vitriolic abuse

[Paul Butzi]

JJ wrote: Thank God it is only 'some of you'. Now why don't you look for the rest of the bad guys? They are right here in the good old USA firing up the imagination of people who would put the young people of this country into Grave Danger for the sake of your impoverished imagination.

I don't care if I get kicked out of here. You are one fucking sick puppy, Frank. You are the enemy. You are a paranoid freak. And you are a fucking poseur. If you want to fight the fight, then do it. But you won't. You are lifestyle poseur - you know nothing on this earth at this time will ever challenge your unreal, typed, opinions, so you type away to put the rest at risk. YOU ARE THE ENEMY.

Just fuck you, Frank.



Well, that's the most offensive, most vitrolic, most abusive thing I've read in a long time.

After the last little brouhaha with Simmons, I had decided that I was no longer going to participate in this forum online. I'd read posts, and if I felt a really deep need to respond, I'd do it offline via private email. And, for the past week, that's been more or less working.

But this - this little liberal hatefest, it's too much. I don't want to read about your politics, I just want to read about large format photography. Is that really, in the end, just beyond your ability? To just talk about cameras, and film, and the challenge of making photographs? Do you really need to make every thread devolve into Bush bashing, and anti-war rants, and bashing of America?

I'd like to extend my sincere gratitude to the moderators for their patient work. I'd like to thank Tuan, who conjured this site from the formless void, and in the process built a wonderful community that enhanced my life greatly. Thanks, also, to Tom and Bjorn, and everone else who helped pluck the forum back from the brink during the great photo.net brouhaha. I do actually understand how much work you folks put in, and I do appreciate it profoundly. And, if I've left someone out, as I'm sure I have - I'm sorry. I appreciate your work, too.

And all those people who've helped me out - my profound thanks. Thanks, too, to those folks who let me help them out when I could.

So long.

[Paul Kierstead]

Show your profound appreciation by contributing to this wonderful community.

[David Luttmann]

I vote we keep Paul & give jj the boot. I see very little worthwhile input from jj. Paul seems to be one of the more knowledgeable posters I've seen in this forum.

Do us all a favor jj.....either offer a decent contribution to this forum, or go blow your hot air elsewhere.

[Sammy_4293]

SOS. Moderators, please block jj's IP ASAP.

[Jerry Fusselman]

I, too, vote we keep Paul and give jj the boot. jj has potential, and he is sometimes funny, but of late, he rarely contributes in any meaningful way. jj's most recent stuff is over-the-top bad.

[Scott Fleming]

I also would like to see jj removed from this board. There's just no excuse.

[Kirk Gittings]

Paul,

"But this - this little liberal hatefest, it's too much. I don't want to read about your politics, I just want to read about large format photography. Is that really, in the end, just beyond your ability? To just talk about cameras, and film, and the challenge of making photographs? Do you really need to make every thread devolve into Bush bashing, and anti-war rants, and bashing of America?"

You could have simply called JJ on the carpet for his rant, but instead you have to include your little political rant too. How can you denounce these political discussions, but contribute to them EVERY time? If you want them to end then do your part and quite participating in them.

[Marko]

I'd like to extend my sincere gratitude to the moderators for their patient work.
...
And all those people who've helped me out - my profound thanks. Thanks, too, to those folks who let me help them out when I could.

So long.

Paul,

You are one of the people whose knowledge and civility attracted me to this board and who finally enticed to me plunge into LF. I hope you won't take offense in my imploring that you reconsider. If you leave now, all your efforts will effectivelly be for nothing and you will have let one profane loudmouth chase you away.

And you are right, politics should have no place on this board. It's vile stuff.

Best regards,

Marko

[Ron Marshall]

I have been an avid reader and a sometime poster on this site for about ten months and have gained a tremendous amount of knowledge. I am truly thankful for a community of people who care about LF, and more importantly who are kind enough to share their knowledge and give helpful advice.

I think that personal attacks have no place on this forum. If one does not agree with anothers opinion, and they are unable to convince them of the correctness of their own opinion, then they should just accept that there will always be differences of opinion. Then move on. If they want to continue the discussion, especially if it does not relate to LF photography, perhaps they should continue it using private messages.

[Caroline Matthews]

Bye, bye, JJ.

[Jack Flesher]

I don't understand the rudeness either. I am new here, but have to agree a few seem to enjoy stirring the pot and not just jj. As the newbie, I wonder to what end jj feels compelled to act this way? Has he always been like this or did something happen? Anyway, when he finally said "bye all" in the other thread, I think many hoped he meant for good... Obviously he didn't mean it -- he was back about four posts later.

Hopefully you don't mean it either Paul. I think you have a lot to add to this forum and I for one enjoy your posts.

Back to you jj. As a newcomer I really don't know the history with you here, but suspect there must be something that happened here that leaves you feeling compelled to trash talk most everybody you happen to disagree with at any opportunity. Moreover you seem intelligent, so when you act in that churlish fashion it doesn't mesh... Care to share what it may have been to turn you so sour? Maybe by discussing it openly you can work your way through it so the forum can get back to more meaningful -- and polite -- discussion. About photography. I suspect you too have LF knowledge and experiences to share or you wouldn't bother hanging out here.

Just a thought -- but IMHO life's too short to live it with all the anger you are apparently carrying...

[Kirk Gittings]

It would be odd that one could propose here the slaughter of uncountable thousands and be acceptable here, but one who uses a common, four-letter word to describe the same is considered unacceptable.

Point well taken. Just consider whether your method is effective.

[paulr]

jj, i've looked back and seen a lot of great ideas from you, and mostly friendly arguments, and then it all ended a week or so ago. hardly anything but piss and vinnegar since then.

i'd never want to boot someone (even if there were such a vote) for having a bad week, but i do wonder what's up.

[Jerry Fusselman]

jj's point is meaningless unless supported by some actual words used---and I see no smoking gun for his accusation. jj's paraphrase and summary counts for nothing. He should not be allowed to put words into someone's mouth. To some, doing nothing about a warlike situation leads to slaughter and is obviously bad; to others, doing something warlike about a warlike situation leads to slaughter and is obviously bad. But this board has rules, and it seems quite clear jj broke them.

[Doug Dolde]

Watch the silly fool again.

tinyurl.com/cc3du (http://tinyurl.com/cc3du)

[jonathan smith]

It's a photography forum not a political forum.

Philosophy might apply, for example, to discussions about aesthetics, but injecting politics, religion, or other controversial topics should be done elsewhere.

[Paul Kierstead]

A quote:
I think it is perfectly A-OK to kill, torture, wiretap, and goon squad the bad guys into defeat.

My thoughts on this kind of attitude are unprintable. Maybe you think it is ok, but for a lot of people it is extremely inflammatory and has no more place here then jj's commment. For that matter, Paul B.'s message also has not place here, nor does mine.

[Merg Ross]

This is really sad. I had logged on to contribute a few comments to Richard Boulware's thoughts of yesterday and came across this post. After a lifetime devoted to photography, over fifty years worth and hopefully with something to contribute, I now have serious doubts that this forum is the place.

[David Karp]

The sort of behavior we have seen on this forum lately has been unfortunate. Some people worked really hard to save this forum a while back to get away from just this sort of behavior. Recently, things seem to have escalated.

I don't know, but when we first became independent again it sure seems like things calmed down compared to what we were seeing on the other site. Perhaps I am fooling myself, but maybe it was because most of the ill-mannered people knew they were not wanted and stayed away.

So, maybe the thing to do is ignore the bait. If someone behaves in a way you find offensive, respond to the substance and ignore the offensive part. My guess is that people are fishing for just the response they have been getting to that sort of post.

Additionally, it seems a shame to congratulate and thank QT and the others for what they have given us, and then walk away. Why not increase your contribution and drown out the extraneous commentary instead of dropping out? This is a valuable community. I feel a debt of gratitude to QT and those who created and maintain this site. Why not keep giving and ignore the nonsense, or overwhelm it with valuable contributions?

All this stuff lately has inspired me to work on a review of my monorail camera, since it is not covered in the camera review section of the site. Maybe I can help someone else that way. I don't think that just leaving will help anyone except those that you decry. Why not at least think about it?

[Pete Watkins]

I would like to see jj removed from this forum. there is no need for the offensive posts that he continually posts on this site.
PETE.

[David Luttmann]

jj,

It appears most here must be "brown nosers" as well. In the end though, you overstepped....and digging your heels in doesn't make any of us respect you more. If the last week is indicitive of your future posts....I hope you take a well needed vacation from the forum altogether.

Regards,

[Rory Roopnarine]

Dear LFers,

What's wrong with you people? Don't you realize how many people you help every day via your contributions? I live on the other side of the planet, and if it weren't for all of you I wouldn't even know that such a thing as large format photography still existed! Now look at me. I have acquired an extensive system and the knowledge that goes with it: all because of you. So stop quibbling over irrelevance and exercise control over the egocentrism please. Believe it or not, others all over the world depend on your knowledge and experiences. Just as I cannot walk out on one of my patients who verbally abuses me on finding out that he is no longer in remission from cancer after months of treatment; neither should Paul Butzi walk out on those who need him the most. We all have our egos to grapple with, and no one likes to have it affronted. However, we all have our responsibilities, and to shirk them always harms those most vulnerable. And we are vulnerable. Large format photography is under assault: eroded by sweeping changes in the technological landscape. You are the few who keep something special, alive. This is the Large Format Photography Forum, populated by those practising at the pinnacle of what can be achieved in photography. Accept your charge with humility and do your part to make the world a better place.

[Saulius]

From this forums Posting Guidlines: (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/help.html#guidel)

"The forum is only for questions specific to LF photography. General photography questions and questions related to photography with other formats should be asked elsewhere, for instance on photo.net, although there is a bit of tolerance for frequent contributors.

Do not make personal attacks. Name calling and character assassination are not appropriate. If you disagree strongly, attack the opinions or ideas expressed, not the other contributors. Remember that your words here are archived forever. Don't write anything you might regret later. "

To those who repeatedly refuse to not adhere to this forums policies I hope you quickly curb your behavior. For such actions are not only offensive to all who read and participate but also a slap in the face to Quang-Tuan Luong and the others who helped bring this forum back to life and keep it going at no financial cost to all of us. I for one certainly hope the moderators will step in and take some overdue action.

[Capocheny]

"It's a photography forum not a political forum.

Philosophy might apply, for example, to discussions about aesthetics, but injecting politics, religion, or other controversial topics should be done elsewhere."

I concur 100% with Jonathan... :|

Take politics to an appropriate forum!

.

Paul,

I have to agree with some of the other posters... you HAVE contributed in a positive fashion over the years. It's a real shame that you're allowing yourself to be driven away in this manner!

IMHO, cutting off your nose to spite your face is hardly the way to sign off!

So, stick around and continue to be a positive influence... but leave the politics the hell out of here!

.

JJ,

You obviously have strong feelings about the subject matter and I respect and accept your beliefs as they apply to YOU! But, I have one thing to say and that is.... "you sure have an obnoxious way of communicating... I'd expect more from a "mature" person!"

Again, I'll reiterate... this isn't the right forum for politicizing one's viewpoints! Leave them the hell out of here! If you don't want to do this... then, might I suggest you take a walk! And, don't let the door slap you on your way out! We can do much better without all the bitterness and animosity! Grow up! This applies not only to you... but to all the others as well!

.

As for everyone else... there are some GREAT people on this forum whose agenda has always been to help other photographers learn about LF photography. And, there are folks here who have spent a lot of time and effort in ensuring that a forum such as this exists for new and experienced LF photographers to share their valued knowledge. Let's continue supporting their efforts... without the political bull-crap! :|

If we allow this forum/site to self-destruct, it'll be a REAL loss to the LF community and if we let these few individuals continue... it most certainly will self-destruct! Is this what we REALLY want????

.

As for the moderators... you need to take a much more proactive approach in your responsibilities! This posting is clearly unacceptable and reflects poorly on the original mandate of the forum!

Peace!

[Saulius]

I suggest that the following be added to the guidelines: If anyone who attacks other individuals, continually posts topics that are off topic and not constructive to LF photography be banned for 30 days from the forum. And have those posts removed as soon as possible. If someone who after being banned from the forum returns again with the same destructive behavior, as outlined in the guidelines they should be banned again, a third time and they are out for good.

I've forwarded this suggestion to the moderators, let's hope we hear their point of view on all of this.

[neil poulsen]

Recent behavior by some people has indeed been over the top. The last problem we had was a watershed moment for Tuan and the moderators of this forum. We're forming a new policy, and behavoir like what we've seen won't be tolerated. I apologize that it has not yet been implemented. It's taking some time for us to consider the different options that we have available. We will post and begin to enforce the new policy as soon as we can.

In the meantime, I've sent a message to JJ and requested that he not return.

[Jerry Fusselman]

Thanks, Neil.

[Capocheny]

Neil,

I'm pleased to hear that you and the management team are implementing new policies to curb this sort of unruly behavior... it's certainly not something we need to read on this forum.

As I said above... there's lots of great people on this forum and they've provided a tremendous amount of time and effort towards helping new and experienced LF photographers alike. Likewise, there are folks here who have dedicated great effort toward keeping the forum a viable site for the dissemination of LF information. It would be a terrible shame to see all this positive work go to waste over the likes of a few "childish kids" who cannot/will not control themselves!

So, thank you for expending even greater effort(s) to making this forum a first class place to learn and expand our knowledge of LF photography! :)

Cheers!

[Witold Grabiec]

1. I don't think that actually BANNING someone is going to work since he/she can find another way to log on and continue, at that just for the fun of it

2. I do agree that anything of above sorts should be removed at the earliest opportunity without explanation given

3. We must do our best not to take a bait and, as someone said earlier, respond to the topic and skip the rest

4. Personally I have not once been offended (or distructed) by posts not specifically related to LF (and any digital question falls at the very worst in a grey area, plus more and more of us have little choice but learn the digital route anyways). I doubt there is one person here who does not use smaller than LF format. I've seen very few questions of that kind anyways.

5. I have however, been very much offended by many politically charged, idiotic at that, comments and find them written by primitive minds at best. As said before I fail to find a connection between politics, religion, gender, and ethnic background in any way related to the craft of photography. It has no place here and should be removed ASAP.

6. While my work schedule removes me from the internet for a couple of months at a time, I always look forward to reading, learning, and possibly contributing here.

7. I certainly hope we as a group, will find a smarter way to cope with this issue. Ban on anything has never worked. In fact it fuels the issue and thus allows it to thrive.

[David G. Gagnon]

Thank you Neil. It indeed had gotten out of hand.

David

[GPS]

Too little, too late. You have tolerated this behaviour in the past, now you get its fruit.

[medform-norm]

I'm a little surprised no one here seems to feel anything for the elegant solution APUG has found for threads like the ones all the fuss is about: the creation of a Soap Box - here it should be rather the Large Soap Box, this being the LF Forum, but all the same, it really is a nice idea and it does seem to work within that other community. Why not learn from others and copy the good parts?

Some people here expressed the opinion that banning is not a solution. I can understand that bad mouthing is not appreciated, not if the bad mouthing is done by JJ nor by anyone else either. (He that casts the first stone etc.) But I think there is more than one way of dealing with that. Personally, I feel I would miss both the contributions from Paul as well as the ones from JJ. Really, APUG has not become a worse place with the institution of the 'Off Topic Room' - but it would have become worse if all those people who populate this room with their varying opinions and ways of expressing themselves would have been banned flat out by the moderators. These are my two cents worth of thinking.... but I am, I must admit, a little pessimistic about the chances of my proposal being heard here.
Noname-Norm

[David Luttmann]

Thanks, Neil.

Medform, the creation of an "off-topic room" is not necessary. This is a photographic forum. If one wants a policital forum, they can look elsewhere. Bandwidth need not be devoted to the likes of them.

[Michael Kadillak]

Thanks Neil. The responsibilities of the moderators are absolutely critical to maintaining the integrity of the group. We have to much time and information compiled to let it degrade to a sub standard venue. We all clearly know the rules and each have a personal responsibility to abide by them. The issue here is timely application and consistency. When a personal attack takes place in any form a short cut and paste of the rules from one of the moderators should appear to let folks know that this activity will not be tolerated. Kirk's comments about two wrongs not making a right is absolutely correct. If you need assistance moderating, then reach out for it.

When things take a wrong turn it appears that the same participants seem to want to stir the pot. , but at the same time I want to make it clear that a majority of others put their emotions on check and correctly step aside.

Cheers!

[Jim Rhoades]

Twenty nine years of my life were spent in law enforcement. This gave me a unique look at the underbelly of our society. It also tended to reinforce my conservative leanings. For Thirty nine years I have been deeply involved in photography. I learned long ago that most of the other people I met in the various arts would be liberal and on the left side of the fence. I never felt confused or put off by this. I knew that I have had vastly different life experiences than they did. I had seen and done things that in many cases where unimaginable by most normal people in our country.

To Frank and Paul, you are not alone in your conservative views. You are outnumbered here, that’s all. I want you to think back to the ‘60’s. Remember the book 1984. Remember how all the liberal professors, media and self elected intelligentsia believed that the book portrayed a nasty right wing future?

Now 30 to 40 years later we find that it’s really the politically correct left wing that in fact is the though police. We’ve read JJ’s posts and it’s clear that he believes in his free speech. Not Frank’s, not Paul’s and oh, not Jim’s. Look at how many jumped on the bandwagon in Bush bashing and shouting down your views. I stayed out of this until now because it’s counter productive. I only write now to remind you of the folly of the ‘60’s. A lot of what is being said now about President Bush was also said about President Reagan. Except Ronnie not only ended the cold war, he won it. Could they have been wrong?

I guess I have strong feeling about a lot of this because I was born and raised 14 miles from ground zero. I went to a photographic technical school blocks from the towers. I then worked until my retirement 14 miles from ground zero. No, I will never forget and never forgive.

To Neil, I promise that this is my first and last politically inclined post. Bad feelings are not what this forum is about. Strong opinions about equipment, composition and ways of seeing are the goals. Four letter flame wars only show a moronic mindset. Paul, keep on posting.

[Phong]

"it is perfectly A-OK to kill, torture, wiretap, and goon squad the bad guys into defeat."

Statements like this are infinitely, infinitely more offensive to me than all the F**K words, especially when we don't even know who the bad guys are. I understand how such statements could push some people over the edge of civility, just as some common curse words would others. Let me put it this way; I would much rather have my young children say f**k, than have them to even just think that "it is perfectly A-OK to torture, and goon squad" anybody.

Regards,

[steve simmons]

I would delelete the earlier thread about flaming. That is where this thread got started (IMHO). That one had no place on this forum as well.

JJ is John Stafford as I understand it. He, under whatever name, has been the source of a lot of venom over the years. He claims to be very knowledgeable but I wonder about the imapct of his hostility in a forum like this one. I have tried to point out for quite awhile that posts like his and threads like this do damage to the large format community. This type of behavior keeps very knowledgeable people from participating which gives bullies a pulpit and I think that is unfortunate. The moderators will have to decide if he has been an asset or a detriment to this forum. At this point I would vote on the side of a detriment

Many times I have been blamed for starting flame wars. This is my first post in this thread and I have not made any posts in the thread on illegal flame wars. Yet Butzi takes his first post as an opportunity to try and drag me through the mud and blame me for his decision not to particiapte publically any more. It was a cheap shot and OT as far as I am concerned. His agenda seems to be to spit on many of us.

from Kirk Gittings

"You could have simply called JJ on the carpet for his rant, but instead you have to include your little political rant too. How can you denounce these political discussions, but contribute to them EVERY time? If you want them to end then do your part and quite participating in them."

Sometimes the name of the game in these debates is simply to win. There are no rules that anyone adheres to. People are misquoted to make them look bad, when a silly/innaccurate post is made and the poster is challenged they simply go on to throw stones from a different location on the playground. Their location is discovered and they are challenged. Rather than respond to the challenge they simply move to a different location and start throwing stones again. No resolution is possible because none is desired. Butzi could have made his point in a much more civil manner and there was no need to drag me into this battle becasue I was not a participant. He is every bit as responsible for this unfortunate thread as JJ or John Stafford.

There are rules and they are referred to periodically. IMHO they are not being followed or enforced. Call it censorship if you will but I think this forum needs to be operated for the good of the greater large format community. Removing threads like the one on flame wars or the ugly posts here does not hurt lf photo at all, in fact I think it would help.

steve simmons

[medform-norm]

"Medform, the creation of an "off-topic room" is not necessary. This is a photographic forum. If one wants a policital forum, they can look elsewhere. Bandwidth need not be devoted to the likes of them."

Dave,
maybe you haven't visited the Soap Box, but not all what is discussed there is of a political nature, some of it is also photographic, so it's not so much an Off Topic Room as a place where threads live that would otherwise disturb other members of the community. Also, read the caveat lector that is placed in front of the Soap Box: enter at your own risk.

But, I will repeat, I am still pessimistic about the chances for a similar place here....seeing what is the general 'geist' of this place.

[Walt Calahan]

JJ

To refresh the groups participation, here's what you wrote:

"Mr. Calahan said A long time ago a man came down from a mountain with 10 laws. Mankind is still ignoring those commandments.

Me included.

But ten commandments aren't enough. Ever notice that half of them are about establishing the author as the authority, and the rest are largely about property rights?

The Jews have over three-hundreds directives to living a proper life. Darn Moses for his Reader's Digest version... or was that some kind of Christian revision?"

Here's my question: why must you poke a stick in everyone's eye? You seem to revel is starting a fight? What pleasure do you get from this? What is it that makes you want to be combative?

You are clearly seeking attention. Why?

To me, you sound like a little baby crying out 'cause you are hungry or your diapers are wet or mom isn't in the room when you have awoke from a nap.

I recommond to the group to simply ignore JJ. He doesn't need to be band from the forum. Just ignored.

This is the last bit of attention I'm giving to JJ ill behavior. Time for a "time-out" JJ. Go to your room.

[Tom Westbrook]

medform-norm > but I am, I must admit, a little pessimistic about the chances of my proposal being heard here.

Not at all--the thought has occurred. The LUG also has such a thing and I find it an interesting idea. It has been my intent for a while to add the ability to have other, parallel fora here. The work to change the software isn't insignificant, but I putter at it off and on.

[medform-norm]

Tom, that's good to hear. I do understand it's a lot of work. Sean on APUG literally slaves for us members and subscribers, but then, APUG has paying subscribers to make up for some of the good work he puts into it. However, if you ever succeed in making this happen software-wise, should we not invite someone to inaugurate it properly? (wink wink, nudge nudge, thud thud).

[David A. Goldfarb]

I proposed the SoapBox over on APUG based on experience I had with similar things on other forums like echo, which was originally a New York-based version of The Well and still functions as a unix-based text-only discussion board running Caucus BBS software, though they have a website at www.echonyc.com.

I predicted that as on echo, we'd concentrate a lot of unpleasantness in one place that would eventually die down as the habitual brawlers got tired of it, and then only a few people would frequent the SoapBox and it wouldn't actually be that bad, and this is pretty much what's happened. We've had a few outbreaks where the moderators have had to be more assertive, and there have been some growing pains with that, but it seems we've struck a decent balance, so the moderators don't have to step in too often any more. There are a few people who go to the SoapBox to stir up trouble, but most people seem to ignore it now. Only about five people have been banned from the site aside from a few drive-by spammers.

As Tom says, though, the software here isn't really set up for something like a SoapBox. In Caucus there are many forums, and you have to subscribe to each forum, so if you don't want to view "Plain Wrapper" (the echo version of the SoapBox), you just don't subscribe to it. On APUG, you can just choose to view or not view different forums, so if you're not interested in the SoapBox or the color printing forum or classified ads, you can filter them out. The LF forum doesn't allow for that at the moment.

[Ole Tjugen]

Medform-norm - may I remind you that JJ got banned on APUG too, for just the sort of behaviour we've seen here?

As an information to those of you who don't know this already, I'm one of the moderaors on APUG. Most of the time this is a very easy job, but every once in a while someone decides to "keep us alert", so to speak.

Sometimes even the "soap box" isn't enough.

[darr]

"I'm a little surprised no one here seems to feel anything for the elegant solution APUG has found for threads like the ones all the fuss is about: the creation of a Soap Box - here it should be rather the Large Soap Box, this being the LF Forum, but all the same, it really is a nice idea and it does seem to work within that other community. Why not learn from others and copy the good parts?"

I hope this forum's focus remains photographic. If a LF photographer would like to debate politics, let him visit APUG for that, or another politically based forum. I think it would be a waste of necessary resources and divert from the uniqueness of what the LF Community represents on the web.

[medform-norm]

Ole, no, I wasn't aware of that. I knew he was banned, not for what. Wasn't paying attention when that happened. But would he have been banned when there was a Soap Box? I mean, was it that bad?

[David A. Goldfarb]

We tried banning all incendiary off topic discussion on APUG, and it just required too much work and too much micromanagement on the part of the moderators--editing and deleting posts, responding to complaints, putting users on moderation queue so their posts have to be approved, responding to censorship threads, etc. If you want a forum like that, take a look at Photo News Net--

http://www.mycpi.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3277

It works because membership is fairly tightly controlled, and Gary Gladstone is at the helm wielding the stick.

Do we want that kind of moderation (I wouldn't mind it), and is there someone willing to do it (no thanks, APUG is enough volunteer moderation for me)?

[Aaron van de Sande]

"The forum is only for questions specific to LF photography. General photography questions and questions related to photography with other formats should be asked elsewhere, for instance on photo.net, although there is a bit of tolerance for frequent contributors.

Do not make personal attacks. Name calling and character assassination are not appropriate. If you disagree strongly, attack the opinions or ideas expressed, not the other contributors. Remember that your words here are archived forever. Don't write anything you might regret later. "

This has no teeth if moderation is not enforced. The need for moderation is a sad fact of the internet (we could argue about it all day, but it just IS). If the owners of the forum are happy with the current situation and you can't "take the heat" you will just have to go elsewhere. Personally I find political arguments the most offensive offtop subject possible. There are plenty of places on the net to talk politics.

[robc]

the "Watch out for those flame wars - illegal flaming" thread was infact under the category of "Off topic" so the fact the thread wasn't about LF is neither hear nor there. The category could have been called "Soap Box" it would have made no difference.

I think that there are three relatively simple things which could be done to help stop people from seeing what they are not interested in seeing.

Firstly, set the forum default to no email. i.e. You have to specifically ask for email posts rather than specifically ask not to receive emails from the forum. That way less people will receive emails they really don't want to see(if they haven't worked out how to stop email).
Since not too many get emails anyway it might be worth removing the facility altogether so that you have to take time out to visit the forum if you want to read the posts. Some analysis of whether the habitual offenders are receiving email posts might help with this decision.

Secondly, include the "Category" in a column on the "recent topics", "new responses" and "unanswered questions" pages. That way you can ignore posts which aren't in category that interests you.

Thirdly, include the "Last Poster" in a column on the "recent topics", "new responses" and "unanswered questions" pages. That way you can ignore posts from people whose posts you are in no hurry to see.

This way if you go to "Off Topic" and don't like what you see because its "Off Topic" then you only have yourself to blame.

I'm not condoning what has occurred but merely suggesting a couple of things which should be simple to implement and may help calm the list and make it slightly less reactive.

[Oren Grad]

If you need assistance moderating, then reach out for it.

While all this has been going on, the moderators have indeed been reaching out behind the scenes, trying to put in place the resources needed to stay on top of things. It can be a challenge - active moderating requires a level of ongoing commitment greater than just popping in and out on an irregular basis as time allows and interest dictates.

I'm very grateful for their efforts.

[tim atherton]

people tend to fall into two camps - the Law & Order types who would much rather prefer a Firm Moderating Hand - the firmer the better. And the Laid Back Ageing Hippie types who feel the less moderating the better - and if grown ups want to act like teenagers - hey, so what - don't read the posts.

Likewise there are probably really only two alternate solutions:

1. Strict and firm moderating

2. Allow for a free for all basically unmoderated "Soap Box" forum - with the existing light touch on the rest of the main list - vocalizers and those who like to "act out" are then pointed gently but firmly to the Soap Box and told to keep it there (and as well as way OT posts - anything bashing the latest View Camera, endless digital vs. analogue rants etc could also possibly be moved there).

For the latter - being a touch more genteel and civilised than APUG we could perhaps term ours "Speakers Corner"

Biggest danger - taking a middle road - which will end up pleasing no one....

[Dan Fromm]

Folks, this is pretty ridiculous. Most of the time he's been posting, here and elsewhere, John Stafford has been a useful and informative contributor. But he's had occasional runs of violently abusive posts. His nastiness has come out of nowhere, lasted at most a week, and then subsided. The same is true of Jorge Gasteazoro. I expect at best insulting, at worst violently abusive, responses from both of them for this comment.

We've put up with it. I don't like receiving abuse, don't enjoy watching others receive it. And I value John's and Jorge's positive contributions.

We've put up with it. Just now the righteous, led by Paul Butzi, another person whose contributions I value, are howling for John's head. I don't understand why, John's been as obnoxious before with no negative repercussions.

We've put up with it. Let's drop the selective righteousness and let the stinkers go on making bad smells. Let's go on putting up with it and stop pretending that we're virtuous.

With a hearty pfui! to all,

[robc]

And my final suggestion on the topic is to have a category called "Post Mortem" where threads such as this should go.

My observation is that the post mortems which take place after a "Robust" exchange always seem to go on far longer than the original thread and in their own way are just as devisive.

[Eric Leppanen]

I don't think it is an exercise in righteousness in demanding a basic requirement of civility in this forum. Folks participate here because they want to learn and share experiences about photography, not because they want to participate in an episode of Jerry Springer.

I agree that some of the folks in question have made good contributions to this forum. But they have also chosen to vent gratuitous and completely unproductive hostility at other forum members, frequently with little or no provocation. If such behavior is allowed, then effectively it is condoned; and believe you me, some proportion of prospective future forum members will be deterred from joining as a result.

I realize that this forum is largely run by volunteers, and that a balance will have to be struck between the ideal and feasible. And I understand that the threshold for moderator intervention is debatable and frequently a judgment call, and that people will sometimes make errors in judgment during heated discussions that they later regret. But flat-out name-calling is unacceptable by any civil standard. In private industry, folks behaving in this way will usually be first given a warning to cease and desist. If they persist, they will be disciplined. If they further persist, they will be fired. I think this forum should adopt similar guidelines.

[David Karp]

It seems to me that civil discourse will encourage greater participation and exposition of additional points of view, and that continued escalation of incivility will encourage the opposite result. This would be to the detriment forum.

[Marko]

Dan Fromm: John Stafford has been a useful and informative contributor. But he's had occasional runs of violently abusive posts. His nastiness has come out of nowhere, lasted at most a week, and then subsided. The same is true of Jorge Gasteazoro.

Dan, you bring up a very interesting point. If this kind of behaviour is indeed cyclical, perhaps the individuals displaying it should be encouraged to ask for professional opinion, as such things are now treatable. But anybody who participates in this fourm is by default intelligent enough to be able to understand that and should not be allowed to use this forum as a substitute for therapy.

That being said, I would really like to see JJ come back to his senses and continue discussing photography here, as he's indeed had some very interesting contributions. I would definitely NOT want to see anybody banned, but on the other hand, the kind of abuse he hurls at others can easily chase away even more people.

Regards,

[Michael Gordon]

Some of you guys really need to get out and make photographs.

[Dan Fromm]

Marko, interesting and potentially useful suggestion. The one time I made it to John, he breathed fire on me. I didn't like it, decided to ignore the provocation because I'd watched him over several cycles.

It seems to me that who posts in a public forum has to expect some responses he/she/it won't like. Getting them isn't a good reason to stop posting.

Cheers,

[Jonathan Brewer]

Neil Poulson and anybody else................................I participate only occaisionally here, and frankly when I feel like it, there are people here I don't like and who don't like me, that means nothing to me, I feel more at home on the lighting forum and participate regularly there, I pretty much read and pick through what I find interesting on this forum, and respond to that.

But I've got to say this, a lot of you folks talk about civility/courtesy, and the value of this forum as an information conduit, yet you carry ancient grudges to the extent that one member suggested that even if somebody they didn't like were to post legitimate questions, that they be given the 'silent treatment' until they went away, THAT'S TOTAL BS, and wrong, and to me, more devotion to an old/ancient grudge at the expense of legitimate dialogue, and don't get me wrong, me personally I don't care, when folks I don't like, automatically shut themselves up when I post, I love it.

One lizard on this forum, decided to personally e-mail my home, and called my wife and children the most 'UNSPEAKABLE' of names, now he has never met my family, and any man who is a man, keeps the gripe between the two of them, now for the past couple of years, I've decided to table my anger about the insult to my family, I will never forget, but for now, I will table it. But what I find incredible, is that for years this same guy keeps embroiling, baiting, disrespecting, and dragging down the class and decorum of any forum he happens to be flaming on, and YOU TOLERATE IT. Also some folks who posture as if they deplore flames, will they themselves go on for as long as three days with Simmons, and not just once but several times.

And some of you folks won't lay to rest the grudge/grudges you got against Wisner, and I say grudge as opposed to legitimate gripe, because some folks have come on here, castigated Wisner, convicted him, acted as judge, jury, and executioner, with applause, before he can come on here and defend himself.

YES, I've had my temper get the best of me sometimes, so I can't be sanctimonious, but I still think I've watched this forum enough to point out w/legitimacy that the rules haven't been applied to everybody, the same way, all the time, these three day wars with Simmons and Wisner are just as wrong as somebody getting pissed off and saying f--k you, I know little of JJ, one way or the other, Frank Petronio has contacted me offline and been very helpful pointing out something about my website, other than that I simply won't take sides, because it's not my fight, but to me, if you want to stop all this shit, somebody is going to have to do somethong when these threads go sour, and not let it go on for as long as three days.

If you have to 'skewer' me from a tree, for saying what I honestly feel, so be it.

[Frank Petronio]

When an obviously political thread is started, such as Tim's thread about Homeland Security topics, it should be a pretty strong indicator that people are going to talk about politics. And while I know that my opinions are 180 degrees different than many other people, we should be able to discuss and banter and even argue like adults. JJ blowing his stack is his personality, I'm not scared or all that offended or anything. If anything, I provoked him instead of calming him down. But we all knew it was a political thread from the get-go, and a few nasty bric-bracs is no big deal. I doubt JJ is going to flip out and call me at 2am or do anything physical. If someone did anything like that, there would be one heck of a paper trail!

What is scary to me is how a thread about Readyloads gets turned into a hate-fest. Now that is just plain wrong, especially to the poor newbie who posed the question. I bet he has since disappearred and I don't blame him.

Maybe we should learn how to disagree more respectfully? But without any disagreements, the forum would be awfully boring.

[Paul Kierstead]

God help me, I am gonna agree with Frank :). All of it.

Additionally, I have been personally be heavily skewered by JJ (and Jorge for that matter), and I think a "word" with him might be in order, banning is a whole issue. The OP (Paul Butzi) is no angel either, not to mention many others (including me on occasion).

But yes, the Rapid load thing was ridiculous. Maybe a new thread about a review from View Camera on using Rapidloads in Wisner ...

[Paul Kierstead]

Developed in pyro, of course. Without using a densitometer to calibrate.

[David Luttmann]

Agreed Paul. I've been called a liar as well as numerous other names by people who actually didn't have a clue what they were talking about (their own admission) just for the sake of arguing. I'll admit I'm no angel.....but I haven't resorted to that......and see no need to.

[Struan Gray]

I have learnt a lot from JJ over the years, and he generously gave me a lens that takes lovely pictures of my children, so I may be biased; but I think it would be very sad if a profane loss of temper in an explicitly political thread were enough to get him banned. I hope the moderators have more time on their hands than that.

I am one of Pandora Tim's hippy types. Online insults and rude words run off me like spray off a duck in spring - at least, I like to think so. I prefer swear words not be used, and think them counterproductive, but once in a while on a topic worth getting passionate about I can forgive without missing a beat. If they are all there is, the forum dies, but that is hardly the case here. If in moderation, I look on the rare total loss of self control as being usefully illuminating of character, much like the threads on how old we are, or what we look like, or our favourite darkroom music.

I would be happy to see heavier-handed moderation, or a Mosh Pit - what ever it takes. I think aiming for a forum only frequented by nice people with neat manners is a sure route to a slow, grey death by boredom.

[Oren Grad]

I think aiming for a forum only frequented by nice people with neat manners is a sure route to a slow, grey death by boredom.

It's possible to have a rip-roaring, hard-hitting, edgy, substantive debate without degenerating into "nyah, nyah, I'm not the lying, immoral SOB, you are!" nonsense. Yes, you can avoid that up to a point - skip the OT political threads - but we've ended up having threads where there was good information and perversity mixed throughout, and you had to wade through plenty of one to get to all of the other. So I'm in favor of strong moderation, though mindful of the effort involved.

And anyway, as for the political threads, I don't have a problem with ruling those out of bounds. It's understandable that people feel very strongly about these issues and want to vent about them, but there are countless other forums designed for that stuff. I think it's more than reasonable to conserve the resources invested in this forum primarily for that role which it plays uniquely, a role that's needed all the more now as the market changes around us.

[tim atherton]

"When an obviously political thread is started, such as Tim's thread about Homeland Security topics, it should be a pretty strong indicator that people are going to talk about politics."

But I actually posted it because we have had plenty of anonymous flaming and insults happen on this list in the past - and it did seem pertinent to the list - if OT regarding photography

(I'll admit the initial quote I posted wasn't quite objective reporting, but I really didn't think such a thread could "degenerate" so fast... )

Mind, you - odd thing about "we probably wouldn't act quite this way if we were all sat around in a pub with a few warm pints Gribbles best Plucking Pheasant and a few bags of chips talking face to face " - ever since I saw Frank's photo in the "what do we look like" thread a while back, his political views doesn't cause me the sort of angst they perhaps might once have... :-)

[David Karp]

Isn't it possible to be passionate or have a strongly held opinion without causing the discussion to degenerate into name calling, etc? I don't think anyone wants everyone to disagree. Although it seems increasingly difficult, it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable.

[Frank Petronio]

Thanks Tim, I guess I am a cuddley Neo-Nazi.

Actually, I live, sleep and parent with a woman who is a feminist, Hillary-voting, anti-war liberal. We get solicitations from Code Pink and the NRA. National Review and Molly Ivins come in the mail. We read it all. We only rarely swear at each other, and last year I even got her a pair of panties that had "My Cherry for Kerry" printed on them. Fortunately that was not the case.

[Struan Gray]

It's possible to have a rip-roaring, hard-hitting, edgy, substantive debate without degenerating into "nyah, nyah, I'm not the lying, immoral SOB, you are!" nonsense.

This is the ideal, and is rewarding for all when it happens, but it does usually require at least the expectation of active and purposeful moderation. I think that what I was trying to say was that if that level of moderation is beyond the volunteer efforts of the powers that be here, I would prefer to see an inclusive forum with a bit of profanity than a polite, twinsets and tea one with cosy lists of banned topics and banned posters.

[Paul Kierstead]

Damn, Frank, you are a cuddly neo-con maybe, but not a Nazi for sure. I might even go for for Facist, but that term seems abused and mis-intrepreted now-a-days, so it would be wrong to use it anyway. In any case, all those labelled little boxes are very counter-productive; it is one of the saddest things I see in American politics: The need to label every opinion or thought as being liberal or conservative. It is sidetracks the issues and leaves people defending their ideology (or at least side, as the ideologies shift over time), instead of discussing the actual issue.

I almost wish I was an American just so I could get those panties for my g/f, but this is Canada and well ... ah, it would be hard to explain, but the idea just doesn't work here.

[tim atherton]

"This is the ideal, and is rewarding for all when it happens, but it does usually require at least the expectation of active and purposeful moderation. I think that what I was trying to say was that if that level of moderation is beyond the volunteer efforts of the powers that be here, I would prefer to see an inclusive forum with a bit of profanity than a polite, twinsets and tea one with cosy lists of banned topics and banned posters."

Precisely - and I'd tie in this response to Steve Simmons parallel post in the Flame Wars and Civility thread - part of the problem is that one persons plain-spokenness is another persons rude. Someone else's everyday "call a spade a spade" attitude is, to another person, arrogant. And so someone gets their back up and down it so easily goes (small example - my spousal unit is a fairly blunt spoken Aussie but even after a good few years here she still manages to upset a lot of Canadians on an almost daily basis because they think she's being rude... but whenever there's another Aussie around (or a Scot for that matter) - they just get it).

[Frank Petronio]

Paul - search Cafe Press (http://www.cafepress.com) for those panties. While you're at it, pick up a "Condi '08" bumpersticker (sold $500 worth so far) or a "Hill ain't Bill" one if you lean the other way (those are my designs).

Can't we argue canadian politics for a change? You guys have some juicy scandles underway...

[Kerry L. Thalmann]

I even got her a pair of panties that had "My Cherry for Kerry"

Frank,

Please leave me out of this.

Kerry

[tim atherton]

"I almost wish I was an American just so I could get those panties for my g/f, but this is Canada and well ... ah, it would be hard to explain, but the idea just doesn't work here."

Well - where I am working right now a colleague is working on a Toponymy (toponymical?) database and just informed me that apparently Beaver Lodge has the "World's Biggest Beaver"...

As a friend and fellow expat-Brit pointed out - you can tell you've become a real Canadian when you can talk about beavers without sniggering...

[tim atherton]

"Can't we argue canadian politics for a change? You guys have some juicy scandles underway..."

Be our guest - we are in the last two weeks of an election - which they manged to schedule to run over Christmas...

It's as boring as watching paint dry and hardly anyone is terribly interested

[Oren Grad]

you can tell you've become a real Canadian when you can talk about beavers without sniggering

Or an MIT alumnus - but that's another story...

[Paul Kierstead]

I had a friend suspended from school for a "If your Canadian then show me your beaver" T-Shirt. Those teachers had dirty minds......hmm, that was some time ago.

[paulr]

I'm starting to think some kind of mosh pit is a good idea. it's easy enough to say all the ranting's off topic and have people take it somewhere else. but i think that misses the point that this has become a community for a lot of people. it's a lot more rewarding to slug it out and vent with people you know ... friends and nemeses alike.

it's also more interesting to talk about some of the on-topic subjects with people that you know as a whole person (and not just the pyro guy or the 7x17 guy or the inkjet guy). knowing some of the off-topic sides of people ... including the off-color sides ... can make the converation richer. especially when talking about ideas and art. i'll learn more about where someone's art comes from if i hear them rant or sulk or fight or flee than i will if i just hear them drone on about f-stops.

[Frank Petronio]

People often say "hit a political forum if you want to talk politics" but those forums are usually either full of dittoheads (Rush Limbaugh fans) or Al Franken impersonators. In other words, people tend to flock towards other like-minded people. It's forums like this one that actually force people from different backgrounds and politics -- from around the world, not just the USA -- to talk. And if we build up a level of trust and respect because we are all interested and helpful on LF photography, then we could actually have some really great discussions.

Now, if you want to swear and sound like a complete goon you can, but it seems like that behavior would hurt your credibility.

[darr]

paulr: " i'll learn more about where someone's art comes from if i hear them rant or sulk or fight or flee than i will if i just hear them drone on about f-stops".

I would like to see a gallery category where contributors can post images and we can then have a dialog about them. I usually learn more from looking at art than from all the talk about it.

[robc]

just got this from the BBC news. Very expensive.

cost of war (http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/ksgnews/PressReleases/010906_bilmes_war_costs.htm)

[Oren Grad]

Well, you guys who want to play in the mosh pit, are you confident you could keep it there, at least well enough so that the moderators aren't run ragged cleaning up the leakage?

[Tim Hyde]

I think a LOT of people need to take Michael Gordon's advice above. Somehow I don't think this discussion would take place with this group of people any time but the dead of winter.

[paulr]

I thought it time to check in with some of the renowned vitriolic flamers of history ...

"To know all is not to forgive all. It is to despise everybody." --Quentin Crisp

"Being in politics is like being a football coach; you have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important." --Eugene McCarthy

"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices." --William James

[Marko]

Darr: I would like to see a gallery category where contributors can post images and we can then have a dialog about them. I usually learn more from looking at art than from all the talk about it.

Great idea, Darr. This would be especially great for people who don't have their own permanent place to post images.

May I also suggest something like Beginner's Corner (or Newbie Pit, if you wish, or something along those lines, you get the idea) where beginners or those of us who feel as such could post images and ask for advice?

Regards,

[William Mortensen]

" this has become a community for a lot of people. it's a lot more rewarding to slug it out and vent with people you know ... friends and nemeses alike... / ... i'll learn more about where someone's art comes from if i hear them rant or sulk or fight or flee than i will if i just hear them drone on about f-stops." --paulr

I quite concur with Paul on this one. Artr history is as much about the personalities as the artwork they produced, so it seems in current art, we should take advantage of getting to know the personalities producing work in our medium today, (minor figures though we are, and as painful as that familiarity might sometimes be!) The ultimate damage done by vitriolic, abusive posters is to themselves. I've yet to read an insult here that lowered my opinion of the person being insulted, and learning not to take baiting seriously seems as worthwhile a skill as any exposure/development method. My best suggestion to the moderators would be that we move the poster's name to the top, so that as we start reading a post, we know from the start whether it's one we want to blip through or read more seriously.

I especially enjoy the arguements; a recent one regarding Robert Adams was quite rewarding, and the exchanges over the work to my mind validated the work by its having inspired that discussion. We could just do without the repeated personal insults.

[Struan Gray]

Quote time? Oh goody.

"I love the small of Napalm in the morning!"

"Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity."

"If you have nothing good to say about anybody, come and sit by me."

"He sufferns from delusions of adequacy."

"I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it shall be behind me."

"Non illegetemi carborundum."

[paulr]

"If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve." --jello biafra

[Struan Gray]

"Ack!" - Bill the Cat.

[Marko]

"Stupidity, as oposed to genius, is limitless" --??

"There's only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary system and those who don't" --??

“Some men fish all their lives without realizing it is not fish they are after.” -- Henry David Thoreau

[Oren Grad]

The law of diminishing returns kicks in, with a vengeance...

[Dan Fromm]

Less is more.

[William Mortensen]

Scientists have determined that more than 80% of the universe is made up of a mysterious unknown substance they call "dark matter." I think when they finally able to identify it it will turn out to be stupidity.

[Greg Tims]

"Sometimes, I guess there's just not enough rocks." - Forrest Gump

"Stupid is as stupid does." - Forrest Gump

[paulr]

"Teach a man to build a fire, he stays warm for a day. Set a man on fire, he stays warm for the rest of his life."

[David Luttmann]

Adam had'em

[William Mortensen]

"Either that wall paper goes, or I do..." - the last words of Oscar Wilde

[Joe Smigiel]

"My best suggestion to the moderators would be that we move the poster's name to the top, so that as we start reading a post, we know from the start whether it's one we want to blip through or read more seriously."

Excellent idea.

[John_4185]

Simmons said: JJ is John Stafford as I understand it. He, under whatever name, has been the source of a lot of venom over the years.

Well, I'll be darned. I was banned but there is no physical mechanism to keep me from posting.

Let me suggest that you quit posting about someone who cannot, legitimately defend himself without violating the wishes of our immoderator.

You wanna vent, then write to me and stick to the issues.

[Ralph Barker]

There have been some good suggestions made in this thread, but there has also been some slipping-back of some posters into old habits.

Let's not let this degrade further.

[David Luttmann]

jj,

Hopefully you have learned to behave. If not, I suggest the moderator puts on a still toed boot this time.....

[Ross Chambers]

Speaking of "vitriolic abuse":

I do agree the jj's post is quite offensive, but so was Butzi's attack on me (on the pure silver list version 1) when I dared to suggest that, historically and aesthetically speaking, the Abu Ghraib pix, crudely recorded but reproduced world-wide, would become icons of universal currency as much as anything anyone of us have hoped to achieve.

I believe that this has proved arguably to be the case.

Paul's take on this was that I was being politically motivated. Whilst I have an opinion on this war -- my country is there too -- I suggest that Mr. Butzi devote a few hours to media studies and the power of photography in this area. (but, sigh, this did not get through last time)

Regards - Ross

[Steve Hamley]

"A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."

Steve

[John_4185]

Not to worry, Mr. Luttmann. I am leaving. The immoderator demanded that I leave, and I will take that seriously.

The post above was largely to see how long it took to moderate the post, and how the blocking worked, and also to suggest, as I did, that persons who wish to make comments to me can do so by private mail.

Leaving with just this - promoting a war against untold thousands of people is the most extreme form of prejudice, and if the promoter is not putting his life on the line, then his opinion is mere posing lifestyle 'stuff'.

peace,

[Ralph Barker]

John (jj) - your post of 1/12 was allowed to remain without moderator comment because it was appropriate under the circumstances. And, you are correct - moderators don't currently have a convenient mechanism for actually blocking posts from persons who have been asked not to participate here. I don't believe the forum software design ever anticipated the need to block individual participants. While that may change with modifications to the forum software, we rely on the individual to honor the request, and/or the ability to delete individual posts.

[John_4185]

John (jj) - your post of 1/12 was allowed to remain without moderator comment because it was appropriate under the circumstances.

Perhaps I was instructed to stay away by someone I only presumed was the moderator. Who is the moderator?

[John_4185]

Are you the moderator, Ralph?

Or are you delegated to speak for him?

I just checked, and it appears that Neil Poulsen is the moderator.

He's the one who told me to go away. I don't have the message

here at the moment, but that's the essense of it.

[Sal Santamaura]

One click away at "Help/Guidelines/FAQ/DMCA Agent"

Moderators

Listed by order of activity:

Neil Poulsen

Ralph Barker

Quang-Tuan Luong

Rob Barker

[Ralph Barker]

Thanks for answering John's question, Sal.

Neil is the primary moderator, but we all try to follow the same spirit, principals and procedures that Tuan established when he originally created this site. We confer extensively on major issues, in an effort to preserve the value of this LF community resource.