Replacement paper for Azo

[Photo Engineer]

Since the last batch of Kodak Azo was 'inferior' to many Azo users, I cannot fault Jay for his choice of words.

OTOH, I cannot fault Michael and Paula for their reaction and choice of words.

Again, it is two groups trying to do what they think best for the community vis-a-vis communication of potential pitfalls and advantages. Both have merit and this cannot be lost in the 'fog of war' to quote von Clausewitz.

PE

 

[sanking]

You are engaging in selective interpretation of what has been said, irrespective of how well you read the messages. You conveniently ignore, for example, the fact that virtually everyone who has commented on this thread, including Michael Smith, has acknoweledged the validity of some of Jay's early questions.

The issue, and the primary reason most of us have been critical of Jay, is that he posted several messages which supported the investment concept. And his choice of language, specifically his use and justification of the word "scheme", clearly conveys negative implications about the arrangment proposed by Michael Smith. And to say that it does not, as Jay now asserts, is to be disingenious in the extreme. Jay cites dictionary definitions frequently and shoud know that one of the common uses of the word "scheme" is to refer to a secret or devious plan or arrangement.

Finally, you are entitled to your opinion that the past history is not relevant to the discussion. But that positioni either ignores the facts of the history, or suggests a view of the world that I find for one find rather naive.

Sandy

I don't know much about Azo except what I've experienced by looking at a friend's Azo contact prints. When my 8x10 is ready, I suppose I'll buy a box of M&P's paper.

On the gang tackling of Jay... sheesh. I've read the whole thread top to bottom and it seems to me that those that attacked Jay are guilty of the same thing they accuse Jay of. PE is right, Jay asked legitimate questions. If the others on the thread hand't seen fit to tell the rest of APUG about Jay's 'history with MS', I'd never have guessed that Jay made those comments simply to chip away at MS's reputation.

I don't know any of you personally and specifically I don't know Jay. I am certainly not in the position to make a guess about his motivation. Nobody else is either so I'd suggest we don't.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

You are engaging in selective interpretation of what has been said, irrespective of how well you read the messages. You conveniently ignore, for example, the fact that virtually everyone who has commented on this thread, including Michael Smith, has acknoweledged the validity of some of Jay's early questions.

The issue, and the primary reason most of us have been critical of Jay, is that he posted several messages which supported the investment concept. And his choice of language, specifically his use and justification of the word "scheme", clearly conveys negative implications about the arrangment proposed by Michael Smith. And to say that it does not, as Jay now asserts, is to be disingenious in the extreme. Jay cites dictionary definitions frequently and shoud know that one of the common uses of the word "scheme" is to refer to a secret or devious plan or arrangement.

Finally, you are entitled to your opinion that the past history is not relevant to the discussion. But that positioni either ignores the facts of the history, or suggests a view of the world that I find for one find rather naive.

Sandy

NO Sandy,

I read the whole thread and understand both points of view. I ignored nothing. What prompted me to post to this thread was the name calling and other personal attacks. I am fairly new to APUG. I have not been exposed to anybody's prior bad behavior and I see no reason why I should be now. Each individual post should stand on its own merit. A new post ought not be dragging along baggage from earlier flame wars.

If we did that then I believe nobody who posts here would have anything legitimate to say about anything. Every discussion would devolve into something like "Oh yeah, you would have been right about 'X' now but last year you said 'Y' so now you'll be perpetually full of beans."

How many people have engaged in flame wars on any site? Is it fair to you if Jay or somebody else brings your flame baggage to everyone's attention whenever you post?

If you've been nasty to somebody as we all have at one time or other, I'd rather not hear about it. You may call it naive, I call it 'fair'.

We all agree that Jay made a couple of valid points. There is nothing wrong with my re-statement of that fact. I made no mention of the controversy surrounding the "Investment" argument as Jay was not the proponent of that particual argument. It doesn't matter anyhow.

The point of my post was basically "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" That's pretty much it.

I'll just sit back and try to avoid picking up any stones. I certainly don't have the right to throw them either.

 

[rhphoto]

... sheesh. I've read the whole thread top to bottom

You da man!

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...If you've been nasty to somebody as we all have at one time or other...

My first post in this thread. Have to dispute that premise. I've never been nasty to anyone on this or any other forum, nor have 99.999% of other posters.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

My first post in this thread. Have to dispute that premise. I've never been nasty to anyone on this or any other forum, nor have 99.999% of other posters.

Oh how I wish that were true. In the little time I've been on APUG, I've seen lots and lots of meanness from a great many people (myself included). I would just that we didn't bring up old arguments every time we see a post from someone we've disagreed with before. It wastes everyones time and promotes discord. Not to mention, old arguments never get put to bed.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...In the little time I've been on APUG, I've seen lots and lots of meanness from a great many people (myself included)...

Must disagree. While having registered here only recently, I've lurked (daily) since apug.org launched, and have participated extensively in other photography forums since 1997. What's always been evident is "lots and lots of meanness" from a very few people. Those people typically make large numbers of posts, dominating threads, intimidating others, generally disrupting forum after forum until, one by one, administrators of those forums can stand no more and ban the troublemakers.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

Must disagree. While having registered here only recently, I've lurked (daily) since apug.org launched, and have participated extensively in other photography forums since 1997. What's always been evident is "lots and lots of meanness" from a very few people. Those people typically make large numbers of posts, dominating threads, intimidating others, generally disrupting forum after forum until, one by one, administrators of those forums can stand no more and ban the troublemakers.

Let us agree then that we have different perceptions based upon different experiences. It is therefore perfectly understandable that we don't agree with each other on this.

 

[rhphoto]

This thread has officially made it to 200 posts. Don't lose the momentum now!!

 

[sanking]

I am not much into religion, and even less into religious metaphors.

As I said, you are free to believe anything you like about the relevance of the past history of the posters as it may relate to a present thread. That includes ignoring it, or express your opinion that the history is irrelevant, as you have done if you believe such an attitude is necessary to ensure fairness.

I, on the other hand, am a realist, know the background, and recognize that knowing the past history is important in recognizing what is going on in the present. And I reserve the right to express that opinion.

Yes, Jay made some valid points. He has also used language, the "scheme" for example, that strongly suggests that one of his motivations is also to cast aspersion on the deal proposed by Michael Smith, or to place its legitimacy in doubt. You can ignore this if you wish.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Sandy

NO Sandy,

I read the whole thread and understand both points of view. I ignored nothing. What prompted me to post to this thread was the name calling and other personal attacks. I am fairly new to APUG. I have not been exposed to anybody's prior bad behavior and I see no reason why I should be now. Each individual post should stand on its own merit. A new post ought not be dragging along baggage from earlier flame wars.

If we did that then I believe nobody who posts here would have anything legitimate to say about anything. Every discussion would devolve into something like "Oh yeah, you would have been right about 'X' now but last year you said 'Y' so now you'll be perpetually full of beans."

How many people have engaged in flame wars on any site? Is it fair to you if Jay or somebody else brings your flame baggage to everyone's attention whenever you post?

If you've been nasty to somebody as we all have at one time or other, I'd rather not hear about it. You may call it naive, I call it 'fair'.

We all agree that Jay made a couple of valid points. There is nothing wrong with my re-statement of that fact. I made no mention of the controversy surrounding the "Investment" argument as Jay was not the proponent of that particual argument. It doesn't matter anyhow.

The point of my post was basically "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" That's pretty much it.

I'll just sit back and try to avoid picking up any stones. I certainly don't have the right to throw them either.

 

[SchwinnParamount]

I am not much into religion, and even less into religious metaphors.

As I said, you are free to believe anything you like about the relevance of the past history of the posters as it may relate to a present thread. That includes ignoring it, or express your opinion that the history is irrelevant, as you have done if you believe such an attitude is necessary to ensure fairness.

I, on the other hand, am a realist, know the background, and recognize that knowing the past history is important in recognizing what is going on in the present. And I reserve the right to express that opinion.
...
Sandy

So then maybe it would be more accurate to to cast me as an idealist rather than naive. I don't care for the connotations of 'naive'.

 

[Sean]

I don't know about everyone else but I've really had enough of this one. What could have been a nice positive thread for the community has been derailed beyond repair. I'm sure the few involved will now go crack open a beer and celebrate their victory. The 'Membership Moderation Team' will be up and running soon (next few days) and we will work hard to keep this kind of nonsense from happening again.