Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: "Quit pissing in the pool or get banned", an open letter to michael  (Read 31397 times)
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2670



WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 31, 2012, 03:15:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I officially want to ask Michael here to shut it down... Maybe some others can support me with this request.
No - let it die its natural death (which can't come too soon). If you find something tedious, just don't lower yourself to reading it.... But let's not call on Mummy to tell the other boys to shut up.
Logged

fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #61 on: January 31, 2012, 03:47:04 AM »
ReplyReply

No - let it die its natural death (which can't come too soon). If you find something tedious, just don't lower yourself to reading it.... But let's not call on Mummy to tell the other boys to shut up.

Mummy is unfortunatly needed when the boys behave as childs and can't understand limits...that's the all issue.
It has never been a problem being in strong disagreement and express opinions. The problem is the way, and when things are out of control and go way too far. I'm against public personal attracks that look like a witch hunting when people are in disagreement, as an argument sale point. Whoever the person is involved, not only with Mark, with whowever writtes an article. Remember what happened to Bloom in the Red forum. That shouldn't exists.

I'm afraid what Stamper said might happen, but even more.

If Michael stops to have fun, if running this website will bring him more hassles than satisfaction, he will simply shut the power off one day and not just close a thread or 2, and this time we will not find that funny at all, and I don't know Michael, never met him, but I think he is perfectly capable of doing it, despite the revenues, advertisings and the million visitors/month etc... he'd find ways to compensate and re-do something from scratch, beleive me. Or even better, not doing anything on-line but private far away from the DPreview forum kind of crowd.
Those guys have already their reputation settled and are in an age point where if things aren't fun, they aren't worth and I don't see a few advertising banners stop them to turn the power-off if they decide to.

and that day, it will be too late for stopping pissing in the pool or apologies.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 04:06:09 AM by fredjeang » Logged
jeremypayne
Guest
« Reply #62 on: January 31, 2012, 05:35:40 AM »
ReplyReply

I am wondering if contributors to the site with regards to articles will now think twice about contributing? Will they accept the level of abuse? It seems that some are hell bent on ignoring Michael and bringing about a banning or worse. Too many large egos bouncing off each other. Huh Embarrassed

I hope people think twice about contributing an article like that.

Putting aside any allegations of ulterior motives - of which there really weren't all that many - most of the criticism of the article was perfectly reasonable and justified.

Claiming MF pixels are just "better" is like saying MFDBs have a 6 stop DR range advantage or that you could spot an 8x10 print from a MFDB from across the room ... Anyone who makes such claims around here should expect a heated discussion. ;-)

Claiming you can hear "clean" power is also a pretty extraordinary claim that Mark must know is controversial and unsupported by any measured results.

If this is to become a one-way street where we must listen to our "betters" and take it like sheep, you can ban me first and I hope Michael shuts it down.  It would have lost any value it ever had.
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 2670



WWW
« Reply #63 on: January 31, 2012, 05:36:38 AM »
ReplyReply

"Mummy is unfortunatly needed when the boys behave as childs and can't understand limits...that's the all issue. "

I'm sure Michael can decide for himself. Crying to Mummy is insulting to those who do think it worth continuing - and I say that as one who thinks the thread began its existence as a waste of space and soon degenerated into an ex-discussion of Norwegian Blue proportions. Just let it die, read something else.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 05:40:53 AM by johnbeardy » Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4783



« Reply #64 on: January 31, 2012, 08:26:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Tell you what. The thread stays open, but only so long as nothing already mentioned (ad nausium) is mentioned again. Then the thread is closed, along with other new threads intended to reopen it.

That includes mention of 6 stops dynamic range, audio cables, and such. Maybe in a few weeks we can relax that rule, but right now the Mummy is at the end of her patience.

Michael
Logged
dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #65 on: January 31, 2012, 11:07:52 AM »
ReplyReply

... if Mark wanted to sue some of you guys for libel, he would have a case.

What I am saying is quite simple: before you make an accusation, you should know what you're talking about, and in detail.

John, you may want to be more cautious about making accusations of libel.  Nothing posted on this forum about Mark’s article even remotely resembles libel. Moreover, it doesn’t look very good when you make uninformed, false accusations of libel in the same thread where you write “before you make an accusation, you should know what you're talking about, and in detail.”
Logged

Dean Erger
Alan Goldhammer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1607


WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 31, 2012, 12:49:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting piece in The Economist on cognitive bias of forensic medical examiners.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #67 on: January 31, 2012, 01:48:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Since this thread is titled "open letter to michael", and that part seems to be sorted out now, I suggest that it is left alone, and separate threads are started in "About this site" or "The coffee corner" on those matters pertaining to the Mark article that are allowed for discussion.

-h
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #68 on: January 31, 2012, 04:10:16 PM »
ReplyReply

John, you may want to be more cautious about making accusations of libel.  Nothing posted on this forum about Mark’s article even remotely resembles libel. Moreover, it doesn’t look very good when you make uninformed, false accusations of libel in the same thread where you write “before you make an accusation, you should know what you're talking about, and in detail.”

As a journo, John probably knows quite a bit about libel.  Of course, the key point here is that it depends upon jurisdiction.  What's OK in Texas could be criminal in New South Wales and vice versa :-)
Logged

dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #69 on: January 31, 2012, 04:24:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Great Britain is generally considered the libel capital of the world because of it's expansive definition of libel, but what has been written here wouldn't even begin to approach libel even in Great Britain.  (BTW, libel is civil law, not criminal.)
Logged

Dean Erger
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #70 on: January 31, 2012, 05:33:37 PM »
ReplyReply

Great Britain is generally considered the libel capital of the world because of it's expansive definition of libel, but what has been written here wouldn't even begin to approach libel even in Great Britain.  (BTW, libel is civil law, not criminal.)
Not in Thailand.. (I'm just sayin...)
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #71 on: January 31, 2012, 06:55:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Very interesting piece in The Economist on cognitive bias of forensic medical examiners.
A classic on the subject of how even highly competent and honest people can come to demonstrably wrong conclusions steered by unconscious prejudices is "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephen Jay Gould. The upside is that we should be slow to come to conclusions of fraud or conscious bias, just because the person we disagree with "is in a position to know better", and stay open to the possibility that everyone is a debate in sincere.

Oh, but by now this conversation belongs in the free fire zone of the Coffee Corner.
Logged
Don Libby
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 724


Iron Creek Photography


WWW
« Reply #72 on: January 31, 2012, 07:59:04 PM »
ReplyReply

Like watching a train wreck..
Logged

LKaven
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 788


« Reply #73 on: January 31, 2012, 08:17:57 PM »
ReplyReply

I officially want to ask Michael here to shut it down. [...]
Maybe some others can support me with this request.

If there is one thing that I was most glad for, it was that this very thing did not happen.  If you looking at one particular aspect of the discussion closely, you might agree it was important that this didn't happen in the end.  At this point it seems everything has been said.
Logged

Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #74 on: January 31, 2012, 09:55:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Not in Thailand.. (I'm just sayin...)

Steve makes my point, quite apart from the fact that I didn't say that libel was a criminal matter - I simply pointed out that things are different in different jurisdictions and gave a general example.

For a lot of things, Western jurisdictions (particularly those derived from or based - at least in part - on English statutes and common law) tend to follow similar legal principles.  The US, however, is quite different (as was pointed out) to the UK when it comes to "free speech" and libel.  As Steve says above, a non-Western jurisdiction is quite different again.  In Australia, libel and slander have been combined (or more specifically, the distinction abolished in 2005), to give another example of variation.
Logged

dmerger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 686


« Reply #75 on: January 31, 2012, 10:17:04 PM »
ReplyReply

What's OK in Texas could be criminal in New South Wales and vice versa :-)
(emphasis added)

Okay, sorry, I assumed you were still talking about libel.

Let's cut to the chase, of the statements posted about Mark's article, which are libelous and under what country's law, and why is it likely that that county's law would be applicable?

Logged

Dean Erger
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1258


« Reply #76 on: January 31, 2012, 11:37:30 PM »
ReplyReply

John, you may want to be more cautious about making accusations of libel.  Nothing posted on this forum about Mark’s article even remotely resembles libel. Moreover, it doesn’t look very good when you make uninformed, false accusations of libel in the same thread where you write “before you make an accusation, you should know what you're talking about, and in detail.”

You wrote that so positively that for a few moments, I thought possibly that I was wrong. So, I went back and checked again, and no, I was correct, and you're wrong. If somebody accused you of "charlatanism," of being "intellectually dishonest," of being "an inexperienced, uncritical fool," and if somebody else questioned your sanity, and did so in print, don't you think you might have at least a prima facie case of libel? You might not want to sue, and you might not prevail in court, but I don't think the case would be thrown out as groundless.

By the way, none of this should be construed as any kind of personal attack on anybody; I'm actually making a somewhat important point about libel.

JC
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #77 on: February 01, 2012, 01:44:53 AM »
ReplyReply

(emphasis added)

Okay, sorry, I assumed you were still talking about libel.

Let's cut to the chase, of the statements posted about Mark's article, which are libelous and under what country's law, and why is it likely that that county's law would be applicable?

Dean - see John's response above for examples.  As to where and when?  In New South Wales according to Defamation Act 2005 - Section 7 (2) "Accordingly, the publication of defamatory matter of any kind is actionable..."

So that basically gives the general scope - everything.  There are then special exclusions (certain corporations, dead people, people speaking under parliamentary privilege, magistrates and judges in court and so on).

To bring a defamation action in New South Wales you need three things.

1. To prove the material was published (the definition of this is much expanded in the 2005 Act, particularly with the removal of the distinction between libel and slander).

2.  Next, you must be identified/identifiable as the aggrieved person.  If you can't reasonably determine that you are the person in question, you can't take action.

3. The material must be defamatory which typically means it:
a. exposes someone to ridicule
b. lowers the person's reputation in the eyes of the community
c. causes people ot shun or avoid the person
d. injures the person's professional reputation

Of course there are defences, not least of which is truth.

So, calling someone a charlatan, for example, could certainly lower the person's repuation in the eyes of the community.  Since said person is clearly not a charlatan (check the meaning of the word) and even in a broader context of that definition there is no means by which it could be considered truth, then there exists a basis to persue an action under the tort of defamation under New South Wales jurisdiction.  All Australian states and Federal jurisdictions are the same.  Most Commonwealth or English Law derived or based jurisidictions have similar provisions (the US being a notable exception).

So, yes, John's comments are perfectly valid.
Logged

sandymc
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 248


« Reply #78 on: February 01, 2012, 03:18:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Dean - see John's response above for examples.  As to where and when?  In New South Wales according to Defamation Act 2005 - Section 7 (2) "Accordingly, the publication of defamatory matter of any kind is actionable..."

So that basically gives the general scope - everything.  There are then special exclusions (certain corporations, dead people, people speaking under parliamentary privilege, magistrates and judges in court and so on).

To bring a defamation action in New South Wales you need three things.

1. To prove the material was published (the definition of this is much expanded in the 2005 Act, particularly with the removal of the distinction between libel and slander).

2.  Next, you must be identified/identifiable as the aggrieved person.  If you can't reasonably determine that you are the person in question, you can't take action.

3. The material must be defamatory which typically means it:
a. exposes someone to ridicule
b. lowers the person's reputation in the eyes of the community
c. causes people ot shun or avoid the person
d. injures the person's professional reputation

Of course there are defences, not least of which is truth.

So, calling someone a charlatan, for example, could certainly lower the person's repuation in the eyes of the community.  Since said person is clearly not a charlatan (check the meaning of the word) and even in a broader context of that definition there is no means by which it could be considered truth, then there exists a basis to persue an action under the tort of defamation under New South Wales jurisdiction.  All Australian states and Federal jurisdictions are the same.  Most Commonwealth or English Law derived or based jurisidictions have similar provisions (the US being a notable exception).

So, yes, John's comments are perfectly valid.

Don't know about NSW law, but in most countries libel also requires something to the effect of "The statement(s) alleged to be defamatory must also be a false statement of fact. That which is name-calling, hyperbole, or, however characterized, cannot be proven true or false, cannot be the subject of a libel or slander claim." e.g., see here: http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Resources/Libel_FAQs/Libel_FAQs.htm

Calling someone names, and/or calling their competence into question, unpleasant thought that may be, usually does not rise to the level of being a false statement of fact. It's a more often a statement of the writer's opinion - free speech and all that. But of course, there's a fine line......

Sandy
Logged
Farmer
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1630


WWW
« Reply #79 on: February 01, 2012, 04:00:39 AM »
ReplyReply

That's not the case here.  The requirements are those three listed above.  Elements of what you have mentioned can be defenses.

However, charlatan (for example) is not just name calling - it makes inferences regarding the honesty and integrity of the individual.

Other terms mentioned by John include:

"intellectually dishonest" and "an inexperienced, uncritical fool"

These are things which can be proven true or false, which are not just abusive or name calling - they call directly to the honesty, integrity and professionlism of a person and may lower their reputation in the eyes of the community.

Now I'm not saying such a suit would or would not be successful, but to suggest that none of these terms is libellous anywhere with any degree of certainty is a mistake.
Logged

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad