I was recently reminded of a young troll (I don't use the term lightly), who would feel compelled to argue the finer points of video encoder libraries, coding, and filters with anyone who would listen -- even their developers. After digging through the layer of pseudo-tech language, it became apparent that it was all nonsense; kind of a word salad of bits and phrases gathered from Google searches, and posted without any real understanding of what he was saying. Yet in his eyes, he was the world's expert on everything having to do with encoding video. Even told me a few things I could do with Vegas and frameserver, another time audio encoding, that still cannot be done. A few people here will know exactly who I am talking about or someone like him; he had a truly disgusting user name.
It turns out the unfortunate chap had never produced anything in his life -- it was all imaginary and a product of his fantasy world. His Youtube channel consisted of a couple of bad college party videos shot in miniDV. All of the software and tools he said he owned were equally imaginary, including Vegas, Premiere, Final Cut, Avid, and others. He was banned from, or simply left a number of respected editing forums a few years back.
Why do I bring this up? To point out the very clear difference between reading about something and then relaying it as fact, and actually using and testing one's information in a verifiable setting before sharing it. Our (my) chances of being wrong, and potentially causing problems for others are greatly increased by repeating hearsay, no matter how reputable the source. I may have speculated, misinterpreted, misapplied, mistaken apples for oranges, or simply had bad information. Just like scripture study, one can easily find internet quotes to back up any preconception or bias one wishes to promote. If on the other hand, one already has a working knowledge or has responsibly tested one's theories, the chances of errors or misinterpretation by those reading it are reduced measurably. Add to that the deliberate use of precise language, and the chances of posting a useful response are increased.
The pathology (confabulation, narcissism, neediness, low self-esteem) of my example aside, we do have a responsibility when posting on a public forum to qualify our facts, or simply to label speculation as speculation. That way, we run less risk of confusing new users, and readers can choose simply to accept advice or not, without the added burden of an inappropriately authoritarian presentation.
I've done it, we all have; assumed something we read is gospel, and subsequently found out that what we shared or speculated about was rumor, incorrect, or simply didn't apply. I know preaching to the choir doesn't work. I know those who have a compulsion to propagate bs will continue to do so, and will continue to receive attention for it.
EOR (end of rant)
It turns out the unfortunate chap had never produced anything in his life -- it was all imaginary and a product of his fantasy world. His Youtube channel consisted of a couple of bad college party videos shot in miniDV. All of the software and tools he said he owned were equally imaginary, including Vegas, Premiere, Final Cut, Avid, and others. He was banned from, or simply left a number of respected editing forums a few years back.
Why do I bring this up? To point out the very clear difference between reading about something and then relaying it as fact, and actually using and testing one's information in a verifiable setting before sharing it. Our (my) chances of being wrong, and potentially causing problems for others are greatly increased by repeating hearsay, no matter how reputable the source. I may have speculated, misinterpreted, misapplied, mistaken apples for oranges, or simply had bad information. Just like scripture study, one can easily find internet quotes to back up any preconception or bias one wishes to promote. If on the other hand, one already has a working knowledge or has responsibly tested one's theories, the chances of errors or misinterpretation by those reading it are reduced measurably. Add to that the deliberate use of precise language, and the chances of posting a useful response are increased.
The pathology (confabulation, narcissism, neediness, low self-esteem) of my example aside, we do have a responsibility when posting on a public forum to qualify our facts, or simply to label speculation as speculation. That way, we run less risk of confusing new users, and readers can choose simply to accept advice or not, without the added burden of an inappropriately authoritarian presentation.
I've done it, we all have; assumed something we read is gospel, and subsequently found out that what we shared or speculated about was rumor, incorrect, or simply didn't apply. I know preaching to the choir doesn't work. I know those who have a compulsion to propagate bs will continue to do so, and will continue to receive attention for it.
EOR (end of rant)