 |
 | 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 / October 2008A plea for posting in the proper places (r.p.d.slr, r.p.d.slr-systems)
Regarding the ongoing discussion here (rec.photo.equipment.35mm) about whether or not posts about DSLRs belong here, here's a request, an appeal to reason about where such posts belong: Please post these in an appropriate group: either rec.photo.digital.slr or r.p.d.slr-systems*. Despite the tortured parsing and deconstruction of this group's charter attempted by some trying to excuse such posts here, this group was set up for discussions about 35mm *film* cameras, as DSLRs were rare and expensive at the time, and it was not clear then that they would eventually take over film cameras. Look at it this way: you wouldn't post something about a Toyota Prius in a group devoted to vintage automobiles, would you? Or post about dairy cows in a bird group. It's just a matter of keeping things together. And it has nothing to do with hating digital cameras: the idea is to organize things properly by subject. I still haven't heard any good arguments why posts about DSLRs should *not* go into r.p.d.slr (or r.p.d.slr-systems if you prefer), as those groups are specifically set up and unambiguously named for such cameras. If anyone has any such arguments, please make them here. In summary, this is a really simple thing being asked here. Don't stop posting: just post in the correct place. If this group becomes diminished because all the digital posts go somewhere else, it's not the end of the world; there are still a good number of film users, and lots of film topics to be discussed. And for those whose response to this is to issue gratuitous insults, don't bother: such responses will be ignored. * r.p.d.slr-systems was mentioned recently in a post by A. Browne. I don't claim to know enough about the difference between this and r.p.d.slr to suggest which one is the "right" place; such a discussion would be useful here. I do know that r.p.d.slr is almost completely unused.  SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire > Regarding the ongoing discussion here (rec.photo.equipment.35mm) about > whether or not posts about DSLRs belong here, here's a request, an [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > - Paulo Freire David, I see you have been posting since 1999. I don't remember you on this group (rpe35) until a few months ago. Why now? Those who have been posting here started with film cameras and have moved on to including DSLR in our equipment. This has been a place for us to come and talk, yell, fight about which camera, technique, lens, and/or film was best. It may not be a "right place" for talking about DSLR equipment but face up to it. Film cameras of the 35mm are being made less and less every day. The lenses that fit those cameras now work with the DSLR cameras. Many of the controls are the same as the film cameras. The flash equipment and so on and on. The News Groups you suggest are fine but they aren't rec.photo.equipment.35mm. This group has its own dynamics and its own reasoning for being. I wouldn't switch any one of them for some other politicaly correct group to satisfy your need to be "correct". No matter how much of an arsehole some might be, they're ours, and you can't change my mind over that. So deal with it or go back to where ever you came from or join us and have some fun for a change. Draco David Nebenzahl, 9/27/2008 5:05 AM: > Regarding the ongoing discussion here (rec.photo.equipment.35mm) about > whether or not posts about DSLRs belong here, here's a request, an [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > r.p.d.slr to suggest which one is the "right" place; such a discussion > would be useful here. I do know that r.p.d.slr is almost completely unused. It's not as simple as you would have us believe. rpe35mm is an older group inhabited mostly by long-time photogs who have come from a film background. The accumulated knowledge here is greater than almost any other camera group, certainly more than than the dslr groups whose members by and large are more recent photographic converts without long immersion in the more arcane aspects of the photographic art, and without the detailed knowledge of f-stops, shutter speeds, ASA, ISO, response curves, manual exposure determination, manual focus, development techniques, enlarging, sensitized printing papers, etc. etc. Although I am 100% a digital user now, I am well aware that my long experience with film, right back to 1959 in fact, has an influence on almost every aspect of my digital photography, experience that new dslr users will never attain. And that is the point; digital groups largely lack the experience that is evident here, and is the reason why digital topics are posted here. Your remark about r.p.d.slr being underused is, bluntly, nonsense. AFAIK, there is no such group. The correct name is r.p.d.slr.systems, and the posts there are generally two or three times the number posted here in rpe35mm. Your problem, David, is that you are being obstinately literal about group charters, a stance reminiscent of one Donald of windmill fame. Like him, you will achieve nothing by your attitude except personal approbrium, emphasized by your apparent disinterest and/or experience with matters photographic. Your best move would be to let well alone - IOW, quit your harping on. Colin D. >David Nebenzahl, 9/27/2008 5:05 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] >with matters photographic. Your best move would be to let well alone - >IOW, quit your harping on. Well now, if all you experts migrated to the proper groups..... RP© - If I had a dollar for each time Colin used the thesaurus in penning this missive, I might get me one o' them Leica-s. > If I had a dollar for each time Colin used the thesaurus in penning > this missive, I might get me one o' them Leica-s. I don’t fathom what you are trying to express here. Are you asserting that protracted words are not invariably needful and that overdo of the wordbook can actually make composition more laborious to perceived? Scott >> If I had a dollar for each time Colin used the thesaurus in penning >> this missive, I might get me one o' them Leica-s. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >that overdo of the wordbook can actually make composition more >laborious to perceived? Yah. Never use a big word when you can use a diminutive word. RP© - If it takes a lot of words to say what you have in mind, give it more thought. - Dennis Roch - That Rich, 9/27/2008 12:06 PM: >> David Nebenzahl, 9/27/2008 5:05 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > If I had a dollar for each time Colin used the thesaurus in penning > this missive, I might get me one o' them Leica-s. You'd be broke, me boy, if that was your total income. I can't remember the last time I used a thesaurus. I am just blessed with a good vocab. But, I made a spelling error, so I must be ordinary after all. Should have been 'opprobrium'. Colin D. : >David Nebenzahl, 9/27/2008 5:05 AM: : > [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] : If I had a dollar for each time Colin used the thesaurus in penning : this missive, I might get me one o' them Leica-s. If you think he used any reference material, how do you account for the phrase "Donald[!] of windmill fame"? Next we'll be hearing about "Ronald" Bacardi! ;^) Bob > : >Your problem, David, is that you are being obstinately literal about > : >group charters, a stance reminiscent of one Donald of windmill fame. > : >Like him, you will achieve nothing by your attitude except personal > : >approbrium, emphasized by your apparent disinterest and/or experience > : >with matters photographic. Your best move would be to let well alone - > : >IOW, quit your harping on. > : Well now, if all you experts migrated to the proper groups..... > : If I had a dollar for each time Colin used the thesaurus in penning > : this missive, I might get me one o' them Leica-s. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Next we'll be hearing about "Ronald" Bacardi! ;^) Don Q, the character, not the rum, was the first "The Donald". (El Don). Signaturejohn mcwilliams On 9/26/2008 3:54 PM Colin.D spake thus: > David Nebenzahl, 9/27/2008 5:05 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > and the posts there are generally two or three times the number posted > here in rpe35mm. r.p.d.slr does indeed exist. My ISP carries it; perhaps yours doesn't (which would make sense, considering how little used it is.) > Your problem, David, is that you are being obstinately literal about > group charters, a stance reminiscent of one Donald of windmill fame. > Like him, you will achieve nothing by your attitude except personal > approbrium, emphasized by your apparent disinterest and/or experience > with matters photographic. Your best move would be to let well alone - > IOW, quit your harping on. I think the word you want here is "oppobrium". And no, I'm not literal about charters: others have attempted that (see "tortured parsing and deconstruction" above). SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire David Nebenzahl, 9/27/2008 1:57 PM: > On 9/26/2008 3:54 PM Colin.D spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > r.p.d.slr does indeed exist. My ISP carries it; perhaps yours doesn't > (which would make sense, considering how little used it is.) Ok, the only group I can find like that is a Fido group; Motzarella has no r.p.d.slr. >> Your problem, David, is that you are being obstinately literal about >> group charters, a stance reminiscent of one Donald of windmill fame. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about charters: others have attempted that (see "tortured parsing and > deconstruction" above). Yes, thanks, I have corrected that a few posts above this one. Colin D. > David Nebenzahl, 9/27/2008 5:05 AM: > >> Regarding the ongoing discussion here (rec.photo.equipment.35mm) about >> whether or not posts about DSLRs belong here, here's a request, an appeal >> to reason about where such posts belong: They are in the correct group! you are not!! have you tried alt.kooks for all your posting needs (sorry Colin for posting from your reply but I have the Nebenazi in my killlfile) Signature"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." Don Hirschberg >> David Nebenzahl, 9/27/2008 5:05 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (sorry Colin for posting from your reply but I have the Nebenazi in my > killlfile) Unbelievable! You KF the guy becasue you don't want to read his posts but still reply to him. You really are an idiot, aren't you? >>> David Nebenzahl, 9/27/2008 5:05 AM: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You KF the guy becasue you don't want to read his posts but still reply to > him. You really are an idiot, aren't you? see my reply above Douggie, have YOU tried alt.kooks ?? full of people just like yourself, but then I suppose you wouldn't want that, you need to stand out as the group troll and fool, a job I see you have lots of experience with, and seem to be quite adept at. SignatureGod made me an atheist. Who are you to question his wisdom? >>> David Nebenzahl, 9/27/2008 5:05 AM: >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You KF the guy becasue you don't want to read his posts but still > reply to him. You really are an idiot, aren't you? TOTKO, eh mate? "Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in news:w- GdnWMzZZBrC3rVnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@giganews.com: > TOTKO Yet another one claiming to have me KFd shakes his head without plugging his ears to stop the rattle beads falling out. get a life : Regarding the ongoing discussion here (rec.photo.equipment.35mm) about : whether or not posts about DSLRs belong here, here's a request, an [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : attempted by some trying to excuse such posts here, this group was set : up for discussions about 35mm *film* cameras, [etc.] I don't have a dog in this hunt. I added r.p.e.35mm to my subscription list only because it's where the Shootin critiques were posted last month; I had never read it before. So I guess I'm as unbiased as anybody, and I think David's arguments have some merit. Regardless of the group's past history, I don't see that anything would be lost if we decided to leave it to the filmheads. Almost everything the rest of us care about is cross-posted to r.p.d and/or r.p.d.slr-systems anyway. I wouldn't have dreamed of supporting David when all he was doing was making a PITA of himself. But when he states his case in a civil manner, we ought to at least listen. Bob > On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:05:59 -0700, David Nebenzahl > <nobody@but.us.chickens> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Bob David would need to talk about anything other than DSLR's before he had a "dog in this hunt." My take - contribute or STFU, because whining isn't going to work. And given David's past behavior few are listing to anything he's got to say... -Jim >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:05:59 -0700, David Nebenzahl >> <nobody@but.us.chickens> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > listing to anything he's got to say... > -Jim If that's your opinion Jim, you got it wrong. David has an audience. Alan Browne is a cross poster. Worse, he posts his "shootin" sh.t to country specific groups he's not even entitled to have access to, defies his own rules and charters and generally behaves like a dickhead who thinks the only time he ever does anything wrong is when he gets arrested and even then, thinks he can argue his way out of it. David on the other hand is calling for restraint, decorum and order. It's not as if there isn't groups with names more suitable for the discussions he objects to, is it? On 9/27/2008 9:27 AM Robert Coe spake thus: > I wouldn't have dreamed of supporting David when all he was doing was making a > PITA of himself. But when he states his case in a civil manner, we ought to at > least listen. Thank you for that. SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire > I wouldn't have dreamed of supporting David when all he was doing was making a > PITA of himself. But when he states his case in a civil manner, we ought to at > least listen. He stated it. We have listened. For the most part we are opposed. He knows that. He keeps repeating his position (this is known as whining and irritating at this point. We (for the most part) remain opposed. He is in a growing number of killfiles. It's up to you, but having his posts disappear into the bit bucket brings great joy to those who use this approach. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. >> I wouldn't have dreamed of supporting David when all he was doing was >> making a [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > We (for the most part) remain opposed. Also known as whining. What I find interesting is that people seem to have a need to reply to posters they don't like, can't stand, etc. rather than simply ignore them. > I don't see that anything would be lost if we decided to leave it > to the filmheads. > > when he states his case in a civil manner, we ought to at > least listen. Here's an alternative perspective, in a civil manner. The 35mm group is about 35mm gear, the DSLR group is about DSLR-specific issues like sensors & memory cards. That's the way I view it. Lots of old timers in 35mm interested in discussing the intricacies of settings and lens choices that I'd miss in the DSLR group. As long as folks don't torture the 35mm gang with talk about raw converters & sensors, I simply do not see any problem. Other than those topics it's the same issues of 35mm photography being discussed. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam : > I don't see that anything would be lost if we decided to leave it : > to the filmheads. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : old timers in 35mm interested in discussing the intricacies of settings : and lens choices that I'd miss in the DSLR group. So you would read both groups. Indeed, I'm pretty sure you do read both groups. : As long as folks don't torture the 35mm gang with talk about raw : converters & sensors, I simply do not see any problem. Other than those : topics it's the same issues of 35mm photography being discussed. I don't disagree. I guess David's beef is that people do "torture the 35mm gang with talk about raw converters & sensors". I think I'd have to concede that in at least some cases he's probably right. Bob > : > I don't see that anything would be lost if we decided to leave it > : > to the filmheads. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Bob If David ever actually posted about anything photographic then maybe people would listen to him but he just just doesn't, all he does is troll and crosspost. On 9/28/2008 5:01 AM Pete D spake thus: >> I don't disagree. I guess David's beef is that people do "torture >> the 35mm gang with talk about raw converters & sensors". I think [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > would listen to him but he just just doesn't, all he does is troll and > crosspost. Instead of attacking the messenger (me), how about dealing with the content of the message? SignatureWashing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral. - Paulo Freire David Nebenzahl, 9/29/2008 9:29 AM: > On 9/28/2008 5:01 AM Pete D spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Instead of attacking the messenger (me), how about dealing with the > content of the message? FYI, credibility in these groups is achieved by the length of time you have posted here, and the impression gained by other users about your photographic knowledge and experience, as well as some of your work that you have provided links to. As you are a newcomer - some of us have been in this group for several years - and as you have not posted anything that indicates your knowledge of or interest in photography, and as you have not posted links to any of your work, your credibility rating is zero at this time. If you are here as a person interested in photography, let's see something positive indicating that; if you are here merely to push your pedantic interpretation of the charter for this group, you are wasting your time - and ours, not to mention bandwidth. You remind me of the story about the hi-fi addict who was complaining about minor problems with his amplifier and speakers. Finally, he was told to forget about listening to the gear and instead listen to the music. Likewise, you should forget complaining about the charter and join the spirit of the group. If you aren't interested in that, then do the other thing - leave. Colin D. > David Nebenzahl, 9/29/2008 9:29 AM: > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Colin D. "these groups", sorry which ones would these be? I have never complained about the charter in this group just Davids take on the charter and how he crosspostes to every bloody group. I would never of heard of him if he did not crosspost in every other freaking photo group. Defending David and what he does is just painting yourself with the same stupidity brush and does nothing for your credibility Colin. Goodbye. Pete D, 9/29/2008 8:25 PM: >> David Nebenzahl, 9/29/2008 9:29 AM: >> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > > Goodbye. What are you on about, Pete? Firstly, my post was a reply to David Nebenzahl, not to one of your posts. Secondly, if you think my post was defending him, you better read it again. I told him his credibility is zero, and if he doesn't want to join in the spirit of the group he can leave. How is that defending him? It was intended as a polite statement of facts without abuse, in the hope that he might take notice. You can unkill me, seeing as you got it all arse up. Colin D. > Pete D, 9/29/2008 8:25 PM: > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > > Colin D. My bad, apologies mate. Cheers. Pete Pete D, 9/29/2008 10:43 PM: >> Pete D, 9/29/2008 8:25 PM: >> [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > Pete Ok, no harm done. Good shooting, Colin D. >> : > I don't see that anything would be lost if we decided to leave it >> : > to the filmheads. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > would listen to him but he just just doesn't, all he does is troll and > crosspost. 2/3 of the posts he complains about are about photography, maybe mention a DSLR camera model but no more. SignaturePaul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 28/09/2008 2:18 PM: > : > I don't see that anything would be lost if we decided to leave it > : > to the filmheads. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > gang with talk about raw converters & sensors". I think I'd have to concede > that in at least some cases he's probably right. Good points. And I agree. So, can we have all discussions of "film vs digital" thrown out as well? And the derogatory remarks of one or the other type of use thrown out as well? And simply accept that some of use use film, some use digital, for one purpose: taking photos? Because if not, things will continue to be ugly... : Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 28/09/2008 2:18 PM: : > : [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] : Because if not, things will continue to be : ugly... My Usenet service provider apparently had some sort of server calamity overnight, and this entire newsgroup was lost. So they went back to their backups and reloaded it from scratch - more than 91,000 articles! So what was the first article they restored, from June of 2005? An argument over the virtues of digital vs film for candid photography! Bob Dave, Over time I asked that discussions about digital equipment be taken to groups where the threads would actually be on topic. While the excuses for posting the off topic threads here varied over time. The end result was that I was told to love it or leave it. I decided to leave it. : Regarding the ongoing discussion here (rec.photo.equipment.35mm) about : whether or not posts about DSLRs belong here, here's a request, an : appeal to reason about where such posts belong: : Please post these in an appropriate group: either rec.photo.digital.slr : or r.p.d.slr-systems*. : Despite the tortured parsing and deconstruction of this group's charter : attempted by some trying to excuse such posts here, this group was set : up for discussions about 35mm *film* cameras, as DSLRs were rare and : expensive at the time, and it was not clear then that they would : eventually take over film cameras. : Look at it this way: you wouldn't post something about a Toyota Prius in : a group devoted to vintage automobiles, would you? Or post about dairy : cows in a bird group. It's just a matter of keeping things together. And : it has nothing to do with hating digital cameras: the idea is to : organize things properly by subject. : I still haven't heard any good arguments why posts about DSLRs should : *not* go into r.p.d.slr (or r.p.d.slr-systems if you prefer), as those : groups are specifically set up and unambiguously named for such cameras. : If anyone has any such arguments, please make them here. : In summary, this is a really simple thing being asked here. Don't stop : posting: just post in the correct place. If this group becomes : diminished because all the digital posts go somewhere else, it's not the : end of the world; there are still a good number of film users, and lots : of film topics to be discussed. : And for those whose response to this is to issue gratuitous insults, : don't bother: such responses will be ignored. : * r.p.d.slr-systems was mentioned recently in a post by A. Browne. I : don't claim to know enough about the difference between this and : r.p.d.slr to suggest which one is the "right" place; such a discussion : would be useful here. I do know that r.p.d.slr is almost completely unused. : - Paulo Freire Signature------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you > Over time I asked that discussions about digital equipment be > taken to groups where the threads would actually be on topic. > While the excuses for posting the off topic threads here varied > over time. The end result was that I was told to love it or leave > it. I decided to leave it. I remember Frank. Nice fellow. Good poster. Someone whose opinions were to be sought and respected. I also, along with many others, have said again and again that if you guys - and you all *know* who you are - don't reign in your digital egos and lighten up, you'd be left talking only to yourselves. And then blaming everyone and everything else under the sun for that sorry state of affairs... Ken On Oct 15, 11:46 pm, "Ken Nadvornick" <register.nad...@verizon.net> wrote: > I also, along with many others, have said again and again that if you guys - > and you all *know* who you are - don't reign in your digital egos and lighten > up, you'd be left talking only to yourselves. And yet you're still here. "Ken Nadvornick" wrote: > > I also, along with many others, have said again and again that if > > you guys - and you all *know* who you are - don't reign in your > > digital egos and lighten up, you'd be left talking only to yourselves. > And yet you're still here. So then tell me, do you think I'm talking to you? On Oct 16, 12:21 am, "Ken Nadvornick" <register.nad...@verizon.net> wrote: > "Ken Nadvornick" wrote: > > > I also, along with many others, have said again and again that if [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So then tell me, do you think I'm talking to you? I'm always in your thoughts. Who Rules? Now you'll have to decide if that was me who posted that or my "digital ego?" Rather than throwing out generalities, why not name names? "Ken Nadvornick" wrote: > > > > I also, along with many others, have said again and again that if > > > > you guys - and you all *know* who you are - don't reign in your > > > > digital egos and lighten up, you'd be left talking only to yourselves. > > > And yet you're still here. "Ken Nadvornick" wrote: > > So then tell me, do you think I'm talking to you? > I'm always in your thoughts. Who Rules? > Now you'll have to decide if that was me who posted that or my > "digital ego?" > > Rather than throwing out generalities, why not name names? Sorry. None of the above answers my simple question or addresses my original assertion. Did you think it somehow did? On Oct 16, 1:06 am, "Ken Nadvornick" <register.nad...@verizon.net> wrote: > > Rather than throwing out generalities, why not name names? > > Sorry. None of the above answers my simple question or addresses my original > assertion. Did you think it somehow did? Your original assertion was that some nameless characters with "digital egos" have chased away all the valuable contributors. But yet, you're still here whining and bitching. So either your assertion was false or else you don't consider yourself to be a valuable contributor (except when it comes to whining and bitching, of course). Perhaps it is your incessant pissing and moaning that has scared away all these valuable contributors (who have really never left)? Now go back in that little room with the red light and sniff some more fixer. There's a new Shootin coming up. We'll expect something great from you this time. > > > Rather than throwing out generalities, why not name names? > > > Sorry. None of the above answers my simple question or addresses my original > > assertion. Did you think it somehow did? Typical weaseling by the digital-breaths. Never answer the real issues, always change the subject. > Your original assertion was that some nameless characters with > "digital egos" have chased away all the valuable contributors. But > yet, you're still here whining and bitching. So either your assertion > was false or else you don't consider yourself to be a valuable > contributor (except when it comes to whining and bitching, of course). Or none of the above? > Perhaps it is your incessant pissing and moaning that has scared away > all these valuable contributors (who have really never left)? In your dreams. > fixer. There's a new Shootin coming up. We'll expect something great > from you this time. as if that was a gauge of anything other than your monumental areshole? > In your dreams. > >> fixer. There's a new Shootin coming up. We'll expect something great >> from you this time. > > as if that was a gauge of anything other than your monumental areshole? Please don't share any more of your dreams here, blackguard. Signaturelsmft John McWilliams wrote,on my timestamp of 17/10/2008 4:16 PM: > Please don't share any more of your dreams here, blackguard. piss off, dickhead! > Dave, > > Over time I asked that discussions about digital equipment be taken to Frank, this thread was dead. Why revive it? Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. -- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out. |
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.