Off topic

[Roger Hicks]

Some people complain that I don't stick to rangefinder cameras, but introduce all kinds of grown-up topics like politics. (See also my Hiroshima [mistyped as Hirishima] and Pearl Harbor thread.

My argument is that I have access to an enormous international community. I have a high regard for the opinions of many, and even where I have mis-classified people I often find that they are far more than I imagined. To regard these people as 'only' RFF photographers seems to me an insult. We are all (well, most of us) multi-dimensional and I find it valuable and fascinating to solicit the opinions of those I 'know' (or think I know) from their views on photogrqphy.

Some have no other views. OK. But surely we become better photographers and better human beings from broadening our horizons in the company of others who can think, instead of those whose world picture is ONLY rangefinder cameras or ONLY politics or ONLY anything. Of course, if they can't think, this tells us something too.

I'm not saying thie is the prime purpose of this forum, or even an especialally important one. But to deny it is to diminish both the forum and its participants.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[yankeedoll]

I don't think politics, per se, should be the topic but to share your local culture is a definite plus on an international forum. This information can help to broaden our horizons as photographers/artists.

 

[johne]

Roger, I agree with you; however, here in the U.S. it is difficult to discuss politics as the prevailing mind set is rigid, allowing no measure of compromise on either extreme. A sorry state, to be sure. Here, where we proclaim that the right to free speech is paramount, we run those who disagree with us out of office or silence them in a civilized manner. When one knows everything, what can others add? Still, we are much better than most. Obervation on seventy years or so in U.S.A. Johne

BTW, Paducah is the home of John Thomas Scopes of the Dayton, TN "monkey trial" in the 1920s. His sister, Lila, was forced out of the Augusta Tilghman HS earlier for teaching evolution in the public schools.

 

[back alley]

news flash roger, i have access to a fairly wide spectrum of folks myself.

i consider chatting about rf cameras as adult conversation also.

in fact here in the real world, i can generate and maintain a conversation on politics, care to talk about the french, the americans, the economy, local or global, corrupt politicians etc?

but most of my friends, peers and colleagues do not want to talk about rf cameras, film development or what year my favourite lens was made.
that is why i come here, to rff.

also, i do not take it upon myself to decide what is best for the members here to learn from or grow with.

there is a certain arrogance to think we know what is best/better for others.

my goal here as moderator is to maintain a safe and friendly environment for others to discuss rf cameras etc., not to provide a universal learning experience for all.

there are other places for that, in real life and cyber space.

as one of the 'some people' you seem to be directing your comments to, i do not appreciate your vieled comments about having no views.

am i a dolt?
or as sophisticated as 'some'?
or perhaps someone with an iq that could fry eggs?

does not really matter as it does not change the basic function of this forum or i as it's moderator.

nothing personal roger, it just seems to me that you wake up looking for a bit of a kick at the cat.

joe

 

[yankeedoll]

I agree with Joe. This where we come to talk about RF cameras, gear & related subjects because we don't have aquaintances interested in this subject.

(And IMHO the gallery should be strictly for RF.)

Joe, you are doing a fine job as moderator.🙂

 

[ray_g]

We have had "Off Topic" (OT) threads in the past, from non-RF photography topics, to firearms, to the Daytona 500. I have no problem with that.

In an international community such as this, there are bound to be opposing and deeply held views among the members on things "that should not be discussed at the dinner table" (as my grandmother used to say), namely religion and politics.

Should they be avoided? I would leave that to the forum admin / moderator, as there are no set guidelines (in the FAQ, at least) for the membership to go by.

Just my two cents...

 

[yankeedoll]

I believe the moderator would have to decide the appropriateness of an OT subject provided there are no personal attacks made. I trust Jorge's and Joe's judgement.

 

[Doug]

If a forum has no particular focus, then nothing is "off topic"... And if a forum has a focus topic, then it would seem reasonable to encourage discussion within that topic and discourage veering far off the topic, especially where likely to prove divisive. It really is quite amazing how broadly our views and experiences are expressed just within RF photography, and how much we can learn and grow from each other.

RFF does have an "off-topic" area, called "And now for something completely different"... Those interested in other topics can find their way there. With the tolerance seen in RFF for brief forays off the forum topic, "completely different"'s existence seems strange. But this has also been done in other forums, to satisfy the desire for discussing other subjects with friends made in the on-topic discussions. I have seen an off-topic area become the most active in the whole forum, and draw participants who have no interest at all in the forum's main topic! Some of these latter never participate in the rest of the forum, some may become interested in that topic, while there are some who form a distracting disrupting element in the main discussions.

If there must be an off-topic area, then I think the way it's implemented in RFF is good; that recent posts in that area don't appear in the forum's list of recent posts.

 

[back alley]

We have had "Off Topic" (OT) threads in the past, from non-RF photography topics, to firearms, to the Daytona 500. I have no problem with that.

In an international community such as this, there are bound to be opposing and deeply held views among the members on things "that should not be discussed at the dinner table" (as my grandmother used to say), namely religion and politics.

Should they be avoided? I would leave that to the forum admin / moderator, as there are no set guidelines (in the FAQ, at least) for the membership to go by.

Just my two cents...

and if people have noticed most of those topics have been allowed without any form of censorship or harrasment from 'the management'.

i have stated this before, i have a need to provide a safe & friendly environment for all and when we engage in 'hot topics' that atmoshere is threatened.

look at the alternative folks (in terms of other forums) and tell me which you prefer.

joe

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry, Joe, that was NOT intended as a personal attack (much as I disagree with you). My apologies if you took it as such.

I just have a problem with seeing people as one-dimensional beings and I wanted to solicit others' views on the same topic.

Arrogant? I think not. As I say, I value many people's views (and you are most enthusiastically included, Joe, as are others I have disagreed with in the past).

I agree with Doug about implementation, but I believe that censortship/denial is bad for the forum and bad for its members.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Sonnar Brian]

I prefer this forum over the alternatives.

There is a forum for "something completely different", which is dedicated to off-topic discussions. Use IT, if you must post non-RF threads.

Otherwise, I would be in favor of these off-topic threads being moved to that forum without hesitation, or being deleted entirely. Posting these off-topic threads in "General Rangefinder Discussion" is more of an invasion.

Does anyone remember General Order 24?

 

[back alley]

roger,

i don't uderstand how staying on topic is one dimensional.

as far as censorship, i think i have a very light touch around here.

joe

 

[Roger Hicks]

Sorry, Brian, my misunderstanding of 'something completely different' which I took as a humour thread from the origin of its title (Monty P)

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Joe,

Once again, you have overestimated my responses about one dimensionality and censorship. I try to be conciliatory and it is misinterpreted. There really seems to me to be a cultural dimension here: what I regard as 'fair comment' is taken by some (including yourself, sometimes) as personal attack. I DON'T MEAN IT. If I attacked you personally, you'd know about it (ask AP readers on the forum).

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Honu-Hugger]

I agree with Joe. This where we come to talk about RF cameras, gear & related subjects because we don't have aquaintances interested in this subject.

(And IMHO the gallery should be strictly for RF.)

Joe, you are doing a fine job as moderator.🙂

Joe, you do an exceptionally fine job as a moderator. I imagine it is more difficult than many of us realize. In spite of the increase in our membership the tone of this forum remains an example that other forums likely envy, and testimony to your good work.

Not only do I have not acquaintances interested in my hobby, but I can instantly squelch a conversation even among photographers by mentioning my old junk (even my family finds it difficult to feign interest for long 😀). I'm delighted that the RFF exists and grateful that it exists as the friendly place it is.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

I agree with Roger. Being one dimensional can be boring. Heated debates about current events, etc can be stimulating as long as it is done with respect for each other's opinions. I like knowing how people feel about certain things. While I enjoy the gear talk on this forum, life is so much more. Having said that, if this forum were to ever sink to the lows of some of the people who post on photonet, then I would really be distressed about .

 

[Roger Hicks]

I should add, Joe, thsat I second the post about your doing an extremely fine job. That doesn't mean I always agree with your views...

Cheers,

Roger

 

[back alley]

Once again, you have overestimated my responses about one dimensionality and censorship.



possibly.

i do not take it personally in the manner i think you percieve it to be.
i do not feel 'personally attacked'.

i answer in the first person because i try to stay away from the theory of relationships but rather participate in the rich fullness of the real thing.

unfortunately, ap is not sold locally (at least i can't find it) so i miss out on much of your current writing .

anyway, i am honestly not offended by you and i have no personal objections to you.

joe

if nothing else roger, you make my 'job' here at rff much more interesting.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I also totally agree with RDW about flame wars. What I value about this forum is the ability of so many people to be civil even when they don't agree with one another.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[laptoprob]

Is that latest remark about being civil not a cornerstone of civilization?
And the respecting of difference of opinion a cornerstone of the world we - or at least I - stand for?
Then again, there is a place and a time for everything.
If that 'and now for something completely different' section is meant for - well - challenging debates, what's the problem as long as it remains civil?

Here the whole thing gets a relation to photography: grayscales, sharpness and contrast. That's what it is all about. And light and content and so on!

Rob.