On-topic or off-topic? The Charter explained

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by D-Mac, Aug 18, 2008.

  1. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    When the idea of reigniting Shootin was raised, I wrote to the
    administrators of the "Big 8" newsgroups and asked for clarity in what
    the charter meant and how it is applied to a group.

    Martin Moleski took the time to create a docuwiki explaining it all.

    http://www.big-8.org/dokuwiki/doku.php?id=faqs:index#newsgroup_charters

    Basically, Once a group is formed, the charter becomes a historical
    document of reference, with no enforceable power. As he and Davis Sill
    (big 8) pointed out... It is the members of the group who control how it
    will relate to it's name and charter.

    About 3 years ago, the "group" voted to continue the shootin after a few
    people (me included) though it off-topic to turn an equipment group into
    a photo discussion one.

    The majority rules, not Bret!

    If the troll who keeps playing netkop about posting photo links here
    could now stop his annoying behaviour, we can all get on with enjoying
    what we do.
     
    D-Mac, Aug 18, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    You just keep believing that, sweetie!
     
    Annika1980, Aug 18, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. D-Mac

    Bõwser Guest

    First of all, I'd love to see your tally of the votes. Oh, right.

    Secondly, when the shoot-in started, it was agreed that all posts related to
    the shoot-in include [SI] so that it could be easily filtered out for those
    who don't want to see those threads. So, if you, or anyone else doesn't want
    to see those threads, please add "[SI]" to your filters and you'll never
    have to see them again. Is there any reason why you won't just simply filter
    the threads?
     
    Bõwser, Aug 18, 2008
    #3
  4. D-Mac

    Noons Guest

    Bõwser wrote,on my timestamp of 19/08/2008 12:34 AM:
    There is no "tally". There is simply a charter and a set of rules
    of Usenet usage, long ago agreed to. No need to tally anything
    just because you feel like asking for it.

    Why don't you just do the simple and honorable thing
    which is to create your own group for this type of
    contest? Plenty of places to do it in, even in the Usenet:
    the entire alt.* hierarchy is available precisely for this
    purpose.
     
    Noons, Aug 18, 2008
    #4
  5. D-Mac

    ^Tems^ Guest

    Actually it was The Doggy that said the group voted so there must be a
    tally for him to know what the majority wanted.
     
    ^Tems^, Aug 19, 2008
    #5
  6. D-Mac

    Böwser Guest

    I've asked you and a few others who object to the shoot-in a simple
    question: why not just filter it? To date, I've never received a simple
    answer. What conclusion can I draw from this?
     
    Böwser, Aug 21, 2008
    #6
  7. D-Mac

    D-Mac Guest

    Firstly What makes you think I object to the Shootin? I participate in it.

    What I object to is how it's pushed in the face of people in the wrong
    group and a succession bigoted, self promoting braggarts simply couldn't
    care less just so long as they get to run it.

    I think it's a wonderful idea... Just run poorly and managed badly. You
    are gonna get that sort of thing when any novice manager runs things. Am
    I the bad bastard for speaking out about that?

    Lisa called for a vote (I posted her text) and over the following weeks
    "the group" voted to keep it running. *THEN* the disgusting attacks on
    everyone (Lisa included) started. I got my fair share of them too.

    The notion you can just ignore them in viewing the chequered history of
    the shootin is flawed with the knowledge that Alan Browne is making the
    same mistakes and doing now, exactly what caused those dark days of Shootin.

    Why people get the idea Big bad Doug is a trouble maker just because I
    took the only course of action available to me to control theft of my
    intellectual property and misuse of it, and my speaking out when I see
    idiots behaving badly is beyond my understanding.

    You need to get firmly fixed in your mind Böwser, that I am not against
    anything except stupidity and abuse of power. The "Big8" board of
    management has made it very clear in their reply to me that the charter
    of a group is a "plan of intention" and that after the group is formed,
    it may change in order to survive without reference to them.

    This group has changed but not enough to see the board step in and
    re-name it. So the Shootin and posting links to photos may not be in the
    charter, but by general acceptance of the practices by participating
    group members, it has become acceptable.

    This doesn't change my opinion of a bigot having control of Shooting and
    his unethical cross posting advertisements of it. And just to clear the
    air about me and Alan Browne:

    I took up his challenge to my claim that I could enlarge a digital image
    to sizes bigger than medium format enlargements would go to with at
    least the same quality by sending him and Gordon Moat 24" x 36"
    enlargements (and the original camera files) from a 10D.

    He changed his challenge after I sent the prints from "MF Film" to 6x7
    film. I had previously considered 645 as the "MF" film size. None the
    less, it was him who nominated Gordon Moat as the referee in the event
    he tried to pull his usual stunts to save face.

    To this day, the prick has not conceded I was right. Instead he fobs of
    any and all discussion with statements like "gorgeous colour" but avoids
    entirely the evidence I was right and he was wrong. $160 it cost me. The
    very least he could have done was agree with Gordon... Total silence
    from him. He's a bigot and an absolute prick!
     
    D-Mac, Aug 21, 2008
    #7
  8. D-Mac

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Sigh. There he goes again. Douglas "St James" MacDonald.

    At no stage did those folk receive proof (in the form of a RAW file, or
    even a jpg) of the original image, nor was there a comparison with MF.

    I wonder if the prints actually came from stitched images? Because that
    is EXACTLY what he did to Colin D - sent him an image with the claim
    that it was a single 20D shot that he had enlarged. Then later it was
    revealed (by Douglas himself) that it was a 20 shot stitched panorama!
    Here's Colin's understandable response when he found out he had been
    'done' by Douglas:
    Here's the link - follow it back to see the whole sorry tale unfold:
    http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/9fca4b340dfd1fd3

    As for Gordon Moat... he at NO STAGE compared Douglas images to MF, and
    he clarified Douglas' claims here:
    http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/msg/28833716bce9b4cd

    Saying, in part:
    Note that at no stage is there any reference to a comparison to MF or
    645. To do so would have required the original files, and Douglas has
    always refused to provide that evidence. The Colin D incident above may
    explain why...

    It should also be noted that Douglas is the guy who posted this:
    http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital/msg/5101c3314086c148
    where he states:
    The FZ20 is a 5Mp p&s. So that should give you an idea of his quality
    standards.
    Alan can comment on this further if he wishes, but he has already done
    so more than once, eg:
    http://groups.google.com.au/group/rec.photo.digital.slr-systems/msg/75ac49776b6e8954
    What a lovely man is our Douglas..
     
    Mark Thomas, Aug 22, 2008
    #8
  9. D-Mac

    Böwser Guest

    So filter it...
    Then take over and improve it.
    Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. Dark days? I send
    photos. That's it. No darkness for me.
    Nothing to do with the shoot in. What goes on between you and other posters
    is irrelevant to me. I've never attacked anyone here.
    I've never seen a NG stick to it's charter perfectly. This one is no
    different. But playing usenet cop is always a self-defeating activity. I
    don't bother.
    Board? What board?
    Again, I know neither of you, have no knowledge of this activity, and no
    desire to engage myself in it. This has nothing to do wth the shoot in or
    this group in general. My life is way too short to worry about this stuff.
    Until this post, I had no idea there was *anything* going on between you and
    Alan. None of my business, really.
     
    Böwser, Aug 22, 2008
    #9
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.