On Feb 10, 5:08 am, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:

That's no surprise.  Almost everything D-Mac accuses me of being, he
is himself.  So it is no great suprise to me to learn that he is a
thief.

"Mediocre rubbish."
Maybe D-Mac will add that one to his testimonials page.

Here's the bottom line.  If you take a photo and sell it, does that
make you a Professional?  Yes, it does.
Does it say anything about the quality of the photo?  No, it does not.
People buy crap all the time.  Douglas has built a business around
that fact.
After all, he is "a sought after, Internationally recognized,
Australian qualified Photographer with over 20 years experience."

LOL!  And I'm Tiger Woods!

Yabbut you'd expect that a "Professional Wedding Photographer" would
at least have a mobile contact number shown on their web site in the
first decade of the 21st century. It should even work over water
(close to shore) as long as you're not hiding out in a mangrove swamp
or something. Not to have one these days looks just a little, dare I
say it... unprofessional.

And then, I suppose there are all of those B&M stores that he's "sold"
over the years.

Yessss... I have to say that I feel a little sorry for "Bridezilla".
Chances are that she looks better than that in real life. It really is
a truism that the camera loves some people, and hates others. I
definitely fall into the latter camp myself, regrettably, and so
(probably) does she. Still in the hands of a skilled photographer a
reasonable result can be achieved.

Ah.

Yes, I see the problem now... 8^>

His incessant, bile-laden attacks on other - usually vastly superior -
photographers are the #1 reason.

FWIW, I probably would've crouched down & framed him over her left
shoulder, with enough zoom to exclude as much as possible of the
distracting stuff. And I wouldn't have used flash, either.
Alternatively, I would've skipped that shot altogether, or at least
not put it on the damn website for everyone to laugh at.

This is a case of "there's the reason, then there's the REAL reason".

Some of his shots are just... awful. But then that's true of shots
that many of us take; nobody gets it right every time. (Of course, we
aren't getting PAID for them either, but that's an issue for the poor
sods who shell out money to him to deal with, not us.) The problem is
that we, unlike Doug, don't shoot our mouths off at every opportunity
about how great we are as photographers. How the reason that we put
crappy photos on our site is because there are tens of thousands of
people waiting to steal the "good" ones. How we know all there is to
know about photography and if you don't agree with us then you clearly
just don't understand [insert topic here] and you're a faggot into the
bargain. How we can create detail out of thin air when enlarging a
print using soooper-sekret algorithms that we, in our infinite genius,
have developed. We don't need to big note ourselves at every
opportunity, often using big-noting which carries more than a vague
odour of BS.

It's a pity that you didn't see his recent ad for the sale of his
calendar "business". (Which, as far as I could tell, consisted of a
binding machine and a few pages of contacts. Many of whom, I wouldn't
be surprised, would probably slam the 'phone down were they to hear
the sound "Hi, I've just bought a business from Dou...") The ad didn't
seem to be about the business, so much as being (yet another)
opportunity for Douggie to bray himself about how successful he is, at
least in his own mind.

On other occasions, he may put up comparison shots to "prove" some
point or other that he's trying to make. Then when someone points out
(and proves) that they're comprehensively rigged, starts with the
abuse (again) and tries to technobabble his way out of it in the hope
that the readership is as clueless as... well, as they'd need to be to
take his opinions seriously.

And then there's the hypocrisy. You'll find one post recently where he
bags Mark Thomas for having posted under a different handle in the
past. It's not like Douggie- Boy a.k.a. Silent Lamb a.k.a. any one of
dozens of different screen handles would ever do that. (You won't find
the post where he admitted to doing that when Mark Thomas "outed" him
under the Silent Lamb handle (he'd given no indication that it was him
prior to that), because he put an X-No Archive flag on it.
Unfortunately for those who are too spineless to stand by their words,
some of us have off-line newsreaders which have their own archive of
posts.) And why DOES he do it? Because he knows that many people in
these groups regard his credibility as being a couple of hundred feet
lower than the resting place of the Titanic, and only a handful of
people (who may not have had the D-Mac experience in the past) will
listen to him (except for entertainment purposes) if he doesn't. And
while we're on the subject of hypocrisy, just wait for the forced use
of the word "Mate" in his posts when he thinks that he's taking the
high ground ("Come on Mate, you know better than that, blah blah...")
before he has another brain fart (after realising that he's fooled no
one with his latest explanation of... whatever) and descends into the
name-calling again.

I do sometimes wonder if Douggie isn't aware, when the lights go out
at night, that quite a few of his photos... aren't all that good, and
therefore has a need to overcompensate. But then I'm not a
psychologist, and unlike (ahem), SOME people, I don't make up a
pretend one to analyse other people's postings.

Doug thinks that he's surrounded by enemies who want to steal his
photos, feel up his wife (I guano you not, he posted that about
someone recently), discredit his business and probably torpedo his
boat as well, but in reality Doug has ONE enemy, one enemy alone. And
that's his own mouth. I'm surprised that he's managed to keep it shut
today. If he does that for long enough, all of this will blow over.
But it won't last forever; he'll be back, spouting some nonsense or
other, then calling people a faggot when they call him on it and
dissect, in a comprehensive manner, the claims that he makes.

There's a book I'm reading at the moment called "In Search of
Stupidity", an examination of all of the blunders that tech companies
have committed in the past couple of decades. (Well worth a read if
you can find it.) One chapter deals with a small company which went
out of its way to provoke a much, much larger competitor company, and
got obliterated as a result. I swear, when I read it this afternoon I
thought of Our Douggie:

"It is impossible to overestimate the rank stupidity [in this case,
Doug] demonstrated in his choice of public words and attitude
vis-a-vis [in this case, the Usenet groups]. He'd committed the
strategic equivalent of walking into the cage of a hungry tiger,
turning around, taping a sirloin steak to his butt, and executing a
slow bump and grind. It should have come as no surprise that when he
left the cage he had no a.s."

And THAT, dear Spoken4, is where the Douggie-dumpage is REALLY coming
from.

This is not directed at you Spoken4 , but I think your (assumed)
typing error "anesthetically perfect"  has quite some mileage here.

To get that page now (yes, Douglas first relocated it, but has now
removed *all* traces of it) you'll have to go to Google and enter:
cache:www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/wed-plan.htm
as your search - more below.

Why?  There has been an overwhelmingly positive response from people
who have enjoyed (immensely) the ridicule you have so richly deserved,
the exposure of your horrible body of work, and the comprehensive
identification of your miserable, lamentable posting tactics.
Although I will give you credit for one thing - you are a master of
the 'strawman' argument!  You could have made much more money by
manufacturing scarecrows, I reckon..

You are full of lies, abuse, insults, strawman arguments, and
fraudulent sockpuppetry - you accuse everyone *else* of those things,
yet somehow you NEVER post quotes in context to prove it, just fantasy
ravings.  Douglas, you have got what you deserved, you sad deluded
man.  No-one will take your posts seriously in future.

Oh, and feel free to fight back - why not post all *my* images up in
the same way, Doug?  Just leave them unaltered (as it was done on
Pbase) and put my name with them, then you can add funny comments if
you like, exactly as someone (*was* it really Bret?), did.  I give you
my FULL permission to do the same to me - I'll bet Annika would do the
same.  You can pick out all those you think are my worst, you can try
to drum up support and pick them to death.  But you've already tried
this elsewhere and it just didn't work, did it?  No-one came to the
party.  Know why?

It's actually very simple.  Here's the difference:
1. I don't shoot my mouth off telling people how wonderful my work is
and how sh.t-hot a photographer I am - I let them judge that from my
work - if they like it, that's fine, if they don't, that's fine too..
2. I happily *accept* constructive, well-thought-out criticism, and I
use it to try to improve (*your* criticisms are so biased and far off
the mark, you just prove your photographic ignorance)
3. I don't rip people off by selling, or trying to sell, crap images.
4. I don't post ridiculous flawed comparisons showing things like
FZ20s defeating mf /DSLR's, 'bad exposure' from a DSLR (when the EXIF
showed operator error), and non-existent enlarging and perspective
algorithms - the list goes on and on.. and the pages were quickly
removed when the going got tough...

Why should we?  It's easy to find, and it's *your* problem.  We're
waiting for you to finish the self-incrimination.  Oh, and here's a
big hint - the fact that the original authors of this text put this
information up for 'free' is NOT the same as it being 'public domain',
you ignoramus.  That's just as *illegal* an approach to copyright as
you demonstrate here:
http://www.canvasphotos.com.au/suitable-images.htm
where you say:
"Professional Wedding and Portrait photos are most likely taken with
cameras having a high quality lens and are likely to be sharply
focused. We can scan these pictures and return very nice enlargements
with no loss of detail."
.. followed by:
"The copyright of Wedding and Portrait Photographs taken before 1999
absolutely belongs to the couple or family."

That is both false and misleading.  If a contract existed covering the
images, then the terms of that contract still apply.  The Copyright
act is very clear on this:
==== from http://www.copyright.org.au/specialinterest/G035.pdf ====
If there is an agreement about copyright between the photographer and
the client, this may state who owns copyright and what right each
person has to use the photographs. If you have such an agreement, this
is where you should look first. The provisions in the Copyright Act
will be relevant if there is no agreement, or it does not cover these
issues.
====

Read that last sentence carefully.  Or maybe show it to them hotshot
lawyers who are giving you such *great* advice...

Us?  TELL ME DOUGLAS - WHY IS IT THAT YOU HAVE NOW REMOVED THAT
PAGE?????  Everything else seems to be there (except your gallery,
which you have now been shamed into removing also), but

http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/wed-plan.htm

is gone.  GUILTY???  I'm itching to hear the lame excuse.  Hmm - I
wonder if it will come back after he's run it through a thesaurus?
(O;

Anyway, as I mentioned above, anyone can still get the page - go to
Google and enter "cache:www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/wed-
plan.htm"

Or if anyone wants a copy, email me.  (O;

Yep, *everyone's* against you, Doug.  You're batting absolutely zero,
not even one supporter.  What would a *normal* person think about
that, do you reckon, Douglas?  (By the way, the average Qld cattle dog
knows a bucketload more about digital imaging (and copywrite (sic))
than you - *my* dog was quite insulted, even tho' he is a bit of a
city slicker!)
http://www.marktphoto.com/snupy_dog.jpg
('Aw, c'mon, won't any of you play ball with me?')

Snupy supervised the post-processing of that one - I think he did
pretty well, compared to examples of yours like that classic of the
couple on the beach, with the beautiful white sky and the masterful
dodging and burning...

Anyway, have a nice day, Doug.

And if you think *I* have finished with you...  I've still got two big
aces up my sleeve, and who knows what is yet to come from Annika, and
dear Helen for that matter..

But if you acted like a human being (or just buggered off), it would
all stop...  And as for the lame-arse threats of legal action and
Pbase giving you the IP's and the FBI and ...   don't you realise
everyone is just laughing at your fantasies???

D-Mac, have you ever stopped to realize that if everyone is against
you then the problem might be YOU?  You seem to be involved in an
ongoing struggle against the world ..... and the world is winning.

The main difference between you and me, D-Mac is this:
The world laughs WITH me. The world laughs AT you.
Sucks to be you, D-Mac.

BTW, how's that FBI investigation going?  Has the NSA been notified
yet?
BWAHAHAAAAHAAAHAAAHAAA !!!!

Well at least you admit that you pilfered that document.
Admission is the first step to realizing you have a problem.
So why did you claim copyright to it on your site?  Isn't that
illegal?