Point taken. I did give reasons for my reaction. Yes, most of the time a non-reaction from myself means I did not feel compelled for one reason or another.
Tom C. >From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> >To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" <[email protected]> >Subject: RE: Date: Tue, 8 May 2007 20:35:22 +0100 > > > > > > > >Almost every single photo shown here meets with praise. > > > > > >That's because a lot of people here won't comment on pics > > that don't do > > >anything for them. Me included. Policy. > > > > > >Cheers, > > > Cotty > > > > > > > That's my general policy also. It seems a disparity exists > > as to how the > > policy is applied. :-) > > > > Tom C. > >By stating that you only comment on pictures you like, you appear to >be saying that if you don't comment, you don't like the picture - so >you are apparently commenting implicitly! Of course, this is a >fallacy, but one that many people would commit. > >In my case I comment on some photos that I like, and sometimes I don't >comment on photos that I like. Sometimes I even comment on photos I >don't like, if I think my comments can be useful. Absence of a comment >from me should never be taken to mean that I don't like the shot. > >Furthermore, I may say "Nice picture, Henri!", with no further >explanation, but I would never say "Shit shot, Chim!" without some >additional reasons why. > >Bob > > >-- >PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >[email protected] >http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
