Simplification.

communication in person or on the net is, at best, difficult and on the net especially. smileys aside, getting a point across to another person is a complex process.

bill, if you keep getting the same message from others and do nothing to try to alter that, then i can only assume you are ok with the received message, i.e that you are ok with your behaviour. to some this may be perceived as an anti social attitude as you are comfortable with how others see you and see no need for change, despite getting consistently negative responses from others.

i see you as a pretty smart guy with a clear focus and strong opinions but an angry person with a need to be 'right' rather than 'happy'.
cheap psychology? yes, definitely.
 
bmattock said:
I have never understood why the things I say are seen as 'harsh' but I hear it a lot, so I accept that they must be harsh.
Click to expand...

Well, since you asked...

bmattock said:
...I think they're stark raving mad, or the weakest individuals I can conceive of. ...

...Less is less. Anything else is rather twisted thinking....

...Morons!...

... you're afraid to say what you think using your normal name on RFF? Coward....

...Please. Weak-minded sissy boys, IMHO....

...That's not logic, that's mental weakness....
Click to expand...

Some people might perceive those statements as insults... just sayin'...
 
Gumby said:
Wow, I'm impressed that you addressed this. It thought I would since I can say anything I want: It seems to me like Bill has me on 'ignore'. :D
Click to expand...

I don't have anyone on ignore - I never do! If I didn't respond, I must not have felt the need to. I am sorry if you feel neglected.
 
back alley said:
communication in person or on the net is, at best, difficult and on the net especially. smileys aside, getting a point across to another person is a complex process.
Click to expand...

Granted, but is it best addressed by watering down one's opinions in order to be seen as more agreeable?

bill, if you keep getting the same message from others and do nothing to try to alter that, then i can only assume you are ok with the received message, i.e that you are ok with your behaviour. to some this may be perceived as an anti social attitude as you are comfortable with how others see you and see no need for change, despite getting consistently negative responses from others.
Click to expand...

That would be correct. I'm mystified by it, but I accept it and I am very comfortable with myself.

i see you as a pretty smart guy with a clear focus and strong opinions but an angry person with a need to be 'right' rather than 'happy'.
cheap psychology? yes, definitely.
Click to expand...

There may be something to the 'need to be right', which would be a character flaw in myself. Angry? No, Joe, I'm really not.



The only thing that gets me angry is the health care debate. Notice how I don't post on that topic? I'm always smiling when I'm online. Sometimes I'm laughing.
 
i value the kind of discourse - and the way it is shared - that joe, gumby, gid, quark and others describe. thanks for upholding the idea of civility. and thanks to bill m too. while i can't consider all the content of his posts civil, i find his thinking interesting and fun to debate. his "bully" keyboard and name-calling are a relatively small price to pay for diversity here, and if i've gone too far in trying to call bill on his uncivil style, my apologies.
 
Last edited:
bmattock said:
I will accept the fact that a lot of people lack logic in any of their decision-making. Why they would then put those illogical statements forward as being advantageous to themselves or anyone else is beyond me. Such deficits in thinking are generally repairable, but what stuns me more than ignorance is the people who know they are ignorant and intentionally and proudly insist on remaining in that state. If I were more logical, I would realize that one cannot make a silk purse of a sow's ear and retreat. This is clearly my own failure.
Click to expand...

If one accepts that logic is not how all people approach life, then, is it not illogical to try to counter their views with logic? Those who believe that gear simplification leads to better, more productive, happier (add what you want) photography are applying their brand of logic - less gear makes me happier and if I am happier I get better results type of argument. Regradless of how illogical this appears (or is, in absolute terms), to the proponents of such a belief (faith?) it is entirely logical.

We could discuss this for years and never meet in the middle.
 
antiquark said:
Well, since you asked...

Some people might perceive those statements as insults... just sayin'...
Click to expand...

Taken out of context like that, I'm sure they would. Do you mean to tell me that people incapable of reading, and that the very appearance of a word like 'coward' or 'weak-minded' or 'moron' is automatically assumed to apply to themselves? Did I, for example, call you a coward? If not, did you perceive it as being aimed at you anyway? If true, that would call for another word, one from which I will refrain at the moment, as my way of being 'nice'.
 
Gid said:
If one accepts that logic is not how all people approach life, then, is it not illogical to try to counter their views with logic? Those who believe that gear simplification leads to better, more productive, happier (add what you want) photography are applying their brand of logic - less gear makes me happier and if I am happier I get better results type of argument. Regradless of how illogical this appears (or is, in absolute terms), to the proponents of such a belief (faith?) it is entirely logical.

We could discuss this for years and never meet in the middle.
Click to expand...

I get it. Point taken.

EDIT: By the way, if I truly were a 'bully', I'd say that people who don't use logic in their daily lives bloody well ought to. Instead, I'm only thinking it.
 
bmattock said:
Did I, for example, call you a coward? If not, did you perceive it as being aimed at you anyway?
Click to expand...

I'm an odd type of person who stands up for others, even when an insult is not directed at me.

bmattock said:
If true, that would call for another word, one from which I will refrain at the moment, as my way of being 'nice'.
Click to expand...

Good non-insulting insult! In a previous life, I was a troll at a political site. Let me tell you, it's an art to insult someone without actually insulting them. Yet it is possible... you demonstrate that fact frequently!
 
bmattock said:
I get it. Point taken.

EDIT: By the way, if I truly were a 'bully', I'd say that people who don't use logic in their daily lives bloody well ought to. Instead, I'm only thinking it.
Click to expand...

BTW, just so there is no confusion, I didn't call you a bully and my thoughts are exactly that, mine ;)
 
How funny that some people get so stressed in this discussion.

It seems as if to some people it's a sort of moral point, to have a certain amount of cameras and lenses or not.

It isn't really is it, an ethical point, something to get all het up about? It's whatever people enjoy and find useful (enjoy most of all!)..

I wonder if Mr HCB had been famous for using five lenses each day instead of the supposed one over most of a life would people get so stressed out do you think? Like he's the photographers Gandhi with just a cloth mat and no stuff? So talent and lack of stuff were the same...


Or is it people not liking other people spending money? Like the rivalries of the schoolyard?

I don't have anything else to contribute, sorry. I have one old film camera and one lens, which I love, but I'm thinking about trading it in and getting another one. Although I'm quite excited about learning new things if I do change it in.
 
MatthewThompson said:
My point is that Zoom lenses make me a lazy photographer deliver.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that a zoom allows the photographer to compromise his health by not walking around as much and thus getting the exercise he would if he were only to use prime lenses to get the same FOV. ;)
 
Gid said:
Maybe, but in my time here there have been some that would top this and more :bang: :D
Click to expand...

That's why I said "one of" ... ;)

Several parties misinterpreted and made assumptions that proved to be uhm, er, unfounded, to put it nicely.
 
bmattock said:
When going to the air show, I was glad that I had a 500mm lens. If I had not had one, I would have taken a 90-300 zoom, but it would have been a compromise.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a compromise require the opportunity to make a choice? If you "had not had one" (a 500mm), how could taking the 90-300 zoom be a compromise?
 
Simplification has nothing to do with compromise. As I see it, it's about avoiding unnecessary complexity and stress. Among other things, it means choosing the best available lens for a given task. A 500mm lens seems a fine choice to shoot airplanes flying at an airshow. Lacking a 500mm lens, a 90-300 zoom certainly seems a far better choice than a 50mm. Showing up at the airshow with a heavy bag stuffed with all kinds of "just in case" hardware is the essence of unnecessary complexity.

In the end, though, simplification is something each individual defines. What's clutter for me is the absolute minimum for someone else. But, again, it isn't about compromising or giving up capability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top