Criticizing DrT, part II

[P3D Dr. George A. Themelis <DrT-3d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I see a second part in "criticizing DrT" coming up (Paul, where are 
you???) so let me state a few opinions.  Gabriel writes:

>I would have to agree with Larry overall. It's true George is very
>opinionated but he does have an open mind. Albeit it takes some work to
>convince him otherwise from his steadfast way of doing things. 
>BUT then again who doesn't have opinions and beliefs that are dear to 
>them and takes sometime to change these believes. 

I have a problem with these statements.  First, I do not believe that I
am opinionated... I have preferences and I state them with enthusiasm
and I am being called opinionated because of this.  One example is the
Realist camera which is dear to my heart.  I have never said that it is
better than other stereo cameras from the 50s.  I have tried to 
emphasize some of the advantages of this camera but have stated that
any good camera from the 50s will give equivalent results. In addition 
to the Realist I use twin SLRs and I am open to any tool that I can
afford and which will give me GOOD results ("good", IMO always...)

The second problem that I have is this reference to "steadfast" way
that I do things and how hard it is to change my ways and how much
time it takes to change ideas... Why should I (or anyone else) be 
convinced to change his/her ways?  And which ways is that?  Let's 
take Bill Walton who's original posting by some misfortune started 
this discussion... Should he be "convinced" to switch from B&W to 
color and from prints to slides?  I respect Bill Walton's work and 
enthusiasm by which he promotes it.  The man has tried everything 
(including color slides) and has chosen to work with B&W prints and 
he is investing a lot of time to promote not only his work but stereo 
photography in general.  

It is unfortunate that Dan picked and drew attention to one little, 
and IMO IMO IMO harmless, sentence among the praise that I posted for 
Bill Walton. The way I see things, the stereo division of PSA hosts 
some of the more ACTIVE stereo photographers today and Bill is trying 
WITHIN PSA to promote stereo prints which are IMO IMO IMO neglected in 
PSA, and he is doing a great job.  It is unfortunate that a harmless 
sentence was promoted to the status of an egotistical opinion disquised 
as fact and it has lead to postings like the one by Tom Hill and my 
reply and all the counterproductive discussion about who has strong 
opinions and who has not and who is opinionated but open-minded, etc...

So, please, stop calling me opinionated and don't try to read more than
I write... And if you are bothered by the frequency and, in your opinion,
one-sided nature of my postings, it is up to you to provide a productive 
counter-balance, not by criticizing me or my postings, as Tom Hill did, 
but by discussing the areas (within stereoscopic imaging always) that 
interest YOU.

Thank you! -- George Themelis 


------------------------------