 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / May 2008D-MAC'S GOOSE IS COOKED!
Poor D-Mac is so sad that nobody will believe his lies. http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/97115400/original > Poor D-Mac is so sad that nobody will believe his lies. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/97115400/original Well, what can we say. We call them as we see them. D-Mac has no credibility.......and no talent whatsoever as a photographer. An excellent portrait of our Canada goose. Very sharp with good detail. They are fiercely protective of their young. I've seen one chase a photographer away, beating those powerful wings on him. Helen >> Poor D-Mac is so sad that nobody will believe his lies. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > chase a photographer away, beating those powerful wings on him. > Helen Yeah... Right Bret. Sharpening halo, blocked shadows. sh.t! you'd at least be able to get the composition right and show the whole torso if you had an ounce of ability and grain of knowledge... Aiming too high ...again!. Got any more porn links to share Helen? That one of your vagina Bret pasted over my award winning advertising photo of a fisherman at dawn wasn't really as tasteful as your normal depraved and disgusting efforts. Give us another link like you posted where you pasted a plagiarized (or maybe that is what you do all day - take homo photos) image of two men engaged in oral sex over an enlarged photo of mine coming out of the mounting press was more like what I'd expect from you. I certainly can see why you though my romantic portrait of two Russian lovers was not very exciting... You must have a sizable collection of those disgusting and depraved photos you keep showing us from time to time. You really do deserver the title "CYBER SLUT", don't you? > You really do deserver the title "CYBER SLUT", don't you? how old are you d-mac? You sound like an 11 years old, but I saw your photos presented by the photographer Bret Douglas (you climbing stairs for this instance or playing with the computer while sitting on a chair) and it looks like you are far older, homie.. you must be mentally ill, this is the only explanation of your behaviour >> You really do deserver the title "CYBER SLUT", don't you? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > you must be mentally ill, this is the only explanation of your > behaviour Arhhh. The idiot has learned how to spoof an IP address. Pity it hasn't figured out how to conceal it's MC address too! (snip) > You really do deserver the title "CYBER SLUT", don't you? (sigh) Someone is off their meds again. Always happens this time of year. I guess you deserve the title "CYBER BULLY". Such a shame that a once promising photographer drank to much carrot juice to improve his sight and lost sight of the art of photography. Get help. Draco > (snip) >> You really do deserver the title "CYBER SLUT", don't you? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Draco There you go Draco... I've got 2 choices. Both are likely to happen. One is to fight the jackass with his own behavior. The other is to engage in protracted and expensive legal action to halt his criminal activities and copyright infringement... Not to mention his false and totally wrongful 3 year campaign in harmony with the Aussie-on-th-run to discredit my digital enlargement algorithm... Without ever having seen one of my enlargements himself... Having some qualification to make the outrageous statements he does might also have given him some credibility too... He has none. I'll tell you this Draco... No legitimate and reputable business person like me should have to put up with this idiot's behavior. It's not as if he's ever done business with me. He's just a jackass loser from a backwoods area of America who thinks because he's got an internet connection he can defame, insult and attack people whenever he feels his secure little 'group' of worshipers is under threat. Here's a few facts for you Draco... Before ever National Geographic will look at submissions from anyone, they have to have credibility. Before ever National Geographic will consider anyone's photos for publication, they have to have a story with them or be commissioned shots. Your idolization of a happy snapping hillbilly with an over size ego and under achieving ability only goes to show how easy it is to fool you. Already he's filled you with bullshit that evidence I recently posted http://www.annika1980.com/evidence/moats-comments.htm contradicts and somehow managed to fool you into thinking a postage stamp size photo (at publication resolution) is something other than what it is... A Photoshop creation with no commercial value. It's one thing to post positive comments about mundane photos. You've done that with mine often enough but to convince yourself they are something other than Internet pictures only makes you look like a puppet of Bret's... You know, like the ones he creates to tell himself his shitty pictures are better than they are... It's curious to watch how your behavior becomes a mirror of the jackass when I blocked you location from access to my sites... Really curious. > <snip> > One is to fight the jackass with his own behavior. > The other is to engage in protracted and expensive legal action to halt > his criminal activities and copyright infringement... Speaking of which, Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing address yet? A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing to do. I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will if necessary. TIA -- Jeff R. PO Box 255 West Pennant Hills NSW 2125 >> <snip> >> One is to fight the jackass with his own behavior. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > TIA What's with you Jeff? This address is not your legally recognized address. No process server is going to crawl into a mail box to hand you a summons. Although Australia Post has a legal obligation to provide the identity of the box holder for legal purposes... I've passed it on to my lawyer. Might as well get Aus Post in on the act too. Unlike Optus, they require photographic ID before giving you the key to the box. >>> <snip> >>> One is to fight the jackass with his own behavior. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > too. Unlike Optus, they require photographic ID before giving you the key > to the box. been served a few time have you Douggie :-)  SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? > There you go Draco... > I've got 2 choices. Both are likely to happen. > > One is to fight the jackass with his own behavior. > The other is to engage in protracted and expensive legal action to halt > his criminal activities and copyright infringement... D-Mac, it would really be helpful in the future if you said which of your oppressors you are referring to. I can't ever tell if you are talking about me, Mark Thomas, ScottW, Paul Furman, Helen or whoever else your f.cked up mind is babbling on about. Oh yeah, and why not answer Jeff's post while you're at it. Also, don't you think it silly to refer to my pics as a "Photoshop creation with no commercial value" when I am the one getting my pics published in large magazines while you have to print your own flyers and give them away to potential suckers? Have you got your April issue of Diversity, Inc. yet? > Have you got your April issue of Diversity, Inc. yet? Are they trying to build a reputation as purchasers of stolen intellectual property? >> Have you got your April issue of Diversity, Inc. yet? > > Are they trying to build a reputation as purchasers of stolen > intellectual property? I think they're smarter than that Mike. They use the same law firm in New York as I just signed up with. No shonky dealings there. If they bought one of Annika1980's photos, he either shot the bloke who took it or stole his camera and filed off the digital serial number. Can you imagine? He just tried to name all the thieves who took my images and ended up with himself! >> Have you got your April issue of Diversity, Inc. yet? > > Are they trying to build a reputation as purchasers of stolen > intellectual property? No, so they won't take any of your photos. >> There you go Draco... >> I've got 2 choices. Both are likely to happen. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > talking about me, Mark Thomas, ScottW, Paul Furman, Helen or whoever > else your f.cked up mind is babbling on about. How cute is that? You know off by heat the names of all the image thieves. What going on? have you got a socks club going? How does it work mate? Mark Thomas posts a bunch of lies about me and you back him up with posts from all you socks, then change connections and Helen posts that the vagina you pasted over my photo isn't hers? Well like it or not, Paul Furman probably won't follow in your footsteps. ScottW thought the sun shone from your anus and let you drag him into your web of deceit. Oddly PBASE (who hosted your attempt to engage him in criminality) were ultra quick to remove the image. How good is that? The one legitimate fan you had and you sh.t all over him. Nice type you are mate. Attempting to drag Scott back into this is deplorable... Just what I'd expect from gutter swine like you. So now we're back to who? Charles Stevens (you keep calling him by his assumed name, Mark Thomas) and... The jackass from Chattanooga himself. Two of you. three if you include the latest act of plagiarism. Just tow insignificant idiots trying for recognition in Usenet... ROTFL. You are pathetic. >> (snip) >>> You really do deserver the title "CYBER SLUT", don't you? [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >Before ever National Geographic will consider anyone's photos for >publication, they have to have a story with them or be commissioned shots. Not true at all. See www.ngm.com/yourshot Every month NGM publishes photos that are submitted on speculation. >Your idolization of a happy snapping hillbilly with an over size ego and >under achieving ability only goes to show how easy it is to fool you. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >It's curious to watch how your behavior becomes a mirror of the jackass >when I blocked you location from access to my sites... Really curious. > >> (snip) > >>> You really do deserver the title "CYBER SLUT", don't you? [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > >It's curious to watch how your behavior becomes a mirror of the jackass > >when I blocked you location from access to my sites... Really curious. Interesting link. Thanks for sharing! Helen top photo well done SignatureAll outgoing emails are scanned with Norton Antivirus 2005 > Poor D-Mac is so sad that nobody will believe his lies. > > http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/97115400/original |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.