Re: ULF photography

When did you turn into such a pompous ass? I haven't seen a hint of this
until the last week. Oh, well, maybe you've always beens this way when
among friends. Or is this simply a bad week? Don't answer.

And my reference to certification was made because that seems how new
acronyms are developed and proliferated, at least in the computer world.
Then the newly certified can go out into the world thinking they know
more than everyone who's been working in the field for years.

Pam

Sandy King wrote:

>
>
> Where did I write that one need to be a certified ULF photographer to
> know anything useful? I simply stated that photographers who are
> involved with ULF work know what the term means, and that is is those
> persons who could be expected to know enough about it to contribute
> useful information to a web site that features this type of work.
>
> Granted there may be a lone soul or two out there working with cameras
> lager than 8X10" who has never heard of the term ULF but based on my
> own interaction with photographers that situation is quite uncommon.
>
> Of course, a lack of knowledge about a given subject is not enough to
> keep some people from commenting about it, as this thread shows.
>
> Sandy
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Ah, so you need to be a certified ULF photographer to know anything
>> useful? This is ridiculous. Suppose someone has been doing very large
>> format photography for 20 years, but has never seen it referred to by
>> your acronym?
>>
>> Pam
>>
>> Sandy King wrote:
>>
>>> I don't know what you may have thought the first time, but there was
>>> nothing personal about my response. I just think it would be much
>>> better for folks on the list to not waste the time of others by
>>> responding to things they know nothing about.
>>>
>>> It seems very clear to me. Patrick asked for contributions about ULF
>>> photography, and I don't think persons who don't even know what the
>>> letters mean stand to make much of a contribution, so why waste time
>>> with an answer that contributes nothing. I don't see that as a rude
>>> comment, just an honest opinion.
>>>
>>> Sandy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 sanking@CLEMSON.EDU wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No reason to screw 'em. Just ignore 'em since they don't have
>>>>> anything to
>>>>> contribute but BS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sandy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well Sandy, I'd been about to post a semi-apology to you, but you
>>>> seem to make that superfluous -- not to mention that if everything
>>>> non-ULF photographers contribute is BS, you probably aren't even
>>>> reading this.
>>>>
>>>> However, being the fair-minded, sweet-natured, good person that I
>>>> am, I note the following: Due to a REAL screw-up on the Internet
>>>> (see NY Times business section today, Tuesday) my service provider,
>>>> Panix, was hijacked to Australia by way of Canada, which may
>>>> account for the fact that Patrick's explanation of the term and
>>>> apology for not explaining appeared in my queue long after your
>>>> comment that non-ULF users had nothing to contribute.
>>>>
>>>> That comment had seemed a strangely rude reply to a good-natured
>>>> query. Then, reflecting on the sequence, I figured you probably
>>>> meant something else.
>>>>
>>>> Now it looks like I was right the first time.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry about that.
>>>>
>>>> Judy
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 sanking@CLEMSON.EDU wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... People who do not know that
>>>>>>> ULF means ultra large format are likely to have little or
>>>>>>> nothing to
>>>>>>> contribute to your site.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In which case, screw 'em?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> J.
>>>>>
>
>
Received on Wed Jan 19 21:57:41 2005