I see a trend going here as well. Those who have been to some kind of
formalized training seem to accept that a "contemptuous" style of critique
is acceptable and normal.
Those that have not, do not see it that way.
The PDML/PUG is not a formalized training arena.
Where does that leave us?
Tom C.
P.S. Even in a formalized arena, I would personally view the rough-edged
words as an indication the instructor is just too d*** lazy to take the time
to think before he speaks, or is just emulating the way he was taught.
Dog-eat-dog world or not. That's only my opinion.
----- Original Message -----
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 1:12 PM
Subject: Re: About PUG Commentaries
> Bucky wrote:
> >
> > I agree with you that honest critique is healthy and useful. Rude
critique,
> > however, is not. It is a trivial task to convey useful feedback without
> > being contemptuous ("This is just a typical, amateurish photograph,
> > something just barely worthy of a beginner photographer").
> >
>
> Yeah, that one's pretty harsh.
>
> tv
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
