Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / Large Format / February 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Next View Camera conference

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Largformat - 10 Sep 2004 17:01 GMT
We have selected Springfield, MA May 20-22, 2005. The trade show is free and
the New England Large Format Group will be doing field trips to local sites.

steve simmons
Jorge Gasteazoro - 11 Sep 2004 01:01 GMT
> We have selected Springfield, MA May 20-22, 2005. The trade show is free and
> the New England Large Format Group will be doing field trips to local sites.
>
> steve simmons

This is typical, you post asking for suggestions and then you ignore
them and pick your own, why do you keep bothering everybody here with
this question? Couls it be so that once again you get to advertise
your conference for free under the guise of "asking for suggestions"?
If you think you are being clever, think again!
Largformat - 11 Sep 2004 02:12 GMT
Subject: Re: Next View Camera conference
From: rossorabbit@hotmail.com  (Jorge Gasteazoro)
Date: 9/10/2004 6:01 PM Mountain Daylight Time
Message-id: <555a3f23.0409101459.16f12b1c@posting.google.com>

largformat@aol.com (Largformat) wrote in message
news:<20040910120101.23677.00000487@mb-m06.aol.com>...
> We have selected Springfield, MA May 20-22, 2005. The trade show is free and
> the New England Large Format Group will be doing field trips to local sites.
>
> steve simmons

This is typical, you post asking for suggestions and then you ignore
them and pick your own, why do you keep bothering everybody here with
this question? Couls it be so that once again you get to advertise
your conference for free under the guise of "asking for suggestions"?
If you think you are being clever, think again!

Springfield was one of the places we mentioned as a possibility early on. I am
telling people about a free opportunity to meet with other lf photographers,
see equipment, photograph with people from a local area, etc., etc.

steve simmons
Jorge Gasteazoro - 11 Sep 2004 07:44 GMT
> Subject: Re: Next View Camera conference
> From: rossorabbit@hotmail.com  (Jorge Gasteazoro)
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> steve simmons

Would you please point to me where Springfield was mentioned, other
than by you?

WHat is free about going to a conference and meeting other
photographers? is like telling a doctor to go to a conference and that
he gets to meet other doctors for free...what a load of crap. Nope you
are hoping people will be hooked by this so they attend whatever you
have planned for the conferences and pay for it. Please dont try to
make it look as if you are doing this out of the goodness of your
heart. You are not fooling anybody with this BS. Once again, you
thought you were being clever by asking opinions, and true to form
just like all the other times, you made a choice which ignored all the
other suggestions and got to advertise your conference for
free.....once again, you are not being clever, and many of us are
tired of this.
Shelley - 11 Sep 2004 12:15 GMT
>I am
> > telling people about a free opportunity to meet with other lf photographers,

Free? I thought the only free parts were looking at the products for sale
(i.e. the trade show)  and the part where some local photographers took
people on a field trip in the Springfield area. Isn't there a charge for
actually attending the conference itself, i.e. attending the lectures,
getting critiques, etc?  IIRC last year it cost something like $150-$200 to
attend all the lectures and get a critique. Is the conference itself free
this year?  If not, perhaps you should disclose that just so people who are
unfamiliar with the fee structure of the conference aren't misled.

> > Subject: Re: Next View Camera conference
> > From: rossorabbit@hotmail.com  (Jorge Gasteazoro)
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> free.....once again, you are not being clever, and many of us are
> tired of this.
BBarlow690 - 11 Sep 2004 16:23 GMT
I, for one, posted Springfield early on as a suggestion, surely earning Jorge's
ire for all eternity.

Since then, I have lobbied Steve hard to bring it to the Northeast,
specifically to Springfield, and understand what all Steve and the VC folks
looked at in evaluating there and other eastern destinations as well, including
all the suggestions he received via posts.

I lobbied based on closeness to the Hartford/Springfield airport (that
consistently has good service and fares), availability of sufficient conference
space, proximity to interesting places to photograph (which I hope to have the
Western New England Large Format Photography Group help with outings), and not
the least, the Basketball Hall of Fame.  

So I'll take some of the rap, gladly, because I'm happy to see the conference
come east, and, quite honestly, be in my own back yard, even though I
thoroughly enjoye Monterey last April, and always enjoy Santa Fe.  Call me a
sore winner...

Bruce Barlow
Jorge Gasteazoro - 11 Sep 2004 23:33 GMT
> I, for one, posted Springfield early on as a suggestion, surely earning Jorge's
> ire for all eternity.
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Bruce Barlow

Nope, I could not care less where it is held or how much you lobbbied.
Certainly I dont see you as "winning" anything. I do notice you are
the only one suggesting this venue, when many more people suggested
Las Vegas, Chicago, etc. Cities that IMO would have been much more
convenient to many more people. In any case, the bottom line is not
having to read about this conference in this or any other forum every
two months, that I would like to see. Where is held, is of no
consequence to me, as I wont be attending any of them regardless of
where is held.
Anonymous - 12 Sep 2004 02:55 GMT
Perhaps Jorge and Shelley should go ahead and go to Chicago together.  I'd
sure they'd have a lovely time together together... LOL

>> I, for one, posted Springfield early on as a suggestion, surely earning
>> Jorge's
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
> consequence to me, as I wont be attending any of them regardless of
> where is held.
Shelley - 12 Sep 2004 04:00 GMT
Anonymous said:
> Perhaps Jorge and Shelley should go ahead and go to Chicago together.  I'd
> sure they'd have a lovely time together together  LOL

Thanks for the suggestion, I like Chicago a lot, great town, nice people,
the place where my Deardorff originated.  Perhaps you could join Jorge and I
in Chicago, the three of us could meet, have a beer together.   I'm a big
admirer of your posts here, some of them show so much maturity and
intelligence.

> Perhaps Jorge and Shelley should go ahead and go to Chicago together.  I'd
> sure they'd have a lovely time together together... LOL
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> > consequence to me, as I wont be attending any of them regardless of
> > where is held.
Anonymous - 12 Sep 2004 07:14 GMT
Well, that certainly shows YOUR IQ level, now doesn't it, Herr Shelley?

> I'm a big admirer of your posts here, some of them show so much maturity
> and intelligence.
BBarlow690 - 12 Sep 2004 16:29 GMT
Let's see.

Springfield, by car, is three hours from New York, maybe two hours from Boston,
and a half hour from Hartford.  It is seven hours by car from Washington,
presuming you don't fly into Hartford/Springfield airport, that is served by
Southwest, American, United, Delta, Continental, Northwest, and even Lufthansa,
to name a few.  I've ridden Amtrak through Springfield from Brattleboro to
Washington, and it was delightful.

Yup, Jorge, Springfield's pretty inconvenient to just about anybody.
Especially compared to Vegas (hours by car from anywhere, and fails to satisfy
a desire on the part of many to have it on the east coast), Charleston (how
many hours from Atlanta?), and even Chicago (I lived there for about 40 years
-- it's two hours from Milwaukee, I guess...three from Indianapolis, and an
hour-plus from Hinckley and Big Rock).  I can clearly see how those places are
"much more convenient to many more people," as you put it.  Perhaps you should
look at a map?

I think even Steve has figured out that these are also good places, but just
not for next year.  Maybe he'll do 2005 on the east coast, and then work his
way back across the midwest in subsequent years?  Maybe alternating with Santa
Fe and Monterey, which are both wonderful places to go, too?  That's probably
what I would do.

And it also seems that from the message traffic, there a a lot of folks who
would love it have it in their back yards, just not you and Shelly, and I'm
sure a few more.  

Like it or not, Steve's conference is about all we have as a venue to get
together and share our mutual passion for LF photography.  Yup, Steve probably
breaks even on the conference with good attendance, and might actually make a
buck or two if attendance is REALLY good, but he doesn't get rich off it.  I
have no problem with him polling us to ask where we'd like to have it, and then
announcing a decision.  I won't even mind a reminder now and again.

Springfield.  Not to mention that you're forgetting the Basketball Hall of
Fame.  Not to mention that there are wonderful places to photograph within 20
minutes of the conference site.

Thank you for your positive, thoughtful contribution. We all look forward to
attending the LF conference that you put together.
Jorge Gasteazoro - 12 Sep 2004 16:30 GMT
I think you dont get where I am comming from, simmons's post is in
APUG, largeformatphotography, he would place it a photo.net, but they
now erase his posts the moment they see them. Out of the three sites,
Springfield was mentioned only once. If you do check all previous
posts about the "conference" you will see he asks for opinions and
then decides on a venue that nobody proposed. This is nothing more
than free advertising for a business venture. I think there is a time
when enough is enough. He now has a forum, let him anounce his
business ventures there. His "free" stuff, is nothing more than BS. I
am a chemist, if I go to a chemical conference, I expect to meet other
chemists for "free", the same way I expect to see the latest lab
equipment for "free" and if I happ`ne to meet other chemists I get
along with, I would most likely go tour the town with them. Where is
the free stuff simmons keeps pushing in front of our faces?....Now I
have tried to answer to you in a mature manner, I hope you have the
same courtesy. Finally, I think you are right, I probably would have a
great time with Shelly, at least we both understand the meaning of
courtesy.

> Perhaps Jorge and Shelley should go ahead and go to Chicago together.  I'd
> sure they'd have a lovely time together together... LOL
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> > consequence to me, as I wont be attending any of them regardless of
> > where is held.
CamArtsMag - 12 Sep 2004 21:54 GMT
from Jorge

he would place it a photo.net, but they
now erase his posts the moment they see them>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Once again you are mispeaking. I have not posted on photo net for years and to
my knowledge you can not erase a post that is not made. Once again Jorge comes
on and shows truth and accuracy do not matter to him nor does checking things
out before he makes a post.

As for Springfield not being mentioned please be aware that not all of the
world's communication passes in front of your face Jorge. Lots of e-mails,
phone calls and face to face conversations happen that you are not aware of at
all.

steve simmons

steve simmons
Ted Harris - 13 Sep 2004 01:18 GMT
I usually ignorre these goofy threads but I was another who lobbied strongly
for the Northeast and lauded Springfield as a possible venue.
Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire
Jorge Gasteazoro - 13 Sep 2004 18:43 GMT
> from Jorge
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> steve simmons

And once again you come on this forums and state things that are less
than true. You dont post in photo.net because as I said, they got
tired of your advertising and erase your posts immediately, I guess
you finally got the message and stop posting there. I dont need to
"check" I have seen it happen. If so, why dont you prove me wrong and
try to post there...see how long your post lasts.

So lets see who is posting less than accurate and truthful posts. You
say your conference is free..it is not, getting to see the vendors and
"meeting" other photographers is free...not the conference. Those two
things are nothing more than a "hook" so you can advertise your
conference here, same as your "question" about where to hold it. As to
the many e mails and phone calls, well we only have your word for
that, which from past experiences I know is not worth much.

Once again Simmons comes on and makes posts which abuse the charter of
this and many other forums.
Gregory Blank - 13 Sep 2004 20:22 GMT
I am not going to defend anyone-anymore, however it sure would be nice
if you and a slew of other critics would either regularly post
positive information or get the hell off this newsgroup and
quit bitching about other people, it gets really frigging old.

Thanks.

> Once again XXXXX comes on and makes posts which abuse the charter of
> this and many other forums.

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

CamArtsMag - 13 Sep 2004 20:27 GMT
Jorge

There is a lot of communbication that you never see. That does not mean it
never happens.

I have not tried to post on photo net for years and was never told to stop.
More misinformation.

I am telling epople about free activities such as the trade show the field
trips and also about the View Camera forum. All free. This is within the
guideliens. Give it up. I am following the rules.

steve simmons
Gregory Blank - 13 Sep 2004 22:38 GMT
Not to get myself deeper into this, but.....

Steve;

 I know you probably prefer not to killfile
these people making these inflammatory comments
but you really should,.. or just plain ignore them.  

These people seldom post on this
group other than to attack you. I think once that may have been
different, but that's the way it has been as long as I can
remember.

PS: I am hoping to make it to NYC to meet Gordon Hutchings
& anyone who is interested in PMK and Pyro developers Gordon
will be at the View Camera Booth this year.

Thanks
Steve.

Take care guys and do lighten up.

> Jorge
>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> steve simmons

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

BBarlow690 - 13 Sep 2004 18:11 GMT
Thank you for the courtesy of declaring me "nobody," since you did actually
admit that Springfield was mentioned in at least one place, but on the other
hand "nobody" proposed it.  I'll have to change my business cards.  As Steve
mentions in his post, there were many conversations about location, not all
documented in forums such as these.  And I don't believe that he is obligated
to do exactly, and everything, that people tell him to do.  Or ask him to do.

I was unaware that I was discourteous to you, as you now seem to be implying.
I apologize for whatever you interpreted, incorrectly, as discourteous.
Jorge Gasteazoro - 14 Sep 2004 17:34 GMT
> Thank you for the courtesy of declaring me "nobody," since you did actually
> admit that Springfield was mentioned in at least one place, but on the other
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> I was unaware that I was discourteous to you, as you now seem to be implying.
> I apologize for whatever you interpreted, incorrectly, as discourteous.

Bruce, I think you are taking offense where none was intended. I am
sure you and a few others recommended Springfield, but in comparison
to the other venues suggested which had the majority of the votes
Springfield seemed the least popular. This happens all the time, why
ask about a venue when in the end one is chosen without regard to
those offered as more popular?

You certainly were not discourteous and I have no idea why you thought
I was addressing you. Thank you for the polite and courteous response.
jjs - 14 Sep 2004 17:46 GMT
> Bruce, I think you are taking offense where none was intended. I am
> sure you and a few others recommended Springfield, but in comparison
> to the other venues suggested which had the majority of the votes
> Springfield seemed the least popular. [...]

Oh, is Steve's conference selection supposed to be a democractic thing?
Anonymous - 14 Sep 2004 17:50 GMT
Whore-Gay,

Steve is planning, organizing, communicating, arranging vendors, and funding
this conference.  Who the hell says he has to get anyone's "votes, much less
yours?

He can host it anywhere he wants to.  Your arrogance and sense of over-rated
self-importance is nauseating.

>> Bruce, I think you are taking offense where none was intended. I am
>> sure you and a few others recommended Springfield, but in comparison
>> to the other venues suggested which had the majority of the votes
>> Springfield seemed the least popular. [...]
>
> Oh, is Steve's conference selection supposed to be a democractic thing?
Jorge Gasteazoro - 15 Sep 2004 01:39 GMT
> Whore-Gay,
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> He can host it anywhere he wants to.  Your arrogance and sense of over-rated
> self-importance is nauseating.

This where you are wrong sh.t head, the people attending are funding
it. I might be arrogant, but at least I am not a suck up idiot.

Oh, and BTW imbecil, how about you put your name to your words, or
what? you are too chicken.....you f**king looser.
jjs - 15 Sep 2004 02:07 GMT
"Jorge Gasteazoro" <rossorabbit@hotmail.com> wrote [...]

Man, please stop responding to the trolls. I don't want to kill-file you for
a passing thing. Leave the trolls and come on back here with the rest of us,
please.
Jorge Gasteazoro - 15 Sep 2004 15:08 GMT
> "Jorge Gasteazoro" <rossorabbit@hotmail.com> wrote [...]
>
> Man, please stop responding to the trolls. I don't want to kill-file you for
> a passing thing. Leave the trolls and come on back here with the rest of us,
> please.

ok jjs, you are right, I should have remember what someone told me.
"when you argue with an idiot, people looking at you dont know which
is which"....considered it done.
Anonymous - 15 Sep 2004 07:29 GMT
Jorge,

It's spelled "loser", not "looser" <s>

George

>> Whore-Gay,
>
> Oh, and BTW imbecil, how about you put your name to your words, or
> what? you are too chicken.....you f**king looser.
b loggin - 21 Feb 2005 21:12 GMT
Jorge, why do you always start arguments?

..if you have stopped taking your meds, please start taking them again.
Brian Downey - 13 Sep 2004 22:29 GMT
After many years of learning from this group, I finally got tired of all the
personal p***ing matches and left it for a while to just take pictures.
On returning, I'm disappointed to see not much has changed except that a lot
of the participants I fondly remember are also no longer in the group.

This thread may be a good example why.  I hope you will permit me a couple
of observations.

Large format photography can hardly be described as a "boom" business or
tremendously fast growing hobby, yet we do have ONE
national-scope conference available to us.  What is the response?  The
silliness witnessed here for the past few days.  Isn't it interesting that
not one of the "big-bucks" LF manufacturers is putting on such an event, not
the film manufacturers, not the photo super-stores -- and not one of the
vicious critics in this newsgroup.  After all, any one of us could have
written the dozens of letters it must take to pull together an agenda we
felt was perfect, at a location we wanted, etc.  None of us apparently are
so motivated, yet some sure are willing to pillory the one guy who does make
the time.  Yes, it will help his commercial venture - and if we had more
than one such national conference to choose from we could get picky about
whose commercial venture we were going to support.

I've seen a lot of photo magazines die and I'm grateful to have one that is
still around devoted to my favorite area of photography.  I'm extremely
happy a few companies continue to make LF sheet film inspite of declining
sales and profit margins.  I'm impressed by the tenaciousness and innovation
expressed by Sinar, Wisner, Calumet, Linhof and the shrinking list of other
manufacturers who not only keep a product line available but occasionaly
expand it.  None of these are perfect and I occasionaly complain about all
of them, but I also recognize we LF afficianados are an endangered species.
With only a few exceptions, we are all to some degree dependent on those who
try to make a living manufactuing and selling photo equipment and
particularly its supplies.  I see our mutual love of LF photography giving
us a vested interest in hoping these manufacturers survive - not doing all
we can to convince them their customers are a bunch of foul mouthed
curmudgeons who can't be pleased and insist on everything being priced below
cost.

Of course there is another side to the issue.  It is not uncommon for some
in the industry or their reps to "take the bait" and respond to some vicious
criticism with more of the same.  While I can understand the emotions, it is
the kind of horrible customer relations that also hurts our group in general
and their business in particular.  If we can't use common decency then how
about a little common sense - there aren't enough remaining in our group for
us to engage in the canabalizm often exhibited here.  Thanks for listening.
Gregory Blank - 14 Sep 2004 02:32 GMT
Well stated sir!!! Please do stick with the group and continue to
post.

> After many years of learning from this group, I finally got tired of all the
> personal p***ing matches and left it for a while to just take pictures.
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> about a little common sense - there aren't enough remaining in our group for
> us to engage in the canabalizm often exhibited here.  Thanks for listening.

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Anonymous - 14 Sep 2004 05:07 GMT
Bravo, Brian!  Extremely well put!!!

Perhaps if we have the luck of the Irish and a good wind behind us, the
whiny a.sholes, cynics, curmudgeons (and yes, this means you, Shelley,
Jorge, et al.) who don't have anything better to do with their sorry little
lives will go away.  Perhaps for good.

>> After many years of learning from this group, I finally got tired of all
>> the
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>> us to engage in the canabalizm often exhibited here.  Thanks for
>> listening.
Gregory Blank - 14 Sep 2004 13:57 GMT
Although I in part agree, isn't better to not mention people by name as
it just fans the flames? Unless of course thats your goal,...to make
additional ill feelings?

> Bravo, Brian!  Extremely well put!!!
>
> Perhaps if we have the luck of the Irish and a good wind behind us, the
> whiny a.sholes, cynics, curmudgeons (and yes, this means you, Shelley,
> Jorge, et al.) who don't have anything better to do with their sorry little
> lives will go away.  Perhaps for good.

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Shelley - 14 Sep 2004 14:47 GMT
> > Perhaps if we have the luck of the Irish and a good wind behind us, the
> > whiny a.sholes, cynics, curmudgeons (and yes, this means you, Shelley,
> > Jorge, et al.) who don't have anything better to do with their sorry little
> > lives will go away.  Perhaps for good.

> Although I in part agree, isn't better to not mention people by name as
> it just fans the flames? Unless of course thats your goal,...to make
> additional ill feelings?

I didn't see Anonymous' original post quoted here since I've kill filed him
but I see now he's calling people a.s holes. That goes well with his
previous references to Seig Heil and SS troops and your demands that people
"get the hell out of this news group"  because of the "bitching" that you
think gets "frigging old."  Or Anonymous' earlier suggestion to Stacey that
she "get laid."  Simmons' fans have quite a vocabulary.  There's an old
saying to the effect that you can judge people by who they choose to
associate themselves with. I'd suggest that neither you nor Anonymous are
doing Mr. Simmons any favors.

> Although I in part agree, isn't better to not mention people by name as
> it just fans the flames? Unless of course thats your goal,...to make
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> > Jorge, et al.) who don't have anything better to do with their sorry little
> > lives will go away.  Perhaps for good.
CamArtsMag - 14 Sep 2004 15:21 GMT
Simmons' fans have quite a vocabulary.  There's an old
saying to the effect that you can judge people by who they choose to
associate themselves with. I'd suggest that neither you nor Anonymous are
doing Mr. Simmons any favors.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

None of these people are speaking for me at my request and you are right, they
are not doing me or this forum any favors.

I have complained about this type of behavior for a couple of years. To
disagree is one thing but this type of behavior does all of us a disservice.

For this reason I started a forum on the View Camera web site
(www.viewcamera.com) and I will monitor the posts and remove anything that is a
personal attack, vulgar, or insulting.

steve simmons
www.viewcamera.com
Gregory Blank - 14 Sep 2004 21:18 GMT
Well you can suggest all you want, since its a "free" and public forum.
Since the vulgar language is inappropriate I have used my own suggestion
and the suggestion of one of the other posters who I respect and
utilized the technology to remove the offensive.

I reaffirm my statement and encourage others to post positive
and informative things instead of personal attacks, if that fails
I'll killfile and move on.

 The only favors I intend are ones that I give to my relatives.

I am not related to Steve or anonymous. I do however believe in the
golden rule, as it works for me. That is: Treat others
as you wish to be treated."    

> I didn't see Anonymous' original post quoted here since I've kill filed him
> but I see now he's calling people a.s holes. That goes well with his
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> associate themselves with. I'd suggest that neither you nor Anonymous are
> doing Mr. Simmons any favors.

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

jjs - 14 Sep 2004 21:27 GMT
> [...]  I do however believe in the
> golden rule, as it works for me. That is: Treat others
> as you wish to be treated."

Greg! Greg! Quick, scratch my back... a little left... down.... AHHHH!
Thanks.
Gregory Blank - 14 Sep 2004 22:16 GMT
Glad to be of help.

Now we need to find someone to help
you with those hemorrhoids,...that will teach you for sitting
on that big backside all day ;^)

Hey if you like Efke 25 give scanning it a try, its virtually grainless.

> > [...]  I do however believe in the
> > golden rule, as it works for me. That is: Treat others
> > as you wish to be treated."
>
> Greg! Greg! Quick, scratch my back... a little left... down.... AHHHH!
> Thanks.

Signature

LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

jjs - 14 Sep 2004 22:22 GMT
> Glad to be of help.
>
> Now we need to find someone to help
> you with those hemorrhoids,...that will teach you for sitting
> on that big backside all day ;^)

I'm a slim, trim, fit, athletic 6', 190 pounds of firm, iron-butt
hunk-stuff. Believe it. It's all balanced out by being bald and ugly. And
old.

> Hey if you like Efke 25 give scanning it a try, its virtually grainless.

I did this early afternoon, but all I have is the Epson 3200 which is not
sharp enough and besides, it begins to artifact at 1600 and is completely
unacceptable at greater resolutions. In fact, at 1200 all I have is
'grainlike' artifacts that makes it look like 2475 recording film boiled in
Dektol. I wish I could afford a real scanner.

But the film's DMax was within the Epson 3200's scope. I can scan and make
acceptable 4x5" digital prints. BWAAA HAAAA HAAA. *sigh*
Lloyd usenet Erlick - 14 Sep 2004 15:07 GMT
sep1404 from LLoyd Erlick,

>Although I in part agree, isn't better to not mention people by name as
>it just fans the flames? Unless of course thats your goal,...to make
>additional ill feelings?

...

Absolutely! Those mentions are the feed we are advised not
to give the trolls. The problem of the trolls is small,
filters in the newsreader make a significant difference.

The larger part of the problem is the responders who
perpetuate the material down the posts, one after another.
If we just stop fanning the flames we'd have what we want.

Although, speaking of Irish, maybe this is a case of 'what
we say we want'. Judging by real-world performance, we do
not in fact want to stop fanning the flames.

Some posters have remarked that they enjoy the call to
respond in kind, and view it as a call-to-arms which is
their right and obligation. So they just help perpetuate the
troll-posts. I filter their names, too.

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

Jorge Gasteazoro - 14 Sep 2004 16:46 GMT
Ah assholemus...it takes one a.shole to know another one you sack of sh.t...

> Bravo, Brian!  Extremely well put!!!
>
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
> >> us to engage in the canabalizm often exhibited here.  Thanks for
> >> listening.
Anonymous - 14 Sep 2004 16:50 GMT
More evidence of Whor-ge's level of intelligence!

> Ah assholemus...it takes one a.shole to know another one you sack of
> sh.t...
[quoted text clipped - 93 lines]
>> >> us to engage in the canabalizm often exhibited here.  Thanks for
>> >> listening.
Anonymous - 14 Sep 2004 16:50 GMT
Or is it perhaps Whore-gay?

> More evidence of Whor-ge's level of intelligence!
>
[quoted text clipped - 102 lines]
>>> >> us to engage in the canabalizm often exhibited here.  Thanks for
>>> >> listening.
Jorge Gasteazoro - 15 Sep 2004 01:42 GMT
Just getting down to your level moron.....hijo de tu puta madre,
seguro que eres tu el putito que se la pasa mamando verga......

> More evidence of Whor-ge's level of intelligence!
BBarlow690 - 15 Sep 2004 13:07 GMT
Well, speaking for myself, I'm thrilled to have it in Springfield, because it's
right in my own backyard, about an hour and a half from home for me.  

May here has wonderful weather, usually... (snow's gone, bugs are back).

I lobbied for it because of its proximity to me, personally, and also on behalf
of our Western New England Large Format Photographers group (email us
WNELFP@yahoo.com) because I believe our members would enjoy having it close to
their homes, too.  We have about 100 on our list, so while all of them may not
care, I'll still claim "proxy rights" for their votes on the location, since it
costs them nothing for me to vote for them even if later they choose not to
attend.

As I've said before, Steve's all we've got, and this conference is pretty much
all we've got.  I know Steve's working on getting speakers out of New York and
Boston that I'd like to meet, so things are working out well, for my interests.

And, lastly, there's enough action and folks milling that for someone to come
for only a day, hang out, visit the vendor area, and meet folks, it's a day
well spent and free.  In Monterey my best conversations happened in the "free
zone."  An enticement for folks from New York, PA, and New Jersey who might not
otherwise be able to come for the whole thing.

Yup, it would be nice if the whole thing were free, but hotel conference spaces
cost money, speakers cost money, food costs money.  Who would underwrite a
conference about large format photography using mostly traditional processes?
Ilford?  Kodak?  Maybe Jack Deardorff or Ron Wisner?   The Department of
Homeland Security?  Unlikely.  Therefore, aspects have to be fee-based, and
that's better than having nothing, which would certainly be easier and involve
less abuse.

Bruce Nobody
Lloyd usenet Erlick - 14 Sep 2004 14:56 GMT
sep1404 from Lloyd Erlick,

>Well stated sir!!! Please do stick with the group and continue to
>post.

...
( well stated material snipped for brevity)

I agree! Please do stick around!

I've noticed recently that the very few trolls and persons
of ill will are more than balanced off by quite a few new
names posting interesting and intelligent material. In my
view the quality of rpd and rplf is improving, overall.

The noise level can be controlled quite effectively by
filters, I've discovered. I never bothered with them before
in my copy of Forte Agent, but in the last few months I've
set them up and found that the largest proportion of bad
posts is very easy to eliminate in such a way that I never
see them at all. It's a big improvement! (If only legitimate
posters would stop quoting them!)

To the long-term legitimate posters I'd just like to say
that the noisemakers are irrelevant and easily quieted to a
pleasantly low level. They are definitely not a reason to
stop participating in this very interesting newsgroup.

In economics they say that 'bad money drives out good
money'. It's understandable, and it's also understandable
that people don't want to take part where they see bad
behaviour. But the bad actors can be segregated by software;
they are as nothing.

regards,
--le
Signature

________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: portrait@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.