Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: Joke of the week (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t748183-re-joke-of-the-week.html)

tony cooper 05-12-2011 09:26 PM

Re: Joke of the week
 
On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:44:28 -0400, Bowser <yeeechhh@bleah.ugh> wrote:

>On 5/12/2011 11:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Bowser"<yeeechhh@bleah.ugh> wrote in message
>> news:wvKdnZtIf4ncSlbQnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>> On 5/11/2011 11:07 PM, Rich wrote:
>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>
>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=38395540
>>>>
>>>
>>> I suppose Hillary should be flattered. She was removed because the
>>> imbeciles who edit that paper considered her sexually suggestive.

>>
>> No, it was just because the editors of that paper don't print pictures of
>> women for religious reasons. They believe it degrades women or something
>> like that.
>>
>>

>
>I quote the article:
>
>"The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of
>women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive. "
>
>Ipso Fatso, Hillary is sexually suggestive.


For a newspaper to print a photograph that has been so drastically
modified as to remove a person of significance to the event is totally
wrong. That's manipulating news.

It would have been acceptable, in my opinion, to have cropped the
image to include only the men on the left and captioned it as
representing some of the attendees in the Situation Room.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper 05-13-2011 04:33 AM

Re: Joke of the week
 
On Thu, 12 May 2011 22:11:08 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <not@home.net>
wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:jtjos6drdrc0eqkds85uik1nuumdlfg6cr@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:44:28 -0400, Bowser <yeeechhh@bleah.ugh> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5/12/2011 11:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>> "Bowser"<yeeechhh@bleah.ugh> wrote in message
>>>> news:wvKdnZtIf4ncSlbQnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>>>> On 5/11/2011 11:07 PM, Rich wrote:
>>>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=38395540
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose Hillary should be flattered. She was removed because the
>>>>> imbeciles who edit that paper considered her sexually suggestive.
>>>>
>>>> No, it was just because the editors of that paper don't print pictures
>>>> of
>>>> women for religious reasons. They believe it degrades women or something
>>>> like that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>I quote the article:
>>>
>>>"The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of
>>>women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive. "
>>>
>>>Ipso Fatso, Hillary is sexually suggestive.

>>
>> For a newspaper to print a photograph that has been so drastically
>> modified as to remove a person of significance to the event is totally
>> wrong. That's manipulating news.

>
>How is it "manipulating news"? What news fact has been misrepresented in
>this case?


Are you kidding?

The photograph is a recording of the people on the President's staff
who attended the meeting in the White House Situation Room. It is a
blatant manipulation of a news item to remove two people from that
group and not clearly indicate that the photograph has been altered to
remove those two people. The US Secretary of State has been removed
and the resulting photograph presents a scene that says she wasn't
there.

This is an official White House photo with the following standard
instruction for official White House photos:

"This official White House photograph is being made available only for
publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by
the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be
manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political
materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any
way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First
Family, or the White House."

>They don't print pictures of women. Presumably their regular (Hasidic
>Jewish) readership understands this. I don't see how it's anyone else's
>business.
>
>>
>> It would have been acceptable, in my opinion, to have cropped the
>> image to include only the men on the left and captioned it as
>> representing some of the attendees in the Situation Room.

>
>So join that synagogue and make clear to them what you regard as acceptable,
>and what not. I'd love to be there to see with what close and thoughtful
>attention they hear your views.
>

You are completely clueless. There is no particular synagogue
involved in this. Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism
that is world-wide.

Di Tzeitung is a newspaper. As a matter of fact, Di Tzeitung has
issued an apology to the White House saying: "We should not have
published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and
apologies to the White House and to the State Department." They've
listened to the views.

If the newspaper objected to women in the photograph, they could have
not printed the photo at all. If they wanted to print it, but wanted
to delete the images of the women, they could have included a line
under the photo stating that the photo had been manipulated and listed
the names of the two women deleted. That would have been wrong, but
it would have been a more honest violation of copyright and the rules
for using an official White House photo.

From this newsgroup's perspective, it was an alteration of a
copyrighted photograph and completely wrong from that standpoint.

It doesn't surprise me that you don't object. You accept doctored
polls and published studies and other misrepresentations. Newspapers
Photoshopping photos to change historical events are no big deal to
you.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

RichA 05-13-2011 01:11 PM

Re: Joke of the week
 
On May 13, 12:33*am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011 22:11:08 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >news:jtjos6drdrc0eqkds85uik1nuumdlfg6cr@4ax.com.. .
> >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:44:28 -0400, Bowser <yeeec...@bleah.ugh> wrote:

>
> >>>On 5/12/2011 11:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
> >>>> "Bowser"<yeeec...@bleah.ugh> *wrote in message
> >>>>news:wvKdnZtIf4ncSlbQnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews .com...
> >>>>> On 5/11/2011 11:07 PM, Rich wrote:
> >>>>>> Pathetic.

>
> >>>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...00&thread=3839...

>
> >>>>> I suppose Hillary should be flattered. She was removed because the
> >>>>> imbeciles who edit that paper considered her sexually suggestive.

>
> >>>> No, it was just because the editors of that paper don't print pictures
> >>>> of
> >>>> women for religious reasons. They believe it degrades women or something
> >>>> like that.

>
> >>>I quote the article:

>
> >>>"The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of
> >>>women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive."

>
> >>>Ipso Fatso, Hillary is sexually suggestive.

>
> >> For a newspaper to print a photograph that has been so drastically
> >> modified as to remove a person of significance to the event is totally
> >> wrong. *That's manipulating news.

>
> >How is it "manipulating news"? What news fact has been misrepresented in
> >this case?

>
> Are you kidding? *
>
> The photograph is a recording of the people on the President's staff
> who attended the meeting in the White House Situation Room. *It is a
> blatant manipulation of a news item to remove two people from that
> group and not clearly indicate that the photograph has been altered to
> remove those two people. *The US Secretary of State has been removed
> and the resulting photograph presents a scene that says she wasn't
> there.
>
> This is an official White House photo with the following standard
> instruction for official White House photos:
>
> "This official White House photograph is being made available only for
> publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by
> the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be
> manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political
> materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any
> way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First
> Family, or the White House."
>
> >They don't print pictures of women. Presumably their regular (Hasidic
> >Jewish) readership understands this. I don't see how it's anyone else's
> >business.

>
> >> It would have been acceptable, in my opinion, to have cropped the
> >> image to include only the men on the left and captioned it as
> >> representing some of the attendees in the Situation Room.

>
> >So join that synagogue and make clear to them what you regard as acceptable,
> >and what not. I'd love to be there to see with what close and thoughtful
> >attention they hear your views.

>
> You are completely clueless. *There is no particular synagogue
> involved in this. *Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism
> that is world-wide.
>
> Di Tzeitung is a newspaper. *As a matter of fact, Di Tzeitung has
> issued an apology to the White House saying: *"We should not have
> published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and
> apologies to the White House and to the State Department." *They've
> listened to the views. *


They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.

Bruce 05-13-2011 03:02 PM

Re: Joke of the week
 
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>They probably
>edited Congalisa Rice from similar cabinet and high level meeting shots
>of the GWB administration.



Who ??????


PeterN 05-13-2011 03:44 PM

Re: Joke of the week
 
On 5/13/2011 9:11 AM, RichA wrote:

>
> They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
> forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
> official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
> politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
> quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.



Your ignorant prejudice continually shows.
Although there are members of the Hassidic community living in Israel,
the vast majority lives in the United States and Canada. They do not
recognize the State of Israel as a Jewish State.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce4IuSBRn9w


--
Peter

PeterN 05-13-2011 08:01 PM

Re: Joke of the week
 
On 5/13/2011 2:10 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
> "PeterN"<peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4dcd51f8$0$12466$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>> On 5/13/2011 9:11 AM, RichA wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
>>> forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
>>> official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
>>> politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
>>> quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.

>>
>>
>> Your ignorant prejudice continually shows.
>> Although there are members of the Hassidic community living in Israel, the
>> vast majority lives in the United States and Canada. They do not recognize
>> the State of Israel as a Jewish State.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ce4IuSBRn9w

>
> And it's not just Hasidic Jews who are anti-Zionist.
>
> See the Jews Against Zionism site,
> http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com/
>
> Good on them.
>
>


Your comment shows a complete ignorance of the true meaning of Zionism,
before it's meaning was corrupted by anti-Semitic types. Based upon
postings that you have made in the past I strongly suspect that even
discussing it with you would be a total waste of electrons. You are
uneducatable on the subject.


--
Peter

tony cooper 05-13-2011 09:23 PM

Re: Joke of the week
 
On Fri, 13 May 2011 12:20:24 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <not@home.net>
wrote:

>My point was that they clearly intended no offense to Hillary or to any
>other women.


You are such a hypocrite. When anyone else says something that can't
be verified by 17 sources and a Supreme Court judge, you accuse them
of suppositioning. Yet, you can baldly state that they clearly
intended no offense.

Well, I don't know what they *intended*, but what they did was
offensive in that they portrayed to their readership that females have
no place in a man's world in our world just as it is in their world.

>Well, Gates on the far right. But if Mullen or Biden, etc., had been removed
>from the photo, leaving the others, would it really change the sense of the
>picture in any significant way?


It could present the sense that Obama does not value his Secretary of
State enough to include her in the group. In politics, that is a
significant indicator.


>"Bizarre" and "unreasonable" are often matters of point of view. In the case
>of images, religious Jews (and maybe Muslims too) have certain views that
>others do not; for example, Jews do not depict religious figures as
>Christians do. While Christians have pictures of Jesus, Mary et al. in
>books, portraits, statues and statuettes of Jesus all over the place; Jews
>NEVER do this in connection with Abraham, Moses or other Biblical
>characters, since they believe it violates the ban against making graven
>images. I'm not saying this is directly connected to the Hasidic newspaper's
>refusal to print photos of women, but it does suggest that they attach some
>moral imperatives to pictures that others do not.


You don't grasp that Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism,
and Orthodox Judaism is significantly different in customs from Reform
Judaism. You lump all Jews together with your "they". There's an
ignorance and distastefulness about that.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper 05-13-2011 09:40 PM

Re: Joke of the week
 
On Fri, 13 May 2011 08:59:52 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <not@home.net>
wrote:

>
>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:8eaps6dc8cqin1d9brrbdr92h4s27f2qkt@4ax.com.. .
>> On Thu, 12 May 2011 22:11:08 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <not@home.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:jtjos6drdrc0eqkds85uik1nuumdlfg6cr@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:44:28 -0400, Bowser <yeeechhh@bleah.ugh> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 5/12/2011 11:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>>>> "Bowser"<yeeechhh@bleah.ugh> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:wvKdnZtIf4ncSlbQnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews.com ...
>>>>>>> On 5/11/2011 11:07 PM, Rich wrote:
>>>>>>>> Pathetic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=38395540
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suppose Hillary should be flattered. She was removed because the
>>>>>>> imbeciles who edit that paper considered her sexually suggestive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it was just because the editors of that paper don't print pictures
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> women for religious reasons. They believe it degrades women or
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> like that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I quote the article:
>>>>>
>>>>>"The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of
>>>>>women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive. "
>>>>>
>>>>>Ipso Fatso, Hillary is sexually suggestive.
>>>>
>>>> For a newspaper to print a photograph that has been so drastically
>>>> modified as to remove a person of significance to the event is totally
>>>> wrong. That's manipulating news.
>>>
>>>How is it "manipulating news"? What news fact has been misrepresented in
>>>this case?

>>
>> Are you kidding?

>
>Nope. The president and a bunch of other high-level people were sitting in a
>small room staring intently at an unseen monitor. That was the sense of the
>scene and it was as represented.
>
>>
>> The photograph is a recording of the people on the President's staff
>> who attended the meeting in the White House Situation Room. It is a
>> blatant manipulation of a news item to remove two people from that
>> group and not clearly indicate that the photograph has been altered to
>> remove those two people. The US Secretary of State has been removed
>> and the resulting photograph presents a scene that says she wasn't
>> there.

>
>I agree, the paper should have mentioned in some way that other people were
>in the room than those shown. Not having seen all the accompanying text in
>the paper, I have no idea whether they did or not mention her presence. Do
>you?


Yes. The Washington Post answered that question. I'll let you look
it up.
>>
>> This is an official White House photo with the following standard
>> instruction for official White House photos:
>>
>> "This official White House photograph is being made available only for
>> publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by
>> the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be
>> manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political
>> materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any
>> way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First
>> Family, or the White House."

>
>Then its alteration was an infraction of that rule. This makes it
>approximately 0.0000001374% as important as the rules, laws and
>constitutional principles the president himself has trashed, and I am
>willing to consider it with just that degree of seriousness.


It was a violation of the rules for accepting and using an Official
White House photo, a violation of copyright, and a violation of the
Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists.

>> You are completely clueless. There is no particular synagogue
>> involved in this. Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism
>> that is world-wide.

>
>How do you know "there is no particular synagogue involved in this"? Do you
>know the editorial staff?


As I said in another post, you are quick to pull out the straw man
like this, but you can be absolutely sure of their intent. Hypocrite.

Another Hasidic newspaper, Di Voch, has run the same altered photo.
No particular synagogue involved here, either.

>>
>> Di Tzeitung is a newspaper. As a matter of fact, Di Tzeitung has
>> issued an apology to the White House saying: "We should not have
>> published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and
>> apologies to the White House and to the State Department." They've
>> listened to the views.

>
>In any case, all the labor you're putting into this will still never built
>this particular molehill into a mountain. The altered photo was funny for
>its erasure of Hillary. The alteration was newsworthy mostly for that
>reason. Outside of this newsgroup, I would be amazed if many people are
>wringing their hands over it as you are.


You have to start reading things with more truth and depth than
"Gunslinger's Digest". There are many people and groups upset by
this. There are still people around who respect copyright laws even
if you don't.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper 05-13-2011 09:43 PM

Re: Joke of the week
 
On Fri, 13 May 2011 06:11:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On May 13, 12:33*am, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 May 2011 22:11:08 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <n...@home.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> >news:jtjos6drdrc0eqkds85uik1nuumdlfg6cr@4ax.com.. .
>> >> On Thu, 12 May 2011 14:44:28 -0400, Bowser <yeeec...@bleah.ugh> wrote:

>>
>> >>>On 5/12/2011 11:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
>> >>>> "Bowser"<yeeec...@bleah.ugh> *wrote in message
>> >>>>news:wvKdnZtIf4ncSlbQnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@giganews .com...
>> >>>>> On 5/11/2011 11:07 PM, Rich wrote:
>> >>>>>> Pathetic.

>>
>> >>>>>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...00&thread=3839...

>>
>> >>>>> I suppose Hillary should be flattered. She was removed because the
>> >>>>> imbeciles who edit that paper considered her sexually suggestive.

>>
>> >>>> No, it was just because the editors of that paper don't print pictures
>> >>>> of
>> >>>> women for religious reasons. They believe it degrades women or something
>> >>>> like that.

>>
>> >>>I quote the article:

>>
>> >>>"The Hasidic newspaper will not intentionally include any images of
>> >>>women in the paper because it could be considered sexually suggestive. "

>>
>> >>>Ipso Fatso, Hillary is sexually suggestive.

>>
>> >> For a newspaper to print a photograph that has been so drastically
>> >> modified as to remove a person of significance to the event is totally
>> >> wrong. *That's manipulating news.

>>
>> >How is it "manipulating news"? What news fact has been misrepresented in
>> >this case?

>>
>> Are you kidding? *
>>
>> The photograph is a recording of the people on the President's staff
>> who attended the meeting in the White House Situation Room. *It is a
>> blatant manipulation of a news item to remove two people from that
>> group and not clearly indicate that the photograph has been altered to
>> remove those two people. *The US Secretary of State has been removed
>> and the resulting photograph presents a scene that says she wasn't
>> there.
>>
>> This is an official White House photo with the following standard
>> instruction for official White House photos:
>>
>> "This official White House photograph is being made available only for
>> publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by
>> the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be
>> manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political
>> materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any
>> way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First
>> Family, or the White House."
>>
>> >They don't print pictures of women. Presumably their regular (Hasidic
>> >Jewish) readership understands this. I don't see how it's anyone else's
>> >business.

>>
>> >> It would have been acceptable, in my opinion, to have cropped the
>> >> image to include only the men on the left and captioned it as
>> >> representing some of the attendees in the Situation Room.

>>
>> >So join that synagogue and make clear to them what you regard as acceptable,
>> >and what not. I'd love to be there to see with what close and thoughtful
>> >attention they hear your views.

>>
>> You are completely clueless. *There is no particular synagogue
>> involved in this. *Hasidic Judaism is a branch of Orthodox Judaism
>> that is world-wide.
>>
>> Di Tzeitung is a newspaper. *As a matter of fact, Di Tzeitung has
>> issued an apology to the White House saying: *"We should not have
>> published the altered picture, and we have conveyed our regrets and
>> apologies to the White House and to the State Department." *They've
>> listened to the views. *

>
>They are liars. No way this was just a little mistake of lack of
>forethought. No one is that stupid. Like everything else, Israeli
>official bodies do some outrageous things, and because the U.S.
>politicians are always too timid to say anthing, criticism from other
>quarters rolls off them like water off a duck's back.


WTF? What does Israel have to do with this?

Di Tzeitung is a weekly newspaper in Brooklyn. Brooklyn is in the
USA.






--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Bruce 05-13-2011 09:47 PM

Re: Joke of the week
 
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2011-05-13 08:02:28 -0700, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> said:
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> They probably
>>> edited Congalisa Rice from similar cabinet and high level meeting shots
>>> of the GWB administration.

>>
>>
>> Who ??????

>
>My typo.
>Condaleezza Rice, G. W. Bush's female National Security Advisor, and
>Secretary of State.



Condoleeza. An interesting name. ;-)

According to Wikipedia:
Her name, Condoleezza, derives from the music-related term, con
dolcezza, which in Italian means, "with sweetness".

Seems like her parents also found it difficult to spell right. ;-)



All times are GMT. The time now is 03:11 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.