Issue No 131

:rip:

 

Here, here Martin.
A typical cowardly post from someone not prepared to reveal his or her identity.

 

It's a forum open to all points of view

Heads & brick walls, etc! My own response now deleted

 

But unfortunately his posts are like a scratched record.

If you don't like a periodical, write and tell them why and don't buy it until it improves.

End of surely?

 

I thought that this post was quite ironic actually..

 

Martin

Danny was only ever on here to get free advertising for SR.

I agree that some of the comments got really personal, but I think that the publishers threatening this site with libel actions etc, was somewhat OTT.

To revert to the original subject of this thread, I thought that Riley's Ghost's comments were reasonable comments on his view of the magazine - others may disagree, but that's their right. I really don't see why using a pseudonym - as nearly everyone on this forum does - should make his views any less valid. I happen to know who you and Spamcan81 are - but that doesn't make any difference to my assessment of your comments.

Equally, I think it's rather silly to suggest that no-one can comment on commercial matters like selling a magazine and selling images unless they are prepared to do it themselves - those mentioned are selling their wares, not performing an act of charity.

For example, I've never run a Fish and Chip shop, but I don't think that should stop me - as a customer - expressing a view on the way one is run, and the product offering and value for money if I should patronise one.

 

You mean like Spamcan81?

 

Michaelh asked :

You mean like Spamcan81?

Ian has no problem in being identified as Spamcam81 and actually uses it to advertise his affiliation to 34081 - another reason for pseudonyms.

Since a close examination of Ian's posts would reveal that info - albbeit requiring a little bit of thought and brain activity - such postings as that from michaelh makes one wonder at the level of intelligence shown by the poster; sadly it often indicates why potentially interesting discussions on forums get messed up by those not fully conversant with the subject matter as inanity supercedes intelligence.

 

The personal insults in this thread were started by Martin and Ian - you seem to be happy to continue them

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sidmouth
The sad thing is that you do not have the courage to put your own name to this diatribe

Why do people go on so much about identities? My name is Ian Johnson but I post as polmadie. Are you any the wiser to who I actually am or if I have told you my correct name? Would any of you know me if we met at a gala? No you wouldn't. Let people post under whatever identity they want to and let them post in peace without all this sniping.

 

Since when have I insulted you Mr. Howard?

 

Anyone who doesn't know who I am is probably living on another planet. There's enough clues and links in my signature to identify me.

Rgds
Ian

 

Michaelh wrote :

The personal insults in this thread were started by Martin and Ian - you seem to be happy to continue them

If pointing out a fact is to be taken as a personal insult then what hope is there for a rational discussion on any subject ? A rational discussion concentrates both on facts and opinions based on those facts but since people interpret facts differently then divergences of opinion will occur.

In terms of photography I can understand Martin's desire to know who the original photographer is so that proper credit can be given whilst understanding that once the photographer sells his original material the buyer can feel justified in identifying it as part of "his" collection thus confirming the fact that although not taken by him he holds copyright to the published material.

Part of the problem is the limited time and space available to generate picture credits; thus if Martin had bought ( for example ) Michael Mensing's collection my suggestion would be for any published material to be credited "Martin Creese ( Michael Mensing ) Collection". That presumes however that (a) Martin knows that the published material was taken by Michael Mensing when he bought it; (b) credited it that way when submitted for publication and (c) the person preparing the captions for press remembers to print the full credit.

A classic example of this is the Colin Marsden collection which is based on material recovered from the SR Film Unit whose material was consigned to the scrap bins until Colin was made aware of the threat and recovered many of the prints and negatives. In this case the names of the individual photographers could not be ascribed to individual works thus when Colin submits it for publication he cannot credit the photographer although some may have an idea given previous experience of either the previous publication of the work or direct knowlwdge of the photographer. If that fact is unknown to Colin then how can he give proper credit save identify it as part of the "Colin Marsden Collection" to show that he has not taken the image but has full copyright to it ?

This is the nub of the discussion and any comment about pseudonyms is secondary to the interesting discussion point raised by Martin which is an interesting one to photographers who buy and sell photographic collections of those who have either died or simply given up railway photographty for other interests.

Thus before jumping the gun and sniping with knee jerk responses might I humbly suggest you "ca' canny" as we Scots say; consider whether your contribution will add anything to the discussion in hand and look carefully at what has been posted rather than assume it.

In my case I pointed out a salient fact in response to your sniping re pseudonyms to remove the subject of pseudonyms from the agenda and allow the interesting discussion of photographer credits to continue. At that point I didn't feel I had anything to add to the discussion as Martin is perfectly capable of making his points; sadly some posters obviously couldn't / wouldn't see the point under discussion, went off on a tangent and needed a little more background to help them understand the discussion in hand.

Now when does such clarification become a personal insult ?

 

My impression was that Danny was after feedback in order to improve the magazine.

However it seems like a case of the heat got too much,
so he got out of the kitchen.

I fully agree with the idea that if you don't like the mag, don't buy it,
but when someone asks for feedback that's what they get.

Brian Westlake

 

Wasn't me you insulted Ian - it was the original poster.