OFF TO THE RACES WITH THE D60 !!!
Annika1980
than an hour ago with the Totally Digital D60 (of course!).
Dave
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040219233733...@mb-m03.aol.com...
George Kerby
20040219233733...@mb-m03.aol.com, "Annika1980"
<annik...@aol.com> wrote:
Where was the canary?
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Mark Johnson
That's a nice photograph. Definitely needs a crop. But it's good.
I keep asking for ANYONE to show some examples of good photography
with a d60, rebel, 10d, whatever. And this is a good photograph. But
you don't know how rare it is, for this line of cameras - at least
judging from what I've seen posted on the web.
The Dave©
> Take a break from Trolldom and enjoy this high-speed collision,
> captured less than an hour ago with the Totally Digital D60 (of
> course!).
Dammit, Bret! That one was actually pretty good.
--
"Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the
surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us,
'Something is out of tune.'" - - - Carl Gustav Jung
Annika1980
Mark M
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:7hsc3098450bdgoq2...@4ax.com...
What would you say constitutes a "good" photo?
Mark Johnson
Mark M
I was serious.
What have you noted as lacking in other pictures, and what is it you look
for when identifying a "good photograph"?
Mark Johnson
>what is it you look for when identifying a "good photograph"?
Oddly enough, I have an essay on the subject:
Drifter
>with a d60, rebel, 10d, whatever. And this is a good photograph. But
>you don't know how rare it is, for this line of cameras - at least
>judging from what I've seen posted on the web.
I haven't added anything for a while but here's some of my experiments
with the 10D. I suppose I need to quit being lazy and get more out
but I just don't have the drive in the winter <grin>
http://www.pbase.com/zespectre/root
Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Mark M
Yipe.
I don't mean to be overly blunt, but this essay is nearly unreadable.
I'm guessing this was turned in for an 8th grade photography class (?).
Grade:
D-
Mark M
"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:zMNZb.26600$tM5.15450@fed1read04...
OK...that was rude.
Sorry.
Your previous lack of an answer got me in critique mode...
I do think you should read your essay again, or perhaps have someone do some
editing/proof-reading --with specific attention to flow and readability.
Normally I wouldn't comment this way, but when you flag it as an answer
here, you should expect it.
Mark Johnson
>I do think you should read your essay again, or perhaps have someone do some
>editing/proof-reading
That's fine. But what, exactly, couldn't you read? I myself am not
trying to be rude. But was it just too much text - too many words
without charts or diagrams to break it up. Maybe it's more difficult
to read with the font you chose, on a computer screen? What,
specifically, couldn't you read?
John Navas
In <f6bh30516r4fq4lav...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 05:23:05
I personally find that the choice of font and background make it difficult to
read. When there is a significant quantity of text, a serif font chosen for
readability should normally be used over a relatively plain background.
(Sans-serif fonts are better for labels, etc., and textured backgrounds should
be reserved for special purposes, such as certificates.) I also personally
find the writing style, particularly the sentence structure and punctuation,
to be awkward, clumsy, and confusing. Your presentation is getting in the way
of your message.
--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
Mark M
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:xy3_b.2912$_3.4...@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >That's fine. But what, exactly, couldn't you read? I myself am not
> >trying to be rude. But was it just too much text - too many words
> >without charts or diagrams to break it up. Maybe it's more difficult
> >to read with the font you chose, on a computer screen? What,
> >specifically, couldn't you read?
Jahn Navas wrote:
>I also personally
> find the writing style, particularly the sentence structure and
punctuation,
> to be awkward, clumsy, and confusing. Your presentation is getting in the
way
> of your message.
This is precisely what I meant also. Sentence structure is very odd and
quite jumbled.
You seem to have injected commas almost randomly. Sentences lose their
focus and break apart into tiny bits and pieces of thought that don't
necessarily lead anywhere.
Mark M
See John's reply, and my reply to him.
Frank ess
I believe you have a good eye for photography, and your concepts may be
plain and clear to you, but:
"Justification," as in text on a page, inhibits the natural flow of access
by the human brain;
*Bold* or apparent bold applied to complete paragraphs has a similar effect,
and is used-often unconsciously-as a crutch for a weak position, *like
shouting in a debate*;
(I believe there is research showing Sans Serif is "easier" to read
on-screen than is Serif, which is easier in print)
(That research also ranks backgrounds and text colors and combinations with
regard to accessibility).
You may offer much valuable knowledge and insight that will never reach its
audience, if you obscure it with stilted, clunky,
struggling-across-the-loose-sand prose. I have to be convinced very early
that the value is worth the struggle. Too many barriers, lazy me will find a
less effortful, more profitable means to waste-erm, spend-time.
Write short sentences. Remember, for most uses, if not all, in expository
writing, commas are evil.
In summary, I might read your essays beyond the first few sentences if it
were not for what seem to me to be your "tin ear" for language and "tin eye"
for Web presentation. Why would I expect anything better in your field of
expertise, given these clues?
Beyond my few suggestions (Un-justify, Un-bold, Un-texture, Un-clunky), seek
professional assistance.
--
Frank ess
John Navas
In <2K5_b.5233$qc4....@twister.socal.rr.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:33:50
GMT, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>Write short sentences. Remember, for most uses, if not all, in expository
>writing, commas are evil.
Four commas in that last sentence. Or was that your point? :-)
Frank ess
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <2K5_b.5233$qc4....@twister.socal.rr.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004
> 17:33:50 GMT, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>
>> Write short sentences. Remember, for most uses, if not all, in
>> expository writing, commas are evil.
>
> Four commas in that last sentence. Or was that your point? :-)
good ear
George Kerby
"Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>
> Write short sentences. Remember, for most uses, if not all, in expository
> writing, commas are evil.
>
Wow! *Four* in one sentence.
:-)
George Kerby
Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <2K5_b.5233$qc4....@twister.socal.rr.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:33:50
> GMT, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>
>> Write short sentences. Remember, for most uses, if not all, in expository
>> writing, commas are evil.
>
> Four commas in that last sentence. Or was that your point? :-)
Think so.
Frank's a sense of humor.
Roland Karlsson
> That's a nice photograph. Definitely needs a crop. But it's good.
Yes, it is a good photograph. But I like the crop.
There is a rather large amount of blackness that
works well as a contrast to the kittens. There
is also a nice movement to the right, which increases
the "speed" of the grey kitten in the "crash". If
you crop too much you will only see two darling kittens
that have it cosy.
/Roland
Mark M
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <2K5_b.5233$qc4....@twister.socal.rr.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 17:33:50
> GMT, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>
> >Write short sentences. Remember, for most uses, if not all, in expository
> >writing, commas are evil.
>
> Four commas in that last sentence. Or was that your point? :-)
I'd say it was intentional... :)
But--He used them in a way that actually made sense.
Commas can be completely proper--even in abundance.
To use them is his seemingly random manner, however, is not helpful.
Mark Johnson
>This is precisely what I meant also. Sentence structure is very odd and
>quite jumbled.
>You seem to have injected commas almost randomly. Sentences lose their
>focus and break apart into tiny bits and pieces of thought that don't
>necessarily lead anywhere.
That's okay. Remember, you asked me what I thought. And you haven't
commented on that, but simply on syntax. So I did answer your
question.
But what sentence is wrong, as you read it? I wonder if maybe I
couldn't just rephrase it in some way?
Mark Johnson
>See John's reply, and my reply to him.
Well, see mine. Again, you asked. And I answered. And your reply has
been that you didn't like the structure of some sentences.
To that extent, I can always rephrase a sentence or two. What,
specifically, didn't you like?
Mark Johnson
>"Justification," as in text on a page, inhibits the natural flow of access
>by the human brain;
>*Bold* or apparent bold applied to complete paragraphs has a similar effect,
>and is used-often unconsciously-as a crutch for a weak position, *like
>shouting in a debate*;
But those are both complaints about your own display. For example, on
many people's screens, it looks legible, and even pleasing. On others,
the fonts can seem a little unbalanced. There's nothing one can do
about that. It's a pretty standard style sheet. But you can't typeset
a web page, unless you create it as pdf - and even then.
>(I believe there is research showing Sans Serif is "easier" to read
>on-screen than is Serif, which is easier in print)
But the font is a san serif font. Again, unless I'm missing something,
you might just have your browser set a certain way. I don't know. But
that's the whole point of web pages. You, ultimately, don't know how
it will look. You just try to adopt a reasonable standard.
>You may offer much valuable knowledge and insight that will never reach its
>audience, if you obscure it with stilted, clunky,
>struggling-across-the-loose-sand prose.
What would be an example that really does need to be said in some
other way?
>In summary, I might read your essays beyond the first few sentences if it
>were not for what seem to me to be your "tin ear" for language and "tin eye"
>for Web presentation.
But what, specifically, do you mean with regard to that exact web
page?
>Beyond my few suggestions (Un-justify, Un-bold
But it doesn't appear as bold text.
>Un-texture
The background? That actually improves legibility, that particular
background. The only thing I can imagine is that you have your gamma
misadjusted. But you'd really have to work at that. Typically, that
background will even appear too bright.
>Un-clunky
I hope you're trying to offer serious advice, here. I'm starting to
think you are just trying to complain, for whatever reason.
But if you're serious, I'll take it seriously. Otherwise.
Mark Johnson
But what would be an example? Again, if you're being serious, I'll
take it seriously. If you're just venting for reasons I can't imagine,
then just forget it.
Let me know. You asked my opinion. And you haven't said word one about
it. You've complained about syntax, in general, without saying
anything specifically about the page.
I'll take your advice as well intentioned if it is. If I get the sense
it's ignorant, or pointless, then of course I'll simply ignore it.
And if you were in my shoes I think you'd do the same.
Mark Johnson
>I personally find that the choice of font and background make it difficult to
>read.
That's a bright background with an arial or sans serif font.
>When there is a significant quantity of text, a serif font chosen for
>readability should normally be used over a relatively plain background.
These are fonts without serifs. And the reason for that is the wide
variety of displays, platform, browsers and however else one views
content on the web. I guess there's another way to look at it. And
that is for everyone who is offended by an Arial font, you'd find
equally as many, or more, offended by a Garamond (Georgia, or
whatever) for which something else might be substituted on screen.
>(Sans-serif fonts are better for labels, etc., and textured backgrounds should
>be reserved for special purposes
If you're being serious, I'd specifically like to know what you mean.
It's obviously a bright background. How could it interfere with what
you already say is a too 'bold' font? How is that even possible? I
don't think it's possible to so misadjust the card's gamma display
that the background would begin to seem dark or distracting. If
anything, I would imagine it would seem too light, or whitish, on
various displays. Could you describe, specifically, what it looks like
on your screen?
>find the writing style, particularly the sentence structure and punctuation,
>to be awkward
I just have to repeat, again, specifically how? What would be an
example? You can simply cut and paste, as you like.
I certainly appreciate any honest criticism. One can always try
different approaches. But it's impossible to reply to pointlessly
vague criticism. And I hope you can understand that. It has to look
like someone is serious about this, and is not just being critical for
its own sake.
Just be specific, in other words. If I can do something better, I'll
certainly do my best. And specific advice is very welcome.
Frank ess
> "Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>
>> "Justification," as in text on a page, inhibits the natural flow of
>> access by the human brain;
>
>> *Bold* or apparent bold applied to complete paragraphs has a similar
>> effect, and is used-often unconsciously-as a crutch for a weak
>> position, *like shouting in a debate*;
>
> But those are both complaints about your own display.
<snip>
> But if you're serious, I'll take it seriously. Otherwise.
Otherwise what? You'll Deflect, Dissemble, Dissimulate, and Deny some more?
My displays have been checked and re-checked and meet all standards; they
display the approved versions of fonts as intended by the font-makers. Even
if that were not true, the "complaints" are genuine observations on
otherwise very pleasing and veridical renditions of Web designers'
intentions. Straightforward observation. To induce me to "complain" about
your work (other than photography) it would have to rise to a significant
level of pretentiousness, pompousness, or presumptuousness.
Hmmm.
The point is not "Do you need to defend your perception of your own site?"
but "Is there something else you can do to make it less
`complaint'-inducing?"
I told you. You told me I was wrong and should waste more time in helping
you, help which by the record would be resented and rejected. Not ruddy
likely.
Someone seeking serious assistance would say, "I see your point. You may be
right. I'll look around for a solution. Thank you for trying to help."
You're apparently asking for pats on the back and a free edit-job.
You'll have to "Yes-but..." off into the sunset by yourself.
One more hint:
No. You haven't earned it.
Adios, My Friend.
John Navas
In <om9i30p00vtm8ucqe...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:19:25
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>(Sans-serif fonts are better for labels, etc., and textured backgrounds should
>>be reserved for special purposes
>
>If you're being serious, I'd specifically like to know what you mean.
>It's obviously a bright background. How could it interfere with what
>you already say is a too 'bold' font? How is that even possible?
I didn't say the font was too bold (although it is). Arial is not a universal
font (no matter what Microsoft might think), so face="sans-serif" is better,
since there's no risk of a missing font -- the user's preferred sans-serif
font will be used automatically. If you must specify your font, use something
like face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif", which degrades more gracefully than
just arial. Leave other font metrics generally alone; if you must specify
size, at least use relative size (e.g., "-1") rather than absolute size.
The background is a problem not because of brightness, but because the pattern
is busy and distracting. If you must fool with the background, use a pure
web-safe, light, subtle color (e.g., bgcolor="#FFFFCC").
>I
>don't think it's possible to so misadjust the card's gamma display
>that the background would begin to seem dark or distracting. If
>anything, I would imagine it would seem too light, or whitish, on
>various displays. Could you describe, specifically, what it looks like
>on your screen?
On my screen (carefully calibrated high-end Hitachi monitor) it's
distractingly "pebbly," with the size of the pebbles depending on screen
resolution and the particular browser.
>>find the writing style, particularly the sentence structure and punctuation,
>>to be awkward
>
>I just have to repeat, again, specifically how? What would be an
>example? You can simply cut and paste, as you like.
"F/64, the 'sharp school', which still dominates much thinking, today,
judged certain work - bad - because it was fuzzy (pictorialism)."
Get rid of the comma between "thinking" and "today," and the hyphens ("-")
around "bad." Pictorialism has more to do with manipulation to achieve
paint-like effects, not "fuzzy" (as your structure suggests). "f.64 was
dedicated to the promotion of 'pure' photography, defined in the group's
manifesto as 'possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea,
derivative of any other art form.'
<http://www.museumca.org/exhibit/exhi_adams.html>
"Like F/64, that group of photographers, like any judgement of art,
generally, there is philosophy, schools of thought."
I find that pretty much unintelligible. What were you trying to say? And
there are too many commas, breaking the sentence up into small fragments that
disrupt the flow.
I could go on, but I don't have the time for a more complete critique.
>I certainly appreciate any honest criticism. One can always try
>different approaches. But it's impossible to reply to pointlessly
>vague criticism. ...
With all due respect, I don't think my response was either pointless or vague,
a characterization that comes across as defensive and rude. It's why so many
won't bother to provide feedback. When you ask for reasons, you should be
prepared to take them gracefully and at face value; otherwise, don't ask.
John Navas
In <tn8i30tsqdu9vk4nd...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:46:32
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>See John's reply, and my reply to him.
>
>Well, see mine. Again, you asked. And I answered. And your reply has
>been that you didn't like the structure of some sentences.
>
>To that extent, I can always rephrase a sentence or two. ...
In my opinion, the writing problems go much deeper than that. If you ever
submit that to a good editor, be prepared for feedback that it needs a
"complete rewrite." I've done lots of writing for publication, have heard
that lots of times, and thus have learned the lesson the hard way. :)
John Navas
In <ml9i30dh0djqkqqne...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:01:30
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>Commas can be completely proper--even in abundance.
>>To use them is his seemingly random manner, however, is not helpful.
>
>But what would be an example? Again, if you're being serious, I'll
>take it seriously. If you're just venting for reasons I can't imagine,
>then just forget it.
>
>Let me know. You asked my opinion. And you haven't said word one about
>it. You've complained about syntax, in general, without saying
>anything specifically about the page.
>
>I'll take your advice as well intentioned if it is. If I get the sense
>it's ignorant, or pointless, then of course I'll simply ignore it.
>
>And if you were in my shoes I think you'd do the same.
No offense, but that sounds defensive. You may not think so, but I think that
was pretty specific feedback. Better to take a hard look at your use of
commas, and to spend some time with a good writing style guide, than to impugn
the motives of those taking the time to answer your request for feedback.
Those are pretty basic writing errors, and this isn't a terribly good forum
for a writing tutorial. ;)
John Navas
In <eq8i301634vo6s7sq...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:57:10
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>"Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>
>>"Justification," as in text on a page, inhibits the natural flow of access
>>by the human brain;
>
>>*Bold* or apparent bold applied to complete paragraphs has a similar effect,
>>and is used-often unconsciously-as a crutch for a weak position, *like
>>shouting in a debate*;
>
>But those are both complaints about your own display. For example, on
>many people's screens, it looks legible, and even pleasing. On others,
>the fonts can seem a little unbalanced. There's nothing one can do
>about that. It's a pretty standard style sheet. ...
It's actually pretty specific in style, which is part of the problem -- you're
over-specifying, which can easily lead to undesirable results. Worse, there's
really no good reason to try to dictate such things as font weight. In
general, results will be better overall if you rely on defaults as much as
possible.
>>Beyond my few suggestions (Un-justify, Un-bold
>
>But it doesn't appear as bold text.
The problem is your specification of font weight, which can easily lead to
undesirable results (i.e., making it look over-bold).
>>Un-texture
>
>The background?
Yes.
>That actually improves legibility, that particular
>background. ...
I strongly disagree. Your "pebbly" background is distracting (as I explain
more fully in another reply).
>>Un-clunky
>
>I hope you're trying to offer serious advice, here. I'm starting to
>think you are just trying to complain, for whatever reason.
>
>But if you're serious, I'll take it seriously. Otherwise.
There's that defensiveness again.
David J. Littleboy
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >>find the writing style, particularly the sentence structure and
punctuation,
> >>to be awkward
> >
> >I just have to repeat, again, specifically how? What would be an
> >example? You can simply cut and paste, as you like.
>
> "F/64, the 'sharp school', which still dominates much thinking, today,
> judged certain work - bad - because it was fuzzy (pictorialism)."
More problematic than the style is the content. Pictoralism wasn't bad
because it was fuzzy, it was bad because it was pretentious, fake. It
pretended that photography was painting and resulted in nothing more than
faked paintings. Photography has it's own beauty and can do better than
that, is what the f/64 types were saying.
"By the second half of the nineteenth century the novelty of capturing
images was beginning to wear off, and some people were now beginning to
question whether the camera, as it was then being used, was in fact too
accurate and too detailed in what it recorded. This, coupled with the fact
that painting enjoyed a much higher status than this new mechanistic
process, caused some photographers to adopt new techniques which, as they
saw it, made photography more of an art form. These new techniques came also
to be known as High-Art photography."
> "Like F/64, that group of photographers, like any judgement of art,
> generally, there is philosophy, schools of thought."
>
> I find that pretty much unintelligible. What were you trying to say?
Really. For starters, it's nowhere close to being English.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Mark Johnson
>In <om9i30p00vtm8ucqe...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:19:25
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>just arial. Leave other font metrics generally alone; if you must specify
>size, at least use relative size (e.g., "-1") rather than absolute size.
That's for the old font tag. They're trying to deprecate and remove
that in favor of style sheets. But I never used fixed font sizes, even
back then.
>On my screen (carefully calibrated high-end Hitachi monitor) it's
>distractingly "pebbly," with the size of the pebbles depending on screen
>resolution and the particular browser.
There are no 'pebbles' or shadows, which is probably what you mean.
And I can't imagine what you're seeing on the screen. If you'd like to
take a digicam shot and reduce for jpg, I'd certainly take a look at
that attachment. That would be helpful to me, at any rate. Otherwise,
and while I appreciate the effort, it just doesn't help me.
> "F/64, the 'sharp school', which still dominates much thinking, today,
> judged certain work - bad - because it was fuzzy (pictorialism)."
>Get rid of the comma between "thinking" and "today,"
No, you can't do that. You want it to read "much thinking today
judged". And that's not right.
>and the hyphens ("-")
That's for emphasis, but is syntactically correct. It may seem to you
an old usage.
>around "bad." Pictorialism has more to do with manipulation to achieve
>paint-like effects, not "fuzzy" (as your structure suggests).
That's partly true. But the f64 school objected to the fuzziness of
pictorialism. That's the aspect I was mentioning. And they said it was
wrong. In other words, if that's the emphasis that you inferred, then
it's exactly what I intended.
>dedicated to the promotion of 'pure' photography, defined in the group's
>manifesto as 'possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea,
>derivative of any other art form.'
><http://www.museumca.org/exhibit/exhi_adams.html>
Well, there may have been other aspects to it, to which some adhered
and some didn't. But one overriding aspect in that context was that
they insisted the photograph be sharp as it could be. And that's what
I meant.
> "Like F/64, that group of photographers, like any judgement of art,
> generally, there is philosophy, schools of thought."
>I find that pretty much unintelligible. What were you trying to say?
Like F/64. What is that, again?
A group of photographers. A school.
So like that group of photographers, like any judgment of art . .
I spelled that wrong, btw . . . that is, like any judgment from
anyone, including that group of photographers, and in the most general
terms as they see it - generally - this is a philosophy, schools of
thought. In fact, if you did get genuinely confused, it might be
because that amounts to almost a tautology. It's a blatant statement
of the obvious. But it might be easy to forget. Judging photography,
in other words, is very subjective. It depends on your frame of
reference, on your value judgment, on your school of thought.
>there are too many commas, breaking the sentence up into small fragments that
>disrupt the flow.
How would you rewrite it? I don't see any reasonable alternative.
>I could go on, but I don't have the time for a more complete critique.
I'm certainly have no problem with your quarrel with regard to the
stated opinions. But I wish you'd phrase your complaint in that way,
instead of talking about commas and syntax. If you disagree with this
or that, I think that's fine. I don't expect everyone to agree with
the various opinions.
Mark Johnson
>More problematic than the style is the content. Pictoralism wasn't bad
>because it was fuzzy, it was bad because it was pretentious, fake.
Your complaint is that f64 didn't, themselves, complain that
pictorialism was fuzzy; that they didn't prefer photographs were razor
sharp, instead.
Maybe it's an opinion, shared by many. Maybe not everyone shares that
opinion, including yourself.
Some do:
"He goes on to illustrate how the documentary tradition in photography
began as a number of late nineteenth-century innovations rather than
being a child of the New Deal. This idea is intriguing in light of the
transition photographers like Edward Weston made from fuzzy
pictorialism to the sharp focus and harsh lighting that were becoming
staples of the photo-journalist."
[http://www.city-gallery.com/resource/pa/Reviews/Exhibits/ealre.w.stereo.essay.html]
"Fixing a Shadow" demonstrates, the debate over the proper path of
photographic practice still continues, albeit not simply in the
initial termsof "sharp" versus "fuzzy" pictorial rendition."
And I'm sure you could find some that say f64 was not about sharp v
fuzzy, nor that they imagined pictorialism to be fuzzy in any way.
Call it agreeing to disagree.
>> "Like F/64, that group of photographers, like any judgement of art,
>> generally, there is philosophy, schools of thought."
>> I find that pretty much unintelligible. What were you trying to say?
>Really. For starters, it's nowhere close to being English.
>David J. Littleboy
>Tokyo, Japan
Well of course it's English. Be reasonable. And if you think it's
wrong then, at the time you complain, perhaps you could type in the
sentence as it ought to be, in your opinion. Otherwise, it's no help
to me.
Mark Johnson
>In <tn8i30tsqdu9vk4nd...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:46:32
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>To that extent, I can always rephrase a sentence or two. ...
>In my opinion, the writing problems go much deeper than that.
But it doesn't help me, in any way, for you to just make some
pointless accusation. If you want to help, then you should be
specific. I'm not being unreasonable to say that.
Perhaps it's not the number of commas that bothers you, but what is
said inbetween the commas? Do you disagree, in fact, with the opinions
stated?
Mark Johnson
>In <ml9i30dh0djqkqqne...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:01:30
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>No offense, but that sounds defensive.
I simply asked that you be specific. You yourself sound a little
defensive, if I may say.
If you think there's a problem then you should be able to specifically
say what the problem is. If you just 'feel', somehow, that there's a
problem, then you may not be wrong. But it still doesn't help me, in
any way.
Mark Johnson
>Mark Johnson wrote:
>> "Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>My displays have been checked and re-checked and meet all standards
I can't imagine what problem you are having, then. I really can't. The
only thing I might suggest is take a digicam photo of the screen, and
just reduce to small jpg, enough so you can make out the problem. And
you have the email, right there. Keep it under 30K or so.
>I told you. You told me I was wrong and should waste more time in helping
>you
If all you want to do is complain, then I really can't take your
complaint seriously. Maybe you just had a bad day, and you're acting
out. Maybe you're always like this. And maybe there is a problem, but
you're able to express yourself appropriately. I don't know. I
suggested what you might do, if you wished to help.
>Someone seeking serious assistance would say, "I see your point. You may be
>right.
I don't know that you're right. I can't imagine what problem you see.
I've said that, repeatedly.
>Adios, My Friend.
Well . . then that's the 'complaint'. Maybe you are expressing the
gist of it. And you really have nothing to complain about? The page
looks fine. You disagree with some of the opinions. Is that a pretty
fair description the situation, you think?
Mark Johnson
>In <eq8i301634vo6s7sq...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:57:10
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>"Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>It's actually pretty specific in style, which is part of the problem -- you're
>over-specifying, which can easily lead to undesirable results. Worse, there's
>really no good reason to try to dictate such things as font weight. In
>general, results will be better overall if you rely on defaults as much as
>possible.
Well, that's a little more specific.
I don't know. It's pretty standard for style sheets to specify the
weight. But I think I could see both sides of that. So, point taken,
if you like. I think it's a matter of opinion.
>>>Beyond my few suggestions (Un-justify, Un-bold
>>But it doesn't appear as bold text.
>The problem is your specification of font weight, which can easily lead to
>undesirable results (i.e., making it look over-bold).
Okay. Again, point taken. So the text is simply too black.
>>>Un-texture
>>The background?
>>That actually improves legibility, that particular
>>background. ...
>I strongly disagree. Your "pebbly" background is distracting
There's no way I can tell what you're seeing. I've tried this on
various machines, and various resolutions. But as you suggest, that's
certainly not exhaustive.
>>>Un-clunky
>>I hope you're trying to offer serious advice, here. I'm starting to
>>think you are just trying to complain, for whatever reason.
>>But if you're serious, I'll take it seriously. Otherwise.
>There's that defensiveness again.
Not at all. I just ask that you be specific. Someone else, here, just
sort 'went off'. And I told him that I didn't think he was being
serious, but just venting for whatever cause or perceived offense from
whomever. But if there's a specific problem, then I think that's
another matter, entirely. It might be a matter of opinion. It might
even be something I would consider a problem that needs to be fixed.
Mark Johnson
>>But it doesn't help me, in any way, for you to just make some
>>pointless accusation. If you want to help, then you should be
>>specific. I'm not being unreasonable to say that.
>The problem with your writing isn't a specific one, it's a general one.
No it's not. The problem is that you put yourself out on the line, and
some people take shots, is all - just like you're doing.
Give me some credit for knowing that, at least.
No one has all the answers. You have to learn from mistakes. I always
welcome specific and constructive criticism, and always will. I have a
feeling, though, that I'd have to explain what that is, to you. No?
Yes?
John Navas
In <snsi30tnnq6ovknap...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:43:20
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
>
>>More problematic than the style is the content. Pictoralism wasn't bad
>>because it was fuzzy, it was bad because it was pretentious, fake.
>
>Your complaint is that f64 didn't, themselves, complain that
>pictorialism was fuzzy; that they didn't prefer photographs were razor
>sharp, instead.
>
>Maybe it's an opinion, shared by many. Maybe not everyone shares that
>opinion, including yourself.
>[SNIP opinions]
No need for opinions, which are all too often off the mark, since we have the
authoritative source:
"f.64 was dedicated to the promotion of 'pure' photography, defined in the
group's manifesto as 'possessing no qualities of technique, composition or
idea, derivative of any other art form.'
<http://www.museumca.org/exhibit/exhi_adams.html>
Nothing there about sharpness or fuzziness, just purity.
>>> "Like F/64, that group of photographers, like any judgement of art,
>>> generally, there is philosophy, schools of thought."
>
>>> I find that pretty much unintelligible. What were you trying to say?
>
>>Really. For starters, it's nowhere close to being English.
>>David J. Littleboy
>>Tokyo, Japan
>
>Well of course it's English. Be reasonable.
We think we are being reasonable, and we don't think it's intelligible
English.
>And if you think it's
>wrong then, at the time you complain, perhaps you could type in the
>sentence as it ought to be, in your opinion.
How could we possibly do that, since it't not intelligible to us -- we don't
know what you were trying to say. Perhaps you could do a better job of
explaining it, rather than trying to put the burden on us to figure it out.
>Otherwise, it's no help
>to me.
Then (and with all due respect) you're either not receptive to criticism, or
not trying terribly hard to take advantage of it.
Mark Johnson
>>Maybe it's an opinion, shared by many. Maybe not everyone shares that
>>opinion, including yourself.
>No need for opinions, which are all too often off the mark
Again, it's okay to agree to disagree.
But there is the opinion:
"He goes on to illustrate how the documentary tradition in photography
began as a number of late nineteenth-century innovations rather than
being a child of the New Deal. This idea is intriguing in light of the
transition photographers like Edward Weston made from fuzzy
pictorialism to the sharp focus and harsh lighting that were becoming
staples of the photo-journalist."
[http://www.city-gallery.com/resource/pa/Reviews/Exhibits/ealre.w.stereo.essay.html]
"Fixing a Shadow" demonstrates, the debate over the proper path of
photographic practice still continues, albeit not simply in the
initial termsof "sharp" versus "fuzzy" pictorial rendition."
Agree to disagree. Okay?
>>Well of course it's English. Be reasonable.
>We think we
How many of you are posting this? It's just your name, so . .
Don't think an opinion is necessarily valid because you find a mob of
that opinion. It's irrelevant, except if it comes to public policy.
>>And if you think it's
>>wrong then, at the time you complain, perhaps you could type in the
>>sentence as it ought to be, in your opinion.
>How could we possibly do that
How could you - you mean? Just do it. Just rephrase the sentence, and
type it in just that way. Then I could see what the corrected version
must look like. Otherwise, I just can't imagine. And I said that.
>Then (and with all due respect) you're either not receptive to criticism
Umm . . . again. Just be specific. I'm willing to listen, for some
reason, here. You have a complaint about a particular sentence. You
can just rewrite it as you think it ought to be. And then I can see
what you were getting at.
John Navas
In <jfri305pnf4o1b9ae...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:26:47
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>In <om9i30p00vtm8ucqe...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:19:25
>>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>just arial. Leave other font metrics generally alone; if you must specify
>>size, at least use relative size (e.g., "-1") rather than absolute size.
>
>That's for the old font tag. They're trying to deprecate and remove
>that in favor of style sheets.
Not really. And have you ever taken the time to study your actual HTML code?
Hint: You're using font tags.
>But I never used fixed font sizes, even
>back then.
But you are using a fixed font size; i.e.,
FONT-SIZE: 9pt;
>>On my screen (carefully calibrated high-end Hitachi monitor) it's
>>distractingly "pebbly," with the size of the pebbles depending on screen
>>resolution and the particular browser.
>
>There are no 'pebbles' or shadows, which is probably what you mean.
I don't mean shadows, I mean "pebbly" (just as I wrote), and it is indeed
"pebbly".
>And I can't imagine what you're seeing on the screen.
Then your monitor most be hopelessly miscalibrated. Your background image --
call it what you want -- isn't smooth.
>If you'd like to
>take a digicam shot and reduce for jpg, I'd certainly take a look at
>that attachment. That would be helpful to me, at any rate. Otherwise,
>and while I appreciate the effort, it just doesn't help me.
I'm frankly sick of all the argument -- you're way too hard to help, and if
you're going to be that argumentative, then you're on your own (as far as I'm
concerned at least).
>> "F/64, the 'sharp school', which still dominates much thinking, today,
>> judged certain work - bad - because it was fuzzy (pictorialism)."
>
>>Get rid of the comma between "thinking" and "today,"
>
>No, you can't do that. You want it to read "much thinking today
>judged". And that's not right.
[sigh] That't not what I wrote. What I suggested was, "... which still
dominates much thinking today, judged certain work ..." If that's not
correct, then this is also unintelligible to me.
>>and the hyphens ("-")
>
>That's for emphasis, but is syntactically correct. It may seem to you
>an old usage.
No, it's bad usage (see any decent writing style guide), and irrelevant in
HTML in any event, since you can use more appropriate bold and/or italics (but
never underlining, which is reserved for links). (It's bad even in raw text,
where the preferred method is to use adjacent "_" or "*", and in "_raw_" [to
denote underlining] or "*raw*" [to denote bold].)
>>around "bad." Pictorialism has more to do with manipulation to achieve
>>paint-like effects, not "fuzzy" (as your structure suggests).
>
>That's partly true.
[sigh] No, it's completely true. Have you read the manifesto? (I have.)
>But the f64 school objected to the fuzziness of
>pictorialism.
It actually objected to the lack of purity, of which fuzziness was sometimes
an aspect, but only one aspect.
>That's the aspect I was mentioning. And they said it was
>wrong.
They actually said it had gotten way out hand.
>In other words, if that's the emphasis that you inferred, then
>it's exactly what I intended.
It's not. Please just stick to what I actually write, not what you think I
might have inferred.
>>dedicated to the promotion of 'pure' photography, defined in the group's
>>manifesto as 'possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea,
>>derivative of any other art form.'
>
>><http://www.museumca.org/exhibit/exhi_adams.html>
>
>Well, there may have been other aspects to it, ...
[sigh] No need to speculate -- read it.
>> "Like F/64, that group of photographers, like any judgement of art,
>> generally, there is philosophy, schools of thought."
>
>>I find that pretty much unintelligible. What were you trying to say?
>
>Like F/64. What is that, again?
>
>A group of photographers. A school.
>
>So like that group of photographers, like any judgment of art . .
A "group of photographers" isn't anything like a "judgement of art."
Did you mean something like, "the perspective of f.64, like any other
judgement of art..."
>I spelled that wrong, btw . . . that is, like any judgment from
>anyone, including that group of photographers, and in the most general
>terms as they see it - generally - this is a philosophy, schools of
>thought. In fact, if you did get genuinely confused, it might be
>because that amounts to almost a tautology.
No, it's because it genuinely confusing.
>It's a blatant statement
>of the obvious.
Sorry, but I don't think so.
>But it might be easy to forget. Judging photography,
>in other words, is very subjective. It depends on your frame of
>reference, on your value judgment, on your school of thought.
If that's really what you mean, just say it, straight out, without all the
tortured twists and turns.
>>there are too many commas, breaking the sentence up into small fragments that
>>disrupt the flow.
>
>How would you rewrite it? I don't see any reasonable alternative.
I don't know, because I don't understand it.
>>I could go on, but I don't have the time for a more complete critique.
>
>I'm certainly have no problem with your quarrel with regard to the
>stated opinions. But I wish you'd phrase your complaint in that way,
>instead of talking about commas and syntax. If you disagree with this
>or that, I think that's fine. I don't expect everyone to agree with
>the various opinions.
I disagree with both the writing style and the opinions.
I sincerely mean no disrespect, but it's not terribly polite to argue with us
when we are trying to help you, particularly since some of us have
considerable experience in web page design, and in writing. If you aren't
open to input, then don't ask for it.
John Navas
In <30ui30ljlpdmfc7mf...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:48:22
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <tn8i30tsqdu9vk4nd...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:46:32
>>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>>To that extent, I can always rephrase a sentence or two. ...
>
>>In my opinion, the writing problems go much deeper than that.
>
>But it doesn't help me, in any way, for you to just make some
>pointless accusation. If you want to help, then you should be
>specific. I'm not being unreasonable to say that.
I've been more than specific, but (1) I'm not here to educate on basic English
writing style -- see any good style guide for that -- and (2) I'm tired of all
the arguing. If you're not open to input, then don't ask for it. You come
across as being very defensive.
>Perhaps it's not the number of commas that bothers you, but what is
>said inbetween the commas? Do you disagree, in fact, with the opinions
>stated?
I disagree with both the writing style and the opinions. If you're going to
cite f.64, then I respectfully suggest that you do some serious homework on
it, rather than relying on superficial summaries in random web pages.
John Navas
In <k80j30t56ha9lu5de...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:29:55
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>Lionel <n...@alt.net> wrote:
>
>>>But it doesn't help me, in any way, for you to just make some
>>>pointless accusation. If you want to help, then you should be
>>>specific. I'm not being unreasonable to say that.
>
>>The problem with your writing isn't a specific one, it's a general one.
>
>No it's not. ...
Yes, it is. Spend some time with a good writing style guide. See if (for
example) you can find anything to support your use of hyphens for emphasis.
Then report back here.
John Navas
In <1aui3013rvlijnd4b...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:53:40
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <ml9i30dh0djqkqqne...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:01:30
>>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>No offense, but that sounds defensive.
>
>I simply asked that you be specific.
I've been quite specific.
>You yourself sound a little
>defensive, if I may say.
You may say whatever you want, but I'm pretty much done with trying to help
you in any event, because it's pretty clear to me that you don't really want
to be helped.
John Navas
In <qkui30tjr49c57s9h...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:59:25
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>"Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>
>>Mark Johnson wrote:
>>> "Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>
>>My displays have been checked and re-checked and meet all standards
>
>I can't imagine what problem you are having, then. I really can't.
Then your own monitor must be hopelessly inaccurate.
>The
>only thing I might suggest is take a digicam photo of the screen, and
>just reduce to small jpg, enough so you can make out the problem. And
>you have the email, right there. Keep it under 30K or so.
No need to do that -- it's right in your original JPEG
<http://www.scenic-route.com/tiles/bkgrnd/stucco/harm216f.jpg>.
>>I told you. You told me I was wrong and should waste more time in helping
>>you
>
>If all you want to do is complain, then I really can't take your
>complaint seriously. Maybe you just had a bad day, and you're acting
>out. Maybe you're always like this. And maybe there is a problem, ...
And maybe you're rude and defensive.
>>Someone seeking serious assistance would say, "I see your point. You may be
>>right.
>
>I don't know that you're right. I can't imagine what problem you see.
No offense, but it seems that you must be trying hard not to.
>... The page
>looks fine.
No, it doesn't.
>You disagree with some of the opinions. ...
Yes. Also some of the "facts."
John Navas
In <02vi305g9s3klj83i...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:06:57
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>In <eq8i301634vo6s7sq...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:57:10
>>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>"Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>
>>It's actually pretty specific in style, which is part of the problem -- you're
>>over-specifying, which can easily lead to undesirable results. Worse, there's
>>really no good reason to try to dictate such things as font weight. In
>>general, results will be better overall if you rely on defaults as much as
>>possible.
>
>Well, that's a little more specific.
It's actually quite specific, like my other posts.
>I don't know.
That's pretty obvious.
>It's pretty standard for style sheets to specify the
>weight.
Actually, it's not.
>But I think I could see both sides of that. So, point taken,
>if you like. I think it's a matter of opinion.
[sigh] This clearly is a waste of my time.
>>The problem is your specification of font weight, which can easily lead to
>>undesirable results (i.e., making it look over-bold).
>
>Okay. Again, point taken. So the text is simply too black.
No, it's too heavy. Black is (well) black, a color only, not a weight. Don't
you understand these things?
>>I strongly disagree. Your "pebbly" background is distracting
>
>There's no way I can tell what you're seeing. ...
Then you need to get a better display.
>>There's that defensiveness again.
>
>Not at all. ...
I disagree. Thus far I've not seen to slightest evidence that you're taking
any of this to heart; i.e., we've all been wasting our time.
John Navas
In <3s1j305jr3gr3129q...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:54:30
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>No need for opinions, which are all too often off the mark
>
>Again, it's okay to agree to disagree.
Of course, but that doesn't make it meaningful.
>But there is the opinion:
As I wrote, opinions are interesting, but f.64 is quite capable of speaking
for itself. Read the manifesto.
>Agree to disagree. Okay?
Suit yourself.
>>We think we
>
>How many of you are posting this? It's just your name, so . .
More than one of us have been telling you the same thing. (I think that
should count for something, but you apparently don't.)
>Don't think an opinion is necessarily valid because you find a mob of
>that opinion. It's irrelevant, except if it comes to public policy.
[sigh] Go read a good English writing style guide, thoroughly and carefully.
See if (for example) you can find anything to support your use of hyphens for
emphasis. Then report back here. Unless and until you do, I'm not going to
waste any more time trying to help you.
>>How could we possibly do that
>
>How could you - you mean? Just do it. ...
Can't be done because I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY!
>>Then (and with all due respect) you're either not receptive to criticism
>
>Umm . . . again. Just be specific. I'm willing to listen, ...
No you're not.
Mark M
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ln8i30hu8t02h06km...@4ax.com...
> "Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >This is precisely what I meant also. Sentence structure is very odd and
> >quite jumbled.
> >You seem to have injected commas almost randomly. Sentences lose their
> >focus and break apart into tiny bits and pieces of thought that don't
> >necessarily lead anywhere.
>
> That's okay. Remember, you asked me what I thought. And you haven't
> commented on that, but simply on syntax. So I did answer your
> question.
> But what sentence is wrong, as you read it?
There are too many to list--and I don't mean that in any snide way.
>I wonder if maybe I
> couldn't just rephrase it in some way?
If it was a case of a single sentence...perhaps.
It's not.
-But that's OK. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. :)
Mark M
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> Don't think an opinion is necessarily valid because you find a mob of
> that opinion. It's irrelevant, except if it comes to public policy.
OK...
Try this:
What grade did you receive on this essay?
(I'm assuming this was for a class of some sort...)
:)
Forget photography classes... Turn this in to an English professor, and
he'd mark it with a very large "F".
I'm not being rude now...I'm simply stating that your writing in this piece
is just plain horible.
Normally I wouldn't care, but you keep coming back with more defensive
arguments.
Your mention of "mob" is quite amusing. :)
The people who are responding to you do not constitute a mob in this case,
but...
When even a "mob" finds your words lacking, then you know your writing is
bad! :)
Mark M
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> >In <tn8i30tsqdu9vk4nd...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004
13:46:32
> >-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>To that extent, I can always rephrase a sentence or two. ...
>
> >In my opinion, the writing problems go much deeper than that.
>
> But it doesn't help me, in any way, for you to just make some
> pointless accusation. If you want to help, then you should be
> specific. I'm not being unreasonable to say that.
Oh good grief!!
Don't expect John Navas or myself to try and make up for the years of
schooling you apparently didn't receive with regard to writing. This is no
place to get your GED, and I guarantee that neither of us have the
motivation to attempt to teach an unwilling student. BTW--This *is* usenet,
and strict rules do not apply here. However, the goal on the NG is still to
convey meaning, and your "essay" simply fails.
Start from scratch on your essay and stop demanding a one-post education
replacement.
Mark M
"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> Let me know. You asked my opinion. And you haven't said word one about
> it. You've complained about syntax, in general, without saying
> anything specifically about the page.
>
> I'll take your advice as well intentioned if it is. If I get the sense
> it's ignorant, or pointless, then of course I'll simply ignore it.
>
> And if you were in my shoes I think you'd do the same.
Yes. I would do the same! In fact, this is precisely the reason I stopped
reading your essay after the first few sections. It came accross as both
ignorant and pointless.
Good luck to you.
Mark M
Here's my best advice to you:
Enroll in a community college writing course.
Charlie Dilks
http://www.pbase.com/image/26309056
When I read text I like black on plain white. This is no time to get
"creative" or fancy on web pages. The pebbles make my eyes feel fuzzy.
The writing style is also kind of "fuzzy" for the reasons stated by
others.
Misuse of comas; I don't know if this example has been shown or not,
but it jumped out at me.
"This isn't a rule, here, so much, as a reminder."
get rid of two of the three comas
This isn't a rule here, so much as a reminder.
Guenter Fieblinger
referring to the picture of the 'asphalt chewer' (excellent shot, too!): was he
probably chasing the cats causing them to collide?
Guenter
Mark Johnson
>> But what sentence is wrong, as you read it?
>There are too many to list
'List' even one. But, if you don't wish to, that's fine, too. It's
just that you complained and I remember asking you to be specific. I
could always rewrite this sentence or that if I thought it might be
improved.
Mark Johnson
>In <3s1j305jr3gr3129q...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:54:30
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>Again, it's okay to agree to disagree.
>Of course, but that doesn't make it meaningful.
But it's alright.
>>Umm . . . again. Just be specific. I'm willing to listen, ...
>No you're not.
I just said I was. But you need to be specific. I can't read your
mind.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>> Don't think an opinion is necessarily valid because you find a mob of
>> that opinion. It's irrelevant, except if it comes to public policy.
>Forget photography classes... Turn this in to an English professor, and
>he'd mark it with a very large "F".
And we, too, we'll have to agree to disagree. If you had any real
complaint you would have stated it, by this point. I did ask you to be
specific.
I keep asking you to look at it another way. Again, put yourself in my
place. Someone complains that your photography just . . s%*$. Whatever
term they use. And you ask them, what in the world do you mean? And
they persist in saying that your 'photography professor' would give
you a F. And you ask, but why do you say that? And they never say.
What would YOU think, in that case?
Be reasonable.
Mark Johnson
>In <jfri305pnf4o1b9ae...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 19:26:47
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>In <om9i30p00vtm8ucqe...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:19:25
>>>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>But I never used fixed font sizes, even
>>back then.
>But you are using a fixed font size; i.e.,
> FONT-SIZE: 9pt;
That's fine. That's in the style. And it's common practice. And don't
tell me it's not.
>>And I can't imagine what you're seeing on the screen.
>Then your monitor most be hopelessly miscalibrated.
It's set perfectly. That's the point.
But if I suggest to you that your monitor isn't properly callibrated,
you're just going to get mad. Am I right? So I won't say that. You
didn't hear it from me.
>>If you'd like to
>>take a digicam shot and reduce for jpg, I'd certainly take a look at
>>that attachment. That would be helpful to me, at any rate. Otherwise,
>>and while I appreciate the effort, it just doesn't help me.
>I'm frankly sick of all the argument
I just don't agree with you, in some cases. And you have to allow for
that. In other cases, I really don't know what you're talking about.
>you're going to be that argumentative
Again, people can disagree on things. And you have to be prepared for
the fact that not everyone is going to think you're right. I certainly
am, as I've made clear. But I think that you, as critic, might want to
consider that in your own case. It goes both ways.
>>That's for emphasis, but is syntactically correct. It may seem to you
>>an old usage.
>No, it's bad usage
It's perfectly fine. Agree to disagree.
>>But the f64 school objected to the fuzziness of
>>pictorialism.
>It actually objected to the lack of purity, of which fuzziness was sometimes
>an aspect, but only one aspect.
And that's all I meant. You don't have to talk about a thing, as a
whole, in order to talk about it. You can refer to certain aspects.
This was just an example of what a school, a framework, might rule out
as worthy. There are many other examples.
But I hope you understand, now.
>>In other words, if that's the emphasis that you inferred, then
>>it's exactly what I intended.
>It's not.
It was.
>>> "Like F/64, that group of photographers, like any judgement of art,
>>> generally, there is philosophy, schools of thought."
>>>I find that pretty much unintelligible. What were you trying to say?
>>Like F/64. What is that, again?
>>A group of photographers. A school.
>>So like that group of photographers, like any judgment of art . .
>A "group of photographers" isn't anything like a "judgement of art."
Of course it is.
>Did you mean something like, "the perspective of f.64, like any other
>judgement of art..."
Then that's something for your website, not mine. Specifically, that's
needlessly confusing since you might need to clarify you use of f64,
even in context, if you phrase it that way.
This is me being critical of you. Remember, you say that one should
take criticism well. Well, we'll see then.
>>I spelled that wrong, btw . . . that is, like any judgment from
>>anyone, including that group of photographers, and in the most general
>>terms as they see it - generally - this is a philosophy, schools of
>>thought. In fact, if you did get genuinely confused, it might be
>>because that amounts to almost a tautology.
>No, it's because it genuinely confusing.
>>It's a blatant statement of the obvious.
>Sorry, but I don't think so.
Pretty much a tautology. It doesn't get more obvious. But it just
seemed worth mentioning. Sometimes it's worthwhile to remind the
reader of the obvious.
>>But it might be easy to forget. Judging photography,
>>in other words, is very subjective. It depends on your frame of
>>reference, on your value judgment, on your school of thought.
>If that's really what you mean, just say it, straight out
I did. But I suppose I could add another sentence. I does seem
redundant. But I'll certainly think about it. And thanks.
Mark Johnson
>>>The problem with your writing isn't a specific one, it's a general one.
>>No it's not.
>It is. Sorry to upset your feelings, but the writing on your webpage is
>just plain unintelligible. Arguing with the messengers
Or me disagreeing with you. Consider me the 'messenger' when it comes
to your complaint, to use your terms. It works both ways. I just asked
you to be specific. And that's not unreasonable.
Anyhow.
Mark Johnson
>In <k80j30t56ha9lu5de...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:29:55
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>Lionel <n...@alt.net> wrote:
>>>The problem with your writing isn't a specific one, it's a general one.
>>No it's not. ...
>Yes, it is.
Unless you have some specific -
>support your use of hyphens for emphasis
That's fine as it is. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Mark Johnson
>I've been more than specific
Hypens - right?
>>Perhaps it's not the number of commas that bothers you, but what is
>>said inbetween the commas? Do you disagree, in fact, with the opinions
>>stated?
>I disagree with both the writing style and the opinions. If you're going to
>cite f.64, then I respectfully suggest that you do some serious homework
I did. And I take it you just disagree with the opinion. But that's
fine. I never imagined everyone would agree with me. It is,
nevertheless, a fairly uncontroversial essay.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:30ui30ljlpdmfc7mf...@4ax.com...
>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >In <tn8i30tsqdu9vk4nd...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004
>13:46:32
>> >-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> >>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>> But it doesn't help me, in any way, for you to just make some
>> pointless accusation. If you want to help, then you should be
>> specific. I'm not being unreasonable to say that.
>Don't expect John Navas or myself to try and make up for the years of
>schooling you apparently didn't receive
But then you did ask. I answered your question. And now you're
hysterical with rage. And I just have to take it for that.
Again, if you were in my place, and I suffered a stroke, or something,
and wrote what you just did, I think you'd treat it just the same.
Mark Johnson
>I've been quite specific.
Hypens - and such?
>>You yourself sound a little
>>defensive, if I may say.
>You may say whatever you want
I think I did. That was what you disagreed with on that webpage. But
we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see that you have any real
complaint, except that you insist somehow that your emphasis of the
f64's opinion be included rather than mine. But it is, after all, my
webpage.
Mark Johnson
>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>news:1aui3013rvlijnd4b...@4ax.com...
>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> >In <ml9i30dh0djqkqqne...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004
>14:01:30
>> >-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>> >>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>> >No offense, but that sounds defensive.
>> I simply asked that you be specific. You yourself sound a little
>> defensive, if I may say.
>> If you think there's a problem then you should be able to specifically
>> say what the problem is. If you just 'feel', somehow, that there's a
>> problem, then you may not be wrong. But it still doesn't help me, in
>> any way.
>Enroll in a community college writing course.
Because in that way I'd finally agree with you?
I think you need to allow for disagreement between people. I have an
opinion on something. You have an opinion on something. And people
won't always agree with me. But what's worse, they won't always agree
with you.
Mark Johnson
>reading your essay after the first few sections. It came accross as both
>ignorant and pointless.
It's fairly uncontroversial. But if you just want to vent, I suppose
that's what you'll do.
Mark Johnson
>Here is an example of the pebbles.
>http://www.pbase.com/image/26309056
That looks pretty good on both of them, doesn't it. It looks best on
the 5.2 (which an odd version - not an odd number, for the pedants).
That looks great. It wouldn't hurt to boost the brightness.
>When I read text I like black on plain white.
Not me. It makes it difficult to read the text. But I have my contrast
at 100%, and the brightness way up, with gamma, for each color
channel, at about 2.1 - 2.2, as it should be. It might be that you
darkened your screen precisely because of the black on white
background pages. You'll find some older pages preferred a bright gray
background, in order to avoid that.
>"This isn't a rule, here, so much, as a reminder."
>get rid of two of the three comas
>This isn't a rule here, so much as a reminder.
Point taken. But it would read - This isn't a rule, here, so much as a
reminder. There's an extra comma. It's almost a typo.
I agree with you. None of the others would simply state something like
this. So I had to say I'd agree to disagree. Heck, I could rewrite a
bunch of sentences if I thought it might make it easier for the
reader.
Mark Johnson
>>I can't imagine what problem you are having, then. I really can't.
>Then your own monitor must be hopelessly inaccurate.
And everyone else's, but yours. Someone did post a photo of how it
looked on his display. Viewing it with mine, I told him it looked
fine. And, in fact, it looked great.
>>If all you want to do is complain, then I really can't take your
>>complaint seriously. Maybe you just had a bad day, and you're acting
>>out. Maybe you're always like this. And maybe there is a problem, ...
>And maybe you're rude and defensive.
Or someone is. I was talking to Frank, not you. But if you're trying
to tell me that Frank is an alias of yours, that's something else.
>>You disagree with some of the opinions. ...
>Yes. Also some of the "facts."
As you see it. But that's your opinion. I pointed to other cases where
the same opinion is voiced. There are more. And you suggested a
reading of yours that you thought said the opposite. And there we are.
Have to agree to disagree. And, again, that's fine. It's okay.
Mark Johnson
>In <02vi305g9s3klj83i...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:06:57
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>In <eq8i301634vo6s7sq...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:57:10
>>>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>>"Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>>>It's actually pretty specific in style, which is part of the problem -- you're
>>>over-specifying, which can easily lead to undesirable results. Worse, there's
>>>really no good reason to try to dictate such things as font weight. In
>>>general, results will be better overall if you rely on defaults as much as
>>>possible.
>>Well, that's a little more specific.
>>It's pretty standard for style sheets to specify the
>>weight.
>Actually, it's not.
But even so:
>>But I think I could see both sides of that. So, point taken,
>>if you like. I think it's a matter of opinion.
>[sigh] This clearly is a waste of my time.
You insist that I agree with you, but that you don't need agree with
me?
Put yourself in my place, and what you'd think of someone who said
that. If I can be wrong, so can you.
>I disagree. Thus far I've not seen to slightest evidence that you're taking
>any of this to heart
I think I've shown that I have. And it upset you, somewhat. I
disagreed with your insistence that I paint a broad picture of f64,
when that wasn't the point of the example, or the essay. That's
another essay, on f64. I chose one important aspect. And it's okay to
do that.
I hope you don't imagine that if someone disagrees with you that,
therefore, they must be wrong. You could be wrong, as well.
John Navas
In <1q4k30hka0qi80ah4...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:51:49
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>I disagree with both the writing style and the opinions. If you're going to
>>cite f.64, then I respectfully suggest that you do some serious homework
>
>I did. ...
It's painfully clear that you haven't.
John Navas
In <fo4k30hr3o3h3haav...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:50:34
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>... Spend some time with a good writing style guide. See if (for
>>example) you can find anything to support your use of hyphens for emphasis.
>>Then report back here.
>That's fine as it is. ...
I didn't think so. Case closed.
John Navas
In <7s4k301kfg9deknp6...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:53:22
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>news:30ui30ljlpdmfc7mf...@4ax.com...
>>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> >In <tn8i30tsqdu9vk4nd...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004
>>13:46:32
>>> >-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>> >>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> But it doesn't help me, in any way, for you to just make some
>>> pointless accusation. If you want to help, then you should be
>>> specific. I'm not being unreasonable to say that.
>
>>Don't expect John Navas or myself to try and make up for the years of
>>schooling you apparently didn't receive
>
>But then you did ask. I answered your question. And now you're
>hysterical with rage. ...
No, just disgusted at having wasted so much time on a troll.
John Navas
In <j75k30ppfjbj3lda6...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:57:59
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>You may say whatever you want
>
>I think I did. ...
Indeed, which is why I'm not going to waste any more time trying to help you.
John Navas
In <p75k30l1m79u1k0cm...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:59:21
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>Enroll in a community college writing course.
>
>Because in that way I'd finally agree with you?
No, because in that way you might finally learn something about writing.
John Navas
In <ba5k3013bc1r36s0b...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:59:58
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>reading your essay after the first few sections. It came accross as both
>>ignorant and pointless.
>
>It's fairly uncontroversial. ...
It's actually fairly unintelligible.
John Navas
In <456k30p0rtikf7ok7...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:21:16
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>>I can't imagine what problem you are having, then. I really can't.
>
>>Then your own monitor must be hopelessly inaccurate.
>
>And everyone else's, but yours. ...
You are the only one claiming it's not what it is. The rest of us agree.
Hint: There's a message there.
John Navas
In <ot6k30lbpu38jt2oo...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:26:54
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>[sigh] This clearly is a waste of my time.
>
>You insist that I agree with you,
I insist on nothing.
>Put yourself in my place, and what you'd think of someone who said
>that. If I can be wrong, so can you.
Indeed. Unlike you, I have learned from feedback over the years. Which makes
me less wrong now than I used to be.
>>I disagree. Thus far I've not seen to slightest evidence that you're taking
>>any of this to heart
>
>I think I've shown that I have.
I disagree.
>And it upset you, somewhat.
Nope. Just disgusted at having wasted so much time on a troll.
Mark Johnson
>>That's fine as it is. ...
>I didn't think so. Case closed.
We'll agree to disagree, then.
Mark Johnson
>>>I disagree with both the writing style and the opinions. If you're going to
>>>cite f.64, then I respectfully suggest that you do some serious homework
>>I did. ...
>It's painfully clear that you haven't.
But I did. And you should do the same. We'll just have to agree to
disagree. And that's okay, too.
Mark Johnson
>In <7s4k301kfg9deknp6...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:53:22
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>"Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>>news:30ui30ljlpdmfc7mf...@4ax.com...
>>>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>> >In <tn8i30tsqdu9vk4nd...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb 2004
>>>13:46:32
>>>> >-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>>> >>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Don't expect John Navas or myself to try and make up for the years of
>>>schooling you apparently didn't receive
>>But then you did ask. I answered your question. And now you're
>>hysterical with rage. ...
>No
I wasn't replying to you, unless you imagine that "Mark M" is an alias
of yours. Just relax. This is just Usenet. It's okay if we disagree.
It's fine. It's okay.
Mark Johnson
>>>You may say whatever you want
>>I think I did. ...
>Indeed, which is why I'm not going to waste
Okay. We'll agree to disagree. I didn't see any merit in your
complaints. It's only Usenet. And you see people just venting,
sometimes. It's expected. I've seen it, before.
Mark Johnson
>In <p75k30l1m79u1k0cm...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 06:59:21
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>"Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Enroll in a community college writing course.
>>Because in that way I'd finally agree with you?
>No
But you meant, yes.
This is matter of opinion. We'll just agree to disagree. You're going
to insist that you are absolutely right. I'm just going to say it
still looks fine, to me.
Mark Johnson
>>>reading your essay after the first few sections. It came accross as both
>>>ignorant and pointless.
>>It's fairly uncontroversial. ...
>It's actually fairly unintelligible.
Unless you read it. It is fairly uncontroversial. Very basic stuff.
It's the merest introduction.
Mark Johnson
>In <456k30p0rtikf7ok7...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 07:21:16
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>I can't imagine what problem you are having, then. I really can't.
>>>Then your own monitor must be hopelessly inaccurate.
>>And everyone else's, but yours. ...
>You are the only one claiming it's not what it is. The rest of us agree.
The rest of you is just a couple of people, with nothing specific to
say. One other person did. And I thought his snap of the screen looked
just fine, though he thought it made the text look 'fuzzy' in some
way. But I thought it looked great.
You've just been spewing, basically, especially in these last
messages. I take it you're doing that to have the last word - you're
right, and everyone else is wrong?
Mark Johnson
>>Put yourself in my place, and what you'd think of someone who said
>>that. If I can be wrong, so can you.
>Indeed. Unlike you, I have learned from feedback over the years.
You don't seem to have that personality, based on how you've behaved,
here. You give the sense of someone who insists he must be right, and
is not very eager to back himself up with specifics, unless
challenged, over and over again.
And even then.
>>>I disagree. Thus far I've not seen to slightest evidence that you're taking
>>>any of this to heart
>>I think I've shown that I have. And it upset you, somewhat.
>Nope.
It obviously has.
So we'll just have to agree to disagree. It's okay to do that.
John Navas
In <r4ak30doj93j64uvd...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:23:41
-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>[SNIP]
You need to get back on the meds. Seriously.
Frank ess
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <7s4k301kfg9deknp6...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004
> 06:53:22 -0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>> "Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Mark Johnson" <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
>>> news:30ui30ljlpdmfc7mf...@4ax.com...
>>>> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>>> In <tn8i30tsqdu9vk4nd...@4ax.com> on Sun, 22 Feb
>>>>> 2004 13:46:32 -0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "Mark M" <mjmorgan...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> But it doesn't help me, in any way, for you to just make some
>>>> pointless accusation. If you want to help, then you should be
>>>> specific. I'm not being unreasonable to say that.
>>
>>> Don't expect John Navas or myself to try and make up for the years
>>> of schooling you apparently didn't receive
>>
>> But then you did ask. I answered your question. And now you're
>> hysterical with rage. ...
>
> No, just disgusted at having wasted so much time on a troll.
John, I feel much the same, but I'm not sure any longer that Mark Johnson is
a "troll" in the usual sense. I don't believe he can controll himself. His
absolute inability to accept constructive criticism and monomaniacal need to
"agree to disagree" are traits I see from time to time in my practice.
It starts when parents are either too busy or too stupid to correct their
children, who grow up to believe they are the arbiters of "right" and
"wrong". Sometimes it's carried into adulthood, to the discomfort of the
sufferer and his/her immediate contacts.
Once the need to be right is established, rebuffs result in withdrawal.
Commonly the sufferer seeks an arena where incorrect acts or beliefs are
disregarded, seen as inocuous. Mark Johnson's Web site is a poignant
example: It is clear he has invested a lot of time and thought, but it has
not been useful time, and the thought is-to put it mildly-off-center. And
who, except a few kind and generous souls (present company included) will be
bothered to attempt a reality check?
And which of them is so generous as to persist in the face of intransigence
on such a scale? Not me!
There is myriad incorrect information on Mark Johnson's site, a plethora of
site-design errors, and obscure language everywhere. Written language that
reads like the audible verbal salad of a hebephrenic. All very nicely
articulated, but a half-step or more out of synch with reality, or at the
very least outside common practice.
"Don't include an active link to nothing; visitors will leave once they
learn it's likely a click will lead to 'Sorry, I ain't done this part yet'."
Unfulfilled promise is not a flattering thing: let me order a side-dish from
the menu, then whip it away an plunk down an empty plate? Barbarous!
"Don't lose track of the principle that communication is the reason for a
Web page; it can look good, but if it is unintelligible or onerous to peruse
("Unjustify!" "Unbold!" "Unclunky!" "Unself-center!"), any message is going
to be lost on the reader." Unless the message is, "I don't have a lot of
expertise with Web design or English expression, but if you are willing and
have the fortitude to sacrifice the benefits of millions of years of human
experience to explore my tiny, deranged existence, and ignore my offensive
and unbalanced personality, you may find something here we can agree to
disagree on." Then, success is almost inevitable.
At some point he either goes all the way 'round the bend, or realizes that
some subjects do not yield to pure thinking, that facts is facts, that there
are more benefits to agreeing to agree than agreeing to disagree. Saying it
don't make it so. Selah.
I'd like to know how many other conversations like this have resulted from
Mark's pages. I'll bet they were very much the same: "Wrong? No way! Facts
are a matter of Opinion! My Opinion Rules. It's all right for you to be
Wrong, we can agree on that!"
It must be hell to live near Mark Johnson. It must be hell to have tried to
teach Mark Johnson and see your good efforts morphed into unrecalcitrant
nonsense.
I believe Mark Johnson is escaping from reality, that he is very near
success. Good luck to him.
As I suggested in my first response: He should get professional help.
Web-wise ("Unclaimed Mysteries". Now *there* is someone who knows how to put
together a Web presence) and personal-wise (I won't dance; don't ask me).
Now relinquishing the floor to Mark Johnson, for the last word.
--
Very sincerely,
Frank ess
Mark Johnson
>In <r4ak30doj93j64uvd...@4ax.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:23:41
>-0800, Mark Johnson <1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>You need to get back on the meds. Seriously.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this. You didn't make
any complaint that seemed to require a fix.
I don't what you want me to do, other than just agree with you, when I
don't.
Mark Johnson
>I believe Mark Johnson is escaping from reality, that he is very near
>success. Good luck to him.
Excuse me for not following your stream of consciousness rant. If you
have anything to say, then you should say it, be specific, and not get
so wound up in yourself. If you've got issues, maybe deal with those,
and then attempt to criticize others.
Okay?
John Navas
In <RLq_b.5904$qc4...@twister.socal.rr.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:29:21 GMT,
"Frank ess" <fr...@fshef.com> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> No, just disgusted at having wasted so much time on a troll.
>
>John, I feel much the same, but I'm not sure any longer that Mark Johnson is
>a "troll" in the usual sense. I don't believe he can controll himself. His
>absolute inability to accept constructive criticism and monomaniacal need to
>"agree to disagree" are traits I see from time to time in my practice.
>
>[SNIP many good points]
Your points are well taken. I think Mark is also a good illustration of
what's wrong with our educational system -- he may well have gotten passing
grades in English even though his horrible writing style borders on the
illiterate. Regardless, he obviously fails to understand that the purpose of
writing is to communicate to the reader. If the reader can't understand the
writing, then it doesn't matter whether the author (Mark) thinks the writing
is good or not, because it has failed in its intended purpose, and thus isn't
good. This assumes, of course, that Mark is actually trying to communicate,
rather than just pontificate to himself, something that's by no means clear.
Mark Johnson
>Your points are well taken. I think Mark is also a good illustration of
>what's wrong with our educational system
His 'points' were 'well taken' because he agreed with you. It was a
rant. And you haven't done much better in recent messages.
You desperately want to argue with me, it seems apparent. But you
really can't because the essay you criticize is pretty much
uncontroversial. Those are things you'll find mentioned on a number of
sites, in a number of books, and for good reason. They all make
perfect sense.
Unfortunately, I don't think you do. And I've told you that.
So, agreeing to disagree.
Phil Stripling
<1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>SNIP<
> But what sentence is wrong, as you read it? I wonder if maybe I
> couldn't just rephrase it in some way?
Well, there are a number of confusing sentences (confusing only to me,
I'm sure), so let me take the following paragraph of yours as a sample.
~~~~~~~~~~~~begin quoted paragraph~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like F/64, that group of photographers, like any judgement of art,
generally, there is philosophy, schools of thought. And beyond that,
there is maturity, and changing interests. In an article I wrote on the
subject of, art, I suggest that some work is transcendent, across one's
interests and age, across the tendencies and desires of others, and is
regarded by many, over the generations, as great art. So it is
possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~end quoted paragraph~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
First, "Like F/64, that group of photographers, like any judgement of
art, generally, there is philosophy, schools of thought." This is a
series of sentence fragments, with a sentence buried in there. You have
used 'like'
as a conjunction instead of 'as.' (I did not say, "You have used 'like'
like a conjunction, you will notice.) The verb of the one sentence does
not agree with the subject: There are philosophy and schools of
thought.
Your sentence as written, appears to try to mean "Like F/64, there are
philosophy and schools of thought." If this is what you are trying to
say, maybe we could recast is as, "There are philosopy and schools of
thought (like F/64)." The phrase 'that group of photographers' should
be superfluous to your reader as you have already introduced F/64 in
the preceding paragraph. 'Like any judgment of art' is a phrase, and
'as' should be used as the conjunction; however, there does not appear
to be any connection between the phrase and any meaning in the sentence
as I understand it (There are philosophy and schools of thought (like
F/64)). Your use of the word 'generally' is also confusing because your
use of commas is incorrect; I cannot tell if you meant to say 'as any
judgment of art generally,' or 'generally, there are philosophy and
schools of thought.'
You seem to be confounded by commas. Let me suggest The Elements of
Style, by Strunk and White, where you will find the following simple
rules:
In a series of three or more terms with a single conjunction, use a
comma
after each term except the last: red, white, and blue
Enclose parenthetic expressions between commas: My brother, you will
be
pleased to hear, is now in perfect health.
Nonrestrictive relative clauses are parenthetic: In 1769, when
Napoleon was
born, Corsica had but recently been acquired by France.
Restrictive clauses are not parenthetic: People sitting in the rear
could
not hear.
Place a comma before a conjunction introducing an independent
clause: The
situation is perilous, but there is still one chance to escape.
Do not join independent clauses by a comma; use a conjunction: It is
nearly
half past five; we cannot reach town before dark.
If you follow these rules, your comma confusion should be abated. One
other rule of note from Strunk and White is not to break sentences in
two. The example in that volume is, "I met them on the Cunard Line many
years ago. Coming home from Liverpool to New York. I would suggest that
your 'And beyond that, there is maturity, and changing interests' is
part of a broken sentence (note also the comma problem). Perhaps your
first two 'sentences' should be recast as 'There are philosophy and
schools of thought (like F/64), and beyond them there are maturity and
changing interests.' Note the change in verb to match the plural
subjects. Note that no comma is required after one of only two terms
(maturity, in case you have missed it).
Your phrase 'In an article I wrote on the subject of , art, ...', you
have set 'art' off by commas, which is, I am sorry to say, not
sanctioned by Strunk and White. Commas are not emphasis devices
(neither are dashes), they are grammatical devices to help your reader
make sense of your writing. Misusing commas makes no sense. The entire
sentence is a run on sentence, with too many clauses. I would rewrite
it as, "In an article I wrote on art, I suggested [note the same tense
-- past tense in the introductory phrase, past tense in the main
clause] that some work is transcendant, crossing interests and age,
tendencies and desires. That work is regarded by many across the ages
as great art." See how we have now expressed similar ideas in similar
style; by using similar style, we have brought the ideas together in
the reader's mind.
Your final sentence uses 'it,' an indefinite pronoun with no clear
antecedent. I honestly have no idea what 'it' refers to: "IT is
possible," you say, but I don't know WHAT is possible: that there are
philosophy and schools of thought, that there are maturity and changing
interest, that some work is transcendant, or that some work is regarded
as great art?
This brings me to my final confusion. How does the beginning of this
paragraph relate to the end? There are philosophy and schools of
thought, and there are maturity and changing interest, and some work is
transcendant, being regarded as great. I've somehow been wrenched from
my consideration of philosophy and maturity to the contemplation of
works of art, and I don't know how I got there.
So here's my guess: "Contemporary judgments of art often are based on
philosophy and schools of thought (F/64, for example), but maturing
cultures and changing interests have an effect on judgments made after
the art was created. Some work is transcendant, crossing interests and
age, tendencies and desires. Since that work is considered across the
ages as great art, it is possible, in my opinion, for art of that merit
to be regarded as great without reference to a particular philosophy,
school of thought, or culture."
Now, whether this is what you meant is a mystery to me.
I saw only by looking at your mark up that you have a link in the
paragraph I'm discussing. In addition to cleariing up your commas, may
I also suggest that you set links off so that they are obvious (and no,
commas don't indicate the presence of a link -- I'd suggest a different
color of text).
Sorry to be so confused.
Phil
--
Philip Stripling | email to the replyto address is presumed
Legal Assistance on the Web | spam and read later. email to philip@
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/ | my domain is read daily.
John Navas
In <230220041335181557%phil_st...@cieux.zzn.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004
21:35:19 GMT, Phil Stripling <phil_st...@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>In article <ln8i30hu8t02h06km...@4ax.com>, Mark Johnson
><1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>
>>SNIP<
>> But what sentence is wrong, as you read it? I wonder if maybe I
>> couldn't just rephrase it in some way?
>
>Well, there are a number of confusing sentences (confusing only to me,
>I'm sure), so let me take the following paragraph of yours as a sample.
>
>[SNIP]
Good for you, Phil, but it was almost certainly a waste of time, since Mark
seems incapable of learning anything from anyone about his writing. I've
suggested several times that he refer to a good English writing style guide,
as you did, but he doesn't seem to be willing to do so. [sigh]
Annika1980
Meanwhile, the poor troll loser has to post 1000 times just to get someone to
read one of his posts.
WHO RULES ???
Charlie Dilks
The Dave©
> WHO RULES ???
The DaveC - Don't settle for cheap imitations!
--
"Through pride we are ever deceiving ourselves. But deep down below the
surface of the average conscience a still, small voice says to us,
'Something is out of tune.'" - - - Carl Gustav Jung
Mark Johnson
>In <230220041335181557%phil_st...@cieux.zzn.com> on Mon, 23 Feb 2004
>21:35:19 GMT, Phil Stripling <phil_st...@cieux.zzn.com> wrote:
>>In article <ln8i30hu8t02h06km...@4ax.com>, Mark Johnson
>><1023...@compuserve.com> wrote:
>>
>Good for you, Phil, but it was almost certainly a waste of time
You should just give it a rest, if you've got nothing constructive to
add. Don't you think? Agree to disagree. It's okay.