Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / December 2006

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

(Artistic nude) A new image of Giorgia.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Morgan Capasso - 18 Dec 2006 05:46 GMT
http://www.dreamingblue.net/Giorgia_V_3.htm

Comment and Sugestion are welcome alway

Morgan

Signature

Morgan Capasso
Studio fotografico Dreaming Blue Fine photography
Via Paolo Zacchia 20 00161 Roma.
tel:0645481705 cell:333/6304964
morgan.capasso@gmail.com
http://www.dreamingblue.net
http://www.artfinephotography.net
http://morgan.leonardo.it/foto
http://morgancapasso.leonardo.it/foto

Randall Ainsworth - 18 Dec 2006 13:25 GMT
Learning to properly create images of people with their clothes *on* is
a prerequisite for creating images of them without clothes.
Julie Marx - 18 Dec 2006 13:27 GMT
> http://www.dreamingblue.net/Giorgia_V_3.htm
>
> Comment and Sugestion are welcome alway
>
> Morgan

Morgan:

I again ask that you please stop spamming this forum.

You have yet entered ONE discussion in this discussion group.

You do not have the common courtesy to reply to any commenters.

There is NO reason to constantly post new URLs of pictures and ask for
comments.  It is apparent that your purpose is to increase the exposure
of the web site via spamming it.

By constantly posting posts such as this one you are then abusing this
group and that's not good.

Morgan, your reply is requested !

Signature

Julie M.

konabrian - 18 Dec 2006 17:48 GMT
Allow me to second Julie's words - i wouldnt mind, but its my opinion
that there is only one picture on the site worth looking at.........not
worth the attention its looking for

> > http://www.dreamingblue.net/Giorgia_V_3.htm
> >
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>
> Morgan, your reply is requested !
David H. Lipman - 20 Dec 2006 21:56 GMT
From: "Julie Marx" <jcmx721@NOSPAM.conmcast.com>

>> http://www.dreamingblue.net/Giorgia_V_3.htm
>>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
|
| Morgan, your reply is requested !

Did you really think she would reply ?
She did NOT and she posted another URL.

Like I said she is a spammer.  I took alot of heat for calling her out on this and now you
and the others can plainly see she doe not want to discuss photographey or entertain
anyones's comments.  Her objective is to spam the web site as I previously stated.

I urge all to send spam reports to;  newsmaster@fastweb.it  and abuse@technorail.com

BTW:  I also had some "person" comment on my sig. as spam.  For the record, a person's
signature is delimted b; "-- " and below it is allowed a four line signature.  URLs after
the "-- " delimiter are NOT considered part of the body and are NOT considered spam.

However Morgan does NOT conform to this Usenet standard.  After the signature delimter she
posts MORE than just four lines with...

Morgan Capasso
Studio fotografico Dreaming Blue Fine photography
Via Paolo Zacchia 20 00161 Roma.
tel:0645481705 cell:333/6304964
morgan.capasso@gmail.com
http://www.dreamingblue.net
http://www.artfinephotography.net
http://morgan.leonardo.it/foto
http://morgancapasso.leonardo.it/foto

Signature

Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Julie Marx - 21 Dec 2006 01:49 GMT
> Did you really think she would reply ?
> She did NOT and she posted another URL.
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> http://morgan.leonardo.it/foto
> http://morgancapasso.leonardo.it/foto

Yes I did think Morgan would reply.   I am dismayed that she didn't.
However I gave Morgan a chance to respond and she refused to.  If she
explain he POV and what she is trying to accomplish then it only
bolsters the point her objective is to spam the  dreamingblue.net  web site.

I looked it up and found that  dreamingblue.net  is hosted by
Technorail.  Is that why you suggest sending messages to their abuse
email address ?

I found the following on Usenet Netiquette.
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/docproject/zen/zen-1.0_6.html

"Four lines will suffice---more is just extra garbage for Usenet sites
to carry along with your article, which is supposed to be the intended
focus of the reader. Netiquette dictates limiting oneself to this
``quota'' of four---some people make signatures that are ten lines or
even more, including elaborate ASCII drawings of their hand-written
signature or faces or even the space shuttle. This is not cute, and will
bother people to no end. "

Signature

Julie M.

jeremy - 21 Dec 2006 04:06 GMT
>> Did you really think she would reply ?
>> She did NOT and she posted another URL.
[quoted text clipped - 48 lines]
> faces or even the space shuttle. This is not cute, and will bother people
> to no end. "

The signature block exceeds FOUR LINES?????  And you want to orchestrate a
coordinated flood of complaints to the "offender's" ISP?

This is absurd.

Get a life.
David H. Lipman - 21 Dec 2006 21:59 GMT
From: "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>

| The signature block exceeds FOUR LINES?????  And you want to orchestrate a
| coordinated flood of complaints to the "offender's" ISP?
|
| This is absurd.
|
| Get a life.

No.  What is pointed out here is that Morgan is constantly posting a URL for
dreamingblue.net
and never enters into any discussions in a discussion News Group.  And I see she has done so
again and STILL has not responded to anyone's replies !

Secondly Julie is replying to my "BTW" addendum about the signature.

In my orginal complaint where I aclled Morgan out for spamming, someone responded becuase of
my signature has two URLs and she called it spam.  The fact is my signature conforms to
Usenet standatrds and Morgan's does not.  Not only is is motre than four lines it has a
mailing address and phone numbers.  Again this points to Morgan's objective to being
spamming her web site to increase hits.

Signature

Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Morgan Capasso - 22 Dec 2006 07:57 GMT
> spamming her web site to increase hits.

HIM

Signature

Morgan Capasso
Studio fotografico Dreaming Blue Fine photography
Via Paolo Zacchia 20 00161 Roma.
tel:0645481705 cell:333/6304964
morgan.capasso@gmail.com
http://www.dreamingblue.net
http://www.artfinephotography.net
http://morgan.leonardo.it/foto
http://morgancapasso.leonardo.it/foto

> From: "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> mailing address and phone numbers.  Again this points to Morgan's objective to being
> spamming her web site to increase hits.
jc - 28 Dec 2006 18:27 GMT
Morgan Capasso ha scritto:

> > spamming her web site to increase hits.
> >
> HIM

His.
Pat - 28 Dec 2006 21:59 GMT
You all might not like him ;-) style as a photographer but the guy is
definately gifted.  If you all were as good as he is about getting
members of the opposite sex to take off their cloths for you, you
wouldn't care about you photography talents, either.  Your just jealous.
Randall Ainsworth - 28 Dec 2006 23:00 GMT
> You all might not like him ;-) style as a photographer but the guy is
> definately gifted.  If you all were as good as he is about getting
> members of the opposite sex to take off their cloths for you, you
> wouldn't care about you photography talents, either.  Your just jealous.

No, I'm not jealous. I've done plenty of figure photography through the
years. His lack of understanding of light and form is apparent in his
images.
Pat - 29 Dec 2006 02:45 GMT
Actually, I wasn't thinking about you with the comment.  You are one of
the few people in this NG who have paid their dues.  After working a
few years, you get to understand light and see light.  I think a lot of
that comes from working with film.  I don't care what the nay-sayers
say, I think film is a much better medium to learn in.  The
24-shots-and-you-change-rolls-thing makes you think more about your
shots.  With digital, it just isn't the same.  Fewer people stop to
think about (and see) light.

However, digital has made the style of many photos change.  Much of the
over-stylized and over-posed and over-made-up work is gone.  Also, that
airbrush look is gone.  Some people still go for that look, but they
are getting fewer and fewer.

As for Morgan's style and ability, I don't have a strong opinion on it
either way.  To myself, I always think "maybe he photographs in
Italian".

It would be nice if he joined some dialogues, but I think there might
be a language barrier there.  So he probably won't until we all switch
to Italian.

Ciao.

Pat.

> > You all might not like him ;-) style as a photographer but the guy is
> > definately gifted.  If you all were as good as he is about getting
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> years. His lack of understanding of light and form is apparent in his
> images.
Federico Spano` - 28 Dec 2006 19:07 GMT
>> spamming her web site to increase hits.
>>
>HIM

HIS :)
Morgan Capasso - 22 Dec 2006 07:58 GMT
> spamming her web site to increase hits.

Him

Signature

Morgan Capasso
Studio fotografico Dreaming Blue Fine photography
Via Paolo Zacchia 20 00161 Roma.
tel:0645481705 cell:333/6304964
morgan.capasso@gmail.com
http://www.dreamingblue.net
http://www.artfinephotography.net
http://morgan.leonardo.it/foto
http://morgancapasso.leonardo.it/foto

> From: "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> mailing address and phone numbers.  Again this points to Morgan's objective to being
> spamming her web site to increase hits.
David H. Lipman - 22 Dec 2006 19:43 GMT
From: "Morgan Capasso" <morgan.capasso@fastwebnet.it>

>> spamming her web site to increase hits.
>>
| Him

HIM/HER it doesn't matter - you are still spamming !

Signature

Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

jeremy - 23 Dec 2006 00:31 GMT
> From: "Morgan Capasso" <morgan.capasso@fastwebnet.it>
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> HIM/HER it doesn't matter - you are still spamming !

Why are you so obsessed with that poster?  I found the photographs
appealing.  Can't you pursue someone that is posting messages unrelated to
photography, instead of bitching about the number of lines in their
signature?  How petty can one get?
David H. Lipman - 23 Dec 2006 01:25 GMT
From: "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>

| Why are you so obsessed with that poster?  I found the photographs
| appealing.  Can't you pursue someone that is posting messages unrelated to
| photography, instead of bitching about the number of lines in their
| signature?  How petty can one get?

Apparently that went right over your head.

The number if lines in a signature is a standard set at ~4.

If you will notice that Morgan has not only URLs in that sig. but a mailing address and
phone numbers.  This helps to show the objective of the poster as using this News Group as a
marketing tool and thus spam.  You call me petty about the lines in a sig ?  You try Top
posting in some News groups and you'll reap the the real pettiness of netiquette.

The number of lines in the sig. all was added as a side note when I added that with "BTW:"
which means "By the way".  I mentioned that becuase weeks ago when I called out Morgan as a
spammer some clueless newbie suggested that I was spamming becuase I have two URLs in my
signature.  As I pointed out, and Julie confirmed, those two lines are within the Usenet
standard of four lines.  When you get down to it, the Charter does state "Posters are
expected to follow proper Netiquette".

You say I am obsessed.  I call a spade a spade.  It is simple.  Someone who continuously
posts the URL of a web site in a News Group on an almost daily basis and fails to enter into
any kind of discussions is a spammer.  Just sort the posts by the "From" field in OE and
look through all of his posts.  A quite consistent pattern since mid October.

The last time I commented was on 11/9.  More than a month ago.  In that time Morgan has
posted ~17 times with nothing more than "a new image" posting the "Dreaming Blue Fine
photography" web site.  Like I said in the beginning, that's what the Binaries hierarchy is
for.  You want to show off a picture and comments, post the JPEG in a Binaries group.  You
want to discuss photography, go to a photography discussion group.

You want to see appaeling photographs, great.  You see some really good ones in;
news:alt.binaries.photos.original  That's the objective there.  show pictures and get
comments.

You don't like the fact that I complained, killfile me and be done with it.  I'm not the one
spamming or abusing this group.  I am doing what we all have a right to do in a News Group
and that is to maintain it within the contstraints of the FAQ/Charter.  Maybe you would like
more newbies posting attachments in this discussion-only News Group, more Ed Conrad crap or
more Ronald L. Grossi Internet Evangelist BS.  I don't.  If it wasn't for people like me,
this and other groups would REALLY be flooded with this of kind BS.  Maybe you need to vist
a  alt.kooks  and learn about types like K-Man and Cletis.  You should be very happy their
likes are not HERE.

The fact is normally I don't reply to spammers.  However, once in a while I will tell
someone who spams who seems clueless about their actions and give them a chance.  I thought
that Morgan was intelligent enough to realize what HE was doing was spamming.  I guess I was
wrong and Morgan knows exactly what he is doing and it has been his objective all along.

I'll tell 'ya what Jeremy, show me a thread where Morgan entered into a Photography
discussion in this discussion News Group.  That's what we are doing.  We are discussing spam
in the group.  Morgan has even responded to deny or admit his objective of marketing the
"Dreaming Blue Fine photography" web site.

Charter

Welcome to alt.photography

This forum is open to all. .  All are welcome to post, and participate
in discussions.
This group is for discussion of photography, especially for beginners.

This forum is for general discussions of this popular subject

-Posters are expected to follow proper Netiquette.
-Posters are expected to respect the other posters.
-Spam, flames, and personal   attacks are discouraged.

I've written enough.  I won't post on this subject matter anymore nor will I respond.
However, I will no longer give Morgan the "benefit of doubt".

Signature

Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
http://www.ik-cs.com/got-a-virus.htm

Mike - 23 Dec 2006 04:16 GMT
> From: "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> The number if lines in a signature is a standard set at ~4.

  < Bullshit snipped >

  Give it a rest a.shole. If you don't like his sig follow you're own
advice and killfile him. How old are you, 10 ????
Julie Marx - 23 Dec 2006 16:56 GMT
>> From: "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>    Give it a rest a.shole. If you don't like his sig follow you're own
> advice and killfile him. How old are you, 10 ????

While I don't agree with his method lipman is correct and you are
missing the point.

It isn't just the number of lines in the signature (which does exceed
Usenet Netiquette standards) it does reflect the POV that Morgan is
spamming and marketing the web site.

Sheesh...

Signature

Julie M.

Stan Beck - 23 Dec 2006 17:28 GMT
Why are you so obsessed with this one poster.

I look through this group and I see endless threads on demanding fat-free
film, questions on how to make big bucks on war photos, and other such
mindless dribble.  At least this is on the topic of photography.

Get a life, and move on to something meaningful, instead of wasting all of
this bandwidth on someone's sig file.  Last time I checked, now one here had
a badge, and a commission to enforce "Usenet Netiquette."

Signature

You can take good photos with a bad camera, and horrible photos with a good
camera.

Stan Beck  >  From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***

>>> From: "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Sheesh...
jeremy - 23 Dec 2006 17:55 GMT
>>> From: "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Sheesh...

So what?  Just how much more of this will be discussed?  It is photo-related
site, there are no obvious attempts to get anyone to pay for anything, and
some clown is making an issue of how many lines are acceptable in a
signature?

Let it rest.  This debate is silly.  I tend to think that it is more about
some people wanting to be the self-appointed Internet Police rather than
getting rid of a blatant spammer.
Mike - 23 Dec 2006 20:03 GMT
>>> From: "jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com>
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Sheesh...

 Spamming how ???  This is a photo news group and he asked for opinions on
his work. He recieved several opinions and then showed some different
photos. Just because he didn't want a discusion dosen't make it spam.
Neither does his sig make it spam. You could also say Lipman is spamming
with the two links in his sig.

 The reality is that Morgan is on topic and Not spamming the group. The
ones who do spam the group with off topic posts don't have a word said to
them, that is what this is all about. If you "Net Nazis" are bothered about
netiquette just killfile Morgan and it won't bother you anymore. Some of us
are tired of listening to your constant whining, you sound like a bunch of
ten year olds.
Julie Marx - 23 Dec 2006 22:17 GMT
>   Spamming how ???  This is a photo news group and he asked for opinions on
> his work. He recieved several opinions and then showed some different
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> ten year olds.
>  

No Mike.  This is not a "photo" news group.
This is a a photography "discussion" news group.

The charter was already posted in this thread and in it says...
"All are welcome to post, and participate in discussions.
This group is for discussion of photography, especially for beginners."

Morgan has yet to enter a discussion.

Morgan has spammed this new group by the shear number of posts doing
nothing more posting the "Dreaming Blue Fine photography" web site.
The fact is Morgan's signature is larger than any of the body of his
posts and contains marketing material.  Ergo, spam.

You can't see the trees through the forest.

Posting web sites of individual photos on an almost daily basis is not
on topic.  This has been discussed before and you (and others) just
don't get it.

If you want comments on "photos" post you photos in a one of the
numerous binary Usenet news groups.  Stan Beck does.  That what their
purpose is for.  This is a "discussion" only group on art, profession,
the act and the tools of "photography".

If Morgan had done this once, twice or a few times then there would have
been no problem.  However, Morgan is doing this almost every day and
that abuse.

Signature

Julie M.

Peter Robles - 23 Dec 2006 22:38 GMT
> >   Spamming how ???  This is a photo news group and he asked for opinions on
> > his work. He recieved several opinions and then showed some different
[quoted text clipped - 40 lines]
> --
> Julie M.

You can take a horse to water but you can't make hime drink.

These naysayers are clueless.  They wouldn't know a phishing expedition from a
fsihing expedition and they can't tell that Capasso is spammin the web site -
http://www.dreamingblue.net

I suggest you stop replying to them and just send the full headers and body of
Copasso's posts to his ISP and to the host of the site -
http://www.dreamingblue.net and move on.
Chris Hills - 24 Dec 2006 12:58 GMT
>> >   Spamming how ???  This is a photo news group and he asked for opinions on
>> > his work. He recieved several opinions and then showed some different
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> No Mike.  This is not a "photo" news group.
>> This is a a photography "discussion" news group.

TROLL alert!!!

>> The charter was already posted in this thread and in it says...
>> "All are welcome to post, and participate in discussions.
>> This group is for discussion of photography, especially for beginners."
>>
>> Morgan has yet to enter a discussion.

You are as bad as you are claiming he is.

>> If you want comments on "photos" post you photos in a one of the
>> numerous binary Usenet news groups.  Stan Beck does.  That what their
>> purpose is for.

Please do NO SUCH THING
Where possible post the link to a web site. Do NOT post to a binary
group

The technical reasons:

Binary groups first started because people had slow modems and no one
had web space or FTP sites.

Because of the slow modems people did not want [large] binaries in text
only NG's as they took forever to download.  Outside the US most people
have to pay for local phone calls.

So binaries were put in binary only groups where people had the choice
to download or not. Usually by blocking all messages except those from
the poster they wanted to see. Or only downloading the headers.

Also few binaries were posted anyway (because they took a long time to
upload.

Since that time several things have happened.
1  Most people now have broad band so downloading binaries is not a
problem.

2 Most people have their own on line storage in the form of web space.

3 The amount of traffic on the Internet has exploded exponentially. This
means storage in ISP's servers is at a premium.  So most ISP's are now
restricting some of the binary NG's they carry.  Also they give them a
much sorter duration.  IE text NG's may have a life of 20 days but
binaries only 3

When you post a message of  say 2K text (PLEASE do not use HTML as this
takes up far more space)  the 2 K message is put on EVERY news server in
the world and takes up space. Also it is transmitted across the Internet
to every news server and down to the end users.  So multiply 2K by EVERY
news feed in the world....

If you post a binary of a couple of 100 K  just think how much space
that take up on EVERY news feed in the world, clogging up the Internet
on it's way there.

The ONLY time anyone with any intelligence would use a binary newsgroup
is when the want to pose anonymously.   Ie normally the porn binary
groups.

Signature

\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ chris@phaedsys.org      www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

jeremy - 24 Dec 2006 19:43 GMT
>>> >   Spamming how ???  This is a photo news group and he asked for
>>> > opinions on
>>> > his work.

Couldn't we just have a look at some more boobs, and stop hassling the
photographer?  Jeez, it's Christmas.  Let it rest!
MJW - 25 Dec 2006 08:26 GMT
 The ONLY time anyone with any intelligence would use a binary newsgroup
> is when the want to pose anonymously.   Ie normally the porn binary groups.

Wrong! A lot of ppl don't have the time nor the inclination to set up a
web site just to show their latest picture. A lot of ppl take & post
daily pics they deem worthy of sharing on a binary ng, but would not
take/have the time to constantly update a website & post the link on a
ng, thus risking the tag of spammer!

Signature

   >>>M.J.Wyllie.<<<

Stan Beck - 25 Dec 2006 18:09 GMT
Bingo - couldn't have said it better!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Signature

You can take good photos with a bad camera, and horrible photos with a good
camera.

Stan Beck  >  From New Orleans to Brandon MS
To reply, remove 101 from address.
***

>  The ONLY time anyone with any intelligence would use a binary newsgroup
>> is when the want to pose anonymously.   Ie normally the porn binary
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> the time to constantly update a website & post the link on a ng, thus
> risking the tag of spammer!
MJW - 26 Dec 2006 00:29 GMT
> Bingo - couldn't have said it better!
>
> Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

Thanks Stan, the same to you & your family!

Signature

   >>>M.J.Wyllie.<<<

jeremy - 23 Dec 2006 23:23 GMT
> If you want comments on "photos" post you photos in a one of the numerous
> binary Usenet news groups.  Stan Beck does.  That what their purpose is
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> been no problem.  However, Morgan is doing this almost every day and that
> abuse.

Well, YOU seem intent on posting OFF-TOPIC POSTS that are critical of
others, and frankly I'm sick and tired of reading your complaints, so I'm
plonking YOU.

If you want to be a cop, go and join the police force and stop imposing your
interpretations of what constitutes Spam on to the rest of us.  Who died and
left YOU moderator?

Don't bother answering, I won't see it.
JoeT - 26 Dec 2006 17:58 GMT
> http://www.dreamingblue.net/Giorgia_V_3.htm
>
> Comment and Sugestion are welcome alway

If you (or anyone else) thinks this picture is anything other than
horrendously washed out, you (or they) need to get some serious medical
attention concerning your (or their) eyesight, post haste!
jeremy - 26 Dec 2006 18:07 GMT
>JoeT" <noway@today> wrote in message
>news:Feydnd0ovfsv_wzYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com...
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> horrendously washed out, you (or they) need to get some serious medical
> attention concerning your (or their) eyesight, post haste!

All of the critical posts for that website are originating on Comcast.  I'm
beginning to think that it is all the same person, posting under multiple
names.

Even if you are not the same poster as the others, you need to learn some
manners and common decency.  Your caustic comments suggesting that someone
requires "serious medical attention" are the kind of thing that can get you
dragged out into back alleys and have your lights punched out, punk.
JoeT - 26 Dec 2006 18:37 GMT
> >JoeT" <noway@today> wrote in message
> >news:Feydnd0ovfsv_wzYnZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@comcast.com...
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> requires "serious medical attention" are the kind of thing that can get
> you dragged out into back alleys and have your lights punched out, punk.

When a person posts photos and specifically invites comments, they must
expect to get comments. Your belief that the comments should only be of a
polite and positive nature is exceedingly naive. Your opinion of the invited
comments made by myself and/or others is irrelevant.
jeremy - 26 Dec 2006 21:34 GMT
> When a person posts photos and specifically invites comments, they must
> expect to get comments. Your belief that the comments should only be of a
> polite and positive nature is exceedingly naive. Your opinion of the
> invited comments made by myself and/or others is irrelevant.

Save that BS for someone else.  An invitation to comment on one's work is
not an invitation for you to be abusive or insulting.  What qualifies a
moron like YOU to suggest that someone ought to seek medical help, just
because you don't happen to like one of his photos.

Why don't you grow up?

Try saying stuff like that in real life, rather than hiding behind an
anonymous nickname on a USENET, and you're likely to have a few extra cracks
in your skull.
Randall Ainsworth - 26 Dec 2006 22:10 GMT
> Try saying stuff like that in real life, rather than hiding behind an
> anonymous nickname on a USENET, and you're likely to have a few extra cracks
> in your skull.

I think the guy's photography is mediocre, I'm not on Comcast, and I'm
using my real name.
JoeT - 27 Dec 2006 00:13 GMT
>> When a person posts photos and specifically invites comments, they must
>> expect to get comments. Your belief that the comments should only be of a
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> anonymous nickname on a USENET, and you're likely to have a few extra
> cracks in your skull.

Here's the painfully obvious point that you're either not comprehending or
you're choosing to ignore. I am far more qualified to state my opinion when
it's solicited than you are to state yours when it is not.

The manner in which I choose to express it isn't up to debate no matter how
much it bothers anyone who reads it. Now stop playing anti-internet police.
It's functionally no different to be an internet cop than it is to complain
to/about them. Either way you are using bandwidth in the group in a manner
clearly outside the charter.

To put it simply. Your complaints are as bad as the posts about which you
are complaining.
jeremy - 27 Dec 2006 00:34 GMT
> Here's the painfully obvious point that you're either not comprehending or
> you're choosing to ignore. I am far more qualified to state my opinion
> when it's solicited than you are to state yours when it is not.

You were not "stating an opinion," you were being obnoxious.

> The manner in which I choose to express it isn't up to debate no matter
> how much it bothers anyone who reads it.

You are a moron.

> Now stop playing anti-internet police.

I was not "policing" I was stating an opinion.

It's functionally no different to be an internet cop than it is to complain
> to/about them. Either way you are using bandwidth in the group in a manner
> clearly outside the charter.

So sue me.

> To put it simply. Your complaints are as bad as the posts about which you
> are complaining.

f.ck you.  How's THAT for a complaint?
Nicole crp - 27 Dec 2006 00:49 GMT
> > Here's the painfully obvious point that you're either not comprehending or
> > you're choosing to ignore. I am far more qualified to state my opinion
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> F--k you.  How's THAT for a complaint?

You just proved his point.

He's right, you're wrong.

This spammer deserves negative comments as opoinionated at the responders want
to be and it is too bloody bad if you like it or not.

How dare YOU use such vulgar language and tell tell someone that can't voice
their opinion as they desire.

Two faced bast~~d !
jeremy - 27 Dec 2006 03:07 GMT
> He's right, you're wrong.
>
> This spammer deserves negative comments as opoinionated at the responders
> want
> to be and it is too bloody bad if you like it or not.

So you won't mind, then, if I tell you to f.ck off, right?
JoeT - 27 Dec 2006 05:30 GMT
>> Here's the painfully obvious point that you're either not comprehending
>> or you're choosing to ignore. I am far more qualified to state my opinion
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> f.ck you.  How's THAT for a complaint?

Awww isn't that cute? You erspond to my post by attacking me simply because
you didn't like the tone of my opinion and now you're cussing at me because
I called you on the fact that my opinion, like it or not is every bit as
valid as yours. What a guy. Your telling me how I should state my opinion is
no better and no more on topic than anyone else accusing the OP of being a
spammer. (which is what you were groaning about in the first place to
everyone else in this thread.)

I'm through discussing the point with you. You're the one being obnoxious as
proven by your resorting to name calling. You're trying to drag me down to
your level to get me to start cursing back. If I did that, you'd have beaten
me with your vast experience. Go ahead, be happy believing that you got the
last word and "put me in my place" by calling me names...

Have a nice day. :)
Randall Ainsworth - 26 Dec 2006 22:09 GMT
> All of the critical posts for that website are originating on Comcast.  I'm
> beginning to think that it is all the same person, posting under multiple
> names.

I've been critical of his mediocre photograph and I'm not a Comcast
subscriber.
jeremy - 27 Dec 2006 00:32 GMT
>> All of the critical posts for that website are originating on Comcast.
>> I'm
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I've been critical of his mediocre photograph and I'm not a Comcast
> subscriber.

It's not that I oppose anyone being critical, but some of the remarks have
gone well beyond being unkind.  I suspect that somebody has pathological
problems.
Randall Ainsworth - 26 Dec 2006 22:09 GMT
> If you (or anyone else) thinks this picture is anything other than
> horrendously washed out, you (or they) need to get some serious medical
> attention concerning your (or their) eyesight, post haste!

As I've posted before, the guy needs to learn about lighting and posing
before taking pictures of naked people.
 
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.