«

On Jul 19, 6:53*pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> *Could we perhaps get back on
> > topic about photography! *Why not start by critiquing Bret's work?
>
> Because recently Bret's been on about ego, not photos.

Recently?

So what did you think of the pic, Johnny Boy?

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:50:32 +1000, Troy Piggins <usenet->
wrote:
: Personally, I don't think it's people posting photos that's
: killing the groups, it's the other noise - flame-wars and
: off-topic discussions.

Quite so.

On Jul 19, 8:04*pm, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote:
>
> your just another worthless net cop who thinks his opinion matters, the easy
> way to defeat your FU is to just ignore you.
>

Or better yet, make sure your reply to all his posts goes to at least
3 newsgroups.

Hey Johnny, why do you send all your replies to rec.photo.digital?
Is it proper nettiquette to respond to a post in aus.photo or r.p.e.
35mm and have the replies sent to r.p.d?
Seems like a devious form of cross-posting to me.

On Jul 19, 12:34*pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Annika1980 wrote:
> > Who will blink first?
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100386480/original
>
> Those who are getting tired of you crossposting and trying to generate
> hits to your site.

Pbase isn't MY site. It is run by Slug & Emily, but thanks for
caring.

Oh, and you'll be happy to know that I recently passed the 2 MILLION
hit mark on my Pbase site.
And that doesn't include the over half-million hits I got on my old
Annika1980 Pbase site before I switched to the current one.

I wonder how many of them were D-Mac?

John McWilliams wrote:
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>> * Troy Piggins wrote :
>>> * 2SQUID wrote :
>>> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 25 lines snipped |=---]
>>>> Wether or not you do this on purpose or whether it is a by product
>>>> of your quest for popularity is immaterial. You are actually
>>>> diminishing the usefulness of each group by cross posting. Take out
>>>> your posts and those of Mark Thomas and Troy Piggins and there is
>>>> hardly enough sustainable traffic to support visiting a group.
>>>>
>>>> Certainly anyone seeking to participate in a camera hardware forum
>>>> would steer well clear of RPE.35mm and aus.photo. In fact the only
>>>> remaining newsgroup offering any useful information is Alan Browne's
>>>> creation: RPD .slr-systems and even that is being destroyed by
>>>> spammers.
>>> I don't understand something. We're posting links to photos in
>>> photography related groups. I do it for comments and critique
>>> because I'm always learning, can't answer for Mark or Bret but
>>> they both have way more experience than me. I know both have
>>> recently been trying out new techniques as have I. I couldn't
>>> care about popularity, and they're hosted on my own site so it's
>>> immaterial how many hits I get. I'm sure the others couldn't
>>> care less how many hits they get too. I note you don't mention
>>> Rita and D-Mac.
>>>
>>> And if we stop posting what we believe are on-topic,
>>> photography-related discussion threads, you are saying there is
>>> hardly enough sustainable traffic to support visiting the groups.
>>> And that's what you /want/? I don't get it.
>>>
>>> Ok. Can you please explain which of these groups is the one
>>> where it is only appropriate to post links to photos, which one
>>> it is only appropriate to discuss hardware, which one it is
>>> appropriate only to have discussions about general photography
>>> topics? Please link me the groups' charters supporting your
>>> answers. I'm sure there are other groups, but these are the ones
>>> I frequent:
>>>
>>> aus.photo
>>> rec.photo.equipment.35mm
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I just checked that charter for this group. I won't be crossposting
>> links to photos in there any more. Sorry.
>>
>>> rec.photo.digital
>>> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't think it's people posting photos that's
>>> killing the groups, it's the other noise - flame-wars and
>>> off-topic discussions.
>
> You're 100% on the money there, Troy. It did occur to me that you also
> post to three groups as the troublemakers do, but then I thought that
> since you live in Oz, you weren't messing with that group as it's yours.
> And x-posting to rpd gives a wider audience, don't think anyone objects
> in the slightest. Adding a third group, rpd-slr may or may not be in
> line with general netiquette, but I cannot imagine even this curmedgeon
> objecting in the least, as you are posting, not trolling or warring, or
> "educating the lesser beings", etc., etc.
>
> Please keep up the fine work; just don't let it go to your head!
>

My comments are based on the charter of the groups. Aus.Photo does not
have a charter but I would presume by the name it is the only group of
the three being cross posted to where photographs are the "specific"
nature of the group.

I have yet to figure out why people post their photos - for comment or
otherwise - to a hardware specific group like R.P.E.35mm. Unless they
were to point out a hardware related issue. There are plenty of these
where a photo would tell a thousand words but surely, a fly on dung is
not one of them.

Rec.Photo.Digital was the original "digital" group. Alan Browne help
fork it into separate digital groups to try and limit the traffic of
"what is the best price" and the like. I notice he did not include a
"digital photos" group in them.

Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings. Maybe
the truth might not be what you want to see?

I would have thought Troy, coming from a computer background you would
understand the need for compartmentalised information. Presuming
aus.photo is the only group where posting photos is encouraged. Why not
just post your links there and if people who visit the other groups are
actually looking for links to photos, they'll give aus.photo their
attention. I won't need to have as large a kill file either.

Let the natural ebb and flow of users decide if the other two groups are
being artificially propped up and they dissolve into cyber space when
you refrain or if they flourish with equipment related posts? Surely you
can see the logic in that Troy?

2SQUID wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>> * Troy Piggins wrote :
>>>> * 2SQUID wrote :
>>>> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 25 lines snipped |=---]
>>>>> Wether or not you do this on purpose or whether it is a by product
>>>>> of your quest for popularity is immaterial. You are actually
>>>>> diminishing the usefulness of each group by cross posting. Take out
>>>>> your posts and those of Mark Thomas and Troy Piggins and there is
>>>>> hardly enough sustainable traffic to support visiting a group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Certainly anyone seeking to participate in a camera hardware forum
>>>>> would steer well clear of RPE.35mm and aus.photo. In fact the only
>>>>> remaining newsgroup offering any useful information is Alan
>>>>> Browne's creation: RPD .slr-systems and even that is being
>>>>> destroyed by spammers.
>>>> I don't understand something. We're posting links to photos in
>>>> photography related groups. I do it for comments and critique
>>>> because I'm always learning, can't answer for Mark or Bret but
>>>> they both have way more experience than me. I know both have
>>>> recently been trying out new techniques as have I. I couldn't
>>>> care about popularity, and they're hosted on my own site so it's
>>>> immaterial how many hits I get. I'm sure the others couldn't
>>>> care less how many hits they get too. I note you don't mention
>>>> Rita and D-Mac.
>>>>
>>>> And if we stop posting what we believe are on-topic,
>>>> photography-related discussion threads, you are saying there is
>>>> hardly enough sustainable traffic to support visiting the groups.
>>>> And that's what you /want/? I don't get it.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. Can you please explain which of these groups is the one
>>>> where it is only appropriate to post links to photos, which one
>>>> it is only appropriate to discuss hardware, which one it is
>>>> appropriate only to have discussions about general photography
>>>> topics? Please link me the groups' charters supporting your
>>>> answers. I'm sure there are other groups, but these are the ones
>>>> I frequent:
>>>>
>>>> aus.photo
>>>> rec.photo.equipment.35mm
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> I just checked that charter for this group. I won't be crossposting
>>> links to photos in there any more. Sorry.
>>>
>>>> rec.photo.digital
>>>> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I don't think it's people posting photos that's
>>>> killing the groups, it's the other noise - flame-wars and
>>>> off-topic discussions.
>>
>> You're 100% on the money there, Troy. It did occur to me that you also
>> post to three groups as the troublemakers do, but then I thought that
>> since you live in Oz, you weren't messing with that group as it's
>> yours. And x-posting to rpd gives a wider audience, don't think anyone
>> objects in the slightest. Adding a third group, rpd-slr may or may not
>> be in line with general netiquette, but I cannot imagine even this
>> curmedgeon objecting in the least, as you are posting, not trolling or
>> warring, or "educating the lesser beings", etc., etc.
>>
>> Please keep up the fine work; just don't let it go to your head!
>>
>
> My comments are based on the charter of the groups. Aus.Photo does not
> have a charter but I would presume by the name it is the only group of
> the three being cross posted to where photographs are the "specific"
> nature of the group.
>
> I have yet to figure out why people post their photos - for comment or
> otherwise - to a hardware specific group like R.P.E.35mm. Unless they
> were to point out a hardware related issue. There are plenty of these
> where a photo would tell a thousand words but surely, a fly on dung is
> not one of them.
>
> Rec.Photo.Digital was the original "digital" group. Alan Browne help
> fork it into separate digital groups to try and limit the traffic of
> "what is the best price" and the like. I notice he did not include a
> "digital photos" group in them.
>
> Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
> them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
> group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings. Maybe
> the truth might not be what you want to see?
>
> I would have thought Troy, coming from a computer background you would
> understand the need for compartmentalised information. Presuming
> aus.photo is the only group where posting photos is encouraged. Why not
> just post your links there and if people who visit the other groups are
> actually looking for links to photos, they'll give aus.photo their
> attention. I won't need to have as large a kill file either.
>
> Let the natural ebb and flow of users decide if the other two groups are
> being artificially propped up and they dissolve into cyber space when
> you refrain or if they flourish with equipment related posts? Surely you
> can see the logic in that Troy?

As see it, r.p.e.35mm is an equipment group oriented towards 35mm and
allied cameras, which IMHO includes dslrs that are clearly descended
from 35mm slrs; and as a photographic image is the natural result of
using such equipment, I do not see any impediment in posting a link to
an image. Images are not allowed to be posted directly in the group,
but links IMHO do not violate the charter.

It has been said that r.p.e.35mm is the 'guru' group, with more
experienced long-term photographers here (despite increasing
cross-posting!) than other camera/photo groups, and I agree, as many of
us have long experience in film before switching to digital. This is
too valuable a resource to waste, or to drive away by objecting to links
to images that mostly give insight into the hardware features of the
cameras used.

I guess there are as many opinions as there are contributors, so there
probably will never be a universally agreed answer.

Colin D.

Troy Piggins wrote:
> * 2SQUID wrote :
>> Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
>> them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
>> group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings. Maybe
>> the truth might not be what you want to see?
>
> You know what? I was prepared to accept your request and
> apologise as I did 2 posts ago. I was happy to leave it there,
> but you're going on with it and starting to **** me off.
>
> Hmm. Your language and condescending tone is starting to sound
> familiar. I wonder...
>
>> I would have thought Troy, coming from a computer background you would
>> understand the need for compartmentalised information.
>
> I don't come from a computer background. It's (just another)
> hobby of mine. Like photography. Got nothing to do with my
> full-time job. Never has.
>
> Hmm. I can think of another conversation I had with a certain
> regular about me knowing a bit about computers.
>
> Hmm again. Your probably Aussie, or (less likely) British, from
> your spelling. I wonder...
>
> Hmm again. Motzarella.org - I know someone who uses or has used
> that news server. Another box ticked...

I shall merely offer a number and a sardonic grin... 176.

(O:

On Jul 20, 5:14*am, 2SQUID <2sq...@pacific-ocean.com> wrote:
> Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
> them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
> group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings.

What group would that be?

Annika1980 wrote:
> On Jul 20, 5:14 am, 2SQUID <2sq...@pacific-ocean.com> wrote:
>> Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
>> them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
>> group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings.
>
> What group would that be?
>

Hey may have meant his annika1980.com site and that it isn't getting
many hits since he stopped posting the link

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 20/07/2008 2:32 AM:
> Who will blink first?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100386480/original
>
>