Sequential multiplexing standardization

Status
Not open for further replies.
red,
this is like cable news, playing 24/7. there are very few people this directly effects, trust that they will find their own solutions.

btw, like your avatar and photos on your web site. your screen name, just interested: are you from a particular native american tribe or from India?
 
I didn't delete any messages. What post number would it have been, pookie?

I have to say, I don't get the passion here. A lot of other people have been banned with narry a whisper -- and indeed sometimes cheers -- for much the same reasons Pappas was, and after a similar process.

What's so special about Pappas that he inspires such invective?
 
I guess people are interested cause we can't see a reason why he was banned.I didn't see anything bannable coming from him (Of course, I'm not saying I see EVERY message on the forum).

Ah well

Aaron
 
his dynamic was a forthwright interest in the critical heritage of our nations history of using wordy analogies to stand for free speech and blah blah blah

"When the interests of free speech and community collide here, community wins every time."
--CreativeCow.com
 
Well, although and despite the several attempts to de-rail this thread and let it die in between unfunny jokes, that’s a sad story. Michael may have only 96 posts here, but anybody who was there on the awakening of the DV revolution knows Michael. Know he is a respectable member of the video/film/production community. Those who remember what became known as the Pappas system, one of the very first attempts to give the then brand new XL1 a manual lens, even before Canon gave us a manual lens option for the XL1, will remember who Michael really is. Just a guy who likes to push the envelop. Nothing wrong with that. Michael uses his real name. A troll would never do so. It’s very easy to accuse him of being a troll. Make this whole non-sense thing looks better. But the fact is, this is inexcusable. I have never sees Michael trolling. All he did was express his honest and VALID points. Besides the single fact he got banned from DVXuser, Cow and 2-pop simultaneously just defeats the whole probability of coincidence. It was pre-meditated and harmonically executed. Calling it a coincidence is really daring our intelligence. Was that a reason for the ban? Oh yes you bet! Was it a fair? How can it be? There was a guy who was the most honest it could get in a forum board. A guy who stood by his opinions and signed his real name to his posts. A guy who is basically known to everybody who’s been into the video production scene in the web for longer than the 24p wave. We are not talking about a teenager here either. We are talking about a professional with more years under his belt than many people here are old. We are talking about somebody who doesn’t represent any particular brand or company, but his own. No particular interest, but his own. Somebody who had no reason, economical, social or political to hold nay personal things against Panasonic, JVC, Sony or any companies. All he did was express his opinions. Point faults AND qualities of products being offered to him. As a professional and user of many of these products, it was more than his right to disagree, criticize or doubt anything he wants. No matter what any board rules may say, that IS a constitutional right. It’s more than actually that. It’s a right defended and executed by more than federal governments of the free world. It’s defended by the United Nations itself. It’s called free of speech. Now, some may say, but what are you talking about? It wasn’t the article what got he banned! Oh well, since I have never seen him using bad language or calling any names, never seen him “trolling”, at least not according to a moderator’s definition :

Barry_Green said:
"trolling" has many definitions, but basically it means starting trouble. Saying incendiary things to start fights, or cause fear/uncertainty/doubt, or inflaming others (like with mac vs. pc, or something like that). It's starting controversy for the sake of stirring up trouble, rather than conveying useful information and participating in a healthy discussion. Trolls often like to identify with the idea that they're "playing Devil's advocate".

If you saw a group of happy FX1 owners chatting amicably about their FX1, and popped into their thread and said "don't you realize how stupid you all are? you're using MPEG-2 and getting chromatic aberrations and no professional would ever use that and you should all ditch it for the HVX", that would be trolling. Whether it's your honest opinion or not. Likewise if you saw a group of happy HVX-wanters, and went in and said "Panasonic is screwed, the HVX is stupid, only an idiot would buy a camera that needs $2,000 cards for five minutes of shooting", that would be trolling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
Click to expand...

Michael never said only an idiot would buy a camera that needs $2,000 cards for five minutes of shooting or "Panasonic is screwed, the HVX is stupid. He's not 12 years old.
Michael didn’t mean to start trouble. What for? Did he work for JVC? For Sony? Was getting a free HD100? No. He would and probably will buy a HVX200 as he have mentioned many times he probably would. Cause fear/uncertainty/doubt? What’s that? If a product is good, has no flaws, nothing will generate such feelings. It a product has flaws, it’s our right as consumers to point them. That’s really funny actually. What’s the supposed to mean? You are not allowed to criticize or doubt a product or you are inflicting fear/uncertainty/doubt? Please give me a break. Michael never started controversy for the sake of stirring up trouble. Again what for? What was he getting with it? He was just pushing the envelop as anybody should be doing if you want progress. He was conveying useful information and participating in a healthy discussion. The fact he pointed a solution for the fixed lens on the HVX by giving a link to the Italian guys website is useful information. I never knew they did that with a Z1. For me it might make or break my decision to buy a HVX. His post were healthful and very informative. So what gives then? What got he banned then? In 3 different Panasonic boards and at the same time? There’s no private reason as many are hinting. What could that be? I don’t think Michael, being a public person within the video production community would attack anybody in private. And if he did, which knowing and have read his posts, could only be in hot blood, I don’t think he would make the same mistakes in all 3 boards. So, that brings us to the question. What or who is there in common between our the 3 boards? Find that answer and you will find the reason.
Despite all the fun poked at the matter, for many who don’t even seem to know who he is, this seems to be just a sad case or censorship. You think I’m being to extreme? Well, look at the facts. Posts being deleted with no warning or excuse, threads gone, people whacked, arbitrariness, sounds familiar?
I know this post will probably not last long, and I might even get banned too. Fro voicing my opinion. It’s ok, put I thought I would talk my mind anyways. I know I’m not wrong in doing so. So if they want to delete it, go ahead. At least it will prove my point. After what happened to Michael, I actually lost the respect for many things around the boards who acted against him. Yes, I said acted, because you can’t tel me 3 boards would ban him at the same time by coincidence. It may be one single moderator, yes it may. But the fact the boards allowed so make them as guilty in my opinion.
So, there it is. Just my honest opinion of what happen and a rant over something really inexcusable in 21st century society. Either censorship or holding personal matters against Michael and using arbitrary power to punish him rather than acting professional (in the case of the banning being the work of a single moderator) Both inexcusable behaviour in what should be a professional environment.
 
The post in question guys contained this picture, I know I'm not going mad...it's too late.

btw Barry, I'm not worthy of comparing to Lebroz, I have some taste....:thumbsup:
Putback.jpg
 
FWIW, I have had in recent memory 5 posts in 2 different threads deleted. I learned what built
community and what rips it apart, so I'm now better prepared to know how to build community.

I don't speak for anyone besides myself, but my observation of Michael is he was not helping build
a community. The general mood of his comments and articles were designed to separate people
into different camps, one side of the fence or the other. He probably has little understanding of
the aftermath of his posts and general feeling of "I feel sick to my stomach" that I know I've had
after reading his comments and the comments of others who responded to his posts.

Not that anyone's asking me for my opinion, but I don't think he really grasped the full effect of
his articles. I don't really think he was out to get anyone or tear groups apart, but that is what he
was doing. Do I think he was totally unaware of it, yes-- I'm willing to offer him that much.
But, still doesn't change the situation.

My point is, anyone here who isn't helping to build a community isn't helping much at all.
That's everyone, me included. As Jarred said, "can't we just all be friends?"
 
thisiswells said:
"can't we just all be friends?"
Click to expand...

In my opinion, that's not why internet boards were created. It has nothing to do with being friends or not. Disagreeing is not being enemies.They were not create for praising. It was created to inform and debate. Michael's posts did that.
 
Sounds like Michael's made quite a contribution and that these boards are important to him. Hope they get things worked out eventually.
 
pookie said:
The post in question guys contained this picture, I know I'm not going mad...it's too late.

btw Barry, I'm not worthy of comparing to Lebroz, I have some taste....:thumbsup:
Putback.jpg
Click to expand...

That post is still there, pookie. It's #66.
 
Mediacre said:
In my opinion, that's not why internet boards were created. It has nothing to do with being friends or not. Disagreeing is not being enemies.They were not create for praising. It was created to inform and debate. Michael's posts did that.
Click to expand...

Well . . .

This being Jarred's board, he can define it any way he wants and eject anyone any time he feels like it.

He doesn't do that. But he's free to do so.

I mean really, the United Nations Charter of Human rights? Come on. Say someone was in your living room insulting you. How long before you give him the boot? And when he starts chanting "Free Speech!" afterward? Will you care? Invite him back?

Let's not get carried away. This is not the pressing human rights issue of our day.

Pappas was sent ample private messages and was even addressed publically. To say he "didn't know" is preposterous.

He did manage to wage a pretty darn successful campaign afterward to make an awful lot of people think he was banned just because he posted an article. Yet, the link to that very article remains (even if the article does not).

But that's not why he was banned.
 
Jubal28 said:
Well . . .

This being Jarred's board, he can define it any way he wants and eject anyone any time he feels like it.

He doesn't do that. But he's free to do so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the president of the United States and the queen of England also have similar rights. But they won't behave like that. Because there's something called Democracy whihc they believe on. What happen to Michael would be comparable to Bush kicking Michael Moore out of the U.S. for making F9/11.



Jubal28 said:
I mean really, the United Nations Charter of Human rights? Come on. Say someone was in your living room insulting you. How long before you give him the boot? And when he starts chanting "Free Speech!" afterward? Will you care? Invite him back?
Click to expand...

Maybe you have seen some posts by Michael which I didn't. Please quote here were Michael insulted, meaning a real insult and not a disagreement in opinions, somebody here. OTOH, I saw he being insulted in one of the othr boards.




Jubal28 said:
He did manage to wage a pretty darn successful campaign afterward to make an awful lot of people think he was banned just because he posted an article. Yet, the link to that very article remains (even if the article does not).
Click to expand...

Not on 2-pop.

Jubal28 said:
But that's not why he was banned.
Click to expand...

So, why was it again? If the reason was so fair and right, why don't the ones in the know just spill it out and end the controversy? It would be just good P.R . better than this I guess.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top