From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 05/06/01-03:33:17 PM Z
On Sun, 6 May 2001, Michael Mutmansky wrote:
> Enough has been said about this, it seems that we get more volume from
> the self-righteous complainers than from the occasional off topic
> discussions. The egos and the soapboxes that are on this discussion
> forum are almost intolerable. I think I may go off line, and check in
> the archives from time to time to read through the worthwhile
> discussions (of which there are precious few). It's a much better way
> to go than having to scan and delete a few dozen posts in a day when
> somebody's ego has been bruised.
Actually Michael, speaking of "egos and soapboxes," I think I can qualify
your point. Over the years the MOST "self-righteous volume" has been the
howls, squeals or other ugly complaints from LURKERS who enter with high
dudgeon when something or other (and no telling what) arouses their ire.
Then, having made this shot their sole contribution to the discourse, they
disappear back into the woodwork.
So exactly what are you threatening folks with? That you'll get your
freebies offline? This is devastating. But let me suggest a new
calculator. Your count of "a few dozen" is off by a factor of, what, 12?
There were (unless the digitons are censoring my mail again) UNTIL YOU
STIRRED THE POT, maybe a half-dozen emails discussing the issue, none of
them uncivil, and maybe another half dozen good (or medium) faith replies
to the question.
But if you find the "worthwhile discussions" here so "precious few" as you
add insult to insult by claiming, perhaps you've come to the wrong place
to begin with. Have you considered a bicycle club? Don't knock it -- many
of the early photography clubs evolved from or into bicycle clubs. Then
there were those who took the camera on the bicycle... Though that might
be off topic...
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST