OT Rita - Digital Soft Paw on Flickr Re: THE CURE FOR RITA!

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mark Thomas, Jul 21, 2008.

  1. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    >> You posted a photo? And you have to ask why SI was a complete and
    >> total failure?

    >
    > I can see how proud you are, "Rita", for your part in the demise of the
    > SI. Way to go; you are indeed the Champ.


    It's illuminating that Rita focuses on denigrating the forum s/he posts
    to and attacking anything/anyone that might provide criticism of her images.

    S/he would naturally take particular delight in the SI's (temporary -
    I'll bet it comes back) demise. It is a forum where for the most part,
    images are supplied and critiqued on merit rather than personality. You
    could sense the seething jealousy when people she disliked got high
    praise for their work. It is also notable that s/he is incapable of
    actually critiquing - rather like her inability to *take* a critique!
    And of course she would never actually post an image to such a forum -
    one on which she cannot control the responses she gets, or simply use
    the "I meant to post a bad one" excuse...

    It's also interesting to note that initially she posted images without
    claiming they were food for 'idiots'.. But then sometime after she
    started to get heavily criticised, the "I'm doing this to tease you"
    excuse came out.

    It's a shame. But some people like to destroy rather than improve, and
    are incapable of taking criticism.

    (O:
    Mark Thomas, Jul 21, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > Funny thing is you're so
    > pissed because you can't get a rise from me


    This post. Flickr. That's 2-0 'rises', loser.

    Given that I now ignore 98% of your crap, wtf would i care about what
    you have posted on pbase? And why do you need to hide your identity -
    subconciously ashamed of your behavior?


    BTW, it is refreshing to see that even Tony C has dropped you now, so
    that leaves ... hmm ... a supporter base of what, exactly?

    Guess there's always D-Mac? (or 2squid, as he is today..)
    Mark Thomas, Jul 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mark Thomas

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:28:12 +1000, Mark Thomas
    <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

    >Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    >> Funny thing is you're so
    >> pissed because you can't get a rise from me

    >
    >This post. Flickr. That's 2-0 'rises', loser.
    >
    >Given that I now ignore 98% of your crap, wtf would i care about what
    >you have posted on pbase? And why do you need to hide your identity -
    >subconciously ashamed of your behavior?
    >
    >
    >BTW, it is refreshing to see that even Tony C has dropped you now, so
    >that leaves ... hmm ... a supporter base of what, exactly?
    >


    Damn it, that isn't right. I've read and commented on Rita's posts in
    this newsgroup and another newsgroup for years. I am neither her
    supporter nor her detractor. My comments have gone both ways many
    times. Your comment above only reflects my *last* post about her.

    On the plus side...Rita takes a lot of pictures and is very involved
    in photography. That's hard to be critical of in a photography
    newsgroup. Rita enjoys herself immensely in her newsgroup
    participation. I do like the idea that her critics can't wear her
    down and that she continues to do what she likes to do. I don't have
    to enjoy how she goes about it to see this. Rita takes the occasional
    good shot, and that's a plus for any photographer. She's not afraid
    to get out there. Most (but not all) of her detractors seem to be
    afraid to post their own results.*

    On the minus side...The Nikon/Canon comparisons are silly. The
    personal insults are childish. She should have the sense not to post
    links to some of her...err, ummm...less polished works. She doesn't
    seem to be able to make a simple statement; she feels she has to go
    over the top in all areas. She shoots mostly in her back yard...her
    dog, a squirrel, a bird...so her subject matter is too limited. Her
    Subject line teasers wear a bit thin, but it's no big deal.

    I find the "Rita" and "he" insinuations to be churlish and puerile.
    As far as I'm concerned, she's Rita and a she. If she isn't either or
    both, it doesn't make any difference to me.

    Even when Rita annoys me, she doesn't annoy me as much as Bret does.
    Bret is an accomplished photographer who turns out some of the best
    work seen via this group. Then he spoils it by playing in the mud
    with his comments. With his skills, he would come across better with
    a little dignity.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *I guess if I'm going to criticize others for not linking to their
    efforts, I should link to something recent of mine.
    http://www.pbase.com/tony_cooper/image/100367564








    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 21, 2008
    #3
  4. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    OT, just more ramblings...

    tony cooper wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:28:12 +1000, Mark Thomas
    >> BTW, it is refreshing to see that even Tony C has dropped you now, so
    >> that leaves ... hmm ... a supporter base of what, exactly?
    >>

    >
    > Damn it, that isn't right. I've read and commented on Rita's posts in
    > this newsgroup and another newsgroup for years. I am neither her
    > supporter nor her detractor. My comments have gone both ways many
    > times. Your comment above only reflects my *last* post about her.

    Ok, but there's no need to get het up, 'damn it'! (O:

    My observation (and others have commented similarly), was that you
    seemed to quite fervently support Rita some time back, and that your
    attitude seemed to have changed recently. Your previous support did
    stand out somewhat, but perhaps that was just my interpretation and if I
    have misjudged the situation, I apologise unreservedly*.

    And I am genuinely trying to see if Rita has any genuine support here -
    does anyone support her approach?

    The problem comes about, Tony, when Rita makes personal attacks on
    people - you may not have seen many, as she also expires those posts to
    try to avoid responsibility. Those attacks, strangely, always come
    after a shot of hers is criticised. I trust you are also aware of her
    frequent comments along the lines that most usenet users are idiots, and
    that her images are just to tease and are deliberately chosen as her worst.

    I've watched what happens to people who point out her exposure errors
    and composition flaws, or challenge her silly comments about equipment
    or technique. It isn't pleasant, even though the criticism usually
    starts out pleasantly and in a genuine attempt to help her improve.

    > On the plus side...Rita takes a lot of pictures and is very involved
    > in photography.

    Then why all her silly posts?

    > That's hard to be critical of in a photography
    > newsgroup.

    It is, when she descends into Nikon absurdity, posts ludicrous images of
    dog's backsides and turds, and uses cowardly personal attacks and lies.

    > Rita enjoys herself immensely in her newsgroup
    > participation.

    And so do I. But the usenet groups could be a much better place to live
    in, and have been in the past.

    > I do like the idea that her critics can't wear her
    > down and that she continues to do what she likes to do.

    That's fine.

    > I don't have
    > to enjoy how she goes about it to see this.
    > Rita takes the occasional
    > good shot, and that's a plus for any photographer.

    Actually, if you browse her "Digital Soft Paw" flickr collection you
    will find quite a few *very* good shots amongst the bad (there you go,
    Rita, a free plug and sort-of-compliment), but very few of the good ones
    find their way here. Why do you think that is?

    > Most (but not all) of her detractors seem to be
    > afraid to post their own results.*

    Actually, I think you will find most of the detractors post work here or
    in the SI, or if not, are contributors in other ways. You'll find a lot
    of my work posted if you look around, but I don't do the bragging stuff
    and I normally post in aus.photo (one of the groups Rita keeps adding to
    her follow-ups.. lucky us!)

    I'm here to learn and to share some of my knowledge, little as it may
    be. If you look at my contributions elsewhere, you will see there are
    only two people who seem to have a problem with me - Rita and Douglas
    MacDonald. I'm pretty happy with that!

    > On the minus side...The Nikon/Canon comparisons are silly.

    Agreed.

    > The
    > personal insults are childish.

    Even more agreed, but I would add *that* is the stuff that drives the
    decent folk away. Would you be a supporter of Rita if she made
    allegations of illegality (not just insults) about *you* that were
    demonstrably untrue? For the most part, I let sleeping dogs lie, but
    every now and then I think it is worth trying to keep people honest.

    > She should have the sense not to post
    > links to some of her...err, ummm...less polished works.

    Agreed.

    > She doesn't
    > seem to be able to make a simple statement; she feels she has to go
    > over the top in all areas. She shoots mostly in her back yard...her
    > dog, a squirrel, a bird...so her subject matter is too limited. Her
    > Subject line teasers wear a bit thin, but it's no big deal.

    When those posts are pretty much all that is posted, and a new person
    wanders into the group, you don't see a problem? When she cross posts
    topics inappropriately, you don't see a problem? If usenet is all about
    playing games and driving genuine enquiries and new visitors away, then
    all that is fine and dandy, I guess.

    But I would like to think otherwise. Perhaps that just makes me
    troll-bait. But I've survived worse than Rita and Doug, and life will
    go on.

    > I find the "Rita" and "he" insinuations to be churlish and puerile.

    Maybe you need to do a little historical checking to understand why.
    And you don't think calling posters "churlish and puerile" might be seen
    as a bit insulting, especially if there was a reason for that 'insinuation'?

    > As far as I'm concerned, she's Rita and a she. If she isn't either or
    > both, it doesn't make any difference to me.

    So why would it *matter* if Rita is addressed as 's/he' - why do you
    assume that is an insult, rather than simply acknowledging that the
    gender is unknown?

    > Even when Rita annoys me, she doesn't annoy me as much as Bret does.

    Perhaps you need to ask yourself why, given all the comments above.

    > Bret is an accomplished photographer who turns out some of the best
    > work seen via this group.
    > Then he spoils it by playing in the mud
    > with his comments. With his skills, he would come across better with
    > a little dignity.

    So Rita, who you seem to imply is not as good a photographer and uses
    similar tactics, is better? OK, your call!

    > http://www.pbase.com/tony_cooper/image/100367564

    Nice, but it isn't really about what images you can post - I don't
    believe you have to prove your skills or knowledge that way.

    Anyway, I think we agree to mainly agree, with just a few differences.

    That's fine with me. (O:

    mt


    * (See how it is done, Rita? So how about that apology for *your*
    accusation about me? Or maybe just repeat it for Tony's benefit, in
    which case I will again ask you to *prove* it.)
    Mark Thomas, Jul 21, 2008
    #4
  5. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    > What a hypocrite. You couldn't go a week without writing endless
    > dissertations about D-Mac and trying to instigate him.


    ...your endless dissertation snipped, hypocrite..

    I was speaking to Tony.

    But dance on, Rita.
    Mark Thomas, Jul 21, 2008
    #5
  6. Mark Thomas

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:20:09 +1000, Mark Thomas
    <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

    >OT, just more ramblings...
    >
    >tony cooper wrote:
    >> On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 14:28:12 +1000, Mark Thomas
    >>> BTW, it is refreshing to see that even Tony C has dropped you now, so
    >>> that leaves ... hmm ... a supporter base of what, exactly?
    >>>

    >>
    >> Damn it, that isn't right. I've read and commented on Rita's posts in
    >> this newsgroup and another newsgroup for years. I am neither her
    >> supporter nor her detractor. My comments have gone both ways many
    >> times. Your comment above only reflects my *last* post about her.

    >Ok, but there's no need to get het up, 'damn it'! (O:
    >
    >My observation (and others have commented similarly), was that you
    >seemed to quite fervently support Rita some time back, and that your
    >attitude seemed to have changed recently.


    Your perception was wrong. I'm hardly fervent in either support or
    condemnation of Rita. My attitude has not changed in general, but I
    may be supportive in one post and condemning in another. It depends
    entirely on what I'm commenting on.

    > Your previous support did stand out somewhat,


    Anything said favorable about Rita tends to stand out simply because
    it goes against the tide.

    >And I am genuinely trying to see if Rita has any genuine support here -
    >does anyone support her approach?


    It doesn't make sense to me to care.

    >The problem comes about, Tony, when Rita makes personal attacks on
    >people


    Oh, c'mon. She is one of many in that department. While personal
    attacks should not be considered acceptable, you can hardly single her
    out as the source of them here.

    >- you may not have seen many, as she also expires those posts to
    >try to avoid responsibility.


    As I said, I've seen Rita's posts in this newsgroup and another one
    for several years. I'm as familiar with them as you are. I just
    don't comment on them as much.

    >I've watched what happens to people who point out her exposure errors
    >and composition flaws, or challenge her silly comments about equipment
    >or technique. It isn't pleasant, even though the criticism usually
    >starts out pleasantly and in a genuine attempt to help her improve.


    To put it delicately, bullshit. While I may have missed some, the
    "critiques" I've seen of her work have not been helpful in any way.
    Just pure vitriol. And, I don't believe for a second that she'd be
    interested in a helpful critique if one was offered.

    >> She doesn't
    >> seem to be able to make a simple statement; she feels she has to go
    >> over the top in all areas. She shoots mostly in her back yard...her
    >> dog, a squirrel, a bird...so her subject matter is too limited. Her
    >> Subject line teasers wear a bit thin, but it's no big deal.


    >When those posts are pretty much all that is posted, and a new person
    >wanders into the group, you don't see a problem?


    Yes, I see a problem. However the problem that I see is that her
    posts and all the inane follow-ups are the problem, and not just her
    posts.

    >> I find the "Rita" and "he" insinuations to be churlish and puerile.

    >Maybe you need to do a little historical checking to understand why.
    >And you don't think calling posters "churlish and puerile" might be seen
    >as a bit insulting, especially if there was a reason for that 'insinuation'?
    >
    >> As far as I'm concerned, she's Rita and a she. If she isn't either or
    >> both, it doesn't make any difference to me.


    >So why would it *matter* if Rita is addressed as 's/he' - why do you
    >assume that is an insult, rather than simply acknowledging that the
    >gender is unknown?


    I have no more proof that you are a "he" than I do that she is a
    "she", but I see no reason to question the sex of either of you. You
    are as unknown to me in that respect as she is. If I referred to you
    as "Mark" and "s/he", you would be insulted.


    >> Even when Rita annoys me, she doesn't annoy me as much as Bret does.


    >Perhaps you need to ask yourself why, given all the comments above.


    Bret could rest on his laurels as a photographer, but chooses to be a
    good photographer who engages in petty battles. Rita is not a good
    enough photographer to be known just for her photographs. Bret gives
    up the high ground that he could command, and that's a waste in my
    estimation. I hate to see that kind of waste.

    >> Bret is an accomplished photographer who turns out some of the best
    >> work seen via this group.
    >> Then he spoils it by playing in the mud
    >> with his comments. With his skills, he would come across better with
    >> a little dignity.


    >So Rita, who you seem to imply is not as good a photographer


    Imply? No, I aver and avow it. Technically, Rita may be able to
    match Bret with the occasional shot. Bret has a better sense of what
    will make a good photograph. Good photography doesn't start with
    pressing the button. It starts with knowing where to point the
    camera.

    >and uses
    >similar tactics, is better? OK, your call!


    Less annoying is not "better". It's a matter of degree. A mosquito
    bite is less bothersome than a wasp sting, but a mosquito bite is not
    "better".


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 21, 2008
    #6
  7. Mark Thomas

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jul 21, 8:16 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote:

    > What would these allegations of illegality be, Mark?  If you are referring
    > to Bret's public admission that he uses a "fixed" copy of CS3 and a "keygen"
    > followed weeks later by a post that "he was just joking" you got me red
    > handed.  And yes, I'm still holding his toes to the fire for that one.
    > Google is your friend.


    Once again I'll ask you for a cite. Where did I say that?
    Once again you'll avoid the question so you can keep repeating your
    lie.
    Annika1980, Jul 21, 2008
    #7
  8. Mark Thomas

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:20:09 +1000, Mark Thomas
    <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

    >> http://www.pbase.com/tony_cooper/image/100367564

    >Nice, but it isn't really about what images you can post



    Actually, the circumstances were more interesting than the shot. I
    was out to get a good photo of an armadillo. They are difficult to
    photograph if you want anything more than the top or back of one.
    They're skittish and move surprisingly fast. Getting a "face" shot is
    quite a trick.

    I was prone on the ground trying for an eye-level shot in a field
    behind an industrial park, and heard this loud rattling sound behind
    me. I turned and saw that peacock doing some sort of mating dance.
    The rattling was the sound of the quills clacking together.

    We tend to get jumpy in Florida when we hear a rattling in the weeds.
    Pygmy rattlers are not uncommon around here.

    This second shot is not intended to be a "good" photograph, but it is
    a view of a peacock that is seldom seen in print. Who knew how
    complicated the design structure is from that angle?

    http://www.pbase.com/tony_cooper/image/100506903

    I did get an armadillo shot on my way home. It's not what I was
    looking for though:

    http://www.pbase.com/tony_cooper/image/100507145

    That's the way we normally see armadillos in Florida.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Jul 21, 2008
    #8
  9. Mark Thomas

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jul 21, 9:55 am, savvo <> wrote:
    >
    > Just saying you've proved something and repeated links to the same
    > (also evidence-free) website that backs up your belief doesn't prove
    > anything.
    >
    > Since you decided to shut up when I asked for clarification, I presumed
    > you couldn't put up. Did I miss it?


    That is Rita's M.O.

    Say something stupid.
    Get challenged on it.
    Laugh it off and run away.
    Annika1980, Jul 21, 2008
    #9
  10. Mark Thomas

    2SQUID Guest

    Mark Thomas ... What's his real name? Re: THE CURE FOR RITA!

    Rita Berkowitz wrote:

    >
    > Only way you'll ever convince anyone worth convincing you are without guilt
    > is to go two solid months without mentioning D-Mac or respond to him or any
    > of his sockpuppets directly. Try not to use socks to skirt the challenge.
    > This should be easy for someone that claims to be "taking the moral high
    > ground" in all of this. Are you up to the challenge, Mark?
    >
    > Oh, and show us what kind of man you are by archiving this post in its
    > entirety instead of creatively snipping it. You're so predictable and so
    > easy to make dance, my little puppet.
    >
    >
    >
    > Rita


    Don't fall for this criminal's tricks Rita. He will try to come across
    as being a nice fellow and while you have your back turned, not just
    stick a big knife in it but twist it too.

    The amazing part of all his stunts is he believes he alone is capable of
    clearing Usenet of all the honest people he "discovers" are on to him.
    I'm not sure what your feedback rating is but mine is over 115 and 100%.

    As you know, you don't get this sort of response from your clients if
    you aren't totally honest. Mark would have all his followers (both of
    them) believe he is the only honest person on Usenet. LOL.

    His little escapade with Australia's company watchdog gets me rolling in
    the isles - "I'll get my mates at ASIC to investigate you".

    No one there has any knowledge of Charles Stevens or Mark Thomas. Maybe
    his mates are all dancing to the same tune as him? Just people that
    don't exist.

    Let's not forget this gem: "Lies, all lies. You don't have a shop front"
    http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/shopfront.htm I wonder where he
    keeps his guide dog?

    And then there was this (recent) display of Markie gross stupidity:
    "The EPA doesn't issue photography permits"
    Hullo, hullo, wot's this then?
    http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/permit.htm ...Hmm he's dyslexic too!

    And to cap off this condensed version of the little dancer's stupidity,
    is the incredible gem of wisdom about the Queensland State PRESIDENT of
    the AIPP (Photbyron)'s wedding photography: "Amateurish".

    Yeah... Way to go Markie old boy, definitely the way to go! Keep it up
    and you could become Usenet's most stupid idiot... If you aren't already
    there!

    Hey by the way... Thanks for the Google lift Mark... Number 5 in the
    results for "Certified professional Photographers" today. You did an
    excellent job of that one Mark. A single page site ranking 6 after it's
    first month of existence. It's a good thing I found your strings. I'd
    hate to have you on a commission only basis! ROTFL.

    The thing is Rita, Those of us who make a living doing what he failed
    at, know a thing or two about business and how to run one. Old Markie
    and his gang of supporters (both of them)have demonstrated many, many
    times they are just trolls in the hope of making themselves out to be
    useful when in fact they are demonstrating with every post to be the
    most useless of the useless.

    Me and Big Squid
    2SQUID, Jul 21, 2008
    #10
  11. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    OT Re: Douglas MacDonald & Digital Soft Paw on Flickr .. What's their

    Just for Douglas "St James" MacDonald.

    2SQUID wrote:
    > Don't fall for this criminal's tricks Rita.

    Too late. (O: And your use of 'criminal' is in what sense, again? Were
    you advised to say that by your crack legal team? They seem to be still
    struggling to actually achieve anything...

    > The amazing part of all his stunts is he believes he alone is capable of
    > clearing Usenet of all the honest people he "discovers" are on to him.

    But everyone is now onto *you*, Douglas. *My* goal is achieved.

    > I'm not sure what your feedback rating is but mine is over 115 and 100%.

    Oooh, a high Ebay rating!!! But a quick peek at your feedback shows the
    one from "clocksnprints", in which that person says "Thanks. Reputation
    is everything. I will certainly buy from you again".. If you click on
    that buyer, you are returned to: Douglas MacDonald. Well deserved
    reputation, Douglas.

    > As you know, you don't get this sort of response from your clients if
    > you aren't totally honest.

    The previous example makes that pretty funny.

    > Mark would have all his followers (both of
    > them) believe he is the only honest person on Usenet. LOL.

    I think you'll be in deep trouble if you want to start counting
    supporters. But feel free to list them and compare.

    > His little escapade with Australia's company watchdog gets me rolling in
    > the isles - "I'll get my mates at ASIC to investigate you".

    And they found you had *no* printing franchise, liar. TechnoAusssie is
    just a defunct business name. Feel free to prove otherwise.
    If you had a real franchise, you would have been prosecuted for the
    Graham Hunt stunt. ASIC don't bother prosecuting fantasisers.

    > No one there has any knowledge of Charles Stevens or Mark Thomas.

    Who did you ask, Doug? Which office? Which department? Which section?
    Name names instead of making up more fantasy stories.

    > Let's not forget this gem: "Lies, all lies. You don't have a shop front"
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/shopfront.htm I wonder where he
    > keeps his guide dog?

    *Current* shopfront, Douglas. As you should probably know (dementia?),
    you haven't been there for years, and you weren't even there when you
    posted it.

    > And then there was this (recent) display of Markie gross stupidity:
    > "The EPA doesn't issue photography permits"
    > Hullo, hullo, wot's this then?
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/permit.htm ...Hmm he's dyslexic
    > too!

    But you claimed you had *ATSIC* permits, and that the one you just
    posted was from the "Forests and Wildlife Service". It isn't, and those
    permits do NOT, as you claimed, make you a 'Registered Photographer'.

    > And to cap off this condensed version of the little dancer's stupidity,
    > is the incredible gem of wisdom about the Queensland State PRESIDENT of
    > the AIPP (Photbyron)'s wedding photography: "Amateurish".

    Link and context? What's a "Photbyron"?

    > Hey by the way... Thanks for the Google lift Mark... Number 5 in the
    > results for "Certified professional Photographers"

    I prefer the results you get if you search on "Douglas MacDonald
    Photographer". The CPPA doesn't exist, so it is irrelevant. (How is
    the incorporation going? Are you going to fix the grammatical error in
    its name?)

    > The thing is Rita, Those of us who make a living

    Doing what again, failed Ebay wedding auctions and setting up fake
    self-certification schemes? Otherwise, post an address for one of your
    many chain stores, or the CPPA.

    Second lastly, now that you have admitted that this is another
    sockpuppet, why did you initially talk about yourself in the third
    person...?

    Finally, can you explain this post, apparently from you?:

    ======================================================================
    Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
    From: Nice Mice <>
    Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:35:16 +1000
    Local: Wed, Jul 16 2008 8:35 am
    Subject: Oh Dear!

    I've sure gotten old! I've had two bypass surgeries, a hip
    replacement, new knees, fought prostate cancer and diabetes. I'm half
    blind, can't hear anything quieter than a jet engine, take 40 different
    medications that make me dizzy, winded, and subject to blackouts. Have
    bouts with dementia. Have poor circulation; hardly feel my hands and
    feet any more. Can't remember if I'm 85 or 92. Have lost all my friends.
    But, thank God, I still have my driver's license.
    =======================================================================

    I'd love to know why you have lost all your friends, poor thing.
    Mark Thomas, Jul 22, 2008
    #11
  12. Mark Thomas

    Mark Thomas Guest

    OT Re: Digital Soft Paw / Douglas MacDonald / Rita Berkowitz ...What's their real name?

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > 2SQUID wrote:
    >
    >
    > << Snipped bits out >>
    >>
    >> Me and Big Squid

    >
    > Douglas: You protest entirely too much.
    > Mark: You post way too much about D-Mac.

    True.
    But I do:
    - try to only *respond*, especially if lies are posted about me
    - mark posts OT
    - cut down the f-u's

    I thank you for your untiring efforts and appreciate your comments, but
    reserve the right to continue to defend myself, and to ensure liars,
    fools, trolls and sockpuppets are held up for appropriate levels of
    ridicule..

    (O:
    Mark Thomas, Jul 22, 2008
    #12
  13. Mark Thomas

    ^Tems^ Guest

    Re: OT Re: Douglas MacDonald & Digital Soft Paw on Flickr .. What's

    Mark Thomas wrote:
    > Just for Douglas "St James" MacDonald.
    >
    > 2SQUID wrote:
    >> Don't fall for this criminal's tricks Rita.

    > Too late. (O: And your use of 'criminal' is in what sense, again? Were
    > you advised to say that by your crack legal team? They seem to be still
    > struggling to actually achieve anything...
    >
    >> The amazing part of all his stunts is he believes he alone is capable
    >> of clearing Usenet of all the honest people he "discovers" are on to him.

    > But everyone is now onto *you*, Douglas. *My* goal is achieved.
    >
    >> I'm not sure what your feedback rating is but mine is over 115 and 100%.

    > Oooh, a high Ebay rating!!! But a quick peek at your feedback shows the
    > one from "clocksnprints", in which that person says "Thanks. Reputation
    > is everything. I will certainly buy from you again".. If you click on
    > that buyer, you are returned to: Douglas MacDonald. Well deserved
    > reputation, Douglas.
    >
    >> As you know, you don't get this sort of response from your clients if
    >> you aren't totally honest.

    > The previous example makes that pretty funny.
    >
    >> Mark would have all his followers (both of them) believe he is the
    >> only honest person on Usenet. LOL.

    > I think you'll be in deep trouble if you want to start counting
    > supporters. But feel free to list them and compare.
    >
    >> His little escapade with Australia's company watchdog gets me rolling
    >> in the isles - "I'll get my mates at ASIC to investigate you".

    > And they found you had *no* printing franchise, liar. TechnoAusssie is
    > just a defunct business name. Feel free to prove otherwise.
    > If you had a real franchise, you would have been prosecuted for the
    > Graham Hunt stunt. ASIC don't bother prosecuting fantasisers.
    >
    >> No one there has any knowledge of Charles Stevens or Mark Thomas.

    > Who did you ask, Doug? Which office? Which department? Which section?
    > Name names instead of making up more fantasy stories.
    >
    >> Let's not forget this gem: "Lies, all lies. You don't have a shop front"
    >> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/shopfront.htm I wonder where
    >> he keeps his guide dog?

    > *Current* shopfront, Douglas. As you should probably know (dementia?),
    > you haven't been there for years, and you weren't even there when you
    > posted it.
    >
    >> And then there was this (recent) display of Markie gross stupidity:
    >> "The EPA doesn't issue photography permits"
    >> Hullo, hullo, wot's this then?
    >> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/permit.htm ...Hmm he's
    >> dyslexic too!

    > But you claimed you had *ATSIC* permits, and that the one you just
    > posted was from the "Forests and Wildlife Service". It isn't, and those
    > permits do NOT, as you claimed, make you a 'Registered Photographer'.
    >
    >> And to cap off this condensed version of the little dancer's
    >> stupidity, is the incredible gem of wisdom about the Queensland State
    >> PRESIDENT of the AIPP (Photbyron)'s wedding photography: "Amateurish".

    > Link and context? What's a "Photbyron"?
    >
    >> Hey by the way... Thanks for the Google lift Mark... Number 5 in the
    >> results for "Certified professional Photographers"

    > I prefer the results you get if you search on "Douglas MacDonald
    > Photographer". The CPPA doesn't exist, so it is irrelevant. (How is
    > the incorporation going? Are you going to fix the grammatical error in
    > its name?)
    >
    >> The thing is Rita, Those of us who make a living

    > Doing what again, failed Ebay wedding auctions and setting up fake
    > self-certification schemes? Otherwise, post an address for one of your
    > many chain stores, or the CPPA.
    >
    > Second lastly, now that you have admitted that this is another
    > sockpuppet, why did you initially talk about yourself in the third
    > person...?
    >
    > Finally, can you explain this post, apparently from you?:
    >
    > ======================================================================
    > Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
    > From: Nice Mice <>
    > Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:35:16 +1000
    > Local: Wed, Jul 16 2008 8:35 am
    > Subject: Oh Dear!
    >
    > I've sure gotten old! I've had two bypass surgeries, a hip
    > replacement, new knees, fought prostate cancer and diabetes. I'm half
    > blind, can't hear anything quieter than a jet engine, take 40 different
    > medications that make me dizzy, winded, and subject to blackouts. Have
    > bouts with dementia. Have poor circulation; hardly feel my hands and
    > feet any more. Can't remember if I'm 85 or 92. Have lost all my friends.
    > But, thank God, I still have my driver's license.
    > =======================================================================
    >
    > I'd love to know why you have lost all your friends, poor thing.


    He is a freak

    Now where is that person that posted two weeks ago that they feel sorry
    for him.
    ^Tems^, Jul 22, 2008
    #13
  14. Re: Douglas James McDonald ... What's his real name? Re: THE CURE FOR RITA!

    "2SQUID" <> wrote in message
    news:g63309$v2t$...
    > Rita Berkowitz wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Only way you'll ever convince anyone worth convincing you are without
    >> guilt
    >> is to go two solid months without mentioning D-Mac or respond to him or
    >> any
    >> of his sockpuppets directly. Try not to use socks to skirt the
    >> challenge.
    >> This should be easy for someone that claims to be "taking the moral high
    >> ground" in all of this. Are you up to the challenge, Mark?
    >>
    >> Oh, and show us what kind of man you are by archiving this post in its
    >> entirety instead of creatively snipping it. You're so predictable and so
    >> easy to make dance, my little puppet.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Rita

    >
    > Don't fall for this criminal's tricks Rita. He will try to come across as
    > being a nice fellow and while you have your back turned, not just stick a
    > big knife in it but twist it too.
    >
    > The amazing part of all his stunts is he believes he alone is capable of
    > clearing Usenet of all the honest people he "discovers" are on to him. I'm
    > not sure what your feedback rating is but mine is over 115 and 100%.
    >


    I'm actualy surprised you even know how to spell "Honest" doug, let alone
    use it in a sentence.
    I'm not sure you even know the definition but lets ignore that for the
    moment and look at YOUR history on Usenet shall we. The most blatant and
    fraudulent incident of yours that imediately springs to mind is your Graham
    Hunt sockpuppet coming to your aid when you were trying to sell your bogus
    Photo kiosks, now I'm no lawyer (but I have friends who are) and that sets
    all the flags for simple *fraud*

    > As you know, you don't get this sort of response from your clients if you
    > aren't totally honest. Mark would have all his followers (both of them)
    > believe he is the only honest person on Usenet. LOL.
    >


    Well compared to you Doug, Mark is a saint regardless of anything you may
    say to the contrary, have you noticed the only person you have in your camp
    is Rita, that should tell you a great deal about your standing within the
    photo groups, after all the Troll rita has been getting his ares smacked
    nearly as much as you do so I suppose its only natural for a rat to cling to
    a turd.

    > His little escapade with Australia's company watchdog gets me rolling in
    > the isles - "I'll get my mates at ASIC to investigate you".
    >


    Here is a hint, ASIC is probably the least of your worries Doug :)


    > No one there has any knowledge of Charles Stevens or Mark Thomas. Maybe
    > his mates are all dancing to the same tune as him? Just people that don't
    > exist.
    >
    > Let's not forget this gem: "Lies, all lies. You don't have a shop front"
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/shopfront.htm I wonder where he
    > keeps his guide dog?
    >
    > And then there was this (recent) display of Markie gross stupidity:
    > "The EPA doesn't issue photography permits"
    > Hullo, hullo, wot's this then?
    > http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/permit.htm ...Hmm he's dyslexic
    > too!
    >
    > And to cap off this condensed version of the little dancer's stupidity, is
    > the incredible gem of wisdom about the Queensland State PRESIDENT of the
    > AIPP (Photbyron)'s wedding photography: "Amateurish".
    >
    > Yeah... Way to go Markie old boy, definitely the way to go! Keep it up and
    > you could become Usenet's most stupid idiot... If you aren't already
    > there!
    >


    He has a LONG way to go to even see your dust let alone get anywhere close
    to overtaking you, after all your so dumb that you cant even creat another
    sockpuppet without it being discoverd and outed within moments of its first
    appearance.

    > Hey by the way... Thanks for the Google lift Mark... Number 5 in the
    > results for "Certified professional Photographers" today. You did an
    > excellent job of that one Mark. A single page site ranking 6 after it's
    > first month of existence. It's a good thing I found your strings. I'd hate
    > to have you on a commission only basis! ROTFL.
    >


    It must realy stick in your throat to know that your google ranking is
    riding on the back of your blatant abuse of Usenet, after all are you not
    the same person that keeps harping on about etics in here. Dont worry, most
    of us understand you wont see the irony in that.


    > The thing is Rita, Those of us who make a living doing what he failed at,
    > know a thing or two about business and how to run one.


    Realy Doug, what sucessful business would that be, you have nothing but
    cheap arsed ebay auctions and a plethora of ugly web sites.


    Old Markie
    > and his gang of supporters (both of them)


    I dont suppose that fact that you have absolutly NO support in here has
    escaped your attention

    have demonstrated many, many
    > times they are just trolls in the hope of making themselves out to be
    > useful when in fact they are demonstrating with every post to be the most
    > useless of the useless.
    >


    Did you look in a mirror when you wrote that Doug

    > Me and Big Squid



    --
    "Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
    Don Hirschberg
    Atheist Chaplain, Jul 22, 2008
    #14
  15. Mark Thomas

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jul 21, 7:55 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote:

    > > Once again I'll ask you for a cite.  Where did I say that?
    > > Once again you'll avoid the question so you can keep repeating your
    > > lie.

    >
    > And once again I'll tell you and anyone that is remotely interested to
    > Google it up.  I found it easy enough and archived it on my server.


    Well, if you found it so easily and you have it on your server, it
    should be no great difficulty to locate it and share with the group.
    Otherwise, we might think you are just full of shit.

    It is hard to Google something that isn't there.
    Speaking of Google, I just Googled "Rita's brain" and got this hit:
    http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/fashion.htm
    Annika1980, Jul 22, 2008
    #15
  16. Mark Thomas

    Annika1980 Guest

    Re: Mark Thomas ... What's his real name? Re: THE CURE FOR RITA!

    On Jul 21, 6:35 pm, 2SQUID <> wrote:
    >
    > The amazing part of all his stunts is he believes he alone is capable of
    > clearing Usenet of all the honest people he "discovers" are on to him.
    > I'm not sure what your feedback rating is but mine is over 115 and 100%.


    Did poor Mandy ever get her digital images?

    ROFL!

    How did that last EBAY auction go, Mr. Honest Businessman?
    Oh that's right, it ended with 0 bids, even at a dirt cheap price.
    Maybe your reputation IS growing due to all your "hits" that you
    always brag about. Now everyone knows you're a con.

    Better change that name again, Mr. James .... oops, I meant St.
    James ..... no, it was MacDonald ..... no wait, now I remember ... it
    was St. James-MacDonald.

    Life would be so much simpler if you knew who your daddy was. He
    could have been any of those American soldiers shaggin ol Jess.
    Annika1980, Jul 22, 2008
    #16
  17. Mark Thomas

    Annika1980 Guest

    On Jul 22, 7:29 am, "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote:

    > > It is hard to Google something that isn't there.
    > > Speaking of Google, I just Googled "Rita's brain" and got this hit:
    > >http://www.geocities.com/ritaberk2006/fashion.htm

    >


    > See how well Google works for people that take a few seconds to get off
    > their ass and use it.  


    Maybe you could demonstrate how well it works by finding that cite for
    me.
    Annika1980, Jul 22, 2008
    #17
  18. Mark Thomas

    XxYyZz Guest

    "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > savvo wrote:
    >
    >>> Ah, I see that when one posts a link to a website that doesn't
    >>> support your side you can claim it "evidence-free" and think you can
    >>> get away with it.

    >>
    >> Still no answer then. OK, I know thinking is hard and you have better
    >> things to do.

    >
    > You've got your answer long ago with "evidence" from a reputable website, so
    > take it for what it is worth. And no, I'm not going to get sucked into
    > going in circles with you. Toby doesn't play that game. Have a nice day
    > and get over it.
    >
    >
    > Rita



    Who's Toby ???????
    XxYyZz, Jul 22, 2008
    #18
  19. XxYyZz wrote:
    >
    > "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> savvo wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Ah, I see that when one posts a link to a website that doesn't
    >>>> support your side you can claim it "evidence-free" and think you can
    >>>> get away with it.
    >>>
    >>> Still no answer then. OK, I know thinking is hard and you have better
    >>> things to do.

    >>
    >> You've got your answer long ago with "evidence" from a reputable
    >> website, so
    >> take it for what it is worth. And no, I'm not going to get sucked into
    >> going in circles with you. Toby doesn't play that game. Have a nice day
    >> and get over it.
    >>
    >>
    >> Rita

    >
    >
    > Who's Toby ???????


    One half of a nice set of jugs?

    Auntie
    Auntie Establishment, Jul 23, 2008
    #19
  20. Mark Thomas

    Chris H Guest

    In message <>, John
    McWilliams <> writes
    >Auntie Establishment wrote:
    >> XxYyZz wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Rita Berkowitz" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> savvo wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Ah, I see that when one posts a link to a website that doesn't
    >>>>>> support your side you can claim it "evidence-free" and think you can
    >>>>>> get away with it.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Still no answer then. OK, I know thinking is hard and you have better
    >>>>> things to do.
    >>>>
    >>>> You've got your answer long ago with "evidence" from a reputable
    >>>>website, so
    >>>> take it for what it is worth. And no, I'm not going to get sucked into
    >>>> going in circles with you. Toby doesn't play that game. Have a
    >>>>nice day
    >>>> and get over it.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Rita
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Who's Toby ???????

    >> One half of a nice set of jugs?
    >> Auntie

    >
    >Dang. A whoosh. Can you 'splain, please?
    >
    >[You, Auntie, 'cause "Rita" cannot or will not.]
    >


    Google "toby jug"

    --
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
    \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
    \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
    Chris H, Jul 23, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Cal I Fornicate
    Replies:
    76
    Views:
    1,526
    Noons
    Jul 24, 2008
  2. Annika1980

    Re: THE CURE FOR RITA!

    Annika1980, Jul 21, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    286
    Doug Jewell
    Jul 23, 2008
  3. SneakyP

    Re: THE CURE FOR RITA!

    SneakyP, Jul 21, 2008, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    291
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    723
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. sobriquet

    flickr url -> flickr account

    sobriquet, Dec 14, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,299
    sobriquet
    Dec 17, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page