Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 117

Thread: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    New Berlin, Wi
    Posts
    1,354

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    I like the idea about removing the for sale forum..the space could be filled with talk about large format photography instead of posts which seem to be made by people quitting it...

  2. #52

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,176
    Quote Originally Posted by evan clarke View Post
    I like the idea about removing the for sale forum..the space could be filled with talk about large format photography instead of posts which seem to be made by people quitting it...
    Good point! :-)

  3. #53

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Do you swear the tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...? Whatever happened to simply telling the truth and being allowed to do so?

    Of course it's best to settle things one-to-one but when that fails and the transgressor has either done a great wrong or many small ones then I darned-well want to know about it. And, if I've erred then I'll darned-well correct it. If I fail to correct my mistake then I "expect" to be called out.

    I completely agree that, if we've reached a point that we need to make a grievance public, then we should do so with reason and politeness.

    However, there seems to be... on every single forum... the intent to protect the seller more so than the buyer. Why is that? Is there backroom information we little guys are not privy to? Or is it simply a common practice which should be reconsidered?

    Am I being terrible by asking if moderators can moderate under one name and sell under another? I'm not accusing... but it "looks bad".

    Petty bitching is one thing and should be moderated. But telling the truth?

    BTW, if anyone wants to see how bad pandering can "really" get... just mosey on over to some of the sites that take money from "vendors". Talk about pandering and taking sides... wow. Thank God this site is still clean of that mess.

    NO, I don't think the mods are selling covertly. I FAILED to make my point and, other than deleting my entire post, I don't know how to clarify. I'm just saying that it can and does often "look bad". That's really nothing more than politics.
    Last edited by Old-N-Feeble; 1-Apr-2012 at 14:22.

  4. #54

    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    9,487

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Am I being terrible by asking if moderators can moderate under one name and sell under another? I'm not accusing... but it "looks bad".
    Yeah you have the wrong forum. The mods here absolutely do not do that. I may not always agree with everything they do but they are unimpeachable on matters like that.

  5. #55
    8x10, 5x7, 4x5, et al Leigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    5,454

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    ^^^^^^ Yeah, what Frank said.

    - Leigh
    If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.

  6. #56

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Frank/Leigh... repeating what I already wrote... I just stated that it "looks bad". I also stated that it happens on "every single forum". I respect and appreciate the mods here too... but I'll not pander to them any more than I would either of you or anyone else if I have something to say.

  7. #57

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,176

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Wait, let me get this straight. You guys are saying the moderators sell under different names than they post under? Why would they even want to do that?

  8. #58
    8x10, 5x7, 4x5, et al Leigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Maryland, USA
    Posts
    5,454

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Quote Originally Posted by John NYC View Post
    Wait, let me get this straight. You guys are saying the moderators sell under different names than they post under? Why would they even want to do that?
    ONF is the only one who has made that unfounded allegation, based on what happens "on every single forum".

    Since I'm sure he's a frequent participant on every single internet forum, I must respect his opinion... not.

    - Leigh
    If you believe you can, or you believe you can't... you're right.

  9. #59

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    South Texas
    Posts
    1,837

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Oh, for Pete's sake. NO, I don't think they are. It was HYPOTHETICAL... a FAILED attempt at trying to make a point.

  10. #60
    indecent exposure cosmicexplosion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    sydney
    Posts
    664

    Re: New FS rule seems to claim its first victim

    Pssst...hey you, you wanna buy a watch...how about a dirty picture?



    .
    through a glass darkly...

Similar Threads

  1. Bruce Barnbaum’s claim — 20 months later
    By Heroique in forum On Photography
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 4-Nov-2009, 12:06
  2. What's in the box? Another Efke victim...
    By muskedear in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 2-May-2007, 15:10
  3. The one third into the scene rule
    By Leonard Evens in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-Jul-2006, 06:52
  4. Another victim - AGFA in Chapter 11
    By Juergen Sattler in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 29-May-2005, 03:11

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •