16 February 2008

The Best?

What is the best? Let's put aside the fact that it is virtually impossible to define the best of anything. The best you can hope for are the opinions of those who participate in whatever it is you are trying to define the best of. Once in a while, you'll find something that stands above its competition, but even in that case the agreement won't be universal.

A few days ago, Keith started a couple of posts in his blog and forum to solicit the opinions of his readers to put forth a list of five images that they thought were the "best ever" fractal images. I haven't contributed because I honestly don't know what I consider the five best images I've seen. I have favorite artists who have a great many images I like. I have seen some spectacular images from people I can't even remember who they are.

It's an interesting topic, but let's not forget that it is just people's opinions. In this case, it is a relatively small sampling of opinions. Are you going to feel slighted or upset if you weren't included in someone's list? Is this little exercise slighting your favorite program, or favoring one program over another?

Of course, this little exercise it too rich a target for Orbit Trap to pass up. In the post, "The Best Fractal Art Ever Created", the author can't resist the attempt to add another "positive" contribution to the discussion. Of course, I'm being sarcastic. The post is one more in a long, long list of rants taking pot shots and other various forms of attack against Keith, Ultra Fractal users, Ultra Fractal the program, BMFAC judges, various online forums, etc.

The author does attempt to be humorous, and uses syrupy sarcasm throughout in attempt to lessen the obviousness of his attacks. Of course, the author defends his post by claiming that it is full of "satire" and "irony". Perhaps this was the intent. But, when looked at in the totality of the history of Orbit Trap posts, this seems to me to be a convenient dodge to mask the real purpose of the post. I enjoy satire and irony, but does that make it a "positive" contribution to the discourse surrounding fractal art as the Orbit Trap authors (one anyway) claim to want to make their blog?

The only truly positive contribution the author makes is to show several images from nature, which are indeed examples of the beauty contained in nature. But, he just can't resist by concluding with one more dig at UF,

"If only they'd used Ultra Fractal instead..."
I just have to wonder what is/are really the reason(s) behind the constant attacks on others from the Orbit Trap authors. Post after post contain outright and carefully veiled digs at others in the posts. Are these positive contributions? They don't seem to be to me.

Are they "critiques" or merely "commentary"? They don't seem to be to me.

Why do I care? Well, I don't like to see unjustified attacks on others. If I disagree, I like to voice my opinion. Plus, I can't comment there. So, I'll just comment here. I also enjoy debates from time to time, unlike the Orbit Trap authors.

So, I ask you, what is wrong with discussing what people's opinions are about what is the best?

14 February 2008

Criticism of Art

Is this a good thing? I think it is. That is why I agree, in principle, with the article "Art Without a Audience".

Everyone is a critic in some form or another. Everyone who looks at art, whatever its form, assesses it is some way. It might be as simple as, "I like it", or "that's ugly, who would hang such a thing on their wall". Others might be more technical in their approach and analyze the art in terms of form and/or color and/or composition and/or social impact and so on.

If one wants to improve as an artist, one has to be critical of one's own works. Additionally, one must also solicit the critiques of others. It might sting a little to hear that your work isn't as good as you think it is in the eyes of someone else, but it won't kill you. Even if they absolutely hate your creation, it's just their opinion. You might love the work no matter what anyone else thinks of it. It doesn't help anyone improve as an artist to always hear "great", "excellent", "outstanding", etc. when they post an image. Likewise, to always hear negative comments doesn't help either. More often than not, IMO, it is helpful to point out what is good about an image, as well as what is not so good about it. Even better are suggestions on how to improve the image.

Where I differ from the article, is when the author says,

"Some of the criticism that Orbit Trap has received, and that I have personally received, has lead me to think that many people in the fractal world misunderstand the function of criticism that Orbit Trap is performing."


"Criticism is simply commentary. The word "criticism" has acquired a negative connotation in everyday speech, but I'm using the word in it's traditional, neutral way, which simply implies any kind of feedback or discussion regardless of whether it's pleasant or unpleasant. Criticism is merely talking "about" something."

Most of the criticism that I've offered to Orbit Trap and many of the posts is that the criticism that Orbit Trap is offering goes far beyond being critical of art. The authors have been critical of the actions of people. This isn't critiquing art, this is attacking people personally. Sometimes, this is justified if the actions of people are somehow wrong. However, this is not generally the case with those who are the targets of Orbit Trap's criticisms. I show this in great detail in my post about the Fractal Universe Calendar. Virtually all of the criticisms of this publishing venture are either personal in nature and unfounded, or just critical opinions which are not indicative of anything wrong.

It's equally unseemly to set one's self up as a critic, and then complain about how one is treated when others are critical of your critiques. If you are going to be critical of others, then at least be accepting of comments when others are critical of your critiques. If you are going to dish it out, make sure you can take it as well.

The criticism offered by Orbit Trap has gone way past the point of being "simply commentary". It became relentless and personal. Saying that the posts were merely "talking about something" is a cop-out and trys to ignore the responsibility that the authors have for their words, opinions, and attacks. In the same way, the comments received to the Orbit Trap posts were "simply commentary". But, if you have been following any of the comments, you can see how the authors reacted to others "talking about something". They didn't react very favorably, yet they expect others to accept their "commentary". More double standard? More hypocrisy?

The other main subject of criticism is the Benoit Mandelbrot Fractal Art Competition. The lines are less clear here. Some of the objections are reasonable, but most of them are not. If you read the many posts at Orbit Trap about this event, you will see repeated comments like,
"It's one thing to suck up 40% of the wall space for an exhibition"

"This year, the BMFAC “rules” allowed the judges to claim 40% of the exhibition space. "

"The judges stake out their 40% of the wall space first"

"No, BMFAC judges insist upon the resume-packing"
These aren't critiques, these are an attacks. In fact, the entire post, "Damien, Inc." is nothing more than one lengthy ad hominem attack. These types of posts aren't positive in general, and aren't positive to the larger community of fractal art. The logical question is, why did the author post it? I don't know. I have theories, but I don't have the ability to read the mind of the author.

I agree that there is a lack of criticism in the fractal art community, and probably the digital art community as well. But, I think the Orbit Trap authors need to quit complaining about how they are treated and actually engage in artistic critiques. One does not have to be attacking or destructive in their approach to be critical; one can actually be constructive and give positive examples or alternatives to contrast your critique. One does not have to be personal and assign motives to people in their assessment of some event. One can object to some event and/or how it is run without claiming the entire event and those associated with it are "unprofessional" and the event should cease to exist because it isn't run according to some strict set of "rules". One should know where to draw the line when offering honest opinions about something, and repeatedly engaging in a destructive vendetta.

05 February 2008

Fractal Universe Calendar

Lets take a look at the Fractal Universe Calendar.

The authors of Orbit Trap keep bringing it up, and keep mentioning it in the context of "professionalism". Here's a recent statement in the "Beware of the Anti-Fractal" comment section,

"Our concerns about the FU Calendar and the BMFAC have always centered on lapses of professional conduct. The point is not whether these institutions are money-making ventures for publishers or aid artists in “expression and self-realization.” Both fractal competitions include the work of their own judges/editors."
This is a direct charge ethical wrong doing by the editors of the calendar. Yes, they refer to it as "professional conduct" in the comment, but when you look at the entire argument over many posts, they are basically accusing the editors of ethical misdeeds. They want the "issues" about the calendar addressed. So, I'll take a look at their many comments about the calendar and address them.

And one from the "Leave a Light On" post,
"We’ve made it clear that the publisher (Avalanche) is free to do whatever it pleases. Spiral away we say. It’s their money. But the editors aren’t forced to agree to the publisher’s terms, so why express surprise, yet alone anger, that someone might question whether such conduct is proper?"
Actually, IMO, they have not made it clear that the publisher is free to do as they please. If so, then why the continual fuss? As this post will detail, there is no improper conduct. There is only anger from the critics that their standard, as ridiculous as it is, is not being followed.

As you read the comments, it is important to understand the definition of a contest used by the Orbit Trap authors. They use the word contest in the sense of a strictly run contest where judges (editors) have no association with any participant, cannot participate themselves, the rules are formal rules developed by some association, etc. They believe that there should be no other type of contest with informal or different rules than some "standard". I believe most readers realize that contests can be formal or informal or any where in between depending upon the intent of the contest.

I'm not sure when it first started. I remember seeing it around 2000 or 2001. That was back when Rollo Silver was the editor. He had an FTP site where people could upload images to be considered for the calendar. Somewhere around that time, he decided to stop being involved with the calendar and the publisher. The publisher contacted one of the previous artists to help ensure the calendar continued. In that first year of the current format, only a few people knew about it and submitted images. After that, the editors started the submission system that is basically the current system.

Some basic facts about the calendar are,
  • It is a commercial arrangement with Avalanche Publishing
  • The editors, currently two, are guaranteed to have one selected for the calendar
  • The editors receive no compensation for their work other than an image in the calendar
  • The editors solicit images for consideration by anyone who wishes to contribute
  • The editors send a selection of approximately 200 images to the publisher
  • The publisher makes the final selection of images for the calendar
  • Artists receive $200 per image selected, and $400 if their image is selected for the cover
  • The editors submit a variety of styles of images based on the images submitted
  • There are no requirements to use any particular program or process to make your image
  • There is a size requirement of 4200x4200
  • Historically, the publisher selects a variety of brightly colored spiral images
  • Sometimes, more often than not, the editor(s) have more than one image selected
There is a FAQ, which answers more questions.

The calendar is not,
  • A formal contest, either in image submission or selection
  • A self-promotion event by the editors
The calendar is a contest only in the very informal sense of the word. Images are submitted and selected. I suppose that is a competition and can be called a contest, but that is not the definition the Orbit Trap authors will be using. Bear that in mind as you read their comments.

So, lets look at some of the statements made by the administrators of the Orbit Trap blog about the calendar.

In "The Fractal Alternate Universe Calendar 2008" post, the author wrote,
"I helped contribute to the Fractal Alternate Universe Calendar. In keeping with the traditions of the original Fractal Universe Calendar, the work is heavily weighted to showcase the work of the editors."
This statement implies that the editors have skewed the image selection process in order to benefit themselves. This is an absurd, and false accusation. Plus, we'll put aside for now the question of ethics and professionalism in taking the images from the calendar, applying filters, and re-posting them in their modified form without the permission of the original artists.

In "Test-Tube Art" post, the author wrote,
"Alright. Sorry -- sorry for having a sense of humour! But back to your impolite comments about the Fractal Universe Calendar; I'll try to be more Jiminy Cricket-like. I find the calendar's choice of artwork to be a profound statement of time and very appropriate for what really is the current state of fractal art."

"No, I'm serious. Every year, the same old stuff, reworked by a few people and slapped with a new label: 2005; 2006; 2007... In the words of Samuel Becket, I think, "Nothing ever happens". You see? That really is the current state of fractal art: a handful of people doing the same old thing every year."
There is some truth to these statements. However, they are very cynical and appear to be meant as nothing more than a snide swipe at the calendar, editors, and images. Besides, the calendar publisher picks the images. If they know what sells for them, and it is the same year after year, so what? Does that really harm anyone or hurt anyone's artistic expression. Does it really serve any purpose to complain about it?

In the "The Price of Professionalism" post, the author wrote,
"Here are a couple of results from such open books: 40.3% of the images selected for the Fractal Universe calendars from 2005-2008 came from just four people -- the two current editors and the two previous editors."

"Basically, we have asked questions about these contests in two areas: professionalism and conflicts of interest."
Here the author seems to imply that the editors are intentionally using the calendar for self promotion at the expense of others. Of course, that is false. The editors, as do many of those submitting images, understand the type of images that the publisher likes and create images that are more likely to be selected. An objective inspection of the images in any given calendar show that all images are roughly of the same quality. The images from the editors are not out of place. Now, you may not like the images selected, and you may even have images that are better. But, that isn't the point.

There has never been even the slightest evidence presented in any post to support any charges of "[lack of] professionalism" or "conflicts of interest" regarding the calendar. Because the editors have an agreement with the publisher to include one of their images in the calendar is not, I repeat is not, a conflict of interest. Because the critics say it is, and repeat the charge doesn't make it true. There should be public apologies made to the calendar editors for these unsubstantiated charges.

In the "Damien, Inc." post, the author wrote,
"We got the deep background on how The Fractal Universe calendar competition was established way back when and designed from day one to allow editors to conveniently slip their own work into the final product."
This comment is nothing more than the snide opinion of the author attempting to smear the calendar process. Basically, it's the classic straw man argument where the critic invents an issue that he then proceeds to attack.

In the "Evening Stroll" post, the author wrote,
"I bet I've entered probably 200+ contests. I did not win or place in most of the competitions I entered. Yet, in all that time, I have only questioned the operation of two contests: yours and the Fractal Universe calendar. There's a reason. You both have something in common -- you mix the work of judges/editors with those they have judged/edited. Such a practice is widely regarded as an unprofessional conflict of interest."
Here the author tries to falsely equate contest judges with the calendar editors. And, again a charge of unprofessional conduct levied at the calendar editors. The calendar process, from submission to selection, is fully detailed. There is nothing unprofessional or suspect in any way with the entire process.

In the "Cowards of Us All" post, the author wrote,
"Can you name any five art contests anywhere that do allow inclusion of the contest judges' work. Well. Okay. You're right. The Fractal Universe calendar."
Again, another equating of contest judges to the calendar editors. Again, this is nothing more than a false, unsubstantiated charge.

In the comments of "Take it To The Limitations" post, the author wrote,
"Type two is the contest that claims to be a representative collection of contemporary fractal art. The Fractal Universe calendar falls into this category. In the FAQ section of the calendar’s Fractal Forum, the editors state they try to “produce a calendar that is representative of the current state of our art.” Here’s the link. Now I ask you. Is this statement an accurate description of the final product? Or would a more honest tag line be: a compilation of mostly fractal spiral forms made mainly using Ultra Fractal? "

"And, Keith, you’re telling me that you never said the calendar is a contest? Are you saying it is not one? Are you prepared to argue that inclusion in the Fractal Universe calendar is not competitive? Aren’t entries juried with winners ultimately selected? Aren’t the chosen entries compensated while entries not chosen are neither published nor paid? Do you think using a euphemism like “image selection process” masks the fact that you are conducting a contest?"
Here the author is addressing one of the current calendar editors. Again, the author is making more false charges.

It's very clear that the Orbit Trap blog authors don't like the Fractal Universe Calendar, nor the process by which images are submitted and selected. It's also very clear that there has not been any substantiated evidence that there is any ethical problems with anything associated with the calendar. Why then, do the Orbit Trap blog authors continue to complain so much about it?

If you have read this far, let me ask a question. Is it fair, or professional if you will, for two people to
  • coordinate with the publisher
  • take the time and effort to solicit images
  • take the time and effort to select about 200 images
  • send the images to the publisher for the publisher to select images for the calendar
and then receive compensation by having one image in the calendar?

Or, do you believe, as the Orbit Trap authors seem to, that the editors should do this free of charge for the goodness of the fractal community? Do you believe, as they do, that this calendar is hurting fractal art? Do you believe, as they do, that it is a "conflict of interest" and "unethical" that the calendar editors are compensated by having an image in the calendar? Do you believe, as they do, that the editors are intentionally promoting their own images above other submissions?

If you believe any of the above, what proof do you have to offer that any of your beliefs are true? How would you run the calendar submission process differently than it is currently run? How do you think the editors should be compensated? Why don't you set up such an arrangement with a calendar publisher?

The bottom line is this,
  • The Fractal Universe Calendar is NOT a contest or competition in the sense that the Orbit Trap authors claim it is
  • There is nothing professional, or ethically, at question with the calendar
  • With all the self-publishing methods available today, if you have issues with this particular calendar, then create, publish, and market your own calendar
It's also very clear to me that the Orbit Trap blog authors should publicly apologize to those associated with the calendar. That's what people with high professional standards would do when they have been shown to be wrong. That's what people of strong, admirable character do.

04 February 2008

I've Been Banned (i.e. Censored)

Since my comments are no longer allowed to Orbit Trap posts, but I seem to continue to be a topic of interest, I'll use this blog to make any comments. The purpose of this post it to detail exactly what transpired with my comments to recent posts that led to the change in comment policy (i.e. censorship).

First, let me say that the administrators of the Orbit Trap blog can run it in anyway they see fit. They created it, they run it. They want to pride themselves as being honest, critical, controversial, etc. They want to make, and have made many posts that are controversial, and/or are critical of various subjects. This sounds good on the surface, but when you do so, you have to expect to receive comments that are equally as critical. When you are critical of others, and then complain when others are critical of you, it is not surprising that charges of hypocrisy will arise. It is hypocritical, IMO, to make posts that are critical of people or events and even accuse people of being unethical or unprofessional and then complain about how you are treated by those who object or challenge your statements and charges. While they are free to censor comments if they choose, lets not mince words and call it something other than it is, censorship.

So, lets look at what the comment policy said prior to being changed,

"This is not a public forum. This is a blog, a privately run publishing house. Imagine you're sitting in a nice leather chair in the reception area of our downtown office. Anything that makes our receptionist pick up the phone and call security will be deleted. This includes: spam; solicitation; threats; off-topic rambling; personal attacks; and anything else that leaves a bad smell for our readers or incurs extra charges from our cleaning staff. Critiques and opposing views are welcome. You will be treated with the same level of professionalism as you show us. If you just want to deliver a personal insult, use the email link."
It won't be addressed here, but a valid case can be made that many of the recent posts by the administrators fail to pass the professionalism test and in fact, themselves contain personal attacks. Apparently, any one who comments is expected to be professional regardless of how unprofessional the original post might be. Looks like a double standard to me.

I made the following comment to the post "Beware of the Anti-Fractal".

"The judges have shown us that Fractal Art is Dead and Boring and it needs to be cooked a little."

Well, perhaps they are striving for more than "click, click, click, apply filter, done" for their artistic work flow.

"Unless of course you've got the guts to be a Pirate and use Photoshop."

Who gives a rip whether or not any one uses Photoshop on their images. The primary reason many like to do as much of their work as possible in UF is so they can reproduce their images at any size at any time.

"I'll stop now. I'm meandering."

No, at best you are being silly. At worst you are being absurd (or worse).

Now, what is the reference in my first comment "click, click ..." you might ask. It is simply a reference to a prior post "Click-ism: a Manifesto", where the author suggests that you simply use your mouse and click, click, click away. Then, apply some Photoshop filters.

The second comment addresses the silly implication that it is somehow a bad thing to use Photoshop, or any other graphics program, to manipulate your image and instead you must only use the tools provided by your image generation program of choice. There is simply nothing wrong with using Photoshop on your images. There is also simply nothing wrong with generating your image entire in your program of choice. The artist should just use whatever method gives them the result they want. All programs are just tools. Use whatever combination of tools gets you to your end result.

Did these comments violate the stated policy? Apparently, but I don't know how.

The comment was posted, then I noticed it had disappeared. So, I posted it again. And, again it disappeared. So, I posted it a third time and captured the posting so I could verify that I had indeed posted it correctly. Again, it was deleted. There was never any note or explanation made by the administrators in the comments as to their action or why.

I then posted the following comment.

"Critiques and opposing views are welcome."

I guess this is just lip service, eh Tim?

Where is that courage the un-deleted commenter mentions?

Once more, it was deleted. So, I then posted the following comment.

What's up with the deleting of comments without any explanation?

Yes, it was again deleted. Then, in the post "Odds and Ends", the author commented on the accuracy of the previous post. It was at this point that I noticed that the comment policy had been changed. The events led me to believe that this was done to ensure that I could no longer post comments that would be published. So, knowing that my comment would be read, but not published, I made the following comment,
If Tim's post is so on target, why did he delete my comments without notification or explanation?

I see now that you have changed the comment policy. Is it that you no longer want to deal publicly with challenges to your posts?

Is it that you want to make controversial posts, and challenge those who you disagree with, without being challenged in return?

Or, are you just trying to silence a couple of the most ardent critics of your posts?
I then notice that there were more comments made to the "Anti-fractal" post. Seeing that I was referenced in comments made by Tim, I sent in the following comment.

While I know you won't publish this because you are a coward, I'm going to comment anyway.

First, I am not Ken Keller.

Secondly, I have been no more insulting that you or Terry. You and Terry are just cowardly hypocrites. It's okay for you to make personal attacks and accuse people of ethical problems, but now find the need to censor comments. I do not use profanity. I do speak bluntly, but so do you and Terry. It's really distasteful to see "so-called professional" people whine incessantly about how they are treated when post after post is simply an attack on others.

You own the blog, you can set your own rules. But, I'll state it again, your actions show you to be nothing more than petty, cowardly, hypocrites.

If you want to raise the IQ of OT, then write posts that are more than petty, whining attacks.

BTW, feel free to make more veiled comments referring to this comment in futures posts in the hopes that I'll read them and feel the "sting" of your words.

"Senseless rantings". ROTFLMAO. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
Yes, I spoke bluntly in this reply. Yes, I even engaged in name calling. I also made an honest assessment of what I had seen transpire. Perhaps I'll address some of the "treatment"of the targets of the Orbit Trap administrators' posts in later posts .

After a couple more comments and false statements and being mentioned again by the administrator, I sent in the following comment.

Again I'll reply knowing you'll not publish the comment.

Didn't you and Terry rail against Keith and others for creating a blog/forum where only the same kind of voices would be heard? That's basically what you are now creating.

You don't like me because I pick yours and Terry's arguments apart. It's difficult to stand up against that. I fully understand that. But, Toby is right, you must if you think you are going to have any credibility.

"Much of it isn't worth reading, particulary the "blog in a blog" filibustering of Ken, someone who isn't even a member of the fractal art community in any way, neither an artist or and even a casual admirer of fractal art."

You have no clue about what you speak of. I have been following fractals for over 20 years. I have been using UF (and other programs, but mostly UF) for over 10 years. I have formulas published in the UF formula database. I have had images in the Fractal Universe calendar, and said as much in a reply to Terry.

I do not have a web site, and I do not publish images on Renderosity or DeviantArt. I have published images on mailing lists in the past.

Care to correct your false statements?
Yes, I'll admit to being a little ticked off. But, that often happens when I see blatantly false statements being made. Were they intentional? Probably not. They are more likely being made in ignorance. Still, they are false and uncorrected by the administrator.

Now, in the latest comment, the other administrator states,
"That being said, we’ve only restricted two commenters to date. One was someone we recognized using a sock puppet (whom we’ll post if his known alias is used). The other is reader Ken who thinks he is a critic but is actually a troll. We’ve now begun receiving borderline harassment emails from him. If Ken would like a clarification for why his posting privileges have been curtailed, he can identify himself by sending us an email. We’ll be glad to tell him the reasons."
First of all, the comment about "borderline harassment emails" is a lie, IMO. The record is above. They were all comments posted using the comment form. A troll, well, that is a matter of opinion. My comments, that haven't been deleted, can be seen in previous posts. I take the administrators to task for their attacks, many of them baseless and unethical, on others in the fractal community. I speak honestly and bluntly at times. Just like the administrators pride themselves in doing in their posts.

And finally, there is this reference in the post "Epilogue",
"Toby sent us his final remarks which he said we could post if we wanted to. Unlike Ken, Toby doesn't accuse us of violating his human rights when it comes to posting his comments."
Hmmmm, I'm wondering where I ever accused any one of violating my human rights. I open up this post stating the Orbit Trap authors may do as they please. I state that again in one of the replies above. It's one thing to ban someone, which is their right if they so choose for whatever reason(s) they choose. It's another to continue to make false statements in blog posts after that person is banned. Why am I so relevant now that I'm banned? Is it because Toby struck a nerve by independently concluding I was right? Is it because Toby defended me? Is it because they know that Toby and I and other critics are right in our assessment of their behavior?

I'll give them credit for posting Toby's exchange. But if anyone reads the Epilogue post, they will now see Toby being the target for snide remarks. I'd like anyone to explain to me how the Epilogue post is professional in any way. You see, it's not the comments that are causing the "intelligence" of Orbit Trap to deteriorate, it's the posts by its authors.

And finally, I'll comment on the new text they have for their comment policy,
"Orbit Trap is a private publishing venture that exists primarily to raise awareness of issues that relate to Fractal Art. It is beyond the scope of this blog to also serve as a public forum for the debate of these issues. We moderate comments on Orbit Trap to ensure that each contributes something meaningful to its corresponding blog posting. In addition to irrelevance, the following attributes will likely keep your comments from being published: incivility, excessive profanity, hate speech, and spam. If you prefer not to have your comments moderated by us, then please take them to one of the many public forums specializing in Fractal Art where your remarks can be openly discussed and debated in more detail. If you’d like to hear from us directly, please email your overall comments about this blog to the contributors."
I will say it again so there is no misunderstanding, the administrators may set whatever policy they want for their blog. However, let's examine for a moment what this is really saying in the context of events over the last several days. I read this as saying,
  • Orbit Trap will publish posts to raise awareness of issues, meaning almost exclusively of late attacking the BMFAC and Fractal Universe Calendar
  • Orbit Trap will continue to make false, mis-representative, and snide comments about previous commenters
  • Orbit Trap will not deal with comments or criticisms of said posts, meaning they don't want to be challenged and have to defend their posts
  • Orbit Trap will moderate comments to be able to censor comments that are critical so they don't have to deal with them
This is fine, and they have the right to do what they please. But, if one is truly honest, one will see how cowardly this policy has become. Also, if one is honest, one will see how hypocritical this policy has become in light of the posts and comments over the last several months.

03 February 2008

Why the Blog??

Why create this blog?

Well, I decided that I would create it to write about things that I wanted to write about. Initially, I was not interested in having a blog. But, over the last few months, I'd been replying to posts on the Orbit Trap blog. Well, the administrators of that blog have decided that they no longer want to entertain any comments from me. They have changed their comment policy to moderated and refuse to publish any of my comments. In subsequent comments, they have accused me of violating their comment policy. How? I don't know. There was never any notification of what I said that was in violation of any policy. In fact, I contend my comments were, at worst, a reflection of the tone used in their original posts.

So, that is the reason that put me over the top and I decided to create a blog so that I can reply to posts if I choose. I can also write about anything else that I feel inclined to write about.