Author Topic: sjlocke was just booted from iStock (Read 129268 times)

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #675 on:** March 26, 2013, 20:26 »

Quote from: dingles on March 26, 2013, 20:21

Quote from: jsnover on March 26, 2013, 20:14
I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.

And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.

Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.

Wow, way to be inclusive. Who needs any other perspective...let all us little Lemmings get back to our smug...errr...snug little bubbles

There's a whole lot of things I can be inclusive about - but not the flat earth society, those who support having imprisoned Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun - I could make a list, but I'm sure you get the point.

There's a saying someone else came up with that we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Sean has given us the tale of what happened and when. Having people come in here and say that - in essence - Sean is lying, is a complete waste of their time and ours. Let them send rude site mail to Sean calling him out if they really feel the need to set the world straight.

dingles · « **Reply #676 on:** March 26, 2013, 20:33 »

Quote from: jsnover on March 26, 2013, 20:26

Quote from: dingles on March 26, 2013, 20:21
Quote from: jsnover on March 26, 2013, 20:14
I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.

And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.

Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.

Wow, way to be inclusive. Who needs any other perspective...let all us little Lemmings get back to our smug...errr...snug little bubbles

There's a whole lot of things I can be inclusive about - but not the flat earth society, those who support having imprisoned Galileo for saying the earth revolves around the sun - I could make a list, but I'm sure you get the point.

There's a saying someone else came up with that we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. Sean has given us the tale of what happened and when. Having people come in here and say that - in essence - Sean is lying, is a complete waste of their time and ours. Let them send rude site mail to Sean calling him out if they really feel the need to set the world straight.

The guy mad an assumption...who is going to take it as fact...I guess those flat earth folks, but we don't care about them anyway.

fotografer · « **Reply #677 on:** March 27, 2013, 03:47 »

Quote from: jsnover on March 26, 2013, 20:14

I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.

And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.

Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.

I couldn't agree more. If there is one person that I trust to tell the truth it is Sean. Let's face it, telling it like it is, is what got him into this trouble.

dingles · « **Reply #678 on:** March 27, 2013, 07:55 »

Let the speculation resume

pro@stockphotos · « **Reply #679 on:** March 27, 2013, 08:28 »

Quote from: dingles on March 26, 2013, 20:21

Quote from: jsnover on March 26, 2013, 20:14
I cannot fathom why there is a small clique of Getty apologists who refuse to believe that what Sean has said is what happened. Even further, I can't understand why they'd waste their time on MSG to set us poor country bumpkins straight - those of us who take Sean at his word.

And as for Getty's side of things, their track record speaks for itself - it'd be easier to defend Attila the Hun and Vlad the Impaler as social workers at heart than to pitch Getty as the hardly done by agency scr*wed over by the evil SuperLocke.

Go and complain about us and Sean someplace else.

Wow, way to be inclusive. Who needs any other perspective...let all us little Lemmings get back to our smug...errr...snug little bubbles

Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??

dingles · « **Reply #680 on:** March 27, 2013, 09:46 »

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on March 27, 2013, 08:28

Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??

To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.

shudderstok · « **Reply #681 on:** March 28, 2013, 00:43 »

Quote from: dingles on March 27, 2013, 09:46

Quote from: pro@stockphotos on March 27, 2013, 08:28
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??

To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.

thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so, i am also not a getty apologist, i think it's safe to say i have similar feelings towards getty as most of you do. my point being (which you understood) was that it is a business decision by getty to do what they did and in all honesty only those two parties know the inner workings of why. the rest of it is pure speculation and rallying on seans behalf with a lot of emotion attached to it. nothing against sean, seems a nice guy, good shooter, and tries to be helpful more so than most, however it appears he simply overstepped the boundaries that getty felt comfortable with. i too am quite surprised at the emotion, anger, and name calling that comes from people towards others who simply have a different view. this whole pissing contest is between sean and getty - nobody else.

sean, a door closes and a window opens, run with it man and good luck.

Mantis · « **Reply #682 on:** March 28, 2013, 07:33 »

Quote from: shudderstok on March 28, 2013, 00:43

Quote from: dingles on March 27, 2013, 09:46
Quote from: pro@stockphotos on March 27, 2013, 08:28
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??

To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.

thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so, i am also not a getty apologist, i think it's safe to say i have similar feelings towards getty as most of you do. my point being (which you understood) was that it is a business decision by getty to do what they did and in all honesty only those two parties know the inner workings of why. the rest of it is pure speculation and rallying on seans behalf with a lot of emotion attached to it. nothing against sean, seems a nice guy, good shooter, and tries to be helpful more so than most, however it appears he simply overstepped the boundaries that getty felt comfortable with. i too am quite surprised at the emotion, anger, and name calling that comes from people towards others who simply have a different view. this whole pissing contest is between sean and getty - nobody else.

sean, a door closes and a window opens, run with it man and good luck.

I personally believe it was more than a pissing contest. The move by Getty to unseat Sean (in my humble opinion, of course) was to send a message to the masses. Keep F_K_N with us and we will squash you like the peasants you are.

sharpshot · « **Reply #683 on:** March 28, 2013, 07:49 »

They probably were trying to send a message but it looks like all it's done is persuade more people to leave or drop exclusivity. Never understood how crowd sourcing is expected to work when they turn the crowd in to an angry mob. There's still enough passive people for them to keep going but I'm sure they would make more money if they kept all their best contributors motivated by paying them well. By getting rid of so many, they will lose in the long term.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #684 on:** March 28, 2013, 08:09 »

Quote from: shudderstok on March 28, 2013, 00:43

Quote from: dingles on March 27, 2013, 09:46
Quote from: pro@stockphotos on March 27, 2013, 08:28
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??

To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.

thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so

Why not go back and read your own post? You stated that the only known fact was that Sean and Getty were both hiding facts from us. The clear implication was that he was engaging in deliberate deceit for some reason or other. That's effectively an accusation of lying by omission.
Now it turns out that by "known fact" you mean "my uninformed speculation". I suggest you go back to your English comprehension class and try again, it might help you to get fewer negative votes.

gostwyck · « **Reply #685 on:** March 28, 2013, 08:14 »

Quote from: sharpshot on March 28, 2013, 07:49

They probably were trying to send a message but it looks like all it's done is persuade more people to leave or drop exclusivity. Never understood how crowd sourcing is expected to work when they turn the crowd in to an angry mob. There's still enough passive people for them to keep going but I'm sure they would make more money if they kept all their best contributors motivated by paying them well. By getting rid of so many, they will lose in the long term.

Hmm. Perfect example of the 'law of unintended consequences' in action.

shudderstok · « **Reply #686 on:** March 28, 2013, 08:40 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 28, 2013, 08:09

Quote from: shudderstok on March 28, 2013, 00:43
Quote from: dingles on March 27, 2013, 09:46
Quote from: pro@stockphotos on March 27, 2013, 08:28
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??

To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.

thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so

Why not go back and read your own post? You stated that the only known fact was that Sean and Getty were both hiding facts from us. The clear implication was that he was engaging in deliberate deceit for some reason or other. That's effectively an accusation of lying by omission.
Now it turns out that by "known fact" you mean "my uninformed speculation". I suggest you go back to your English comprehension class and try again, it might help you to get fewer negative votes.

i never once said both parties were hiding facts man, or even on party for that matter. i said neither party has fully disclosed the details of the termination. i have never seen an original copy of the termination email/letter sent to sean from either party, and neither have you, for that matter i doubt anyone on this forum has (that is speculation), thus i clearly indicated there was nothing but speculation going on from forum members as it is all gossip etc. i doubt either party would be stupid enough to make a legal termination open for all to analyse on any forum or blog. either way, it's fairly obvious that sean was in many ways a scapegoat to scare the crap out of the rest of us, but that too is only speculation.

dingles · « **Reply #687 on:** March 28, 2013, 08:51 »

Quote from: Mantis on March 28, 2013, 07:33

Quote from: shudderstok on March 28, 2013, 00:43
Quote from: dingles on March 27, 2013, 09:46
Quote from: pro@stockphotos on March 27, 2013, 08:28
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??

To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.

thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so, i am also not a getty apologist, i think it's safe to say i have similar feelings towards getty as most of you do. my point being (which you understood) was that it is a business decision by getty to do what they did and in all honesty only those two parties know the inner workings of why. the rest of it is pure speculation and rallying on seans behalf with a lot of emotion attached to it. nothing against sean, seems a nice guy, good shooter, and tries to be helpful more so than most, however it appears he simply overstepped the boundaries that getty felt comfortable with. i too am quite surprised at the emotion, anger, and name calling that comes from people towards others who simply have a different view. this whole pissing contest is between sean and getty - nobody else.

sean, a door closes and a window opens, run with it man and good luck.

I personally believe it was more than a pissing contest. The move by Getty to unseat Sean (in my humble opinion, of course) was to send a message to the masses. Keep F_K_N with us and we will squash you like the peasants you are.

I agree it served that purpose. I believe they saw Sean as the instigator (not saying this is true, just how he was possibly perceived) to the deactivation day. And knowing that he is well known and respected among contributors he became an example. A crappy old school tactic on Getty's part. I think Getty would have benefited a lot more by just owning up to the deal being crappy and not as well thought out as it could have been. In the end I think attaching to a powerhouse like Google seemed so good to Getty that they gave them too much for too little.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #688 on:** March 28, 2013, 08:52 »

Quote from: shudderstok on March 28, 2013, 08:40

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 28, 2013, 08:09
Quote from: shudderstok on March 28, 2013, 00:43
Quote from: dingles on March 27, 2013, 09:46
Quote from: pro@stockphotos on March 27, 2013, 08:28
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??

To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.

thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so

Why not go back and read your own post? You stated that the only known fact was that Sean and Getty were both hiding facts from us. The clear implication was that he was engaging in deliberate deceit for some reason or other. That's effectively an accusation of lying by omission.
Now it turns out that by "known fact" you mean "my uninformed speculation". I suggest you go back to your English comprehension class and try again, it might help you to get fewer negative votes.

i never once said both parties were hiding facts man, or even on party for that matter. i said neither party has fully disclosed the details of the termination. i have never seen an original copy of the termination email/letter sent to sean from either party, and neither have you, for that matter i doubt anyone on this forum has (that is speculation), thus i clearly indicated there was nothing but speculation going on from forum members as it is all gossip etc. i doubt either party would be stupid enough to make a legal termination open for all to analyse on any forum or blog. either way, it's fairly obvious that sean was in many ways a scapegoat to scare the crap out of the rest of us, but that too is only speculation.

No. What you actually said way " Sean got booted for reasons that have never been fully disclosed by either Sean or Getty", you didn't say the e-mail hadn't been published you said Sean (and Getty) had not fully disclosed the reasons. You were quite clearly indicating there were reasons that Sean was aware of and not disclosing (and there's a sub-text in there that you know some secret the rest of us don't). Now you say you've never seen this supposed concealed information. I'm not even sure that anybody except you has ever announced the existence of a termination e-mail or letter. Is it real or are you making it up?

dingles · « **Reply #689 on:** March 28, 2013, 08:53 »

Quote from: shudderstok on March 28, 2013, 00:43

Quote from: dingles on March 27, 2013, 09:46
Quote from: pro@stockphotos on March 27, 2013, 08:28
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??

To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.

thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so, i am also not a getty apologist, i think it's safe to say i have similar feelings towards getty as most of you do. my point being (which you understood) was that it is a business decision by getty to do what they did and in all honesty only those two parties know the inner workings of why. the rest of it is pure speculation and rallying on seans behalf with a lot of emotion attached to it. nothing against sean, seems a nice guy, good shooter, and tries to be helpful more so than most, however it appears he simply overstepped the boundaries that getty felt comfortable with. i too am quite surprised at the emotion, anger, and name calling that comes from people towards others who simply have a different view. this whole pissing contest is between sean and getty - nobody else.

sean, a door closes and a window opens, run with it man and good luck.

No problem man, thank for replying. I'm getting a lot of forum hate now...I guess i called out a protected member or something

dingles · « **Reply #690 on:** March 28, 2013, 08:57 »

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 28, 2013, 08:09

Quote from: shudderstok on March 28, 2013, 00:43
Quote from: dingles on March 27, 2013, 09:46
Quote from: pro@stockphotos on March 27, 2013, 08:28
Are you talking to getty or jsnover here??

To jsnover,
I felt the post came over harsh and over-reactive. I didn't see anything wrong with the post that was being referred to. They guy was not calling anyone a liar nor did he come across as a "Getty apologists". The post was actually quite diplomatic. The guy made an assumption and Sean confirmed that he disclosed everything he knew, but the guy did not call Sean a liar nor was that the point of his post. jsnover's post just seemed like a lot of misguided hate fueled towards someone with a different view.

thanks dingles, glad there is at least one of you who comprehends the english language. i would never imply sean is a liar as i don't have one reason to do so

Why not go back and read your own post? You stated that the only known fact was that Sean and Getty were both hiding facts from us. The clear implication was that he was engaging in deliberate deceit for some reason or other. That's effectively an accusation of lying by omission.
Now it turns out that by "known fact" you mean "my uninformed speculation". I suggest you go back to your English comprehension class and try again, it might help you to get fewer negative votes.

How is it deceit when neither Sean nor Getty owe us any facts. I was also under the assumption there may be more to it...in the end it doesn't matter as the point of the post had nothing to do with calling anyone a liar.

BaldricksTrousers · « **Reply #691 on:** March 28, 2013, 09:00 »

First time I've heard that you couldn't be deceived unless someone owed you some information .... and it's fair enough if you want to interpret it as not implying that anyone was lying, but it doesn't read to me like that (and the reference later to Sean's "Spewing mouth" deserving the heave-ho adds to the impression that it is an attack on him).

rubyroo · « **Reply #692 on:** March 28, 2013, 09:04 »

Not sure it's actually possible to reach any kind of fruitful end to a discussion like this. How about a nice cup of tea instead?

dingles · « **Reply #693 on:** March 28, 2013, 09:07 »

Nice spin

leaf · « **Reply #694 on:** March 28, 2013, 09:09 »

I think perhaps this topic has been officially exhausted. We aren't discussing or learning anything new - at least in regards to what this topic was originally about and I cringe every time it is brought to the top of the forum, wondering what attacks or conflicts have just started. Thankfully the discussion has remained relatively civil (thanks everyone) but I don't feel we are going to accomplish more by rehashing things over and over.

The horse is dead - let's stop beating it.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: sjlocke was just booted from iStock (Read 129268 times)

Jo Ann Snover

dingles

fotografer

dingles

pro@stockphotos

dingles

shudderstok

Mantis

sharpshot

BaldricksTrousers

gostwyck

shudderstok

dingles

BaldricksTrousers

dingles

dingles

BaldricksTrousers

rubyroo

dingles

leaf

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors