 |
 | 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 / Photo Technique / Nature Photography / January 2004Michael Scarpitti Offer for Web Viewing-CANCELLED
I am canceling my offer for ³Michael Scarpitti <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com² . My offer was ³What the heck; email me 10 of your best images, with a maximum size of 100k each, 500x500 pixels max size, and in jpeg form and I will put them up for two weeks on my site, so all others can judge your abilities against your statements². I just received one email apparently from Michael Scarpitti that was OVER 75 Megs zipped, Yes, OVER 75 Megs.... It was a forwarded message, so he did not even send it himself. He also sent about 57 images, and a folder full of hirez images (over 50 megs), and a whole web set-setup. Even with the hirez images removed it still would be over 20 megs for a web site. That was not what I had offered to host. I do not have the time or inclination to redo his impertinent submission. I actually find it pretty rude for him to: 1: Not take the time or even "TRY" and send the correct submission items that I had agreed to host as a favor to him. 2: Not actually take the time to prepare and send it himself. 3: Just to forward a different ³challenge² web-site he apparently had with someone else. 4: Not even acknowledge me in the email. The email just had Michael Scarpitti telling someone else to ³send the pages² to the ³guy" at my email address. No message, no nothing. 5: Sending a 75 meg email. Whooeeeee. Even with my DSL, it took a while. Even though my offer was to accept only 10 jpegs. Not a bunch of pages, Not 75 megs, Not an entire full blown Web-Site, not over 50 images. 6: Just being so arrogant, thinking that I would put all this stuff up on my web-site as is. 7: Just being so arrogant, thinking that I would take the time to fix all his stuff up just to ALLOW me to put them up on my site as a favor to him. There is more venom I feel, but I must stop. "None are so blind as those who will not see, none are so deaf as those who will not listen. I now put Scarpitti into this sorry group. All 75 Megs have been deleted from my hard drive. Put your own site up if you want. I really don't care what you do. I only cursory looked at what you sent, just enough, so I could understand just what the heck you did send. Since I did not look at your images, I have no opinion on your images. But My opinion of you now, is awfully low. Sorry group, about the rant. PWW  SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com >From: PWW pww@-REMOVE-PhotoStockFile.com >Sorry group, about the rant. So kill-file the guy and move on ... > I am canceling my offer for ³Michael Scarpitti <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com² . > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That was not what I had offered to host. I do not have the time or > inclination to redo his impertinent submission. I did not send it. The fellow who had hosted these before sent it. It had been set up already by him. As I said, I do not have a 'portfolio' as such, just a few images to show people if I'm asked, as you just did. > I am canceling my offer for ³Michael Scarpitti <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com² . > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Megs zipped, Yes, OVER 75 Megs.... It was a forwarded message, so he did not > even send it himself. <SNIP> You're whining because you recived a file from someone that is NOT Mike? So what's your point? That some moron sent you a big file. And that you don't even know who it is? Time for a reality check. Stan Visual Arts Photography > On 12/18/03 7:33 PM, in article 3FE24773.3D3E596D@mc.net, "stan" > <visarts@mc.net> wrote: > You're whining because you recived a file from someone that is NOT Mike? So > what's your point? That some moron sent you a big file. And that you don't > even > know who it is? Time for a reality check. > Stan > Visual Arts Photography I did not think I was whining. My point was, I was ranting about how rude and without consideration, it was for Scarpitti, to have someone else, on his behalf, send me a bunch of his stuff, clearly of which none of fit any of the guidelines of the offer, that I had made to him. None, Zero, Zip, Nada.. He did not even try the very minimum effort, to go along with the terms of my offer. And I was trying to do him a favor. I never said it was not sent on Scarpitti's request, (which it was, so who is the "moron") and to me, that is the same as being sent from Scarpitti himself, whoever actually sent the file is really irrelevant, except for me not knowing who was actually sending me a 75 meg file, until I completely downloaded it and read the email, which was addressed to this other person (and only forwarded to me), asking him to forward all the stuff to my email address. That was the only reference to me in the entire email, was my email address. And yet he never sent me an email, explaining what he was doing. In fact, he never sent me an email until after I cancelled my offer. Ah Sir, I do believe, you do not know of what you speak. Maybe you need to reread the original post. PWW SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > > On 12/18/03 7:33 PM, in article 3FE24773.3D3E596D@mc.net, "stan" > > <visarts@mc.net> wrote: > Paul: Just a few months ago I went through all of this due to requests from others, and prepared some inmages which were hosted by this fellow for me. It took a lot of his time and my time to prepare. I did not feel that doing it all over again was warrented; therefore I simply asked him to forward the materials to you. Sorry for the misunderstanding. > > You're whining because you recived a file from someone that is NOT Mike? So > > what's your point? That some moron sent you a big file. And that you don't [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > PWW > > On 12/18/03 7:33 PM, in article 3FE24773.3D3E596D@mc.net, "stan" > > <visarts@mc.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, > http://PhotoStockFile.com Sorry you're still the moron. And a whiner Stan Visual Arts Photography > Sorry you're still the moron. And a whiner > Stan > Visual Arts Photography Having not only followed this from the start, but had previous direct experience with Michael Scarpitti and his holier-than-thou attitude with absolutely nothing to back his claims (I have noticed that his stint working as a yearbook photographer has now magically transformed into "photojournalistic experience"), I find myself with a hell of a lot more support for PWW's actions in this matter, than yours. Sending anyone a 75 meg file is not only rude, it's ridiculous and asinine. Entire websites, with a significant number of pictures, can be accomplished within 10 megs. And as PWW pointed out, this was quite far from what he had offered to do for Mr Scarpitti as a favor, free of charge, on his own. Call it whining if you like. This makes your own whining that much more hypocritical and senseless, since you have no part in this whatsoever. Thank you very much for your opinion, you now have mine. Want me to state it a bit more directly? - Al. SignatureTo reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net > > Sorry you're still the moron. And a whiner > > Stan [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below > Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net If you need to. I don't really care. If you really feel the need man then be more direct. Although I don't see how it affects you anymore than me. I also agree that sending a 75 meg file is rude. My understanding (until mike clarified it) was that the OP didn't ever know for sure it came from Mike. So do what you want . I've had 2 deaths in my family and I really could give a sh.t. Stan Visual Arts Photography > If you need to. I don't really care. If you really feel the need man > then be more direct. Although I don't see how it affects you anymore [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > deaths in my family and I really could give a sh.t. Stan > Visual Arts Photography Stan, I'm honestly sorry to hear about your family, and I sympathize with what you're going through. If you find, however, that your frame of mind right now is to respond to things with more antagonism than normal (and it would appear that way to me, because I've seen plenty of your posts before), then perhaps the newsgroups aren't the place for you right at the moment. Because you know damn well that someone is going to spark a response, even when they aren't actively trying to like so many of the posters. I've seen enough posts from Scarpitti to know that his experience is all imaginary. Google will provide anyone interested with enough evidence to form their own opinion - check rec.photo.equipment.35mm for more fun. I, for one, have no patience with the dipshit. And since Paul was openly insulted by Scarpitti when Scarpitti thinks that a moderate closeup of a rhino's eye in a zoo is high art, I would think Paul lacks the patience as well. While Paul's response might have been exacerbated by this insulting behavior, he was also (IMO) posting publicly since he was not the only target of Scarpitti's nonsense within even this thread. Kick back for a bit, keep it all in perspective, and we'll watch for the eventual return of your normal informative posts, okay? - Al. SignatureTo reply, insert dash in address to match domain below Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net I just wanted to clarify. It was not I, (PWW, also known was Paul sometimes, especially when I am in trouble with the wife) who wrote the stuff about referring to the "Rhino's Eye". I have never even seen these "Rhino" photographs. I believe that was "Kin Lau (gabe_nospam_@istop,com)," who was commenting on that with "Michael Scarpitti." So I was not insulted by that thread. Whew, missed out on that one! Hey, I admitted this Original Post in this thread was a "rant" for me. I thought I did pretty well until "the straw that broke the camels back", with the submission and direct contact problems I had with "Michael Scarpitti." Even I, can chatter on a bit too much. Ooo, did I just admit that. PWW SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 12/20/03 3:34 AM, in article > "Al Denelsbeck" > <news@wadingin.net> wrote: > And since Paul was openly > insulted by Scarpitti when Scarpitti thinks that a moderate closeup of a > rhino's eye in a zoo is high art, I would think Paul lacks the patience as > well. While Paul's response might have been exacerbated by this insulting > behavior, he was also (IMO) posting publicly since he was not the only > target of Scarpitti's nonsense within even this thread. > > If you need to. I don't really care. If you really feel the need man > > then be more direct. Although I don't see how it affects you anymore [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > damn well that someone is going to spark a response, even when they aren't > actively trying to like so many of the posters. Thanks Al, the sentiments mean a lot. I realized last night that i should be on read only with most things in my life right now. Including the newsgroups. Several days ago I told a PR person at a major University that if he had reservations about a project that he could place his entire University in his lower cavity. Although not in those words. I walked to my car and immediately realized I had destroyed a relationship with a good client, and hurt (or ruined) any possibility of future work. Right now everything seems unfair. I apologize to you and to anyone else I may have offended. Take care. Stan Visual Arts Photography > > > If you need to. I don't really care. If you really feel the need man [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > to form their own opinion - check rec.photo.equipment.35mm for more fun. I, > for one, have no patience with the dipshit. These insults are out of place. You know nothing of my skills, knowledge, or experience. > And since Paul was openly > insulted by Scarpitti when Scarpitti thinks that a moderate closeup of a > rhino's eye in a zoo is high art, I would think Paul lacks the patience as > well. Are you on drugs? Who said anything about 'high art'? The rhino picture is dramatic and involving. That's all, but it's a hell of a lot better than most people's attempts at 'nature photography'. Most people could not even hand hold a 560mm lens using Kodachrome 25 and focus it on the eyelashes of the animal, which I did. > While Paul's response might have been exacerbated by this insulting > behavior, he was also (IMO) posting publicly since he was not the only > target of Scarpitti's nonsense within even this thread. You are deranged. I insulted no-one. You need therapy. I simply asked Mark Wolenski, who had set up a website for me back in August, to pass it over to Paul. I would have expected Mark to contact Paul before sending it, though I perhaps should have advised him first to do that. > Kick back for a bit, keep it all in perspective, and we'll watch for > the eventual return of your normal informative posts, okay? > > - Al. > You know nothing of my skills, knowledge, or experience. To learn more of Scarpitti's "skills, knowledge or experience", read the Michael J. Scarpitti Self-Justification League FAQ posted at: http://groups.google.com/groups?q=scarpitti+self-justification+league&hl=en&lr=& ie=UTF-8&selm=230820032010132333%25beaverlad%40febloo.ralnig&rnum=1 > Are you on drugs? Who said anything about 'high art'? The rhino > picture is dramatic and involving. That's all, but it's a hell of a > lot better than most people's attempts at 'nature photography'. Most > people could not even hand hold a 560mm lens using Kodachrome 25 and > focus it on the eyelashes of the animal, which I did. "Dramatic.. involving... a hell of a lot better than most people's attempts... most people could not even hand hold a 560mm lens.. and focus it... which I did." The origin of these multiple boasts and this self-praise can be found in Article 7 of The Michael J. Scarpitti Self Justification FAQ, reposted below: From: Beaver Lad (beaverlad@febloo.ralnig) Subject: The Michael Scarpitti Self-Justification League "Article 7: I don't know why I bother telling you anything at all, you're all too stupid to benefit from my wonderful ability to hand-hold a long lens at 1/30th of a second. YES, you read that right! 1/30th of ONE SECOND! They said it couldn't be done, but I DID IT!!! I should get an award!" >> You know nothing of my skills, knowledge, or experience. > > To learn more of Scarpitti's "skills, knowledge or experience", read the > Michael J. Scarpitti Self-Justification League FAQ posted at: <snip> > "Article 7: I don't know why I bother telling you anything at all, > you're all too stupid to benefit from my wonderful ability to hand-hold > a long lens at 1/30th of a second. YES, you read that right! 1/30th of > ONE SECOND! They said it couldn't be done, but I DID IT!!! I should get > an award!" Look in the dictionary under "sarcasm". P. > > You know nothing of my skills, knowledge, or experience. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > ONE SECOND! They said it couldn't be done, but I DID IT!!! I should get > an award!" So, what does 'Beaver Lad' have in common with you? Oh I see, you agree sending a 75 meg file is rude, but then, to complain about that rudeness is being a "...moron. And a whiner." That sure is an intelligent position, (sarcastic comment.) If your point is that I did not know the original email came came from "Mike" and yet I was expounding on "Mikes" character traits as the problem, then you have a problem reading newsgroup posts. Because it was sent on "Mikes" behalf, and at "Mikes" request. Who else would have wanted it sent to me. Nobody, duh. Sorry for the deaths in your family. We all have had problems in our lives. But that still does not give you any right to be a blathering idiot. Say what you will. This is my last post to you on this matter. PWW SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 12/20/03 1:05 AM, in article 3FE3E6AA.BABF52ED@mc.net, "stan" > <stanheid@mc.net> wrote: > I also agree > that sending a 75 meg file is rude. My understanding (until mike clarified it) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Stan > Visual Arts Photography > > > Sorry you're still the moron. And a whiner [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Sending anyone a 75 meg file is not only rude, it's ridiculous and > asinine. Look, people, I had nothing to do with the size of the files. I simply asked Mark Wolenski to forward my materials to Paul. I would have expected Mark to make the appropriate contact with Paul for the transfer of the files. I had nothing more to do with it. Al: I have lots of experience that you know absolutely ***nothing*** about. I chose a long time ago NOT to be a professional photographer for reasons that have nothing to do with any lack of photographic skills or experience on my part. It's simply not what I wanted to do professionally. >Entire websites, with a significant number of pictures, can be > accomplished within 10 megs. And as PWW pointed out, this was quite far [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Al. The only reason I am responding to this post is because Michael Scarpitti wants to shift the blame to Mark Wolenski. This is not right, Mark Wolenski just did exactly what Michael Scarpitti asked him to do. It is not Mark Wolenski fault whatsoever. This is exactly the problem. It is still rude and arrogant to say you "had nothing to do with it." It was not Mark's responsibility to contact me and work out any details. It was yours and yours alone. Even your email to him just said "Forward the stuff to" to my email address. It said nothing about contacting me for anything else or anything at all. Mark did just what you asked him to do. He might not have known anything about the guidelines of my offer. I did not make the offer to Mark. I made it to you. The Buck Stops With You! You should have realized that what Mark had and was going to email me, did not fit any of the guidelines that I had put forward to you. Just one major obvious fault, 60 some photographs are not 10, as were my guidelines. You made NO effort whatsoever to go along with your part of the offer. You had to know there were many more photographs that Mark was going to send me. That is what I call arrogant and rude. You expected Mark to do all you work for you, and you expected me to do all your work for you. Without a single email to me about what was happening. And yet you have the arrogance to say "you had nothing to do with it." Sir, you had everything to do with it. Again it was your responsibility to contact me and to contact Mark and put together the correct files to send me. If you wanted to take advantage of my offer to you. If you did not want to follow my guidelines you should have just said "Thanks, But no Thanks" to my offer. The problem is that you still don¹t want to take the responsibility for your pompous ways. SignaturePWW (Paul Wayne Wilson) Over 1,000 Photographs Online at, http://PhotoStockFile.com > On 12/20/03 2:43 PM, in article > 2fd2ff8c.0312201143.72027a59@posting.google.com, "Michael Scarpitti" > <mikescarpitti@yahoo.com> wrote: > Look, people, I had nothing to do with the size of the files. I simply > asked Mark Wolenski to forward my materials to Paul. I would have > expected Mark to make the appropriate contact with Paul for the > transfer of the files. I had nothing more to do with it. > The only reason I am responding to this post is because Michael Scarpitti > wants to shift the blame to Mark Wolenski. This is not right, Mark Wolenski > just did exactly what Michael Scarpitti asked him to do. It is not Mark > Wolenski fault whatsoever. That's correct, but I expected him to ask. I simply did not think about it. > This is exactly the problem. It is still rude and arrogant to say you "had > nothing to do with it." It was not Mark's responsibility to contact me and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I did not make the offer to Mark. I made it to you. The Buck Stops With You! You must understand, I just went through all of this. I really don't want to do it all over again. > You should have realized that what Mark had and was going to email me, did > not fit any of the guidelines that I had put forward to you. Just one major > obvious fault, 60 some photographs are not 10, as were my guidelines. You > made NO effort whatsoever to go along with your part of the offer. You had > to know there were many more photographs that Mark was going to send me. I really did not think about it. > That is what I call arrogant and rude. You expected Mark to do all you work > for you, and you expected me to do all your work for you. You wanted to see my work. I don't particularly care to show my work. I'm not an egotistical photographer who has to show anything to anybody. You ASKED to see it. > Without a single > email to me about what was happening. And yet you have the arrogance to say [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The problem is that you still don¹t want to take the responsibility for your > pompous ways. I'm not pompous. 95% of the work I see on people's web sites is garbage. > > On 12/20/03 2:43 PM, in article > > 2fd2ff8c.0312201143.72027a59@posting.google.com, "Michael Scarpitti" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > expected Mark to make the appropriate contact with Paul for the > > transfer of the files. I had nothing more to do with it. Relevant words said by Michael several times are "did not think about it." From what I've read in this thread an offer was made by Paul to Michael to place a set number of photos on a site for all to see. I would think most people would take some time to select images themselves, and adhere to the offers requirements. If you, Michael, could not be bothered to do this, then I agree with Paul that you should have declined. To place blame on someone else, Mark, when he was given incorrect information is stupid. You may have excellent photographic skills, having never seen any of your photographs I have no basis for comment. However, it appears that since you do not believe yourself to be an "egotistical photographer who has to show anything to anybody" I must wonder who has decided you have said skills, other than yourself. To then say "I'm not pompous. 95% of the work I see on people's web sites is garbage." is worse than narrow-minded, and quite pompous or even arrogant. I've seen many photographs that I didn't care for and others do, but I don't think they're garbage, just not to my taste. You took a different path instead of becoming a professional photographer; I can understand that since I was forced in a different direction than I wanted to pursue. Do you feel your photographic work done for you and you alone is far superior to that of professionals that work day in and day out, pleasing customers every day or not eating, using camera equipment as good or better than the equipment you yourself use? Being new to this ng, I do not know you nor any of the others that have posted on this thread. I do get the impression from what I've read in this thread that you feel you are above all others, Michael, and everyone else must bow to what you say, and others must accept blame when you don't do what is requested of you, not another person. An offer was made to you, you directed someone else to send files for that offer, did not give particulars of the offer. Neither did you take the time to select work *you* feel, not Mark, is representative of your very *best* to show whatever it was you were trying to show. If you didn't feel you had the time to follow the requirements stipulated in the offer, let alone select the best 10 examples of your work, you should have declined the offer graciously. To place blame on someone else, someone you never bothered to inform of the requirements, is stupid at the very least. Have you ever been given the nickname of TeflonMan by any chance? Or maybe you're a politician. Reminds me of some officers in 'Nam that ordered certain actions, then when they were learned of denied any responsibility. RAD >>The only reason I am responding to this post is because Michael Scarpitti >>wants to shift the blame to Mark Wolenski. This is not right, Mark Wolenski [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] >>>expected Mark to make the appropriate contact with Paul for the >>>transfer of the files. I had nothing more to do with it. > Relevant words said by Michael several times are "did not think about > it." From what I've read in this thread an offer was made by Paul to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > has to show anything to anybody" I must wonder who has decided you have > said skills, other than yourself. Of course this is a valid question. Short answer: 40 years, from high school to now, including pro work in multi-media presentations. Mostly photo-journalism of one sort or another. 1. High School: 2 first prizes in state-wide competition in the state of Ohio (1965 and 1967) by Journalism Association of Ohio Schools. 3rd prize 1966. 2. Five years as photographer, then chief photographer, then editor of Makio, the Ohio State University yearbook, including riot year of 1970, when national guardsmen were stationed on campus. I photographed all sorts of sports and campus activities, much as any newspaper or magazine photographer would. The editors said 'you alwys come back with something good' when I was given assignments. I was given the Introduction (arty type stuff that opens the book every year) to do every year after the first year. 3. Part-time work with The Columbus Monthly Magazine (1977-1981), shooting stuff the staff photographer did not want to bother with or have time for. 4. Full-time work with several multi-media firms (1981-1988), producing slide shows for various clients. Again, mostly photojournalistic stuff, but also including all sorts of clients from nuclear power plants to pension funds. Pay was low. I tried my hand at industrial/commercial photography with limited success thereafter, then left the business. I had soured on it. > To then say "I'm not pompous. 95% of > the work I see on people's web sites is garbage." is worse than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > every day or not eating, using camera equipment as good or better than > the equipment you yourself use? It was not done for me an me alone, as I have outlined above, but indeed I did do a lot of work simply to please myself. The contraints imposed by working for clients are considerable, especially when the budgets are tiny. The work I did for myself is comprarable to or superior to much professional photography in the applicable genres. > Being new to this ng, I do not know you nor any of the others that have > posted on this thread. I do get the impression from what I've read in > this thread that you feel you are above all others, Michael, and > everyone else must bow to what you say, and others must accept blame > when you don't do what is requested of you, not another person. You must understand I had just gone through all of this last autumn. The web site Mark Wolenski put up for me took a lot of time on his part and mine. It was put together at his request for the same reasons that Paul expressed: he wanted to see it, and offered to put up the site for me at his expense. It was to be of limited duration, and the time had expired in November. I did not feel obligated to do it all again, especially since I am not particularly interested in showing my work. I do know that much of that work is excellent, and superior to what I see many people put up. But I simply don't care whether it is or isn't, or who thinks it is or isn't. It matters not one whit to me. I have no ego about photography. I got over that long ago. I couldn't care less. > An offer was made to you, you directed someone else to send files for > that offer, did not give particulars of the offer. Neither did you take [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the offer, let alone select the best 10 examples of your work, you > should have declined the offer graciously. You are correct. I don't care whether anyone sees it or not, except to establish my credibility as a critic and expert. > Relevant words said by Michael several times are "did not think about > it." > From what I've read in this thread an offer was made by Paul to > Michael to place a set number of photos on a site for all to see. I [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > every day or not eating, using camera equipment as good or better than > the equipment you yourself use? I use the finest optics on the planet, better than most pros. Leicaflex cameras and lenses. I know how to use this stuff, too. I also used Kodachrome 25 a great deal. So, the technical quality was second to none and better than most. > Being new to this ng, I do not know you nor any of the others that have > posted on this thread. I do get the impression from what I've read in > this thread that you feel you are above all others, Michael, and > everyone else must bow to what you say, and others must accept blame > when you don't do what is requested of you, not another person. I did not 'blame' Mark. He simply complied with my request. I did expect him to ask questions of Paul, but I do not blame him for not doing so. Those images were requested by him. As I have said before, I am not concerned with others' opinions or with showing my work. Why do you think this makes me pompous or arrogant? If you do not understand this, read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand. Howard Roark's attitude is the same as mine. |
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.