Antonio, > Ryan, Christian and I differ as to our judgement of the lens. I state > my views clearly and leave others to make their own. There is no need > for shouting or foul language. If I think someone is talking rubish I > will tell them, that is different. There is plenty of room for > disagrement and discussion as you yourself have witnessed.
'Stating your own views and leaving others to make their own' and insulting the integrity of someone else's point of view is different. You will never get someone to say, 'Oh I see where I was wrong' by starting off, 'What a load of rubbish'. It is effectively the difference between discussion and dictation. > Your position in all this however is somewhat unclear, as is your > motivation, as you do not bring your own views to the debate. Your > method of dialogue seems to involve not stating an opinion yourself but > jumping on those who do. I haven't got an opinion on this debate as I have never used the aforementioned lens. On the topic of the ways we make our points, and how it nurtures community on the list, I have a very clearly neutral position. I am not jumping on your opinion at all, but the way you choose to enforce it. Furthermore, my position on this issue is incidental, and bringing it up appears to be a defensive reflex- unnecessary considering the last thing on my mind is to start an additional argument. On the other hand, your reply to Jens' post seemed more civil than your response to Christian's, and shows that you can be polite if you choose to be. Perhaps you should take care that in expressing contrary opinions, you still maintain respect for the other person's dignity. > Christians arguments did not hold water IMO as I feel you can not say > that a lens is a penut (using your analogy) and at the same time say it > is a great lens. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough on the analogy. Try to follow me on this, no matter how silly it sounds- The lens can be a peanut, but that doesn't mean it can't be a great peanut. Like, it is cheap, and better tasting than all the peanuts you've eaten, but at the end of a day, it is just a peanut, and you can't expect it to be a cashew, a macadamia or a pistachio. However, for a peanut, it was good. > As to Frank, my experience of him is that he is just another one of the > abnoxious individuals on this list, who feel that mobbing is a > perfectly legitimate way of behaving, along with Bob S, Bob Blakely, > and a few others. My experience differs; my views on this are that his post to you reflects more of a frustration with the way you deal with opinions which different from yours, as sometimes it seems you (perhaps unintentionally) create more friction than work towards a mutually agreed upon resolution. > I can assure you that I do not feel bad and certainly do not > participate in these debates to make anyone else feel so, nor make > myself feel better. Which is why I say it is possibly unintentional that you cause other list members to feel frustrated. Knowing this, perhaps you could put in extra effort not to make it so, afterall, many of the members that are involved in this conflict are respected, if not founding members, who have been on the list for years, and through this, have earned the respect of other members. > Finally, you wrote that "The quarrel is with the photographic > conditions, not with the subject in the viewfinder". Care to elaborate? So much for my exit. I was drawing a parallel- Just as in photography you master light and equipment to capture the the subject (instead of manipulating the subject), also in discussion- you balance reason with diplomacy (instead of manipulating opinion) to achieve an outcome. You do not have to be aggressive, to be assertive. Cheers, Ryan > On 12 Jun 2004, at 12:07, Ryan Lee wrote: > > > Antonio, who wrote: > > > >> Hey Frank, > >> > >> There is no need for shouting or foul language. If you cant debate a > >> point like and adult, do us all a favour, dont debate it at all. > > > > also wrote (to Christian): > > > >> What a load of rubish. You are just being contrary because I said it > >> was a dog. > > > > Antonio, there really isn't anyone picking apart your opinion on the > > lens. > > You've said it's a dog, and people nod and acknowledge you think it's a > > substandard lens. On the other hand, when Christian says it's a great > > lens > > but he wouldn't pay more than $30 dollars, he just means it's a good > > lens > > that is not physically worth that much (just like one wouldn't pay $30 > > for a > > good peanut). You did not show a disagreement with his opinion, but > > made it > > personal. > > > > Your method of dialogue hasn't left any leeway for discussion, nor > > does it > > foster the environment for it. I can understand Frank's frustration, > > and > > wasn't nice to witness, because Frank is one of the most pleasant, > > neutral > > people on this list. > > > > I don't have any quarrel with you, but recommend that sometimes, take > > a step > > back before you make yourself feel better by trying to make someone > > else > > feel worse. > > > > The quarrel is with the photographic conditions, not with the subject > > in > > your viewfinder. > > > > Cheers, > > Ryan > > > > > > > > > >
