Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Wed, 13 Jan 1999 01:38:42 -0500 (EST)
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Gene Laughter wrote:
> ... Oh, it seems so long ago ...
>
> When reading the Alt Photo list was actually F-U-N. I mean I really
> looked forward to reading every post here. There was a true feeling and
> spirit of community ... even kidding -- humor yet! People learned from
> each other, but laughed a lot too.
>
> A good friend, who was a regular contributor on this list, once said
> that when the fun was no more on this list, he was "history." He
> unsubscribed this week. Like many of the former contributors on the Alt
> Photo list, his attitude developed into "who needs the grief?"
>
> Has this now become a list for splitting hairs, proving micro points and
> beating dead horses? Is this now a list with an attitude?
>
> Back to the land of lurkers,
>
> Gene>
Gene, I agree with you that this discussion about continuous tone vs
digital seems to have gotten about as inane as it's possible to get in a
cool medium like cyberspace. But I disagree with your conclusion -- on
several grounds.
First of all, since when is "back to the land of lurkers" an acceptable
"solution"? You're a theatre critic? If you are speaking up as a
disgruntled subscriber, you have a responsibility to pitch in and help
solve the problem. Recite a formula. Tell about your latest print, or
other triumph. Surely you have some good stuff you could share. Meanwhile,
delete anything that comes by with the message line about continuous tone,
or whatever displeases you. No one has a gun at your head.
Secondly, I think it's dangerous to -- unintentionally perhaps -- promote
the idea that it's the responsibility of everyone in this discussion group
to entertain. To be fun. The fun is often present, delightfully so, but
it's a side effect, not the obligation of posters. And calling for fun in
this way could give the impression that serious discussion is unwelcome --
which could trivialize discourse as much as parsing silver grains.
This tonal discussion didn't enlighten all of us as much as we might wish,
but it seemed to satisfy the participants, who are doing the work & taking
the risk. Since there's no quota, it didn't keep worthier material off, so
where's the harm? If any one of us could see into the future, see the
progress an exchange would make -- we're wasted in alt photo, we belong in
the UN. To grow the kinds of discussions that have flowered so wonderfully
in the past & surely will again, we have to permit quite a number of duds.
But I'd be willing to bet that there is no consensus about which are the
duds, anyway.
If the idea sets in that entertainment values rule, that there's some kind
of Neilsen rating, then the serious technical, arcane , expert information
that to my mind is the true glory of this list (and from which I myself
have increased my knowledge several times over) is stifled. For
*entertainment* I live within walking distance of 10 movie houses (well,
I'm a good walker). I'm here for tech talk.
And, I cannot but add, I don't think a day passes that I don't get an
offlist question that is serious, worthy, valid, and technical --
sometimes I can answer, sometimes I can't -- but these questions SHOULD go
to the list, so everyone could learn & contribute. People are afraid
they'll get complaints, that they're perhaps not fun enough, not clever
enough, whatever. I generally suggest taking the questions to the list.
Sometimes they get there, often they don't. They should. They're
interesting... and not playing anywhere else on the globe, as far as I
know.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:41