Using TF4, testing for residual fixer?

Sean said:

Just to clarify, it's policy that we try to keep sponsors
and their affiliates from posting in each others threads or
threads regarding each others products.

Click to expand...

Ryuji posted a National Bureau of Standards method of
honing the silver for residual thiosulfate test. The post is
not now available. I took the post as a party line PM. That
is, some others might also care to do some honing. My little
time in studying the method resulted in a short description
added to one of my latter posts this thread.

If the post is gone for good perhaps I will find it by
reference made by myself in the afore mentioned thread.
I dont recall any toes being stepped on. I think a hasty
decision was made. Dan

I think a hasty decision was made. Dan

Click to expand...

I know it looks that way, but there is a lot going on behind the scenes which I can not discuss. If anyone is overly concerned feel free to PM me, but the decision is backed up by previous agreements between several parties on all sides.

Dan, et al.,

The issue seems that I should not be posting in the thread where the thread title contains a name "TF-4." In this particular thread, I have not discussed TF-4 or any Formulary products, but I understand that Sean is trying to enforce the recent and relatively unknown rule that competitors stay out of each other. I am considered digitaltruth affiliate for this purpose, and so are Troop and Mowrey affiliated with Formulary. We are also not going to get each other's way even if products are not involved. Not perfect, but fair enough. So I'll stay out of this thread, even if the current topic has nothing to do with TF-4 or Formulary.

In the future, I suggest that generic questions (that is, matters that are not specific to products of APUG sponsors) and discussion be made into a separate thread as soon as it is coming. Also, if it's a question for me, please mention my name. If it's a question for Troop or Mowrey, mention their name. Don't make a single thread mixing both. This should help clarify who should stay out of each thread.

Regards,

Ryuji

The original post had everything in the world to do with TF-4, even if not all of the subsequent conversation did.

I think I understand the resulting decorum that Sean is after and I sympathize. I can also understand that people's individual interests and loyalties can sometimes be at cross purposes and lead to friction.

When the discussion is about the underlying science and engineering of a product but not substantially about the merits of a specific product, the equation becomes complex. As a reader of such threads, seeking useful information about such things, barring certain members from posting in threads which may be nominally related to a product from some company with an "affiliation" to another member is a sledge-hammer approach to enforcing civility. The discourse may gain in some shallow way in terms of peace and quiet but it surely suffers in terms of the depth and substance.

To limit Mr. Mowrey's expression of his expertise in matters of chemistry to products bearing the Kodak or PF brand because he's viewed as an interested party and could desire to disparage alternatives is wrong. It insults this community, frankly.

The measure of civility can be seen in the tone and content of actual posts and not in the reading of tea leaves, as per member's agendas. This prohibition is not good for APUG's content and in the end that's got to be more important to maintaining business relationships with advertisers than the fear of what happens if a respected expert criticizes an advertiser's product.

(Talk about reading tea leaves for agendas...guilty as charged)

It's one thing to say such and such may not be said or done on APUG. It's quite another to say such and such may be said or done on APUG but not by these individuals.

Anyway, that's my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

jstraw said:

The original post had everything in the world to do with
TF-4, even if not all of the subsequent conversation did.

Click to expand...

Having just reread and scanned some this threads
content I am of the view that the threads title should
have been "Testing for residual fixer". That is the context
in which by far a majority of responses have been placed
and correctly so IMO. The fixer mentioned is a specific
example of the general case.

The National Bureau of Standards method described in
a now deleted post is an easy non-hazardous method of
ensuring the after exposure to light integrity of the stain.
The post of that method was entirely within the spirit
of this threads content. Dan

dancqu said:

Having just reread and scanned some this threads
content I am of the view that the threads title should
have been "Testing for residual fixer". That is the context
in which by far a majority of responses have been placed
and correctly so IMO. The fixer mentioned is a specific
example of the general case.

The National Bureau of Standards method described in
a now deleted post is an easy non-hazardous method of
ensuring the after exposure to light integrity of the stain.
The post of that method was entirely within the spirit
of this threads content. Dan

Click to expand...

I've reinstated that particular thread..

dancqu said:

Having just reread and scanned some this threads
content I am of the view that the threads title should
have been "Testing for residual fixer". That is the context
in which by far a majority of responses have been placed
and correctly so IMO. The fixer mentioned is a specific
example of the general case.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure which is more absurd, your belief that a thread's title should be based on the content of the conversation that follows it or you telling me that I didn't know what to title a thread I started.

That I have no objection to the more general discussion that followed my specific question doesn't change the fact that I asked a specific question.

jstraw said:

I'm not sure which is more absurd, your belief that
a thread's title should be based on the content of the
conversation that follows it....

Click to expand...

"...might have been ..." rather than "...should have been..."
Poor choice of word on my part. Dan

Threads drift and flow where they will. I'm not concerned with that. I didn't open a 'hey, let's discuss testing for residual fixer' thread. I had a specific question and not being a chemist, for me it was specifically a TF-4 question. That I got my answers and the thread took on a broader life is fine.

You seem to be suggesting that a thread starter with a specific question should frame it as a general subject and start the general thread if the general thread doesn't already exist. I disagree.

I do believe that the highest priority for the responders should be to answer the question of the thread originator. I do appreciate Dan's support but I do feel a lot easier to contribute in threads where the title does not contain the name TF-4.

I'm not sure jstraw is responding to Dan or me in his last paragraph. If it's to me, it is a misinterpretation of what I said before. I requested that discussions of generic nature growing out of a product-specific thread be separated out to another thread. I think this is not a bad solution since the threads stay in topic.

Ryuji said:

I do believe that the highest priority for the responders should be to answer the question of the thread originator. I do appreciate Dan's support but I do feel a lot easier to contribute in threads where the title does not contain the name TF-4.

I'm not sure jstraw is responding to Dan or me in his last paragraph. If it's to me, it is a misinterpretation of what I said before. I requested that discussions of generic nature growing out of a product-specific thread be separated out to another thread. I think this is not a bad solution since the threads stay in topic.

Click to expand...

I was talking to Dan. If I want to ask about TF-4, I'll ask about TF-4. If Sean says you can't talk about TF-4, that's not my problem.