Re: A little nostalgia this morning

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by R Davis, Jul 3, 2010.

  1. R Davis

    R Davis Guest

    On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:46:15 -0400, Gil <> wrote:

    >
    >
    >R Davis wrote:
    >> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:59:01 -0700, Savageduck
    >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> For those who care, a 1948 Hudson Commodore, downtown this morning.
    >>>
    >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3644w.jpg >

    >>
    >> Now that was a perfectly good example of wasted bandwidth if I ever saw
    >> one. Telephone poles and street-signs apparently affected by earthquakes, a
    >> composition that would bring a tear of pain to anyone's eye ... I don't
    >> think I've ever seen any lens have that much geometric distortion before.
    >>
    >> Do everyone a little favor, title your posts with something like "CRAPSHOT"
    >> or "SNAPSHOT", "TAKEN WITH SHITTY GEAR" or some kind of warning so those
    >> who care to see decent photography won't waste their time looking at images
    >> that any 3 year-old with any camera could have done. Actually, a 3 year-old
    >> would probably have a camera with less distortion in the images.
    >>
    >> Whoever sold you that lens must have seen you coming from a long way off.
    >>

    >
    >So, what did you think of the car, or did you even see it?


    These are newsgroups about <drum roll> PHOTOGRAPHY.

    NOT about vintage cars. If you want to post crapshots that any 3 year-old
    could have taken to some vintage-car forum just to show them what you saw
    today, FINE! Do that! But don't post some piece of shit crapshot to a forum
    specifically about photography and then expect everyone to fawn all over a
    subject that is totally devoid of any interesting composition and any
    technical merit whatsoever.

    But then useless trolls like you, and Daffy Duck, would never be smart
    enough to realize this.
     
    R Davis, Jul 3, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. R Davis

    NGBarfart Guest

    In article <>,
    R Davis <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:46:15 -0400, Gil <> wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >R Davis wrote:
    > >> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:59:01 -0700, Savageduck
    > >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> For those who care, a 1948 Hudson Commodore, downtown this morning.
    > >>>
    > >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3644w.jpg >
    > >>
    > >> Now that was a perfectly good example of wasted bandwidth if I ever saw
    > >> one. Telephone poles and street-signs apparently affected by earthquakes, a
    > >> composition that would bring a tear of pain to anyone's eye ... I don't
    > >> think I've ever seen any lens have that much geometric distortion before.
    > >>
    > >> Do everyone a little favor, title your posts with something like "CRAPSHOT"
    > >> or "SNAPSHOT", "TAKEN WITH SHITTY GEAR" or some kind of warning so those
    > >> who care to see decent photography won't waste their time looking at images
    > >> that any 3 year-old with any camera could have done. Actually, a 3 year-old
    > >> would probably have a camera with less distortion in the images.
    > >>
    > >> Whoever sold you that lens must have seen you coming from a long way off.
    > >>

    > >
    > >So, what did you think of the car, or did you even see it?

    >
    > These are newsgroups about <drum roll> PHOTOGRAPHY.
    >
    > NOT about vintage cars. If you want to post crapshots that any 3 year-old
    > could have taken to some vintage-car forum just to show them what you saw
    > today, FINE! Do that! But don't post some piece of shit crapshot to a forum
    > specifically about photography and then expect everyone to fawn all over a
    > subject that is totally devoid of any interesting composition and any
    > technical merit whatsoever.
    >
    > But then useless trolls like you, and Daffy Duck, would never be smart
    > enough to realize this.


    Hey! Wonderboy, or whatever, this thread started off with a PHOTOGRAPH!
    and regardless of any quality problems, it is a PHOTOGRAPH and that
    makes it far more on topic in the photo groups than anything you manage
    to regurgitate.
    Mothboy, you are beginning to remind me of "Buffalo Bill" from "The
    Silence of The Lambs". I hope you are not stitching up a soft skin suit
    for yourself.

    --
    Just another troll tracker
     
    NGBarfart, Jul 3, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. R Davis

    LOL! Guest

    On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:33:26 -0700, NGBarfart <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > R Davis <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:46:15 -0400, Gil <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >R Davis wrote:
    >> >> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:59:01 -0700, Savageduck
    >> >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> >>
    >> >>> For those who care, a 1948 Hudson Commodore, downtown this morning.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3644w.jpg >
    >> >>
    >> >> Now that was a perfectly good example of wasted bandwidth if I ever saw
    >> >> one. Telephone poles and street-signs apparently affected by earthquakes, a
    >> >> composition that would bring a tear of pain to anyone's eye ... I don't
    >> >> think I've ever seen any lens have that much geometric distortion before.
    >> >>
    >> >> Do everyone a little favor, title your posts with something like "CRAPSHOT"
    >> >> or "SNAPSHOT", "TAKEN WITH SHITTY GEAR" or some kind of warning so those
    >> >> who care to see decent photography won't waste their time looking at images
    >> >> that any 3 year-old with any camera could have done. Actually, a 3 year-old
    >> >> would probably have a camera with less distortion in the images.
    >> >>
    >> >> Whoever sold you that lens must have seen you coming from a long way off.
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >So, what did you think of the car, or did you even see it?

    >>
    >> These are newsgroups about <drum roll> PHOTOGRAPHY.
    >>
    >> NOT about vintage cars. If you want to post crapshots that any 3 year-old
    >> could have taken to some vintage-car forum just to show them what you saw
    >> today, FINE! Do that! But don't post some piece of shit crapshot to a forum
    >> specifically about photography and then expect everyone to fawn all over a
    >> subject that is totally devoid of any interesting composition and any
    >> technical merit whatsoever.
    >>
    >> But then useless trolls like you, and Daffy Duck, would never be smart
    >> enough to realize this.

    >
    >Hey! Wonderboy, or whatever, this thread started off with a PHOTOGRAPH!
    >and regardless of any quality problems, it is a PHOTOGRAPH and that
    >makes it far more on topic in the photo groups than anything you manage
    >to regurgitate.
    >Mothboy, you are beginning to remind me of "Buffalo Bill" from "The
    >Silence of The Lambs". I hope you are not stitching up a soft skin suit
    >for yourself.


    How is this any different than every time that Daffy Duck hijacks every
    thread and takes it off-topic by yelling TROLL?

    You fuckingly useless TROLLS.

    At least *I* was keeping it ON TOPIC by evaluating that piece of shit
    example he posted and not going on and on like a bunch of blathering old
    fools reminiscing about some scrap iron they drove once.

    Do continue hijacking his OWN thread with the VERY SAME bullshit that Daffy
    Duck Troll uses!

    Ain't karma wonderful?!?

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jul 3, 2010
    #3
  4. R Davis

    NGBarfart Guest

    In article <>,
    LOL! <> wrote:

    > On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:33:26 -0700, NGBarfart <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>,
    > > R Davis <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Fri, 02 Jul 2010 22:46:15 -0400, Gil <> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >
    > >> >
    > >> >R Davis wrote:
    > >> >> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 17:59:01 -0700, Savageduck
    > >> >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >> >>
    > >> >>> For those who care, a 1948 Hudson Commodore, downtown this morning.
    > >> >>>
    > >> >>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/DNC3644w.jpg >
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Now that was a perfectly good example of wasted bandwidth if I ever saw
    > >> >> one. Telephone poles and street-signs apparently affected by
    > >> >> earthquakes, a
    > >> >> composition that would bring a tear of pain to anyone's eye ... I don't
    > >> >> think I've ever seen any lens have that much geometric distortion
    > >> >> before.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Do everyone a little favor, title your posts with something like
    > >> >> "CRAPSHOT"
    > >> >> or "SNAPSHOT", "TAKEN WITH SHITTY GEAR" or some kind of warning so
    > >> >> those
    > >> >> who care to see decent photography won't waste their time looking at
    > >> >> images
    > >> >> that any 3 year-old with any camera could have done. Actually, a 3
    > >> >> year-old
    > >> >> would probably have a camera with less distortion in the images.
    > >> >>
    > >> >> Whoever sold you that lens must have seen you coming from a long way
    > >> >> off.
    > >> >>
    > >> >
    > >> >So, what did you think of the car, or did you even see it?
    > >>
    > >> These are newsgroups about <drum roll> PHOTOGRAPHY.
    > >>
    > >> NOT about vintage cars. If you want to post crapshots that any 3 year-old
    > >> could have taken to some vintage-car forum just to show them what you saw
    > >> today, FINE! Do that! But don't post some piece of shit crapshot to a
    > >> forum
    > >> specifically about photography and then expect everyone to fawn all over a
    > >> subject that is totally devoid of any interesting composition and any
    > >> technical merit whatsoever.
    > >>
    > >> But then useless trolls like you, and Daffy Duck, would never be smart
    > >> enough to realize this.

    > >
    > >Hey! Wonderboy, or whatever, this thread started off with a PHOTOGRAPH!
    > >and regardless of any quality problems, it is a PHOTOGRAPH and that
    > >makes it far more on topic in the photo groups than anything you manage
    > >to regurgitate.
    > >Mothboy, you are beginning to remind me of "Buffalo Bill" from "The
    > >Silence of The Lambs". I hope you are not stitching up a soft skin suit
    > >for yourself.

    >
    > How is this any different than every time that Daffy Duck hijacks every
    > thread and takes it off-topic by yelling TROLL?
    >
    > You fuckingly useless TROLLS.
    >
    > At least *I* was keeping it ON TOPIC by evaluating that piece of shit
    > example he posted and not going on and on like a bunch of blathering old
    > fools reminiscing about some scrap iron they drove once.
    >
    > Do continue hijacking his OWN thread with the VERY SAME bullshit that Daffy
    > Duck Troll uses!
    >
    > Ain't karma wonderful?!?
    >
    > LOL!


    A narcissistic POS like you wouldn't recognize ON TOPIC if it hit you in
    the face.
    Who cares where the thread goes if it was discussion initiated by an ON
    TOPIC original post, no matter how bad the photograph was? If the
    discussion relates to the original post there is no HIJACK. If there is
    any hijacker of threads around here it would be you.
    Life must be very lonely for you with that rotten stench of your
    personality keeping company at arms length, or further.

    --
    Just another troll tracker
     
    NGBarfart, Jul 3, 2010
    #4
    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. Proudly Anonymous

    Re: Nostalgia - Most memorable things in the VR

    Proudly Anonymous, Oct 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    769
  2. Peter

    Re: A little nostalgia this morning

    Peter, Jul 3, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    253
    Peter
    Jul 3, 2010
  3. tony cooper

    Re: A little nostalgia this morning

    tony cooper, Jul 3, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    632
    Peter
    Jul 7, 2010
  4. Re: A little nostalgia this morning

    , Jul 3, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    272
    John McWilliams
    Jul 3, 2010
  5. piks11

    Re: A little nostalgia this morning

    piks11, Jul 3, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    276
    tony cooper
    Jul 3, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page