages about specific topics.

Ken has placed his disclaimer on his About page, linked to from the bottom of his other pages.

Some believe this to be perfectly acceptable and that he could even remove the disclaimer altogether. Others, like me believe that he should at least link to his disclaimer at the top of each of his public facing pages, instead of hiding it in the back room.

I have argued that... well I'll just quote myself from the previous thread...

Originally posted by togtog:

6. He is the devil! Ok ok, a little unfair, I believe the more popular someone becomes the more dangerous they become and also the more responsibility they must assume, to be good members of the society they are in. Now I'm not saying he is dangerous by any means, but I think he has the potential, and I honestly wish he was more forthcoming with his disclaimers. Otherwise his site is great and he seems like a great fun loving guy who happens to love photography.

Now without further ado...

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by togtog:
I believe the more popular someone becomes the more dangerous they become and also the more responsibility they must assume, to be good members of the society they are in.

Okay.....why?

The society he is in is his.....don't agree or see it his way, click off.

It's his site, he states that his opinions are to be taken as just that, and he openly states that he's full of it in some instances.

How much more responsibility would you have him assume?

Furthermore, you're trying to project YOUR definition onto him........there are others who certainly do not agree.

It is HIS site.......his only responsibility is to his own vision of it.

I believe I have answered this in full mindnumbing detail previously in this thread when you previously asked.

However in summary:
He chose to make his website open to the public. Akin to an open house. Come on in and have a look around, read through my books, stay out of the fridge. Nothing wrong at all with that. However, as insurance goes, if you get hurt in his house, you can sue, why? Because he is responsible for all those who visit him. He does not need to previously state his home is safe or reassure people, just unlocking the door is enough.

Now he can put a sign on the front door, that says, warning, wet floor, broken glass, last nights meatloaf. Stores do it, because it covers their asses, otherwise you slip and fall and you can sue. However, his website is public, but he doesn't have a sign on the door. Warning my facts might be made up. No, he has it on his business card/on his About page, so to know the danger you have to look for that first.

But I know what you are thinking, his website is just text, and one among so many others it couldn't possibly harm anyone. A book on bomb making is just text and one among so many other books. Text can be harmful, knowledge when improperly applied can be harmful, false knowledge when applied correctly or incorrectly can also be harmful.

I believe all public website owners have a responsibility to the public, to at the very least do no harm.

Thank you.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

09/28/2008 05:11:09 PM · #2

IMO, when I am on the web, the responsibility for what I read and/or believe is mine, and mine alone -- not the website from which I am reading.

If Rockwell* wanted to post complete and total bull crap, and blatant lies, that is his business -- in the end, it is a reflection on him for writing it.

If I believe it, then it is my fault for not investigating further to see if it was a credible source.

*or any website author

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

09/28/2008 05:15:51 PM · #3

Originally posted by karmat:

I concur.

09/28/2008 05:44:15 PM · #4

No matter how buried it is, he still has a sign that says his personal disclaimer.

Though, I think its more important to point out, why do you think you have the right to tell me how to decorate my house? Since you are using that analogy.

Should website owners/operators be responsible, Yes, for certain things. Most importantly the security of their users/visitors. For being foolish enough to believe everything they read... no.

There are laws to protect people... but they do not protect you from your own stupidity.

09/28/2008 10:11:20 PM · #5

karmat, I agree with you that it the website owners business. It is at the very least an issue of free speech. I do my research also, it is why I have a SB-800 and not a 600, it is why I have a D300 and not another P&S. However I do not like to assume, that I am a leading example as the general population. I don't worry about myself getting hurt, I worry about the majority who might.

littlegett, I disagree that it doesn't matter if it is buried or not. That doesn't work in the real world so why on the internet? If a store had water on the floor and someone slipped, the store could not say, well we have a sign for a wet floor in the storage closest. It wouldn't fly. People can look down and see water usually, but that doesn't protect the business either. And businesses have more lawyers than anyone, if there was a loophole you would think they would use it.

Also I said nothing about decorating a house, please show me where I did. I could care less what colors and images someone uses on their website or on their walls. I specifically spoke of guests being injured while visiting and the owner being liable for it. If you decorate your house with hand guns, and prescription drugs within the reach of kids I doubt it would fly in court as being your own personal design choice.

Changing gears, I think both karmat and littlegett touched on something and it makes me wonder if I misspoke myself.

I never intended to imply or accuse anyone, Ken Rockwell the least of all, of breaking any sort of law. There are no (well until Bush and the RIAA) laws governing what you can have on your website. Ken is completely within his rights to remove his disclaimer and call Canon users good for nothings if that is what he would like to do.

That isn't what this thread was intended to address.

What I intended to address was my opinion that as a responsible good citizen that a website owner should be as forthcoming as possible about potential misunderstanding in the information they provide.

Take for example, two neighbors. They are not friends nor enemies. The one learns that the other is going to have a large BBQ in a couple weeks on the same day his septic tank is being dug up. The odor may obviously cause problems for the other neighbors guests. He has no obligation to do anything whatsoever. In fact he can pop his head over the fence and laugh at everyone.

However is that the right thing to do, is it the neighborly thing to do? Would it not be better to go next door and warn the neighbor about the septic work? It doesn't cost anything but a little energy but it could make someones, in fact a lot of peoples day a lot better.

I dunno, I wonder if it was my upbringing, genes, or something else. That I believe people should help one another, look out for one another, and think about others problems besides their own.

This thread is intended to address this subject in general. The only reason I continued mentioning Ken Rockwell is because of his popularity. I honestly believe the more popular someone is, the more likely they will be taken at face value. I'm not blaming them for being popular, nor for people taking what they say at face value. I'm not trying to blame anyone for anything.

However I honestly believe, the neighborly, the right thing to do, is to not assume people will know better, not assume they will take what you say as a joke or with a grain of salt, but rather assume they will misunderstand, will take what you say with as much weight as you are popular or more, and then try to counter that.

09/29/2008 01:31:23 AM · #6

Originally posted by togtog:

He chose to make his website open to the public. Akin to an open house.

Your example is what I referred to, and as such the decorating example is of you forcing me to hang a sign on the wall saying 'Hey STUPID!!! there is a floor here, watch your step'. In other words you want to decorate the site with warnings/disclaimers.

Your example is stating physical personal injury to an individual. Believing something you read on the web does not cause physical injury.

I don't know who this fella is you keep talking to, you say he is famous. Ok. so he is some guy with a camera who has a website who writes stuff about stuff. Big deal. If he is your single source of information, you are the one in the fools cap.

Your example of your neighbor having a bbq, unless my neighbor came to me and said he was having a bbq, or even did the 'neighborly' thing and invited me I would worry about it. But ya know, the thing about me is I never take hearsay as truth. Rumor control and drama. thats all it is.

Seriously now, take what you are saying and think about it. Why are you forcing me to bend to your will? What makes you think you know whats best for me, luke, or the other guy?

One disclaimer is good enough if the owner so wishes to place it. If they desire to have it linked on every page it is their choice. If they don't, it's their choice. There is no reason they should.

Lastly, if we all bent to the will of each other, there would be nothing left of anyone. With the diversity of people within the world you will never make everyone happy. If you try you will die miserable.

09/29/2008 05:15:22 AM · #7

Originally posted by littlegett:

Originally posted by togtog:
He chose to make his website open to the public. Akin to an open house.

Your example is what I referred to, and as such the decorating example is of you forcing me to hang a sign on the wall saying 'Hey STUPID!!! there is a floor here, watch your step'. In other words you want to decorate the site with warnings/disclaimers.

I am sorry but I am still having trouble grasping the relation between warning signs, and decorations. The two things seem completely different to me. Also, who is forcing anyone to do anything? I clearly stated no law was being broken, and that no law should be made. I implied no force to my knowledge. I said, putting up a clear disclaimer at the top of a webpage to be "A NICE AND KIND THING TO DO" PERIOD.

Originally posted by littlegett:

Your example is stating physical personal injury to an individual. Believing something you read on the web does not cause physical injury.

Is physical injury the only type of injury that counts? In Nazi Germany propaganda was one of Hitlers most powerful tools, and consisted of nothing but words and sometimes the occasional drawing. Is that ok? Since the public should not have believed what they read?

People in general tend to listen to those who are the loudest, those who stand the highest, those who are the most famous.

Originally posted by littlegett:

I don't know who this fella is you keep talking to, you say he is famous. Ok. so he is some guy with a camera who has a website who writes stuff about stuff. Big deal. If he is your single source of information, you are the one in the fools cap.

Again, I am not specifically referring to "this fella" but websites in general. However since you brought him up. He is not, some guy. He is the top lister on Google for almost any Nikon related search. He is loud and stands high and has an aire of fame surrounding him.

Why shouldn't people listen to an obvious professional in the field, with a leading website, who seems to know everything there is to know about Nikons and cameras in general?

To take your example to the extreme, means that no one should do research about anything. It is all just text, anyone could be wrong. The only way to be sure is to gather up a few thousand dollars and buy everything, try it, and send the bad stuff back. People shouldn't listen to reviews on sites like DPReview, who are they anyway? Wait, who do you buy from, you cannot trust anyones ratings or opinions on the internet so you need to visit only local stores, but who is to say they can be trusted either. Someone on a forum said they got ripped off by the company, however who are they, just a stranger.

In reality, life requires a degree of blind trust. Unless you have the means and process to test by hand everything you interact with.

People visit websites often with a degree of blind trust, why would someone lie to them? Why would someone make up facts as jokes? Why would someone go through the effort of providing such a vast resource only to salt it with problems?

Originally posted by littlegett:

Your example of your neighbor having a bbq, unless my neighbor came to me and said he was having a bbq, or even did the 'neighborly' thing and invited me I would worry about it. But ya know, the thing about me is I never take hearsay as truth. Rumor control and drama. thats all it is.

If the neighbor visited you and told you about the BBQ, and invited you, he was having meatless items too if your prefer that. Saturday the 19th, 5pm. Assuming you could make it, would you go over? What he said is just hearsay, he had no proof of a pending BBQ, he could have just been yanking your chain.

So your answer is you would not warn your neighbor of the pending septic work the day of his BBQ, because you have no proof there will be a BBQ.

Originally posted by littlegett:

Seriously now, take what you are saying and think about it. Why are you forcing me to bend to your will? What makes you think you know whats best for me, luke, or the other guy?

I have thought about it, I ask you do the same. I do not understand where I am forcing anyone to my will. Does this mean, that if my opinion differs from yours I should just shut up? If I state my opinion, I must be trying to force someone?

Anarchist? Let me think about your question a moment... which is best, warning people of potential harm, or not warning people of potential harm. Hmm, damn... you warn someone, they are now more informed. Information is power, so you are empowering people. They can still do what they want. On the other hand, you do not warn anyone, you do not empower them.

Ok, yeah I'm sure. It is better to inform people and empower them to make better choices than to let them stumble around in the dark.

Originally posted by littlegett:

One disclaimer is good enough if the owner so wishes to place it. If they desire to have it linked on every page it is their choice. If they don't, it's their choice. There is no reason they should.

So, your absolute answer is, website owners have no responsibility whatsoever for their content, information, or the result of people using that content or information.

Originally posted by littlegett:

Lastly, if we all bent to the will of each other, there would be nothing left of anyone. With the diversity of people within the world you will never make everyone happy. If you try you will die miserable.

Do you try to make anyone happy?

Again, I know I never implied that everyone should do anything anyone else wants. I said, people should not harm one another. I said, people should look out for one another, you know, stop at stop signs, look for old ladies crossing the street, you know, being nice, being responsible. Sure you can get through life pushing everyone out of your way, not holding the door for anyone, not telling someone they dropped their wallet. You can get through life just fine like that. Some people don't even have trouble sleeping living that sort of life.

Again, maybe it is just my upbringing. When I agree to do a job for someone, I do the job but I don't stop when it is "good enough". I stop when I have done all I can, made it the best I could. I don't get paid for the extra effort, at least not in money, but my clients sure seem happy and they keep coming back. I hold the door for people with their arms full, without asking for payment upfront nor afterwards.

Am I bending to the will of others? Am I trying to make everyone else happy? What is the alternative, I ignore that anyone else exists in the world except for me, I am all that matters?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

09/29/2008 05:27:40 AM · #8

You seriously sound like charlie browns teacher and you have nothing real to offer. Though, to answer your questions to a finite degree as I possibly can I will say this.

Each person is responsible for their own selves. That is the only person they have control over.

If a person writes a hate statement/racial remarks and later that day gets beat the hell up... well he had to take responsibility for what he wrote and as a reaction of such. Could the other guy have done something else.. Yes, there is always a choice, but that person will have to take responsibility for what they did.

Anyway, you talk about power, and if you allow some schmuck with the loudest voice to give you your 'blind' opinions... that's the responsibility you take in your own judgment. Good, Bad, or Ugly.

Yet, it seems you are trying to make this a question of Morals. As sure as each person is different their set of Morals is different.

So, Should a website owner be Responsible for the content of their site? Well DUH!,

Should a website owner be Responsible for how people interpret the content or how much Value the user puts in the content? No.

Mental Damage is about the stupidest thing ever invented. And your comparison of Nazi Propaganda to some guys lies on a website is even more so. I am becoming mentally hurt right now because you are not taking my view seriously. Oh the Misery.....

Blind trust in some guy with a big mouth. Remind me not to sit next to you on a plane. I bet you use Wiki for actual research as well huh?

-----
Edit to add,

I don't try to make anyone happy. I am a grumpy broken old man who has been burnt too many times by everyone including the Government and more.

Anarchy, well thank you. Chaos is the base grounds of life and controlled Anarchy is what the government is currently creating, it is what society is begging for and soon to follow more will fall.

Message edited by author 2008-09-29 05:29:49.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

09/29/2008 07:20:09 AM · #9

Originally posted by togtog:

However, as insurance goes, if you get hurt in his house, you can sue, why? Because he is responsible for all those who visit him.

Again, why? Just because some courts with no common sense have upheld some really stupid suits. That makes it legal, not right.

*I* am responsible for my own actions, not someone else, if I trip and fall because I'm not watching where I'm going.

Originally posted by togtog:

Now he can put a sign on the front door, that says, warning, wet floor, broken glass, last nights meatloaf. Stores do it, because it covers their asses, otherwise you slip and fall and you can sue.

And the sign does *NOT* guarantee you that you'll be absolved.......you're kidding yourself or horribly misinformed if you think it will.

Originally posted by togtog:

However, his website is public, but he doesn't have a sign on the door. Warning my facts might be made up. No, he has it on his business card/on his About page, so to know the danger you have to look for that first.

And AGAIN......don't want to be influenced by his opinions, click off.

You got there on your own, *YOU* choose what you want to make of the information, and if you take one person's opinion as gospel, you're a fool, period.

Originally posted by togtog:

But I know what you are thinking, his website is just text, and one among so many others it couldn't possibly harm anyone. A book on bomb making is just text and one among so many other books. Text can be harmful, knowledge when improperly applied can be harmful, false knowledge when applied correctly or incorrectly can also be harmful.

Equating Ken's opinions on Nikons and photography with a book on making bombs is irresponsible.

Originally posted by togtog:

I believe all public website owners have a responsibility to the public, to at the very least do no harm.

There you have it.......YOU believe.

I don't believe any such thing.

*I* choose whose opinions influence my decisions and accept responsibility for the outcome.

Period.

I would like some legitimate examples, proof if you will, of what possible harm could come from someone attaching too much importance to what Ken Rockwell states on his website.

Using your own example, I'd be willing to bet that nobody's even slipped on last night's meatloaf because of it.......8>)

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

09/29/2008 07:25:39 AM · #10

Originally posted by togtog:

In reality, life requires a degree of blind trust.

You know you actually said this out loud?

It absolutely, unequivocally does NOT!

Part of learning in life is to know who to trust, by being taught well by those who raise you and what you experience along the way.

There's a reason it's called BLIND trust.

Prof_Fate

09/29/2008 08:22:06 AM · #11

A website is like a book. You can open it to any page and you don't have to read the whole thing, and freedom of speech applies. That means the info can be wrong, get outdated or have no basis in fact or be 100% opinion or even humour.

Books often have a disclaimer in them. It's not on every page. The reader has some responsibility too.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

09/29/2008 10:16:54 AM · #12

togtog -- My responses are that of an Internet page reader, not an Internet page writer.

But, even as a writer (not that I do webpages, but I do blog, does that count?), I can write what I feel is the truth, even if you feel differently. I, personally, wouldn't deliberately lie, and I suspect 96% of the writers would say the same. (42% of statistics are made up on the spot).

If you asked Ken Rockwell if here were deliberately trying to mislead people, what would he say?

The only responsibility the website owner has is to follow the laws of the country/state/province that apply to him. Common decency may make him/her go beyond that, but that is where the responsibility ends.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

09/29/2008 10:44:53 AM · #13

Do you wrap yoursaelf in 6" of bubble wrap before you go out the door?

09/29/2008 05:20:06 PM · #14

Hello all,

First I want to thank those who replied, even if it was merely to insult me. :)

This I believe, to be a failed experiment. I wanted to invoke a discussion of responsibility, instead everyone became focused on my words and discussed nothing between themselves.

I wanted to probe the age old question of "Am I my brothers keeper?".

Do we as a society have a responsibility, a duty, to do what we can, to help others?

We have heard from a small handful of members here. All who have replied seem to be in agreement that we are in fact not our brothers keepers. At least in the context of written materials. Some go further into physical dangers.

I am not opposed to personal responsibility, however I do not agree that each person should stand on their own. I believe we as a social species have evolved or been designed, to interact with one another, and to need one another. To function as a larger unit is to be stronger and more successful usually.

The second question I wanted to probe was "Are works of text and therefore websites a potentially dangerous medium?".

Again all those who have replied seem to be in agreement that works of text are harmless and therefore so are websites.

The third question I wanted to probe was "Is it reasonable to expect someone new, to understand the details of which they are exposed, enough to decide fact from fiction.".

Again, heh, all those who have replied seem to be in agreement that it is reasonable to expect newbies to know what is going on, or to realize they do not know something.

I again, personally disagree, under the belief that a person cannot know of what they do not know, they can know of what they do know, they can be shown what of they do not know of, however since knowledge is endless it is impossible to know of what one does not know of. It is like proving a negative, knowing something is lacking is knowing that that something exists, and therefore requires knowing of that something first.

Another question I wished to probe was "Is it reasonable to expect a person to completely examine a website for a disclaimer, when only accessing a specific part of it?"

This question became kind of melted in all the heat. I believe at least two of those replying answered that it is reasonable to expect a person to examine a website completely for a disclaimer, when only accessing a specific part.

Finally, I wanted to probe the question of "Who are people supposed to trust and how is that trust to be obtained?"

The answer on this is still a little unclear to me. It seems those who have replied agree that people should know who to trust, however no detail of the process used has been given. Maybe it is a hunch.

Which brings a new question to mind "Why should anyone trust anyone, or anything, at any time?"

I apologize for not addressing your points specifically, you have taken the time to reply and this must seem a bailout compared to your efforts. I do not reasonably trust, that this discussion as it was headed, could end in any positive place.

This may be Rant however that does not mean people should fight and insult one another. It is obvious the discussion stopped before it began. I thank

karmat and

K10DGuy for replying as a discussion and not an argument.

I want to specifically apologize to

NikonJeb since it was me who invited him. He so far has seemed to be the most interested in hearing my opinions even if in complete disagreement, so I feel I am doing him a great disservice now.

I wish to thank all those who have replied, again. I may work on a further reply to this thread when I have time to dedicate the care required to address everyones specific points in a thought out manner, but other things sometimes do come up.

Until then I wish you all the best in life and photography, may your film never be exposed to bright light, and may all your meatloaf end up on the table and not on the floor.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

09/29/2008 06:08:50 PM · #15

Originally posted by togtog:

Do we as a society have a responsibility, a duty, to do what we can, to help others?

No, we have no responsibility to anyone. We have become a society of Individuals which was created from the individuals within the society. If you want a different society stop shiting on your neighbor.
You can argue the moral aspects of it all, but from birth there is no responsibility for me to help anyone as such no one to help me.

Originally posted by togtog:

The second question I wanted to probe was "Are works of text and therefore websites a potentially dangerous medium?".

The Pen is Mightier than the sword. Always has been always will be. Yet, in context to the originality of what you are saying, only text is dangerous is the text a fool reads.

Originally posted by togtog:

The third question I wanted to probe was "Is it reasonable to expect someone new, to understand the details of which they are exposed, enough to decide fact from fiction.".

A person who is searching for information, should have the common sense enough to research multiple sources. If they find one source and take it as gospel than that is their own ignorance/laziness at work. It is reasonable to expect a person with even the smallest amount of intelligence to uncover the truth and not have to be spoon fed.

Originally posted by togtog:

Another question I wished to probe was "Is it reasonable to expect a person to completely examine a website for a disclaimer, when only accessing a specific part of it?"

Again, intelligence comes into play or at least common sense. A person should read the disclaimer to each site they visit. Do we? No, but we should. It is there to inform us about the intent of the site and what we should and should not expect. Like a sign on the front door of a restaurant (No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service) The sign shouldn't be difficult to locate, but does not need to be on every table.

Originally posted by togtog:

Finally, I wanted to probe the question of "Who are people supposed to trust and how is that trust to be obtained?"

If you have to ask us who to trust and how to trust them you have some serious issues on your own. It is up to the individual to decide who/what to trust and they do this based off experience, gut instinct and multiple sources of data. Did you trust any teachers in High school? If you did, you did because of your friends (See its Plural) and your own experience with them. Same thing, with a website you don't go there to give blind trust to someone you don't know or know anything about and expect them to have all the answers. You deserve to get what you get if you do.

Originally posted by togtog:

Which brings a new question to mind "Why should anyone trust anyone, or anything, at any time?"

Trust NOONE! Question Everything!

End notes,

Thanks for completely ignoring my arguments.

Though I do want to say, it seems you expect us all to hold the hand of each other and baby each other through every single aspect of everything. Spoon feeding them and guiding them to enlightenment. However, you fail to see that there will be a continuous line of people wanting and expecting that same treatment and you will only find yourself being held back.

So it is reasonable to expect people to do the research on their own and find their own answers. It is not reasonable to expect for me to spoon feed and hold your hand through life.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

09/29/2008 08:15:34 PM · #16

I thought of another analogy that is tangentially related to the questions of "Who is responsible?"

McDonald's makes a Big MAC sandwich. The nutritional value on this beast is unreal. 540 calories, 29 fat grams, 75 g of cholesterol, etc. etc.

This guy takes Big Macs to the extreme.

Now, if said man develops high-blood pressure, heart disease, and obesity, who is responsible?

McDonald's for continuing to manufacture such a thing, though it is a potential health risk, or the person's for eating it.

Following togtog's argument, McDonald's should have a responsibility to do what is best for the consumers, so we are offered a choice of grilled chicken salads with lite Ranch or fat free French dressings.

What will most customers do? Go to Burger King.

Likewise with websites. A person who is not a responsible website builder probably won't have a thriving site, but even the most "out there" sites, even if they spew nothing but hate and lies (ever happened upon a white supremacy site?) will have loyal followers.

Whether a person is using the Internet or written/printed sources of information, it is their responsibility to cross check and reference to make sure the information is reliable/valid.

We live in a society, it would seem, of "It is my responsibility, except when I can find someone else to blame. And if I can, at all, I will blame someone else."

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

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

09/29/2008 08:20:28 PM · #17

Originally posted by karmat:

I am reminded of an SNL skit recently with Michael Phelps and his diet.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

09/29/2008 08:26:50 PM · #18

I answered as I did because expanding on anything would have been fruitless.

When you decide, Togtog, that you can offer up a discussion in an unbiased, non-opinionated way, follow up on the arguments and responses with measured, unbiased, non-emotional responses, and find a way to word your responses without making it seem like you're trying to cattle-herd people into a pre-measured belief on the topic, you'll find that you might get the open and positive discussion you claim to be looking for.

You are doomed to failure in this if you continue to accuse people of attacking you when they're simply disagreeing, when you completely ignore points because they don't fit in with your opinion, and when you make it seem like something is the responder's problem when it isn't.
eg.

Originally posted by togtog:

We have heard from a small handful of members here. All who have replied seem to be in agreement that we are in fact not our brothers keepers. At least in the context of written materials. Some go further into physical dangers.

The line in bold is especially troubling, as the only person that brought up physical dangers was yourself, yet you're trying to push it onto the people responding to the ridiculousness of the analogy.

So, when you finally figure out how to have and/or start a discussion without being too personal about the discussion, you may finally achieve what you claim to want to achieve.

Message edited by author 2008-09-29 20:41:04.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

09/29/2008 09:09:20 PM · #19

Originally posted by togtog:

I believe all public website owners have a responsibility to the public, to at the very least do no harm.

Thank you.

I believe all public website readers have a responsibility to themselves, to at the very least not be idiots.

Same with the people who read books. Or would you blame the publishers? They don't have a disclaimer on each and every page.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

09/30/2008 12:48:50 AM · #20

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

I admit I executed my thread foolishly and got what was coming to me for it. I was emotionally charged before beginning the thread and remained so throughout everyones replies. I admit that I formed this thread with an agenda to prove myself and my way superior. I won't lie that I still believe it is...

However

I did not intend, to belittle or to attack any of your beliefs even if counter to my own. I had thought that I took proper care to not belittle or attack any of you, I obviously was mistaken.

I am extremely opinionated and become emotionally charged when others attack my beliefs (not that any of you did), I should have expected the same result when I unintentionally attacked your beliefs. So I also apologize for this and accept the results of it.

I also admit that sometimes since I become emotionally charged I over state my position into the ludicrous, which obviously makes me look as fanatical as perhaps I am.

I used to be good with debates, I also used to be younger and a lot less emotional. :)

So, is it too late to ask for help from you all?

Here is where I am. There are at least twenty points others have made that I have not personally replied to.

I would honestly like to address everyone. However I no longer want to "convert" anyone, at least at this time, and certainly not by blunt force. And I believe my previous questions have been answered and I believe I know how all of you feel on this topic now.

So, how should I progress? If any of you wish me to progress at all that is.

A few of the points directed at me and not the topic I believe to be misunderstandings, but again I am unsure that I can address those points without things further flaring up.

My ball keeps landing in a sand trap, anyone care to give me a handicap?

Sorry again for being so pompous and pig headed, I hope I get a chance to either change your opinions of me or at least make you dislike me for the right reasons and not because my foot is in my mouth. :)

pentaxguy48

09/30/2008 11:23:16 AM · #21

Thanks for raising this discussion:

Togtog, do you think Fox news should flash a sign every 10 minutes that says something like "Warning, the thing about fair and balanced, we just made that up, we are really a propaganda station owned by Rupert Murdock and our content is a non-stop polemic in favor of right wing political ideals aimed at the lowest common denominator in society."

Flash

Nikon D700

09/30/2008 02:22:45 PM · #22

I must say that I am extermely pleased to read these many posts in favor of individual responsibility and accountability.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

09/30/2008 02:40:36 PM · #23

Originally posted by pentaxguy48:

Better register your copyright on that tag line, before FOX News rips it off and sells a gazillion T-shirts, perhaps printed over a background outlining "a certain hand gesture"â�¢ ... ;-)