«

CamdenRoberts wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:44:19 -0500, Stephen Bishop <> wrote:
>
>> But none of the above changes the fact that YOU need to post some of
>> YOUR work before you gain even a shred of credibility.
>>
>
> You don't read anything that you reply to, do you, just like all usenet-trolls.
>
>
> Didn't you just recently post a quote from someone that said exactly why real
> pros don't post their marketable photography online?

I'm calling BS. Plenty of real pros post examples of their best work
online. For instance, Bill Bachmann (who has had over 1000 magazine
covers in his career) posts examples of his work on his website at:

http://billbachmann.com/

In fact, it would be difficult to find a "real pro" who doesn't post at
least some of their work online!

jc

ErolAdams wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:20:50 -0800, JC Dill <> wrote:
>
>> CamdenRoberts wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:44:19 -0500, Stephen Bishop <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> But none of the above changes the fact that YOU need to post some of
>>>> YOUR work before you gain even a shred of credibility.
>>>>
>>> You don't read anything that you reply to, do you, just like all usenet-trolls.
>>>
>>>
>>> Didn't you just recently post a quote from someone that said exactly why real
>>> pros don't post their marketable photography online?
>> I'm calling BS. Plenty of real pros post examples of their best work
>> online. For instance, Bill Bachmann (who has had over 1000 magazine
>> covers in his career) posts examples of his work on his website at:
>>
>> http://billbachmann.com/
>>
>> In fact, it would be difficult to find a "real pro" who doesn't post at
>> least some of their work online!
>>
>> jc
>
> Well, that's certainly a specious argument, isn't it. Because you can't find
> them online those that don't post online must not exist.

You can find references to pro photographers online, referenced by
others who hire them or buy their work (a condition of being a "pro
photographer") even when they don't have a personal website.

For instance, Annie Leibovitz doesn't have a personal website but you
can find plenty of examples of her work on the Vanity Fair website.

Any pro photographer who can't be at least *found* online isn't really a
pro.

> I'd hate to have to make daily decisions with that brain of yours. Run into
> walls much?

This brain of mine indicates I'm running into a troll so off into the
killfile you go.

jc

werner-banner wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:44:30 -0800, JC Dill <> wrote:
>
>> For instance, Annie Leibovitz doesn't have a personal website but you
>> can find plenty of examples of her work on the Vanity Fair website.
>
> Rag published photos? Okay, if that's your idea of all "pros".

That's not my idea of "all pros" - it was an example of "a pro" who
doesn't have a personal website, but still has examples of her photos
available online.

Put it another way - name me a pro photographer you know or know of that
has NO photos online. IMHO, any such "pro" is extremely unlikely to be
a real pro photographer and much more likely to be a wanna be. There's
a remote possibility that a real pro photographer exists who has no work
online, but I'd want to see someone post an example case to prove it.

jc

dan_carpenter wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:48:45 -0800, JC Dill <> wrote:
>
>> werner-banner wrote:
>>> On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 14:44:30 -0800, JC Dill <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For instance, Annie Leibovitz doesn't have a personal website but you
>>>> can find plenty of examples of her work on the Vanity Fair website.
>>> Rag published photos? Okay, if that's your idea of all "pros".
>> That's not my idea of "all pros" - it was an example of "a pro" who
>> doesn't have a personal website, but still has examples of her photos
>> available online.
>>
>> Put it another way - name me a pro photographer you know or know of that
>> has NO photos online. IMHO, any such "pro" is extremely unlikely to be
>> a real pro photographer and much more likely to be a wanna be. There's
>> a remote possibility that a real pro photographer exists who has no work
>> online, but I'd want to see someone post an example case to prove it.
>>
> What? You want someone else to do all the work for you to prove your own point
> for you? You're more stupid than anyone thought.

MY point is that pro photographers show at least SOME of their work
online. I've given examples - both a well respected pro photographer
who shows his work on his own website, and a photographer whose work is
available online on a site run by her primary employer. Your claim is
that some pro photographers don't show their work online. It's YOUR job
to do the work to prove YOUR point. If you don't understand that then
you are the stupid one.

jc

Stephen Bishop wrote:

> Translation of the trollspeak: "I have no talent as a photographer so
> I compensate by spewing meaningless insults to those who do. Why
> should I post my photos? That would just prove how hollow I really
> am. Instead, I'll just parrot camera specifications and call
> everyone else stupid."

Bingo.

To the trolls - I'm not new here. And I'm not hard to find online. I
post using my real name, unlike the trolls.

jc

JC Dill wrote:
> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>
>> Translation of the trollspeak: "I have no talent as a photographer so
>> I compensate by spewing meaningless insults to those who do. Why
>> should I post my photos? That would just prove how hollow I really
>> am. Instead, I'll just parrot camera specifications and call
>> everyone else stupid."
>
> Bingo.
>
> To the trolls - I'm not new here. And I'm not hard to find online. I
> post using my real name, unlike the trolls.

JC-

Good to see you back. Yes, there's a nym shifting pest here, and a
missioner by the name of Bishop who rode into town to have some fun and
save us.

There still are a few good Trolls left, just not here for the time
being.... here being the three photo groups that our little "Rita" feels
it's his domain to always cross post to.

--
john mcwilliams

Stephen Bishop wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:40:47 -0800, John McWilliams
> <> wrote:
>
>> JC Dill wrote:
>>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>>
>>>> Translation of the trollspeak: "I have no talent as a photographer so
>>>> I compensate by spewing meaningless insults to those who do. Why
>>>> should I post my photos? That would just prove how hollow I really
>>>> am. Instead, I'll just parrot camera specifications and call
>>>> everyone else stupid."
>>> Bingo.
>>>
>>> To the trolls - I'm not new here. And I'm not hard to find online. I
>>> post using my real name, unlike the trolls.
>> JC-
>>
>> Good to see you back. Yes, there's a nym shifting pest here, and a
>> missioner by the name of Bishop who rode into town to have some fun and
>> save us.
>
> On the contrary, John, it would appear that your mission has been to
> save the group from those like me who actually confront the troll with
> facts. And why single me out? I'm certainly not the only one.
> There are many others.

No one comes close to the amount of "refuting" the nym shifting pest as
you do, and you're the only one that keeps on keepin' on.

He's been so thoroughly refuted that posting anything at all in response
to him *only* keeps him going.

Thus, you've become almost as infamous as he.
>
> And unlike the shifters, I'm not using phony names. But you are free
> to speculate all you want.
>
>
>> There still are a few good Trolls left, just not here for the time
>> being.... here being the three photo groups that our little "Rita" feels
>> it's his domain to always cross post to.
>
> That's interesting. Rita is a guy? Not that matters, but how do
> you know this?

As you say, it doesn't matter. But you knew that.

--
john mcwilliams

Stephen Bishop wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:24:26 -0800, John McWilliams
> <> wrote:
>
>>> On the contrary, John, it would appear that your mission has been to
>>> save the group from those like me who actually confront the troll with
>>> facts. And why single me out? I'm certainly not the only one.
>>> There are many others.
>> No one comes close to the amount of "refuting" the nym shifting pest as
>> you do, and you're the only one that keeps on keepin' on.
>>
>> He's been so thoroughly refuted that posting anything at all in response
>> to him *only* keeps him going.
>>
>> Thus, you've become almost as infamous as he.
>
> It's clear from his long history that he isn't going away. I am not
> the only one who refutes his points.

Long history? He's not been here a whole lot longer than you.

He will disappear a few days after NO ONE replies to his posts.

--
john mcwilliams

On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 16:51:31 -0800, John McWilliams
<> wrote:

>Stephen Bishop wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:24:26 -0800, John McWilliams
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>> On the contrary, John, it would appear that your mission has been to
>>>> save the group from those like me who actually confront the troll with
>>>> facts. And why single me out? I'm certainly not the only one.
>>>> There are many others.
>>> No one comes close to the amount of "refuting" the nym shifting pest as
>>> you do, and you're the only one that keeps on keepin' on.
>>>
>>> He's been so thoroughly refuted that posting anything at all in response
>>> to him *only* keeps him going.
>>>
>>> Thus, you've become almost as infamous as he.
>>
>> It's clear from his long history that he isn't going away. I am not
>> the only one who refutes his points.
>
>Long history? He's not been here a whole lot longer than you.
>
>He will disappear a few days after NO ONE replies to his posts.

He'll continue to post his drivel anytime someone says anything
negative about a P&S even if it's in a thread where he's had no
involvement up to that point. It's obvious he can't help himself.

Steve

JT's Keeper wrote:
> John McWilliams wrote:
>
>> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 08:24:26 -0800, John McWilliams
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On the contrary, John, it would appear that your mission has been to
>>>>> save the group from those like me who actually confront the troll with
>>>>> facts. And why single me out? I'm certainly not the only one.
>>>>> There are many others.
>>>> No one comes close to the amount of "refuting" the nym shifting pest as
>>>> you do, and you're the only one that keeps on keepin' on.
>>>>
>>>> He's been so thoroughly refuted that posting anything at all in response
>>>> to him *only* keeps him going.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, you've become almost as infamous as he.
>>> It's clear from his long history that he isn't going away. I am not
>>> the only one who refutes his points.
>> Long history? He's not been here a whole lot longer than you.
>>
>
> John, the P&S Guy has been here a lot longer (6 months or more anyway,
> maybe even longer) than you think.
>
>
> - JT
> knows that a one or two posters can't, or will not IGNORE the TROLL

Hey, I resemble that remark!

Yes, Vern has been around (Baumbadier/X-man/..) since early 2007, and as
DJJohnson and others in various corel, psp and ps usenet forums since
much earlier. He has also been posting at Steve's forums (and was
banned) as keoeeit, and at DPreview as Dave Ingols and keoeeit before that.

Earlier, he also hung out - if you'll pardon the pun - in many other
'interesting' forums under that Keoeeit moniker and with the same 'tude...

So he could well be here for the long run. Or until he finds a friend,
perhaps.