Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Another 'Found' Waterfall

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Another 'Found' Waterfall

 
 
Tim Conway
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2010

"otter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
On Jul 31, 8:49 pm, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
> > There is no "dark side of the moon". There is a side that is not
> > visible from Earth, but it is not always dark.

>
> Yes there is! It was a smash hit album by Led Zeppelin.


>Are you sure?


Mr. and Mrs. Floyd would disagree.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
J. Clarke
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-01-2010
On 7/31/2010 9:49 PM, John McWilliams wrote:
> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>> On 2010-07-31, Ofnuts wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2010 13:51, LOL! wrote:
>>>
>>>> Haven't you heard? I *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*,
>>>> *NEVER*,
>>>> *NEVER* post the marketable shots.
>>> and we *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*
>>> post shots of the dark side of the moon...

>>
>> There is no "dark side of the moon". There is a side that is not
>> visible from Earth, but it is not always dark.

>
> Yes there is! It was a smash hit album by Led Zeppelin.
>
> And further, right now, there's a dark side of Earth. And a light side,
> too. And parts are in transition, etc.


There's a dark side and a light side to gaffer tape and it holds the
universe together. Trust the . . .



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2010
Savageduck wrote:
> On 2010-07-31 18:49:51 -0700, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>
>> Chris F.A. Johnson wrote:
>>> On 2010-07-31, Ofnuts wrote:
>>>> On 31/07/2010 13:51, LOL! wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Haven't you heard? I *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*,
>>>>> *NEVER*,
>>>>> *NEVER* post the marketable shots.
>>>> and we *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*
>>>> post shots of the dark side of the moon...
>>>
>>> There is no "dark side of the moon". There is a side that is not
>>> visible from Earth, but it is not always dark.

>>
>> Yes there is! It was a smash hit album by Led Zeppelin.

>
> Sorry John, on this one you are not even close to being right.
>
> Though, if you are a true refugee of the 60's and early 70's you
> probably wouldn't be able to remember who played what anyway.


/Hangs head in shame/

Oy! So, the song with the most appropriate lyrics go:- [partial].
BRAIN DAMAGE

The lunatic is on the grass.
The lunatic is on the grass.
Remembering games and daisy chains and laughs.
Got to keep the loonies on the path.

<< Snipped bits out >>

And if the cloud bursts, thunder in your ear
You shout and no one seems to hear.
And if the band you're in starts playing different tunes
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon.

'I can't think of anything to say except...
I think it's marvelous! Ha Ha Ha! '

Although, as not "not even close", at least both bands were humping back
then. I mean, Gershwin- say Rhapsody in Blue would be further off, yes?
Or Otis Redding? Ludwig Van? MJQ?

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2010
On Jul 31, 7:51*am, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:27:57 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:28:51 -0500, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>This one spotted deep in "The Bob Marshall Wilderness" where I explored the
> >>region for about 3 months one summer, living off the land during most of
> >>those months. (Camera gear charged by folding solar-panels.) Heavy snows
> >>started to fall in front of this waterfall adding to its picturesque
> >>quality. Also taken in August.

>
> >><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/4845406935_eeee0ca97a_b.jpg>

>
> >>Are those enough photos now to prove that all the resident-trolls are
> >>slanderous consummate liars?

>
> >It's not exactly Ansel Adams, is it?

>
> Haven't you heard? I *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*,
> *NEVER* post the marketable shots.


It also seems like you "Never" leave them online for more than 48
hours, in consideration of normal people who don't spend every waking
hour on the Internet.



-hh

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ofnuts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-02-2010
On 02/08/2010 23:27, -hh wrote:
> On Jul 31, 7:51 am, LOL!<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:27:57 +0100, Bruce<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:28:51 -0500, LOL!<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> This one spotted deep in "The Bob Marshall Wilderness" where I explored the
>>>> region for about 3 months one summer, living off the land during most of
>>>> those months. (Camera gear charged by folding solar-panels.) Heavy snows
>>>> started to fall in front of this waterfall adding to its picturesque
>>>> quality. Also taken in August.

>>
>>>> <http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/4845406935_eeee0ca97a_b.jpg>

>>
>>>> Are those enough photos now to prove that all the resident-trolls are
>>>> slanderous consummate liars?

>>
>>> It's not exactly Ansel Adams, is it?

>>
>> Haven't you heard? I *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*,
>> *NEVER* post the marketable shots.

>
> It also seems like you "Never" leave them online for more than 48
> hours, in consideration of normal people who don't spend every waking
> hour on the Internet.
>
>
>
> -hh
>


You aren't missing anything...

--
Bertrand
 
Reply With Quote
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-03-2010
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 14:27:56 -0700 (PDT), -hh
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jul 31, 7:51*am, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:27:57 +0100, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:28:51 -0500, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >>This one spotted deep in "The Bob Marshall Wilderness" where I explored the
>> >>region for about 3 months one summer, living off the land during most of
>> >>those months. (Camera gear charged by folding solar-panels.) Heavy snows
>> >>started to fall in front of this waterfall adding to its picturesque
>> >>quality. Also taken in August.

>>
>> >><http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4124/4845406935_eeee0ca97a_b.jpg>

>>
>> >>Are those enough photos now to prove that all the resident-trolls are
>> >>slanderous consummate liars?

>>
>> >It's not exactly Ansel Adams, is it?

>>
>> Haven't you heard? I *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*, *NEVER*,
>> *NEVER* post the marketable shots.

>
>It also seems like you "Never" leave them online for more than 48
>hours, in consideration of normal people who don't spend every waking
>hour on the Internet.
>


You have only the image thieving trolls to blame. No other.

Consider this a perfect analogy to doing photography with a DSLR. If you
have spent too much time changing your lenses, or trying to clean grunge
off of your sensor, or you had to wait because your mirror fogged-up with
condensation and were desperately trying to find a way to get it to clear
again (under the very same conditions that caused it), or you were hauling
too much gear and couldn't make it to your destination on time, or had to
fumble with a tripod in order to use one of your longer lenses (if you were
lucky enough to bring either along), or you went to a public performance
and then were turned away at the door because you brought a DSLR ... then
you have missed the chance at getting that shot forever more.

I would think that most of you would be used to missing photo opportunities
by now and it wouldn't concern you in the least. It's just daily part and
parcel of using any DSLR. Been there, did that, it's why I ditched using
them in favor of camera designs without all these inherent drawbacks long
ago. I'm not stupid.

LOL!





 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
Ofnuts <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
> >
> > It also seems like you "Never" leave them online for more than 48
> > hours, in consideration of normal people who don't spend every waking
> > hour on the Internet.

>
> You aren't missing anything...


Oh, I know that I'm not missing any *good photography*

I'm also not missing the opportunity to poke big holes in his claims:

1) Anything that is online for figuratively more than 10 seconds is
vulnerable to being stolen. As such, there's no real material
difference between making them available for 24 hours versus 24 days
for the "theft fear" that he claims to speak of.

2) Despite the fact that he claims to never post "good" shots and
that he's supposedly been so successful in punishing others who
'steal' his works, then why not leave some bait up to let them steal
and thus, be able to go punish them again?

And so on.


As per Occam's Razor, the simpler explanation is that he's a loser who
has stolen images from others, who also happens to know that services
such as FLIKR can't respond immediately to copyright theft complaints,
so the action of preemptive removal of an image prevents him from
being hassled with cancelled user accounts. Plus, it mostly denies an
evidence trail by which his claims get more critically examined later.


The simple bottom line is that if his claims were true & honest, then
their supporting evidence would clearly withstand the test of
time...not be contrived and then promptly put through the virtual
shredder.



-hh
 
Reply With Quote
 
LOL!
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:44:40 -0700 (PDT), -hh
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Ofnuts <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>> >
>> > It also seems like you "Never" leave them online for more than 48
>> > hours, in consideration of normal people who don't spend every waking
>> > hour on the Internet.

>>
>> You aren't missing anything...

>
>Oh, I know that I'm not missing any *good photography*
>
>I'm also not missing the opportunity to poke big holes in his claims:
>
>1) Anything that is online for figuratively more than 10 seconds is
>vulnerable to being stolen. As such, there's no real material
>difference between making them available for 24 hours versus 24 days
>for the "theft fear" that he claims to speak of.
>
>2) Despite the fact that he claims to never post "good" shots and
>that he's supposedly been so successful in punishing others who
>'steal' his works, then why not leave some bait up to let them steal
>and thus, be able to go punish them again?


Because I don't need the money. And the hassle is just not worth it unless
they have enough assets to experience devastation when it is all taken from
them.


>
>And so on.
>
>
>As per Occam's Razor, the simpler explanation is that he's a loser who
>has stolen images from others, who also happens to know that services
>such as FLIKR can't respond immediately to copyright theft complaints,
>so the action of preemptive removal of an image prevents him from
>being hassled with cancelled user accounts. Plus, it mostly denies an
>evidence trail by which his claims get more critically examined later.
>
>
>The simple bottom line is that if his claims were true & honest, then
>their supporting evidence would clearly withstand the test of
>time...not be contrived and then promptly put through the virtual
>shredder.
>
>
>
>-hh


You could have saved lots of effort by just typing "WAAAH-WAAAH! MOMMY!"

I bet you whined real good and got lots of cookies and candy from your
mommy when you wanted, didn't you. Probably still doing just that, based on
how much of your manipulative childish trolling and whining is done online
too.

LOL!

 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-04-2010
On Aug 4, 10:54*am, LOL! <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> hh <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > [...]
> >2) *Despite the fact that he claims to never post "good" shots and
> >that he's supposedly been so successful in punishing others who
> >'steal' his works, then why not leave some bait up to let them steal
> >and thus, be able to go punish them again?

>
> Because I don't need the money.



When its a matter of principle, money is not the object.
Nor are some minor "hassles" really an obstruction either.

> And the hassle is just not worth it unless they have enough assets
> to experience devastation when it is all taken from them.


But gosh: now you're saying you're in it for the money, you self-
licking ice cream cone you.


Despite the flapping of your jaws, the truth is quite transparently
evident: you're simply failing to put your money where your mouth
is. Classically, this is the second easiest way to spot a fake...


> You could have saved lots of effort by just typing "WAAAH-WAAAH! MOMMY!"
>
> I bet you whined real good and got lots of cookies and candy from your
> mommy when you wanted, didn't you. Probably still doing just that, based on
> how much of your manipulative childish trolling and whining is done online
> too.


.....because the easiest way to spot an utter fake is the classical
"Shoot The Messenger" ad hominem attack.

Enjoy your useless screaming that you're not a luzer 'Nobody'.
Frankly, the world doesn't give a damn.


-hh
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Another 'Found' Waterfall Randal L. Schwartz Digital Photography 4 08-01-2010 11:45 AM
Intranet Project - Rad Or Waterfall? bs866806@163.com Python 1 01-08-2008 03:33 PM
Pacific Northwest waterfall near Denny Creek ForrestPhoto@gmail.com Digital Photography 9 04-04-2007 12:44 PM
Waterfall photography group Forest Wanderer Digital Photography 0 10-20-2006 02:51 PM
Waterfall stills and Cloud time-lapse paul Digital Photography 3 02-23-2005 09:20 PM



Advertisments