 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / March 2007America: Land of the Free !
Listen up you wrong-siders! This is what it has come to in the U.S. of A. I'm bored this afternoon so I go over to the dam to try to get some pics of the herons flying (they were very uncooperative). I'm also shooting a few ducks, some cardinals, and the lone falcon that lives there. The light is terrible, it's about to rain, but hey ... I love a challenge. Anyway, I'm minding my own business when I notice there's some rookie cop standing there beside me asking me what I was shooting. "Birds," I told him without even looking up from my 20D and the Forgotten 400 f/ 5.6L. "Show me," he demands. So he makes me scroll through the entire CF card showing him the photos to make sure I'm not shooting a picture of little kids or the bridge ... you know, like terrorists always do. So I'm narrating the pics as I scroll, "Great Blue Heron, duck, falcon, duck, Presidential Motorcade, me flipping off the Pres, another duck, me and the old lady doing it ..... " You know, the usual stuff. Just kidding about the Presidential pics. Thankfully, I deleted them from the card before today's shoot. Otherwise, I might be typing this from Guantanimo. I was very polite with the flatfoot (since I don't really like jail), but the more I thought about it after he left the madder I got. At what point does having a nice camera make one a terrorist suspect? When did that happen? (I know it must've been in the last 6 years.) I know Bush (and his gang of crooks) wipes his a.s with the Constitution, but I must've missed it when photography became a crime. I'm just glad my pal, Kamran, wasnt with me. He's from Pakistan and he's got a quick tongue. Can you say, "Taser?" This isn't the first time this has happened to me, either. I think the next time it happens I will politely ask the officer for a list of things that I may and may not photograph. If he can't provide such a list I shall politely ask him to go piss up a rope. Anyway, here's a crappy pic from today's crappy shoot. http://www.pbase.com/image/74796772 I don't think that Australia is interested in your f.cked up USA. So piss off!!! > I don't think that Australia is interested in your f.cked up USA. So piss > off!!! You think it is all that much different here? You haven't tried taking photo's at Bondi beach lately have you? (especially if your appearance really matched your handle :-) MrT. I take photos at Manly beach without problems.  SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : You think it is all that much different here? You haven't tried taking : photo's at Bondi beach lately have you? : (especially if your appearance really matched your handle :-) : : MrT. Yes but Bondi is far from Manly and so are you. >I take photos at Manly beach without problems. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > : > : MrT. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I also have no intention of going to Bondi to challenge the situation. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : Yes but Bondi is far from Manly and so are you. If you did the situation would be different than if I did. >I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I also have no intention of going to > Bondi to challenge the situation. > > : Yes but Bondi is far from Manly and so are you. Call me next time you're up here and we'll test it out. However, I have read, either here or elsewhere, the there is actually no problem at Bondi, since the council gave in, on the matter. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : If you did the situation would be different than if I did. : : >I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I also have no intention of going to : > Bondi to challenge the situation. news:45e0fe40$0$5441$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... : > : Yes but Bondi is far from Manly and so are you. "Joan" <Joan@home.t2> wrote in news:45e14afe$0$5437$5a62ac22@per-qv1- newsreader-01.iinet.net.au: > Call me next time you're up here and we'll test it out. > > However, I have read, either here or elsewhere, the there is actually > no problem at Bondi, since the council gave in, on the matter. Correct they did give up, in fact I would suggest that everyone has a good read here http://4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml I would even suggest printing it out and keeping a copy with you. Mike Brown www.photo.net/photos/mbrown > "Joan" <Joan@home.t2> wrote in news:45e14afe$0$5437$5a62ac22@per-qv1- > newsreader-01.iinet.net.au: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I would even suggest printing it out and keeping a copy with you. Thanks for that link. Some of the things outlined there answered many of my questions re permissions. That is good to here that the situation is not as bad as it has been. Sounds like a plan, I do get up your way occasionally but not normally to Bondi. > Call me next time you're up here and we'll test it out. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > news:45e0fe40$0$5441$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... > : > : Yes but Bondi is far from Manly and so are you. : Yes but Bondi is far from Manly and so are you. : [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] : > : : > : MrT. My mother takes photos at Bondi Beach and never gets harassed. It's the raw sewage floating past that give her the creeps. Annika http://www.annika1980.com > My mother takes photos at Bondi Beach and never gets harassed. Yes I think we established that women don't get harassed, not for taking photo's anyway :-) >It's the raw sewage floating past that give her the creeps. I doubt she is the only one. MrT. On Feb 28, 6:37 pm, "Annika_Hogan" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > My mother takes photos at Bondi Beach and never gets harassed (sic). It's the raw > sewage floating past that give (sic) her the creeps. Hi, Douglas. (Clearly still haven't seen the psychiatrist, then?) For those who aren't aware, this is our beloved Douglas MacDonald, who has now *completely* lost the plot against Annika. Don't encourage him. On Feb 28, 9:54 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > For those who aren't aware, this is our beloved Douglas MacDonald, who > has now *completely* lost the plot against Annika. because he's applying a bit of the medicine used against him, he's now "completely lost the plot"? I can see the fairness in all that... > Don't encourage him. never did > On Feb 28, 9:54 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > he's now "completely lost the plot"? > I can see the fairness in all that... OK, maybe I exaggerate, but I would call: - changing your *posting identity* (which he's now done over 60 times) *and* creating a new domain name, both in Brett's name - on that domain, posting personal attacks and fantasy stories ..is all just a *teeny* bit off the planet. It's er.. not *quite* the same as reposting Doug's images on a free pbase page, with Doug's name at the top... Now, Noons, let's make sure everything is out in the open - is it possible that your opinion is affected because of a dislike of *me*, after I criticised your assertion that film scans were 'vastly superior' to dslr images, some time ago in comp.periphs.scanners? Perhaps we should start a new thread on that, and you can post your evidence again... But in the meantime, do you think Douglas' post added anything useful to this thread? Do you think he should be allowed to hide behind identities, and not be 'outed'? Be honest as you answer those questions... (O; > > Don't encourage him. > never did I think if you re-read your comments about him using the same 'medicine'... what exactly *do* you call it? On Feb 28, 11:07 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > OK, maybe I exaggerate, but I would call: > - changing your *posting identity* (which he's now done over 60 times) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > same as reposting Doug's images on a free pbase page, with Doug's name > at the top... well, both picked public photos. and dissed each other out in a big way. so, he's just continuing the plot. to me, it's equally deranged and infantile. Now, in Brett's case, I don't have a problem with that: he does it all in a goofy kind of way. Known him to do so for a long time. NP. Douglas? I don't know enough to comment. Other than just state a fact. Which was: he's just applying a bit of the same medicine back. pbase or not, the site with his photos was created without his authorisation. So, he's entitled to do the same, in whatever format. Deserved? Dunno. Funny? Questionable. Fair? Certainly: it's a free world, if one dishes out, one better be prepared to cop it back. In Brett's case, he's big enough to not make anything of it. Or at least I think he is, from my previous contacts with him. > Now, Noons, let's make sure everything is out in the open - is it > possible that your opinion is affected because of a dislike of *me*, > after I criticised your assertion that film scans were 'vastly > superior' to dslr images, some time ago in comp.periphs.scanners? No, not at all: that is not what you criticised. > Perhaps we should start a new thread on that, and you can post your > evidence again... not interested. Couldn't care less about your opinion. > But in the meantime, do you think Douglas' post added anything useful > to this thread? yes, of course: I had a good chuckle. Is there anything else "meaningful" to be had from this type of thread? > Do you think he should be allowed to hide behind > identities, and not be 'outed'? Of course. It's a free net, no? Or would you like to apply the same criteria to ANYONE who does use "identities" to hide behind? No? Thought so. > Be honest as you answer those questions... (O; never been anything else. > > > Don't encourage him. > > never did > > I think if you re-read your comments about him using the same > 'medicine'... what exactly *do* you call it? Fairness? Oh, I'm sorry: you're not familiar with the concept. My apologies. > well, both picked public photos. > and dissed each other out in a big way. > so, he's just continuing the plot. > to me, it's equally deranged and infantile. I largely agree. But in Douglas' case, he has a looong history of posting wild claims, and then removing pages so the evidence of his falsehoods no longer remains. He also does the same thing whenever an image is criticised - it, or the whole gallery in which it resided, vanishes. > Douglas? I don't know enough to comment. Which is why I pointed out the history above. Doug does that all the time. Brett doesn't, nor do I. Any bad image that I have ever posted is still there - (if I've reshuffled stuff and a link no longer works I will be happily repost *anything*). > Other > than just state a fact. Which was: he's just applying > a bit of the same medicine back. pbase or not, the site > with his photos was created without his authorisation. To be fair, Brett's effort did not include anything other than Douglas' images and teasing titles. It was the comments from visitors that got nasty... But your point is made. > So, he's entitled to do the same, in whatever format. True enough. > Deserved? Dunno. Funny? Questionable. > Fair? Certainly: it's a free world, if one dishes out, > one better be prepared to cop it back. As long as the responses are measured and in kind, yes.. But this is getting a bit out of hand, imo. > > Now, Noons, let's make sure everything is out in the open - is it > > possible that your opinion is affected because of a dislike of *me*, > > after I criticised your assertion that film scans were 'vastly > > superior' to dslr images, some time ago in comp.periphs.scanners? > > No, not at all: that is not what you criticised. OK, the thread's called "Scanning vs digital image" in comp.periphs.scaners if anyone is interested. Make up your own minds, and we'll leave it there. > > Perhaps we should start a new thread on that, and you can post your > > evidence again... > not interested. Couldn't care less about your opinion. I'm trying to be nice. > > But in the meantime, do you think Douglas' post added anything useful > > to this thread? > > yes, of course: I had a good chuckle. Is there anything else > "meaningful" to be had from this type of thread? Hmm, you said the humour was questionable before... The thread is about photographers rights being eroded (isn't it??), and some very useful stuff was posted including an excellent link to information that should probably be in every outdoor/street photographers bag. Personally, I think a joke about somebody's mother swimming in sewage is a little offtopic. But each to his own! > > Do you think he should be allowed to hide behind > > identities, and not be 'outed'? > > Of course. It's a free net, no? I disagree. If I spot anyone hiding behind an identity in order to deceive (which is what Douglas does), I will point out their behaviour. > Or would you like to > apply the same criteria to ANYONE who does use > "identities" to hide behind? Yes. If they do so to deceive/taunt/troll. > No? Thought so. Er, well you thought wrong. Is there some inference there? Perhaps you would like to say what it is you are alluding to? If it's directed at me, I have only ever had two usenet identities, and they were not used simultaneously. When I first began interneting (back in the days when joining in usenet groups meant bucketloads of spam), I used the chrlz@go.com address (Charles being a boyhood nickname - like Noons?) - it was a real address and the *only* one I used for several years. When go.com dropped their mail service and I moved interstate, I started using this name, which is my own and again, it is real.. When I changed names, I declared it on any thread containing both names. Good enough? Douglas has used over 60 nicknames (I can list them if you really want, or just do a groups search on "douglas ryadia yowie" if you doubt this), and he has been busted several times sockpuppeting to promote his business, or to support his own causes. Admittedly he hasn't done much lately, but I think that is only because he got busted so often in the past. > > > > Don't encourage him. > > > never did [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Fairness? Oh, I'm sorry: you're not familiar with > the concept. My apologies. Very sincere ones by the sound of it.. You said Douglas was entitled to continue in this vein and he was simply using the same medicine. *I* think that's encouragement, you don't. We differ. Insults about my comprehension of fairness are not particularly helpful, and a bit rich when you said yourself you don't know the history, yet were prepared to offer opinions... On Mar 1, 10:32 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > > Douglas? I don't know enough to comment. > > Which is why I pointed out the history above. Doug does that all the > time. Brett doesn't, nor do I. Any bad image that I have ever posted > is still there - (if I've reshuffled stuff and a link no longer works > I will be happily repost *anything*). I didn't say I didn't know the history. Notice that I said, very clearly and in simple English: "I dont know enough about Douglas to comment". And prior to that I said: it's all a bit infantile and deranged. So, again: that means I don't know enough about Douglas to comment about him being infantile or deranged. Nothing to do with history of his posts. That, I *do* know enough about. I *do* know a bit about Brett being sometimes infantile and deranged in his posts. Actually, I kind of like his style and I've known him in cyberspace for a while now, enough to appreciate his kind of humour. 's fine by me. He's what Aussies would call a "larrikin". NP. > As long as the responses are measured and in kind, yes.. But this is > getting a bit out of hand, imo. not really. I've seen a lot worse online before. They both dissed each other out. Fair. Out of hand? Narh. And I don't buy the "legal" threats posturing either. > OK, the thread's called "Scanning vs digital image" in > comp.periphs.scaners if anyone is interested. Make up your own minds, > and we'll leave it there. They might as well look at the prior thread here where you interjected against me. It was my rejection of your comment that caused you to enter the thread you mention above to get back at me. Just getting ALL facts out there, not just the ones you chose to bring in, ok? > Hmm, you said the humour was questionable before... The thread is > about photographers rights being eroded (isn't it??), narh, stopped being that long ago. It was, at the start. Like it so often happens in the Usenet. Nothing new. > I disagree. If I spot anyone hiding behind an identity in order to > deceive (which is what Douglas does), I will point out their > behaviour. C'mon, Douglas' "hiding" is obvious. He doesn't even bother changing the IP address! > Yes. If they do so to deceive/taunt/troll. Dude, you're in for a lot of frustration... Bread and butter in the Usenet. Notice I didn't say I approved. It's just not that important. > Er, well you thought wrong. Is there some inference there? Perhaps > you would like to say what it is you are alluding to? If it's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > When I changed names, I declared it on any thread containing both > names. Good enough? Of course it is. I didn't say it was you. I said it happens a lot in Usenet. Which is a fact. > > > I think if you re-read your comments about him using the same > > > 'medicine'... what exactly *do* you call it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Very sincere ones by the sound of it.. what can I say? > You said Douglas was entitled to continue in this vein and he was > simply using the same medicine. *I* think that's encouragement, you > don't. We differ. That is certainly the case. Stating someone's entitlement to a reply in kind is not encouragement. And yes, I had a chuckle with it. It doesn't mean I approve of the methods used. Kind of like what I feel when I hear Dubbya talk: makes me laugh but I don't approve. > Insults about my comprehension of fairness are not particularly > helpful, and a bit rich when you said yourself you don't know the > history, yet were prepared to offer opinions... No. Like I pointed out at the start of this reply, and very clearly: I didn't say I didn't know the history. That is your interpretation, which you now claim as my words. Perhaps if you stopped projecting you'd understand? Oh, and it was not an insult. Just a statement and an apology. Insult would be if I had told you to f*** off, or similar. That was not the case here, was it? As for me offering opinions: I'll do that any time I want and feel like, in the Usenet. May I suggest you use a forum or your own group if you don't agree with that state of affairs? Because otherwise you're in for a lot of frustration. : On Mar 1, 10:32 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: The really sad part about Mark (if that's his real name) is that although I never "Hide" when I use a different name, he seems to not know how to read-between-the-lines. No need to "read the IP address". You don't need to be a Rhodes scholar to figure out my writing style. I'm probably the only bloke on Usenet who puts '...' at least once in every post... Mark has a formidable history of lies and false accusations on Usenet. It started many years ago when he got his nose out of joint about my "plain English warranty" for computer parts. It seems he didn't like the notion that when you bought an OEM part (one not in a retail box) I wouldn't give you any warranty with it because Original Equipment Manufacturer parts where not a retail item. The concept still escapes some people who think it's OK to drop a glass platter drive or plug a hard drive in backwards and still expect a warranty claim when they shatter or fry it. He posts false allegations about people and then attempts to conceal his blunder when someone else points it out. Like when he can't "find" my photo labs in the phone book. With his history, why on earth would I tell him the name of them or their location? He does an excellent job of living in Queensland while maintaining his official identity in South Australia. I go along with concealing your identity on Usenet (I should have done it from the start) but when you conceal who you are and then proceed to attack whoever you feel like, that really is pretty poor form. The real teaser in his posts ...and he's done it to you Noons, is to create conjecture where none existed. To use someone else as the target in his attempt to gain recognition. He's getting more and more persistent at doing this too. If you think my published pics are sh.t, take a look at his. He has no right to use attack as his primary means of communication. Everyone has a right to participate in these groups. No one has any right at all to post lies and defamation in an attempt to discover even more about someone to do it over again and that is Mark Thomas7's and Chrlz@go.com's method of operation. He is a troll be definition. At least Bret Hogan (Annika1980) doesn't try to obfuscate his identity. Doesn't troll and for the most part, is a useful participant in Usenet. Although he's an arsehole of the highest order in my opinion, he's not half as bad as this lizard. Hiding behind a rock to lash out at anyone and everyone he sees as a soft target. For a long time I got incensed every time Mark lied about me. Every time he ripped off one of my images and when he (caught on security camera) waited until Margie's canvas print exhibition was vacant and photographed the pictures in it. I couldn't care less what he says now because he's not just attacking me, He's attacking a dozen or so other participants. It would be good (probably asking too much) if he got his facts straight once in a while. TT (Short for Tropical Treat, my next naming adventure) On Mar 2, 7:52 am, "ANNIKA1980.com" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Mark has a formidable history of lies and false accusations on > Usenet. Once again, note that Douglas has NEVER been able to actually quote, in context, a single one of my alleged lies. Can you do it today, Doug? > It started many years ago when he got his nose out of joint about my > "plain English warranty" for computer parts. Again, I have NEVER, not once, engaged with Douglas about his former computer business. He's been told this several times, but it just doesn't sink in. Prove otherwise, Douglas, or simply admit you made this up. My first argument with him was when he posted as 'Graham Hunt' to promote what proved to be a non-existent printing franchise, the famous 'Techno-Aussie Digital Print Centres'.. Douglas later claimed Graham was an employee, but didn't manage to explain "Graham's" fraudulent behaviour in posting from Doug's IP, using Doug's sig line (!), and pretending to be a happy customer with special knowledge about how valuable the franchise was, instead of admitting to be an employee. Of course there is no Graham Hunt - he was never heard from again, and is just another sockpuppet figment of Doug's imagination, like the 'boys on the boat'. Why don't you ask 'Graham' to post an explanation of his immoral behaviour, Doug? > ... he can't "find" my photo > labs in the phone book. With his history, why on earth would I tell him the > name of them or their location? *Why* would you not name them - you don't work at these shops, so what would be your concern? I'm sure there are many fans ready to go try your services out... but you seem *very* reticent to name these shops - they aren't on your (very fine) webpage, nor in the whitepages under any of your business names. It's not like we are after your home address... > He does an excellent job of living in Queensland while maintaining his > official identity in South Australia. Yes, I live in Qld and revisit SA frequently, staying at my old address. What's the problem? > I go along with concealing your > identity on Usenet (I should have done it from the start) But you seem to only post to try to promote your ..er.. 'business' - so how would that work? (O: > but when you > conceal who you are and then proceed to attack whoever you feel like, that > really is pretty poor form. I'm not the one with 60 nicknames. And this is my real name and real email. Douglas even has my address, which he is welcome to send mail to, but hasn't. > If you think my published pics are sh.t Which they mostly are, except for the excellent pelican shot (credit where due), and that marina shot is ok... I just object when you do things like: - post using sockpuppets to fradulently promote your business - complain about cameras exposing wrongly when the image and EXIF shows it was *your* mistake - post pages allegedly showing enlargements or secret algorithms when they actually show reductions or poor quality cloning - post incorrect information, like about perspective, and d-o-f calculation.. - launch into torrents of abuse and insults when criticised You'll note that this post contains a lot of criticism but only *one* insult - that you are a liar - which you are. *I* don't post misleading rubbish about prosumers defeating medium format, or silly claims about enlargements that contain new, real detail. Nor am I promoting a business or claiming to be an 'internationally recognised photographer' on my website/s. They are just there for interest, and I am happy for anybody to visit and criticise. > ...take a look at his. Knock yourselves out: http://www.marktphoto.com/ http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm I am happy to discuss problems with these images (there are many!) and I'll even reprocess and repost them if applicable. I like learning from my mistakes. I'm also happy to accept suggestions for new images, or to post samples to illustrate issues. > ..He has no right to use attack as his primary means of communication. Attack? I just respond to *bullshit* appropriately. > Everyone has a right to participate in these groups. No one has any right at > all to post lies and defamation Feel free, AGAIN, to post evidence of that. Criticism is very different to defamation. It is interesting to note that *your* page on Brett has now been withdrawn (in fear of legal action? (O:). The term 'hypocritical' springs to mind. Why not post it up again so we can discuss the concept of defamation in more detail.. > He is a troll be (sic) definition. The only one who bites seems to be Doug. > For a long time I got incensed every time Mark lied about me. Every time he > ripped off one of my images and when he (caught on security camera) waited > until Margie's canvas print exhibition was vacant and photographed the > pictures in it. And there's another lie. Tell me, Doug, if you actually got access to Cleveland Market's security videos (yes, of *course* you did), can you tell me how you identified me? Care to give a description of me? If you can't, then you have just proved you are lying *again*. For the record, when I visited your stall I had *no* camera, just a lovely lady friend. Do you honestly think *anyone* believes this fantasy world you live in, where you talk to the FBI, have lots of PI's running around, send money to Arkansas lawyers, etc? It's not even funny, just sad. > I couldn't care less what he says now Wonder why he responds every time? But he always avoids the bits that prove him a liar, of course. : On Mar 2, 7:52 am, "ANNIKA1980.com" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au> : wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : doesn't sink in. Prove otherwise, Douglas, or simply admit you made : this up. ---------------------------- So who are you? Mark Thomas or Charles Stevens? And you have the hide to can me for changing names with every computer I build? Mongrel Mark ought to be your signature. Not you with the ACCC threat? Not you with the ASIC threat? Not you with the : "I'm really a nie guy, I'll come and see you when I get the Queensland"? after defaming me from a SA Government computer? You are a sick puppy, whoever you are. One day I'll find out you'll discover something about me you won't like one little bit. Ho Hum... QUESTION: How many computers does it take to make a network? ANSWER: More than one! Standard gear in nearly every business that allows it's staff Internet access is... A ROUTER! QUESTION: What does a ROUTER DO? ANSWER: Well you'll have to look it up for yourself but for Christ sake... Don't use the Yellow Pages! Give it up Moron... You are starting to look as stupid as you'd make out I am. Douglas You are starting to look as stupid as I > am. > > Douglas I am not sure that that is possible Doug. Off topic. > So who are you? > Mark Thomas or Charles Stevens? I am both and never pretended otherwise. That's 2 identites, compared to 60, and you don't declare yours, Mr "annispics-4..."). But you win, Doug. (In your brain, and that's all that counts, right?) I'm, still waiting for the posted link showing either mark thomas *or* chrlz attacking your warranty stuff. I'll be waiting FOREVER.... > Not you with the ACCC threat? There was no 'threat' - again you post no evidence of one. And it was always ASIC, you twit. *You* got it confused with the ACCC. Had lots of dealings with them, perhaps? > Not you with the ASIC threat? Again, there was no threat - I said I would check with ASIC, and I did. But it showed just a business name or two and a shell company, and no trace of any evidence of any franchise. You (Graham?) fraudulently promoted a 'franchise' that was just a fantasy. ASIC and I had a bit of a laugh at that. > Not you with the : "I'm really a nie (sic) guy, I'll come and see you when I get > the (sic) Queensland"? after defaming me from a SA Government computer? Putting a LIE in quotes doesn't make it a 'quote'. QUOTE the link where I said that, or made any sort of threat. And quote the defamation - you never manage to do it. You are a LIAR again. > You are a sick puppy, whoever you are. One day I'll find out you'll discover > something about me you won't like one little bit. ??? Is it just me, or do you lose your ability to make sense when you get upset? (O: Read that sentence back to yourself Doug, then maybe repost it in English.. Anyway, don't tease!!, what will I discover, that you are a complete loony who makes silly threats? That you aren't a very good photographer, who *paid* for his "International Recognition"? *Everyone* knows all that. (PS - If you too want "International Recognition", just visit www.wipm.net and support our local Aus economy! I quote from their site: "Membership to WIPM.net is a modest AU$35 per year and is open to all." Thankfully there's a Doug born every minute..) > QUESTION: How many computers does it take to make a network? > ANSWER: More than one! > Standard gear in nearly every business that allows it's (sic) staff Internet > access is... A ROUTER! Is this the same crap excuse you rolled out before for 'Graham'? Read my lips - even if he wasn't you, he was a member of *your* staff. Game over. The buck stops with you. I'll let others judge the stupidity rankings. Nite, Doug - sleep well. > Off topic. > [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] >> Internet >> access is... A ROUTER! Actually these days we use layer 3 switches. > Is this the same crap excuse you rolled out before for 'Graham'? Read > my lips - even if he wasn't you, he was a member of *your* staff. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nite, Doug - sleep well. On Mar 2, 8:52 am, "ANNIKA1980.com" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > He does an excellent job of living in Queensland while maintaining his > official identity in South Australia. I go along with concealing your > identity on Usenet (I should have done it from the start) but when you > conceal who you are and then proceed to attack whoever you feel like, that > really is pretty poor form. Hey, no sweat. I post from a Perth IP address and I live in NSW, sometimes I change to a Melbourne or Sydney IP just to get things mixed up. All the while without leaving my desk. It's not hard but requires a bit of networking nous and a certain line of work. But it's essentially me whenever "wizofoz2k" or "wizofaus2k" or "wizofaus" is mentioned. Again, just minor changes to throw stupid spam bots off course: I value my idle time and cleaning up mailboxes is effing annoying, to put it mildly. Essentially if you go to http://dbasrus.blogspot.com you get me mostly in the raw and a boatload of other addresses to look at. Including my two main public photo sites. I don't have a problem with Mark or anyone else posting as "Ramses-the-2nd" if they so wish. I do however have an issue with some of his comments. Whenever that happens and it rattles my cage, out it comes. IMHO, his comment in this thread about excalation because you took the mickey out of Annika in a fun site is uncalled for. Particularly after all the sh.t he and others heaped on you. Note to the "public": not saying it was or not deserved. Just uncalled for. > The real teaser in his posts ...and he's done it to you Noons, is to create > conjecture where none existed. To use someone else as the target in his > attempt to gain recognition. He's getting more and more persistent at doing > this too. If you think my published pics are sh.t, take a look at his. He > has no right to use attack as his primary means of communication. Actually, he's got nice stuff. It's just the examples he uses to draw his points across that are unfortunately mostly shite. And he really needs to polish his scanning knowledge. > Everyone has a right to participate in these groups. No one has any right at > all to post lies and defamation in an attempt to discover even more about > someone to do it over again and that is Mark Thomas7's and C...@go.com's > method of operation. He is a troll be definition. Well I wouldn't go so far as to call him a troll. He certainly shows a high level of arrogance in his posts. But he doesn't usually follow people around under ad-hoc ids, which is what trolls do. I give him the benefit of the doubt there. > At least Bret Hogan (Annika1980) doesn't try to obfuscate his identity. Bret is a good bloke, Doug. He's quite funny and down to earth. Have known him in cyberspace for a while in the golfing-verse. He loves taking the mickey out of other folks but he doesn't usually hold grudges and he'll stand by his mates if called. Wish you would find in you to give him the benefit of the doubt, if nothing else. Anyways, not mein kampf and certainly none of my business: you're both grown up enough. Hmm. my reply to your later post seems to have vanished, but while waiting to see if it reappears... I'll just add another 'peace dove'.. I visited your blog thingy and found your 'dvart' site - Nice - some very good shots there. Two things I noted - that image of the canoe and 'tinny' is just great. My only minor quibble is the missing nose of the righthand boat - but the composition, colours and sharpness look superb and it has a great 'feel' to it. It's interesting to note that this was an image you showed a print of some time back, and I offered less than glowing comments which I now withdraw (O: - although I would still like to see a bit of it at full-res, assuming you can find the original and scan it on that LS9K! Second... How could I *not* like someone whose favorite films include Blade Runner (director's cut I trust!?) and anything by Stanley Kubrick (best director who ever lived, imo).. And what's more, you list *Jethro Tull* amongst your favorite music... what great taste! Coincidentally, I have been hunting for, and finally found on Thursday, a remastered CD of 'Thick as a Brick' in a Bris music shop (special friggin import at friggin $31... )O: but it's only money I guess). I still have the original vinyl (suffering a bit, but the newspaper cover is very cool - the CD has a much reduced but just legible version). I bought it as a very broke teenager and it was, IIRC, my third album (after Cat Steven's Tea for the Tillerman, then Paranoid by Black Sabbath.. grin). Sadly my turntable is in mothballs currently while I rebuild my stereo, so it was a delight to find the Brick on CD... Great, weird, album. Anyway, I digress... (O; cheers, mt On Mar 3, 10:03 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > although > I would still like to see a bit of it at full-res, assuming you can > find the original and scan it on that LS9K! If you want I can upload the fullsize copy @4000dpi, it's still a very nice image overall. I've got it as backdrop on the new 1920X1400 display at work and most folks just go "awww" when they see it. I'm trying to find the darn original. Believe me: no one wants it more! Took the duplicates a long time ago just in case the originals got damaged. There is also my series on ferrite core computer memories, some of the macro work with a reversed 20mm lens. Quite nice abstract stuff. And most of the underwater shots, all over the NSW coast and some from Vanuatu. Damn, I miss all that jazz! It's somewhere in one of the many darn boxes in my garage. Took 4 years to get my new house built and finished and for all that long my life has been in mothballs. Still partly is: trying to tie up all the lose ends now, best I can... > Blade Runner (director's cut I trust!?) Abso-bloody-lutely! Best sci-fi movie ever! I know it's heresy, but still reckon it beats 2001-Space Odissey. ¦-) > and anything by Stanley > Kubrick (best director who ever lived, imo).. And what's more, you > list *Jethro Tull* amongst your favorite music... what great taste! and Emerson Lake & Palmer thrown in for good measure. ;-) A bit of trivia on SK: still think Barry Lindon is the most amazing movie he ever did. The Zeiss lens he used was pinched off Nasa. Some of the conspiracy folks reckon it was the one used to film the "false" lunar landing! > Coincidentally, I have been hunting for, and finally found on > Thursday, a remastered CD of 'Thick as a Brick' in a Bris music shop [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > IIRC, my third album (after Cat Steven's Tea for the Tillerman, then > Paranoid by Black Sabbath.. grin). Man, you just brought back some memories. "The Cat" was a darn fine example from that era. Black Sabath was just a notch above most of the others back then. Another one that I liked a lot was King Crimson: they didn't do much but what they put out was damn good IMHO. > stereo, so it was a delight to find the Brick on CD... Great, weird, > album. Most definitely. One of the cornerstones of all the 60s-70s rock music. I reckon "Locomotive Breath" is still one of the most defining heavy-rock sounds ever produced! > If you want I can upload the fullsize copy @4000dpi Wait till you find the original - even though a K64 dupe is probably pretty good, I'd much prefer to see what the 9K can do on a 'real' K25. > Took the duplicates a long time ago just in > case the originals got damaged. Damned smart move. I can sadly and embarrassedly admit that *before* I had either duplicated or drum-scanned it, I recently managed to ruin a treasured slide (it was a much nicer 'brother' of this one - better composition, better light, shot on K64, just looked a dream when projected..) http://www.marktphoto.com/landscape/slides/cazneaux.htm ..by knocking the bloody thing off my desk whilst my chair was moving backwards, and the chair wheel crushed it irreparably.. aargh! I could not believe my stupidity and luck - not a good day to buy a lottery ticket. At least you can still *find* yours...! > Took 4 years to get my new house built and finished and for > all that long my life has been in mothballs. Am going through a similar transition, so some boxes remain unpacked... > Blade Runner... > Abso-bloody-lutely! Best sci-fi movie ever! > I know it's heresy, but still reckon it beats > 2001-Space Odissey. ¦-) Nope, sorry, can't quite agree. (O; Even though parts of 2001 have dated a little, leaving BR ahead in 'current watchability', it was still absolutely ground-breaking for it's day, both in quality of effects and the sheer *genius* of the story (which I admit I didn't properly understand until I read Arthur's book). I have a treasured re-master of the 'real' 2001 on DVD (includes the original introductory overture, just black screen + music... (O; ) > A bit of trivia on SK: still think Barry Lindon is the most amazing > movie he ever did. I must confess I haven't yet seen it - but I want to and in a way it's my tribute to Stanley that I would rather see it on *film* than a TV screen, so I shall wait patiently until someone properly re-screens it, or perhaps I could be convinced to see it on HD DVD/TV when that becomes possible... > The Zeiss lens he used... Yes, I've heard all about that one - it would knock Rita's Noct into the gutter, I think... Article here for anyone interested: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm > Man, you just brought back some memories. "The Cat" was > a darn fine example from that era. I loved his early stuff, like the TFTT album, and even his more boppy ones like Mathew and Son and My Lady D'Arbanville, which still sounds awesome on a decent system. > Another > one that I liked a lot was King Crimson: they didn't > do much but what they put out was damn good IMHO. Yep, way ahead of their time. Anyway, must stop "Living in the Past"... (O; On Mar 4, 9:43 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > a treasured slide (it was a much nicer 'brother' of this one - better > composition, better light, shot on K64, just looked a dream when > projected..) > > http://www.marktphoto.com/landscape/slides/cazneaux.htm Wow! You're right: looks like the Cazneaux image! > I must confess I haven't yet seen it - but I want to and in a way it's > my tribute to Stanley that I would rather see it on *film* than a TV > screen, so I shall wait patiently until someone properly re-screens > it, or perhaps I could be convinced to see it on HD DVD/TV when that > becomes possible... warning: it's completely different from his other movies. No sci-fi, no fantasy whatsoever. Just absolutely gorgeous lighting and filming technique. Very detailed portrait of high society back then. Unusual movie. Then again with Kubrick, unusual is normal... > Yes, I've heard all about that one - it would knock Rita's Noct into > the gutter, I think... Article here for anyone interested: > > http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm that's the one I was looking for. Yeah, Nocts are a bit over-hyped. Good for a very specific purpose and only that. Good luck to whoever is selling it although at that price I reckon it's a bit of an ask. Even for a Noctilux that would be expensive and the Noct is nowhere near. > On Mar 1, 10:32 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: ... > I didn't say I didn't know the history. > Notice that I said, very clearly and in simple English: > "I dont know enough about Douglas to comment". Semantics 101? (O: ... > > Yes. If they do so to deceive/taunt/troll. > > Dude, you're in for a lot of frustration... > Bread and butter in the Usenet. I only hang around in a few groups. How many folks do this in the rec.photo related groups, apart from the obvious (ignored) trolls? Maybe two or three at most. If you think it's more, why not name them? So, very occasionally 'outing' Doug' and maybe one or two others is hardly a source of a 'lot of frustration' to me. > Oh, and it was not an insult. Just a statement > and an apology. I quote: > Fairness? Oh, I'm sorry: you're not familiar with > the concept. My apologies. So that's not an insult and is a genuine apology....? ... ... Well, *I* apologise profusely - how could I have got it so wrong..??!! (O: > Insult would be if I had told you > to f*** off, or similar. That was not the case > here, was it? *I* thought that would be classed as an instruction and an obscenity, and that it contains no insult whatsoever. But clearly you have a mastery of English much more advanced than my own, so I defer and apologise again! (O; > As for me offering opinions: I'll do that any time I > want and feel like, in the Usenet. When exactly did I ask you to not offer opinions? Re-read it - you will find that I was comparing your 'fairness' comment with the 'fairness' of offering opinions without knowing the history - I did not say to stop doing so. > May I suggest > you use a forum or your own group if you don't > agree with that state of affairs? > Because otherwise > you're in for a lot of frustration. Thank you for the helpful advice, but I don't feel frustrated at all. And I enjoy the banter, so I'm not sure what 'state of affiars' I am supposed to not agree with.. (O: On Mar 2, 1:44 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > > I didn't say I didn't know the history. > > Notice that I said, very clearly and in simple English: > > "I dont know enough about Douglas to comment". > > Semantics 101? (O: No. English. Which you insist on mis-quoting. There is a fundamental difference between not knowing Douglas and not knowing the history of his posts. > I only hang around in a few groups. How many folks do this in the > rec.photo related groups, apart from the obvious (ignored) trolls? > Maybe two or three at most. If you think it's more, why not name > them? So, very occasionally 'outing' Doug' and maybe one or two > others is hardly a source of a 'lot of frustration' to me. Fair enough. Knock yourself out! :-) > So that's not an insult and is a genuine apology....? yes. but you can take it whichever way you wish, it's a free world. at least here in Oz. so far. > And I enjoy the banter, so I'm not sure what 'state of affiars' I am > supposed to not agree with.. read my entire post. It's there. On Feb 28, 5:54 am, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, Douglas. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Don't encourage him. Don't be so quick to assume that this was posted by D-Mac. I think it is an imposter, trying to have a little fun at our expense. D-Mac and I have agreed to a cease-fire. I don't believe he would break it so quickly, knowing the consequences that this would cause. Having said that, I'm impressed that someone is so obsessed about me to create a web site devoted to me featuring not only my pics, but old photos of me at golf tournaments that have been on the web for 5 years. WHO RULES? -Annika ----> often imitated, never duplicated !!! >On Feb 28, 5:54 am, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: >> Hi, Douglas. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Don't be so quick to assume that this was posted by D-Mac. >I think it is an imposter, trying to have a little fun at our expense. It's possible, but it was posted via the news server at Doug's ISP (although that news server is available to at least a million of their other users), & the posting IP is from his general geographical region. That said, one of the people who likes screwing with him is based in that part of the country as well. Back to the first hand, check out the 'annika1980.com' registration data: ========================================== > whois annika1980.com [Querying whois.internic.net] [Redirected to whois.godaddy.com] [Querying whois.godaddy.com] [whois.godaddy.com] The data contained in GoDaddy.com, Inc.'s WhoIs database, [...blah...blah...blah...] Registrant: Douglas MacDonald P.O. Box 2116 Wellington Point, Queensland 4160 Australia Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com) Domain Name: ANNIKA1980.COM Created on: 27-Feb-07 Expires on: 27-Feb-08 Last Updated on: Administrative Contact: MacDonald, Douglas canvaspix@yahoo.com.au P.O. Box 2116 Wellington Point, Queensland 4160 Australia (042) 128-8815 Technical Contact: MacDonald, Douglas canvaspix@yahoo.com.au P.O. Box 2116 Wellington Point, Queensland 4160 Australia (042) 128-8815 Domain servers in listed order: PARK13.SECURESERVER.NET PARK14.SECURESERVER.NET ========================================== SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- : >On Feb 28, 5:54 am, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote: : >> Hi, Douglas. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] : data: : ========================================== As you well know Lionel... Revenge is not enough. "Some people are alive today only because it is illegal to kill them" Your words, I believe? Annika Hogan http://www.annika1980.com A totally legal web site. Created with the help of many, many people Bret has stuck it up in the past. On Feb 28, 3:24 pm, "Annika_Hogan" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au> wrote: > Annika Hoganhttp://www.annika1980.com > A totally legal web site. Why is it illegal for me to post your pics under your name but legal for you to do the same thing? Put your legal team on that and have your people call my people. >On Feb 28, 3:24 pm, "Annika_Hogan" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >for you to do the same thing? Put your legal team on that and have >your people call my people. Pfft. You great wimp. You /did/ start the whole "parody website with the other guy's photos", Brett. (Which is not to say that Doug wasn't begging for it, but it's still pretty lame to complain about him doing the same thing back to you.) But like I said to him, I strongly recommend that both of you don't escalate this little fracas any further than the parody websites. Keep things fun, civilised, & don't succumb to any temptation to 'top' the other guy's stunt, because that's how these things turn into multi-year vendettas that f.ck up all the participants, & screw up the 'battlefield' newsgroups for everyone else. SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > >Why is it illegal for me to post your pics under your name but legal > >for you to do the same thing? Put your legal team on that and have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > but it's still pretty lame to complain about him doing the same thing > back to you.) I'm not complaining ... I could give a rat's a.s. Just more publicity for me and my pics, dontcha know. What I would like to know is why D-Mac thinks it's illegal for me to "steal" his photos and post his pics under his name and yet he's perfectly fine with doing the exact same thing. [Doug's rego data for his Annika1980 parody domain] >As you well know Lionel... >Revenge is not enough. >"Some people are alive today only because it is illegal to kill them" >Your words, I believe? Indeed they are - which is why I don't run around killing people. ;^) >Annika Hogan >http://www.annika1980.com >A totally legal web site. >Created with the help of many, many people >Bret has stuck it up in the past. Well, he started it, so I agree that you're completely entitled to return the favour. That said, I strongly recommend that you *both* refrain from escalating your hostilities any higher than parody websites, because I've seen people get so obsessive about 'winning' online battles like this that they've actually screwed up their lives pretty badly. Believe it or not, we old-timers in AUK have actually seen several people whose online vendettas have gotten so out of hand that one or both participants have literally ended up bankrupt or in jail. So guys, there's nothing wrong with you taking the piss out of each other for a bit of fun, but please remember that NEITHER of you is blameless here, & that you are BOTH equally responsible for keeping your own behaviour civilised, regardless of any provocation from the other guy. Okay? SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > Back to the first hand, check out the 'annika1980.com' registration > data: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Australia > (042) 128-8815 I was prepared to give D-Mac the benefit of the doubt, but he e-mailed me today and admitted that he set up this new "tribute" account. We had privately agreed to a cease-fire 8 days ago after I set up the pbase account at: http://www.pbase.com/dsjm/favs So I immediately pulled the pics thinking all was well. And now he goes and does something like this. He claims that I put that site up after agreeing to the cease-fire. In fact, I put it up the night before he e-mailed me and took the pics down right after we exchanged e-mails. I'm starting to believe that the guy really does have some mental issues he needs to address. In his latest e-mail he threatens me with everything from more legal action by his crack legal team, to threatening to run a full page ad in one of my local newspapers about me (as if they would print slander like that). I don't know whether to pity the fool or just continue to crush him. I am just an amateur photographer so any attempt by him to hurt my reputation is fruitless. However, he claims to be a professional and as such is an easy target for someone wanting to hurt his business by posting more of his crappy photos for all to see or by messing with his EBAY auctons. But if he wants to play, I'll play. So D-Mac, the ball is now in your court. What do you want to do? Do you want to take down your stupid sites featuring 5 year-old photos of me playing in (and winning) golf tournaments, so we can continue our agreed-upon cease-fire? Or would you rather resume the hostilities that everyone here is pretty tired of? It makes no diff to me. I can post your pics much faster than you can have them taken down. It's your call, D-Mac. Either extend a conciliatory handshake or bend over, spread those big pink cheeks wide, and say, "Please sir, may I have another?" >I was prepared to give D-Mac the benefit of the doubt, but he e-mailed >me today and admitted that he set up this new "tribute" account. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >me (as if they would print slander like that). I don't know whether >to pity the fool or just continue to crush him. You had you parody site up for how long, exactly? - Just let Doug have his turn at taking the piss out of you for however long your sites were up, resist the temptation to up the stakes on him, call it even, & let the whole thing fizzle out. You're both adults, so please don't act like testosterone-crazed teenagers on their very first Friday night at the pub. SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- > You're both adults, so please don't act like testosterone-crazed > teenagers on their very first Friday night at the pub. Yes, mother. But he started it! Hey D-Mac, here's one I took today just for you. http://www.pbase.com/image/75016080 (There's a message in there somewhere.) >> You're both adults, so please don't act like testosterone-crazed >> teenagers on their very first Friday night at the pub. > >Yes, mother. God boy, have a cookie. ;) > But he started it! <whacks Brett upside the head> >Hey D-Mac, here's one I took today just for you. >http://www.pbase.com/image/75016080 > >(There's a message in there somewhere.) Good coincidence. I got suckered into taking my little boy to the big, expen$ive (nearly $50 for the two of us!) aquarium here last week, & stupidly thought I could get some photos of the sharks & such while we were there. Hah! The little bugger spent maybe 3 minutes looking at the damn seafood, & kept on running off to play with the crappy computerised 'educational', 'interactive' displays, so I spent the whole time running after him. I eventually lost my patience & leashed him to me with the shoulder belt from the camera bag. "Aha" says I - "Now I can get some bloody photo at last!". Like hell. Ever tried to take photos from underneath a giant, but very poorly lit, perspex shark tank, while a kid's slamming his full weight into your hip, or tangling you up in your own camera bag? SignatureW "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to kill them." . | ,. w , \|/ \|/ Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- >> You're both adults, so please don't act like testosterone-crazed >> teenagers on their very first Friday night at the pub. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (There's a message in there somewhere.) Hey Brett, great pic! Here is one I took last year. www.members.optusnet.com.au/mjwyllie/Shark.htm Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< > > Hey D-Mac, here's one I took today just for you. > >http://www.pbase.com/image/75016080 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hey Brett, great pic! Here is one I took last year. > www.members.optusnet.com.au/mjwyllie/Shark.htm Sweet! > > > Hey D-Mac, here's one I took today just for you. > > >http://www.pbase.com/image/75016080 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sweet! found this one: http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/uw01.jpg in my pool... <g, d&r> >>>> Hey D-Mac, here's one I took today just for you. >>>> http://www.pbase.com/image/75016080 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in my pool... > <g, d&r> In your pool??? I would never swim there again! Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< > found this one: > http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/uw01.jpg > in my pool... I wish I could afford your pool :-) MrT. >> found this one: >> http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/uw01.jpg [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > MrT. Is it the Manly Aquarium by any chance? Signature>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<< : >> found this one: : >> http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/uw01.jpg [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : > : Is it the Manly Aquarium by any chance? How is it Aussie sharks always look more realistic than Yankee ones? Aren't most of the yankee sharks human? SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : How is it Aussie sharks always look more realistic than Yankee ones? > Aren't most of the yankee sharks human? > > -- > Joanhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly > > : How is it Aussie sharks always look more realistic than Yankee ones? Joan, don't tell him about the Cronulla Sharks... <g,d&r> > Is it the Manly Aquarium by any chance? Bingo. Manly Marineland. Taken from the inside in one of the night dives we did there back in the 80s. :-) : >I was prepared to give D-Mac the benefit of the doubt, but he e-mailed : >me today and admitted that he set up this new "tribute" account. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] : You're both adults, so please don't act like testosterone-crazed : teenagers on their very first Friday night at the pub. ------------------------------- Heyyyy... Words of experience from one of the experienced. All well said mate but don't forget the nationality of the man... They have a habit of very bad behaviour when they don't get the drop on someone... Sort of like a 'King hit" fighter. No answer for when the bloke they slug get back up! What Bret says here and what he says when he emails me privately has a different flavour. After spending $700 on a Yankee lawyer to find out suing Bret Hogan would set me back a hell of a lot more than a $10 domain name, I decided to play. He decides it unfair! YANKEE GO HOME is all I can say! And lets not forget your reaction to what he did, eh? Encouragement in the first order, I believe. Signaturehttp://www.annika1980.com > : >I was prepared to give D-Mac the benefit of the doubt, but he e-mailed > : >me today and admitted that he set up this new "tribute" account. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > And lets not forget your reaction to what he did, eh? Encouragement in the > first order, I believe. Regardless of the toing and froing you are still a shitful wedding photographer : Regardless of the toing and froing you are still a shitful wedding : photographer --------------------- Fred, you have never seen any of my photographs, never seen a wedding album of mine and never met me yet you can base your condemnation on a few images you see on your screen. There are only three people in this group who have seen my photographs. One of them was pretty vocal about how I never sent him a free ($45 cost to me) poster. He's got it now and keeps his mouth shut. The other is a notorious troll who hasn't a clue anyway. The third is mysteriously silent when idiots criticize me. He could too and with the authority of having seen one but doesn't. Why don't you take the time to read what my clients say. They are more than happy with my photography. Then ask yourself if you really have a clue or just chime in for a bit of good old aussie head kicking... You know, mob mentality. From where I sit, 40 happy clients in two years had enough gratitude in their hearts to write me letters or send me Emails thanking me for the job I did of their wedding. Why would they shell out major bucks and be pleased they did if I was as bad as you say? So I compare this with comments from people like you and come up with the realisation that those who criticize me here are: (a) Never likely to see my photographs. (b) Never likely to contribute a single cent to my rent or anything else. (c) Probably totally unable to do it themselves. Why do you think Fred, all the other Pros who read this group, keep their heads down? It's because we are all human and all work to our own standard. Few of them will ever let the likes of you see their work because of exactly what you just did. The arguments are rife in the industry about wether to post good work to the Internet or not. Two years ago I did and had it ripped off by a rival who cobbled together her web site with other people's images. Today I only post what has no commercial value to me and you say they are sh.t images. Well Bravo! Why don't you get a handle on what you judge before making reckless comments? > : Regardless of the toing and froing you are still a shitful wedding > : photographer [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of mine and never met me yet you can base your condemnation on a few images > you see on your screen. Why do you insist on displaying sub standard images on you web site. Its usual to illustrate with professionally executed images. Even just a 50x50 thumb for them to have a idea of your professionalism. But then if a person does receive above average images taken by yourself, that's maybe a bonus. If your recent images were that good, why did you remove them from your web sites????? embarrassment?? There are only three people in this group who have > seen my photographs. One of them was pretty vocal about how I never sent him > a free ($45 cost to me) poster. He's got it now and keeps his mouth shut. > The other is a notorious troll who hasn't a clue anyway. The third is > mysteriously silent when idiots criticize me. He could too and with the > authority of having seen one but doesn't. Are you quite sure of that? > Why don't you take the time to read what my clients say. They are more than > happy with my photography. Then ask yourself if you really have a clue or > just chime in for a bit of good old aussie head kicking... You know, mob > mentality. What's acceptable by your clients and what shows excellence are two different things. > From where I sit, 40 happy clients in two years had enough gratitude in > their hearts to write me letters or send me Emails thanking me for the job I > did of their wedding. Why would they shell out major bucks and be pleased > they did if I was as bad as you say? > So I compare this with comments from people like you and come up with the > realisation that those who criticize me here are: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > will ever let the likes of you see their work because of exactly what you > just did. Now that's a line "working to our own standard". > The arguments are rife in the industry about wether to post good work to the > Internet or not. Well its like a portfolio, for a person who shops on the internet, to evaluate - it's your choice to market your product that way. Two years ago I did and had it ripped off by a rival who > cobbled together her web site with other people's images. Today I only post > what has no commercial value to me and you say they are sh.t images. Well > Bravo! Why don't you get a handle on what you judge before making reckless > comments? Why would anyone want to rip off another persons wedding images for there own gain. Could you please post a URL to her site. I do know of other photographers who rip off image locations to photograph. One does try to improve on those images. I find what your saying very unbelievable. > > Fred, you have never seen any of my photographs.. So here we have a professional photographer who now says they only post their crap images on the Internet, despite initially promoting them as their best work. Mmm. Good business plan, Sherlock. > If your recent images were that good, why did you remove them from your > web sites????? embarrassment?? Correct! Now Doug is a bit stuck. He has to stick to the line that he will only post substandard images, because he has nothing better to post. He thinks he can get away with the line about people stealing his images. But remember, these are WEDDING images. Even the most wonderful wedding photos are of NO commercial interest to anyone other than the couple. And at web-resolution they are useless for anything beyond about 7x5 anyway. > There are only three people in this group who have > > seen my photographs. And as Doug has admitted, ALL of them have now 'disowned' him. What would a normal person infer from that? > > One of them was pretty vocal about how I never sent him > > a free ($45 cost to me) poster. He's got it now I presume this is Avery? I might contact him and find out what is happening - Douglas tends to be a little loose with the truth.. > > The other is a notorious troll who hasn't a clue anyway. Hmm. Is this Colin D.? He's actually quite knowledgable from what I've seen, and definitely does not meet the criteria for a troll. > What's acceptable by your clients and what shows excellence are two > different things. Well said, Rob. You don't have to be good to sell stuff, and any twit can make up testimonials for snake-oil products. > > Why do you think Fred, all the other Pros who read this group, keep their > > heads down? I think it's because they have seen what a loony Doug is, and are more sensible than those who engage with him... (O; > > Few of them > > will ever let the likes of you see their work because of exactly what you > > just did. *Every* decent photographer (who wishes to) just posts their stuff on the web and they all mange to post their BEST stuff or a sampling thereof. They may keep them small, or put copyright notices on them, but they issue no stupid claims about how they are worried about being ripped off, nor do they make up fairy stories about being ripped off in the past. Those claims are the sign of a paranoid (and unwarrantedly egotistical) mind. > > The arguments are rife in the industry about whether to post good work to the > > Internet or not. Only by newcomers, or those with paranoid delusions. Keep work under 800x600 and get over it. If you discover someone ripping you off, 'out' them with proof and get great publicity.. > >Two years ago I did and had it ripped off by a rival who > > cobbled together her web site with other people's images. POST the link or name. There could be no possible reason why Douglas wouldn't do so. Except that he is lying. Again. A quick search on posts from your 60+ identities reveals no past threads about this alleged event - why have you been so quiet about it? Or are there more identities we don't know about? (O: > > Today I only post > > what has no commercial value to me and you say they are sh.t images. Well > > Bravo! Why don't you get a handle on what you judge before making reckless > > comments? ???? What sort of person thinks like this? "I post rubbish, so you will know how good my real stuff is." Yep, I understand.. > Why would anyone want to rip off another persons wedding images for > there own gain. Could you please post a URL to her site. Rob wants to know too - there's two people asking, Douglas. Post the link or her name. Or drop the bullshit. > I find what your saying very unbelievable. You are not alone... >> > Fred, you have never seen any of my photographs.. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >I presume this is Avery? I might contact him and find out what is >happening - Douglas tends to be a little loose with the truth.. Yes, that was referring to me. Let's get it right. Some months ago during one of those discussions about enlarging photographs, Doug said that he had some left over posters that he would send to the first 3 or 4 (i can't remember the number)to contact him via his website. He said he required a valid email address and a valid postal address. I sent him same. Some days went past and there was no reply. I posted a message asking him if he was going to come good with his offer. He said he did not get my email. I sent it again. Once again there was no response. I left reminders in various thread over the ensuing months. Eventually he offered again to send it. This time he require my full name, address, email, business name and a.b.n. I sent them. He checked one against the other and found them to be all correct He told me to expect the poster in a few days. 8 days later there was nothing. He sent me an email saying that there had been a delay owing to sickness in his family. A couple of days later he reaised the subject again and I commented that 10 days or more to get a package from Brisbane to Sydney was a bit OTT. This seemed to upset Douglas no end. A couple of days later the poster arrived. I have looked at every day for nearly two weeks. It is quite a nice 900 x 600(approx.) poster. A picture of a pelican walking on a beach. The bird takes up the full frame. In the lower left corner there is a shadow box containing the EXIF data. Canon 20D ,55mm, 1/400 , f14. I can |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message