Well, I've already provided my opinion as to why our little informal
critiquing "assignments" should continue, but I don't feel strongly
enough about it to make a huge deal about it. We tried it for a few
months, and it was felt (not by me) that they weren't worth continuing.
Thanks, Chris Brogden, for taking the time to organize this. It is,
quite frankly, out of respect for you that I'm not lobbying to keep this
going. It was something that you took it upon yourself to do, and it
was something that obviously took some of your time. If you say the
plug is pulled, that's enough for me; I don't want to put any pressure
on you for that decision.
Let me say, though, that it was a worthwhile excercise. Now that I feel
a little more comfortable with the whole process, I intend to do so on
my own in the future, and I certainly hope that everyone on this list
feels free to comment on my images - good, bad or indifferent.
Criticism is one way I'll improve - and I've got a lot of room for that!
Thanks again, Chris.
regards,
frank
William Robb wrote:
> I hope that wasn't addressed to me. The PUG is officially a
> non critiqued web site. If you want official critiques, there
> are many website out there that offer them. The PUG critiques
> appearing on the PDML are not sanctioned by the PUG.
> Having said that, I hope the PDML can sort this issue out in
> a manner that is beneficial to the contributors to the PUG, and
> acceptable to the PDML participants.
> William Robb
> PUG Guy.
>
> -
> 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 .
