Re: how not to contribute to this forum
Re: how not to contribute to this forum
- Subject: Re: how not to contribute to this forum
- From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 00:23:08 +0100
On 11 Jul 2007, at 20:53, John Gnaegy wrote:
In which case the more-or-less open discussion becomes a more-or-
less *closed* discussion.
Martin, you derailed the thread Chris Murphy started about an
article about color management into a rant against Adobe's pricing
structure. Those two topics are only barely tangentially related.
John
Let's separate the hype from the reality here:
1. Chris Murphy posted a link which he described as a "white paper".
2. The link was also obscured using TinyURL which would resolve to this:
<http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/
prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf>
You ask: "You're suggesting Chris shouldn't have posted the link?"
And I say that:
a. He shouldn't have described it as a "white paper"
b. If he wanted to use TinyURL then it would have been helpful to at
least mention that this was an Adobe document - not actually a Karl
Lang document
My reason for posting was that I'm not a big fan of "informercials"
being passed off as "white papers" - as you'll be able to see from
the follow up message that I posted to Marco.
You then steered it toward becoming a flame war with this:
on July 8 4:47:57 PM PDT Martin Orpen said:
Really? You surprise me!
How exactly did Karl Lang's paper further *your* knowledge?
My assumption was that most contributors to this list should know
all of this stuff already...
And none of these papers directly promote Adobe's products.
ROTFL.
You really should read these things before offering us your opinions!
I've absolutely no interest in flame wars. And I don't post here
unless I've got something that I think is important to mention.
My question to Marco was in earnest and it's one that I'll repeat
again for any contributor here:
"How does Karl Lang's paper (sic) further *your* knowledge?"
Personally, when I read Karl Lang I expect to be challenged - like
his forum posts on LCD technology.
This "infomercial" is a statement of the bleedin' obvious - not only
for Marco, but also for Chris Murphy and 99 per cent of the
contributors to this list.
Posting the term "ROTFL" was quite restrained in the face of Marco's
contention that "none of these papers directly promote Adobe's
products" - because he is utterly and completely wrong. It is an
"infomercial" created to reinforce Adobe's position in the market and
the "rightness" of their interests in everybody embracing RAW workflows.
If you're already aware of everything about color management,
that's great, not everyone is. This forum is not just for you. A
lot of people read this and don't post. You're suggesting Chris
shouldn't have posted the link? Or that Marco is incorrect in
stating that the papers further knowledge? No, it sounds more like
you just wanted to insult Marco.
If Marco is unable to separate himself from polemics then I can't do
a lot about that. You can obviously ramp up the amount of list-
mummery and start banning people because they don't type the way that
suits the more sensitive souls around here - but it's a slippery
slope you're heading down.
We're all adults here and banning people for posting "ROTFL" is the
kind of thing that you'd expect on an AOL list for teens.
That's why I asked that the thread be closed, not for the content,
but the inflammatory delivery and increasingly personal nature of
the confrontation. Instead of letting the thread die you derailed
another thread to protest that request.
That thread did die. For satirical purposes I posted somebody else's
response about my being "off-topic" to yet another thread that had
nothing whatsoever to do with ColorSync.
I know you've posted to the list for a long time, I don't want to
have to ban you. Just take it down a few notches and I won't have to.
What? Like I'm suddenly "public enemy number one" around here?
My points - that were described as "nastiness" and "off-topic" and
"insulting" still stand.
We have infomercials being posted as "white papers". And you've been
reminded that your cheap US Adobe products are being partly funded by
us UK users who have to pay more than double for the same upgrade and
more than $1000 more for the identical full product.
Personally, I'd really like the discussion to be more Apple-centric -
but I doubt that would go down well either amongst the Adobe-centric
discussions?
I'd really like to hear from somebody like you about why Apple have
been so reluctant to develop a product in Photoshop's market?
The Mac OS had a 2-3 year window where the Core Image APIs could be
used to do the work that Photoshop does in a much faster, more
efficient manner. Developers got Core Image Fun House and we saw a
couple of interesting third party apps - but Apple did *nothing*.
And, as usual, we see more interesting stuff at the WWDC with Steve
Jobs doing 64-bit retouching faster than Photoshop is capable of.
Technologies like Quartz Composer are mind-blowing in their power and
the uniqueness of the interface - why haven't these been developed as
a new Pro retouching app by Apple?
I'd like to see some alternatives to Adobe products and I find it
infuriating that Apple have the technology but seem rather reluctant
to develop it. We would all benefit from alternative solutions and
I'd really like it if Apple provided them.
Assuring you of my best intentions and dedication to the highest
quality colour on a Mac.
--
Martin Orpen
Idea Digital Imaging Ltd
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden