On-topic or off-topic? The Charter explained

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Basically, Once a group is formed, the charter becomes a historical
document of reference, with no enforceable power.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.

 

You just keep believing that, sweetie!

 

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 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.

 

Actually it was The Doggy that said the group voted so there must be a
tally for him to know what the majority wanted.

 

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?

 

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!

 

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..

 

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.