I reread that post and it sounded more mean spirited than intended. When I said "you could get counsel" I meant "one could get counsel." I wasn't telling Sal to hire a middle school teacher. Ok. Off to get some kindergarten teacher counseling.Originally Posted by Darin Boville
Note: I'm not a lawyer.
The legal advice comment -- not hyperbole -- comes from knowledge that, if stating an opinion with the explicit "in my opinion" phrase at its beginning, one is protected from claims of slander.
I have no special insight into Marv's motivation and can't recall ever interacting with him here or elsewhere. However, a possible answer to you question is that he might find those who disagree with him to be worthy of having their chain pulled. If so, it seems to have worked.
A second, simpler answer to your question could be "because he can." It's the Internet and I'm unaware of any forum rules here that preclude posting of controversial opinions.
That, too, was clear to me when reading your post.
My best advice after a dozen years here is for everyone is to relax. Unless something is ad hominem and pointed directly at you, don't take what others write personally.
Sal, I am so relaxed that if it weren't for the extra large coffee in front of me I'd be unconscious.
Which isn't to say I agree with you on whether or not certain kinds of posts should be challenged. Just as you (correctly) point out that there are no rules against posting opinions like the one in question, there are likewise no rules against taking those opinions to task.
Like I said, he's a common troll. He's not interested in participating in a thoughtful, spirited community so much as he's interested in roiling up drama to entertain himself.
Am I trying to ban him? Say he mustn't be allowed to post here? Etc.? Nope. It's pretty clear I never said such a thing. I'm just calling a troll when I see one. Obviously, YOU are tickled pink by it. Maybe now we can all get into some pointless debate about film versus digital and dynamic range or something.
I simply advised that, if someone finds a post wrong-headed and (in the reader's opinion) designed to incite, it would in my opinion be best to just ignore the post. On the other hand, if the reader enjoys pounding their head against a wall attempting to change the poster's mind, there certainly no rules against that. Enjoy!
I doubt you'll find anyone here more protective of this forum's community than I am.
I am NOT tickled, pink or any other color, by Marv's post. I was simply suggesting that those who hold differing opinions might find better ways to spend their energy than 'rebutting' an opinion. The chances of success changing the opinion-holder's mind are about as high as swaying political or religious convictions. Both those subjects are now banned in this forum; opinions are not. While not advocating for an "opinion ban," my opinion is that most opinion-based posts are best left to quietly fade unresponded to.
Put in other, more contemporary words, if you think it's a troll, don't feed it.
Now that's a problem. You've just made an ad hominem attack on anyone who posted after Marv who agreed with his observation and/or suggestion by calling them idiots. Very bad form, unecessary and against the rules too.
In all my time here, I've only found a need to use the Ignore function for a single member. All the others, whether I agree with them or not, have been easily dealt with.
Another point about the Ignore function. People have a tendency to quote posters who one is ignoring, thereby putting their annoying posts in one's face anyway. I suggest keeping one's list of ignored members as small as possible.
I'd agree with that wholeheartedly. And in the same spirit, I'll suggest that Marv's position is intrinsically an ad hominem attack.
Saying that "if you don't get it, you never will" is essentially saying that the problem is with who you are. Very different from saying you don't get it because of what you don't yet know, what you haven't yet seen, or what you haven't yet experienced and assimilated.
This kind of claim raises so much ire less because it's demonstrably false than because it's fundamentally an insult.
I disagree with your suggestion.
"Art Snob" directly conveys the writer's perception that someone thinks he/she is expert in matters related to that nebulous concept art. Art is one of those words that means different things to different people and can't be unambiguously defined, no matter how many times it's attempted. In my opinion, "art" is about as useful a word as "archival."
"Idiots" is clearly an ad hominem attack.
"There are two dirty words in photography; one is 'art', and the other is 'good taste'." - Helmut Newton
Oh, I completely disagree. In this context "art snobs" is an ad hominem, a sweeping generalization, and most of all, a straw man.
But! I'm guilty too; the idea I was discussing above I falsely misattributed to Marv. I was attacking the notion, expressed by more than one person, that if you don't "get" Weston, you never will.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks