Re: [SI] Call for mandates

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Calvin Sambrook, Jan 29, 2010.

  1. In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams
    > <> wrote:


    >>Bruce wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>> :
    >>>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    >>>>
    >>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    >>>> they've been insulted?
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    >>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    >>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

    >>
    >>All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
    >>canning usenet altogether.


    > Some of which, undoubtedly, left due to a severe case of death.


    The mildest of deaths is alwatys fatal :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Feb 3, 2010
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. tony cooper wrote:
    > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> Bruce wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    >>>> :
    >>>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    >>>>
    >>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    >>>> they've been insulted?
    >>>
    >>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    >>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    >>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.

    >> All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
    >> canning usenet altogether.

    >
    > Some of which, undoubtedly, left due to a severe case of death.


    Yes, many of which were fatal!

    Not many replacements, either, so unless there's some event I cannot
    forsee, usenet will continue to dwindle. Until it, too, catches the
    death badly enough.

    Film at eleven.

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Feb 3, 2010
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Calvin Sambrook

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:14:25 +0000, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:00:22 -0500, "Tim Conway"
    ><> wrote:
    >>
    >>All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes to me.
    >>Look at all the constructive things they could do if they weren't being so
    >>negative.

    >
    >
    >The constructive things they could do?
    >The SI hit a nadir when several participants completely failed to
    >understand the simplest of mandates. But their snapshots were still
    >included, because no-one takes the mandates seriously.
    >


    Are we supposed to take the SI seriously? I didn't know that. Here's
    me thinking the SI is just a casual way to put some photos on show in
    an obscure (to the rest of the world of photography) newsgroup.

    I mean, how seriously can we take something that is captained by
    someone that goes by the name "Bowser"? What kind of downtown
    competition has entries by a Savage Duck? At least we're not led by a
    "Bruce" (snigger)

    If this is a serious competition, where are the cash prizes? The gold
    medals? The laurel wreaths?

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 3, 2010
    #23
  4. Calvin Sambrook

    Paul Furman Guest

    On 2/3/2010 12:45 PM, Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems tony cooper<> wrote:
    >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    >>> Bruce wrote:
    >>>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe<> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce<> wrote:
    >>>>> :
    >>>>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >>>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    >>>>> they've been insulted?
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    >>>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    >>>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.
    >>>
    >>> All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
    >>> canning usenet altogether.

    >
    >> Some of which, undoubtedly, left due to a severe case of death.

    >
    > The mildest of deaths is alwatys fatal :)


    Not La petite mort ;-)
    (little death = orgasm)
    Paul Furman, Feb 3, 2010
    #24
  5. Calvin Sambrook

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:38:15 -0500, Alan Browne
    <> wrote:
    : On 10-02-02 18:50 , Robert Coe wrote:
    :
    : >
    : > How many humorless gas bags do we need in this newsgroup? They keep
    : > coming out of the woodwork like termites.
    :
    : If you'd stop giving them oxygen (replies) they would go away.

    I doubt it.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 4, 2010
    #25
  6. Calvin Sambrook

    whisky-dave Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:14:25 +0000, Bruce <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:00:22 -0500, "Tim Conway"
    >><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes to
    >>>me.
    >>>Look at all the constructive things they could do if they weren't being
    >>>so
    >>>negative.

    >>
    >>
    >>The constructive things they could do?
    >>The SI hit a nadir when several participants completely failed to
    >>understand the simplest of mandates. But their snapshots were still
    >>included, because no-one takes the mandates seriously.
    >>

    >
    > Are we supposed to take the SI seriously? I didn't know that. Here's
    > me thinking the SI is just a casual way to put some photos on show in
    > an obscure (to the rest of the world of photography) newsgroup.
    >
    > I mean, how seriously can we take something that is captained by
    > someone that goes by the name "Bowser"? What kind of downtown
    > competition has entries by a Savage Duck? At least we're not led by a
    > "Bruce" (snigger)
    >
    > If this is a serious competition, where are the cash prizes? The gold
    > medals? The laurel wreaths?


    I waiting for the sex and drug orgies, although it might be as long wait.
    whisky-dave, Feb 4, 2010
    #26
  7. Calvin Sambrook

    Peter Guest

    "whisky-dave" <> wrote in message
    news:hke9lo$f1h$1@qmul...
    >
    > "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:14:25 +0000, Bruce <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:00:22 -0500, "Tim Conway"
    >>><> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes to
    >>>>me.
    >>>>Look at all the constructive things they could do if they weren't being
    >>>>so
    >>>>negative.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>The constructive things they could do?
    >>>The SI hit a nadir when several participants completely failed to
    >>>understand the simplest of mandates. But their snapshots were still
    >>>included, because no-one takes the mandates seriously.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Are we supposed to take the SI seriously? I didn't know that. Here's
    >> me thinking the SI is just a casual way to put some photos on show in
    >> an obscure (to the rest of the world of photography) newsgroup.
    >>
    >> I mean, how seriously can we take something that is captained by
    >> someone that goes by the name "Bowser"? What kind of downtown
    >> competition has entries by a Savage Duck? At least we're not led by a
    >> "Bruce" (snigger)
    >>
    >> If this is a serious competition, where are the cash prizes? The gold
    >> medals? The laurel wreaths?

    >
    > I waiting for the sex and drug orgies, although it might be as long wait.
    >
    >



    What about the gay guys and straight gals who thought that the call for
    mandates was a dating service

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Feb 4, 2010
    #27
  8. Calvin Sambrook

    Peter Guest

    "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:201002040729579530-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-02-04 07:20:59 -0800, "Peter" <> said:
    > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > What
    >> about the gay guys and straight gals who thought that the call for
    >> mandates was a dating service

    >
    > Do you mean, it isn't a sweet and sticky fruit with an obvious appendage?
    >
    >



    When staying the oasis do the Arabs eat their dates

    --
    Peter
    Peter, Feb 4, 2010
    #28
  9. Calvin Sambrook

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:52:06 -0500, tony cooper <>
    wrote:
    : On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:14:25 +0000, Bruce <>
    : wrote:
    :
    : >On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:00:22 -0500, "Tim Conway"
    : ><> wrote:
    : >>
    : >>All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes
    : >>to me. Look at all the constructive things they could do if they
    : >>weren't being so negative.
    : >
    : >
    : >The constructive things they could do?
    : >The SI hit a nadir when several participants completely failed to
    : >understand the simplest of mandates. But their snapshots were still
    : >included, because no-one takes the mandates seriously.
    : >
    :
    : Are we supposed to take the SI seriously? I didn't know that. Here's
    : me thinking the SI is just a casual way to put some photos on show in
    : an obscure (to the rest of the world of photography) newsgroup.
    :
    : I mean, how seriously can we take something that is captained by
    : someone that goes by the name "Bowser"? What kind of downtown
    : competition has entries by a Savage Duck? At least we're not led by a
    : "Bruce" (snigger)
    :
    : If this is a serious competition, where are the cash prizes? The gold
    : medals? The laurel wreaths?

    Hasn't Bowser been sending you your laurel wreaths? I've received all those
    that I was entitled to. Possibly yours were intercepted because Florida has
    agricultural inspections at its borders to keep out boll weevils and spruce
    budworms.

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Feb 5, 2010
    #29
  10. Calvin Sambrook

    tony cooper Guest

    On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 21:50:57 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:52:06 -0500, tony cooper <>
    >wrote:
    >: On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:14:25 +0000, Bruce <>
    >: wrote:
    >:
    >: >On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:00:22 -0500, "Tim Conway"
    >: ><> wrote:
    >: >>
    >: >>All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes
    >: >>to me. Look at all the constructive things they could do if they
    >: >>weren't being so negative.
    >: >
    >: >
    >: >The constructive things they could do?
    >: >The SI hit a nadir when several participants completely failed to
    >: >understand the simplest of mandates. But their snapshots were still
    >: >included, because no-one takes the mandates seriously.
    >: >
    >:
    >: Are we supposed to take the SI seriously? I didn't know that. Here's
    >: me thinking the SI is just a casual way to put some photos on show in
    >: an obscure (to the rest of the world of photography) newsgroup.
    >:
    >: I mean, how seriously can we take something that is captained by
    >: someone that goes by the name "Bowser"? What kind of downtown
    >: competition has entries by a Savage Duck? At least we're not led by a
    >: "Bruce" (snigger)
    >:
    >: If this is a serious competition, where are the cash prizes? The gold
    >: medals? The laurel wreaths?
    >
    >Hasn't Bowser been sending you your laurel wreaths? I've received all those
    >that I was entitled to. Possibly yours were intercepted because Florida has
    >agricultural inspections at its borders to keep out boll weevils and spruce
    >budworms.
    >

    He may have tried to hand deliver my laurel wreath, but they put him
    in quarantine at the border along with Fido, Spot, and Rags.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
    tony cooper, Feb 5, 2010
    #30
  11. Calvin Sambrook

    Sam-I-Am Guest

    On Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:57:59 -0500, Sherry Watts <>
    wrote:

    >On 10-02-03 16:40 , Alan Browne wrote:
    >> On 10-02-03 11:26 , John McWilliams wrote:
    >>
    >> Bruce wrote:
    >>
    >>>> You should hear what they think of the SI, and particularly of Alan
    >>>> Browne's contributions! If you think I am overly critical, their
    >>>> comments make mine look very gentle indeed.

    >>
    >> What a practicing UK professional photographer (and former SI shooter
    >> responsible for some of the best photos) says about Tony Polson and his
    >> photography:
    >>
    >> "I've been as patient as the proverbial saint with this
    >> info for a number of years now, but the unrelenting and
    >> unreserved obnoxiousness you display goes 'beyond the pale': It's
    >> time to put up or shut up TP."
    >>
    >> "Your photo's that I linked to <below> on so many levels, still
    >> look like utter shite."

    >
    >
    >Polson couldn't make a photo of shit look like shit. It would probably
    >look more like a train than the crap he posed below.
    >
    >
    >> -Oct 21 and 22, 2005 as recorded by Google Groups
    >> for rpe.35mm under subject:
    >> "[SI] My resignation as SI admin"
    >>
    >> Links:
    >> http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000a.jpg
    >> by Tony Polson
    >>
    >> http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000b.jpg
    >> by Tony Polson
    >>
    >> http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000c.jpg
    >> by Tony Polson
    >>
    >> http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000d.jpg
    >> by Tony Polson
    >>
    >> - - - -
    >>
    >> Of course Tony is better at product photography:
    >> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6688626

    >
    >Better? Polson has no idea how to even present the equipment for a
    >simple photo. Most e-bay posters do far better than that.


    It's fun how net-stalking trolls with no life of their own love to find the
    worst examples possible. Then those examples are always taken out of
    context to try to prove what a good basement-living net-stalking troll they
    are.
    Sam-I-Am, Feb 5, 2010
    #31
  12. Calvin Sambrook

    John Turco Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    >
    > tony cooper wrote:
    > > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams
    > > <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Bruce wrote:
    > >>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > >>>
    > >>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >>>> :
    > >>>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    > >>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    > >>>> they've been insulted?
    > >>>
    > >>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    > >>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    > >>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.
    > >> All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
    > >> canning usenet altogether.

    > >
    > > Some of which, undoubtedly, left due to a severe case of death.

    >
    > Yes, many of which were fatal!
    >
    > Not many replacements, either, so unless there's some event I cannot
    > forsee, usenet will continue to dwindle. Until it, too, catches the
    > death badly enough.
    >
    > Film at eleven.



    Ron Hunter is this newsgroup's (news:rec.photo.digital) all-time leading
    poster, with 15,003 articles. Alas, he seemingly abandoned r.p.d., during
    July of 2009.

    As I recall, he mentioned the sudden death of his brother, at 77; I'd
    guessed that his grief was too much to overcome. (Ron's own age is 64
    or so, as I believe he wrote publicly.)

    Nevertheless, Ron is still rather active within Usenet, itself. Boasting
    a grand total amounting to 37,389 messages, he's been concentrating his
    attention on "mozilla.support" groups, lately.

    Rod Hunter's current statistics (as of February 21, 2010):

    420 groups

    All - 37,389 (Dec. 2001 - Feb. 2010)

    rec.photo.digital - 15,003 (Jan. 2002 - July 2009)

    Another familiar r.p.d. member ("ASAAR") has left Usenet altogether,
    apparently. His final post was on August 22, 2009, in the "Battery
    question" thread.

    ASAAR's past stats:

    146 groups

    All - 11,128 (Dec 2004 - Aug. 2009)

    rec.photo.digital - 8,342 (Mar. 2005 - Aug. 2009)

    Sadly, there is one confirmed death. "Blinky the Shark" was a very
    prodigious Usenet contributor, who died on January 31, 2009, at the
    age of 61.

    My subsequent Google research revealed he'd begun complaining of
    flu-like symptoms, within some of his closing articles. Eventually,
    I'd gathered that a heart attack may have been the immediate cause
    of his tragic demise.

    Blinky the Shark's real name was Lee Rizor (1947-2009).

    Blinky's final résumé:

    341 groups

    All - 93,112 (June 2001 - Jan. 2009)

    rec.photo.digital - 595 (Oct. 2005; Nov. 2007; Jan. 2008 - Jan. 2009)

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Feb 22, 2010
    #32
  13. Calvin Sambrook

    Geoff G Guest

    On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:11:23 -0600, Allen <> wrote:

    >On 2/21/2010 11:13 PM, John Turco wrote:
    >> John McWilliams wrote:
    >>>
    >>> tony cooper wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams
    >>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Bruce wrote:
    >>>>>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe<> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce<> wrote:
    >>>>>>> :
    >>>>>>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    >>>>>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    >>>>>>> they've been insulted?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    >>>>>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    >>>>>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.
    >>>>> All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as
    >>>>> canning usenet altogether.
    >>>>
    >>>> Some of which, undoubtedly, left due to a severe case of death.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, many of which were fatal!
    >>>
    >>> Not many replacements, either, so unless there's some event I cannot
    >>> forsee, usenet will continue to dwindle. Until it, too, catches the
    >>> death badly enough.
    >>>
    >>> Film at eleven.

    >>
    >>
    >> Ron Hunter is this newsgroup's (news:rec.photo.digital) all-time leading
    >> poster, with 15,003 articles. Alas, he seemingly abandoned r.p.d., during
    >> July of 2009.
    >>
    >> As I recall, he mentioned the sudden death of his brother, at 77; I'd
    >> guessed that his grief was too much to overcome. (Ron's own age is 64
    >> or so, as I believe he wrote publicly.)
    >>
    >> Nevertheless, Ron is still rather active within Usenet, itself. Boasting
    >> a grand total amounting to 37,389 messages, he's been concentrating his
    >> attention on "mozilla.support" groups, lately.
    >>
    >> Rod Hunter's current statistics (as of February 21, 2010):
    >>
    >> 420 groups
    >>
    >> All - 37,389 (Dec. 2001 - Feb. 2010)
    >>
    >> rec.photo.digital - 15,003 (Jan. 2002 - July 2009)
    >>
    >> Another familiar r.p.d. member ("ASAAR") has left Usenet altogether,
    >> apparently. His final post was on August 22, 2009, in the "Battery
    >> question" thread.
    >>
    >> ASAAR's past stats:
    >>
    >> 146 groups
    >>
    >> All - 11,128 (Dec 2004 - Aug. 2009)
    >>
    >> rec.photo.digital - 8,342 (Mar. 2005 - Aug. 2009)
    >>
    >> Sadly, there is one confirmed death. "Blinky the Shark" was a very
    >> prodigious Usenet contributor, who died on January 31, 2009, at the
    >> age of 61.
    >>
    >> My subsequent Google research revealed he'd begun complaining of
    >> flu-like symptoms, within some of his closing articles. Eventually,
    >> I'd gathered that a heart attack may have been the immediate cause
    >> of his tragic demise.
    >>
    >> Blinky the Shark's real name was Lee Rizor (1947-2009).
    >>
    >> Blinky's final résumé:
    >>
    >> 341 groups
    >>
    >> All - 93,112 (June 2001 - Jan. 2009)
    >>
    >> rec.photo.digital - 595 (Oct. 2005; Nov. 2007; Jan. 2008 - Jan. 2009)
    >>

    >Hunter is an extremely valuable contributor to the Mozilla groups.
    >Allen


    And why would someone like that, who sits at their computer with no
    real-life experience in anything else but, not have the information needed
    to run a browser all their life?

    Are you catching on to what "prolific poster" in any forum topic, one that
    depends on experiences gained from being away from their computers, really
    means yet? I've taken a two-year sabbatical from my lifetime of photography
    expeditions, only to find out how inanely ignorant the "resident experts"
    are on any forum that depends on experience beyond their keyboards. Now
    easily discerning what ridiculous answers they can obtain from Google and
    even believe. Passing off that absurd parroted misinformation again as
    "truth" for years and years to come. They know no better, they can't,
    they've never tested these things for themselves in the real world.

    They are always depending on the most popular and plausible but totally
    wrong explanations on Google's first one or two pages of hits. Furthering
    their ignorance and bolstering the most popular answer being the most
    factual to the psychotics that think popularity of an answer somehow makes
    it the truth. It only makes it a truth to those with lazy, ignorant, and
    foolish minds who will accept the first answer that is slightly beyond
    their comprehension but "sounds good!" Googling for answers armed with
    inexperience only breeds their own ignorance.

    Camera manuals too are full of misinformation. All of them authored by
    techno-geeks who most likely never even used the product other than to take
    a few snapshots of the pencil-cup and paperclip holder on their desks. I
    frequently fill up the blank "notes" pages in the back of my camera manuals
    with many corrections. Should I ever give that camera to another some day.
    So they won't be left as confused and inept as those who never even realize
    their manuals are rife with errors.

    Even worse, these "prolific-posting experts" don't even know how to search
    for the correct answers. You can't ask a proper valid question about
    something with which you have zero experience in life. I learn so much more
    about the level of comprehension someone has by the question they are
    capable of asking than any statements they might ever make. Only from
    real-life experience and testing things for yourself will you find out the
    real truth, from which one can then formulate useful questions to further
    their understanding. Armed with that experience, only then can you use
    Google as any kind of effective search engine. But still the answers must
    be cross-referenced and checked against your own findings. Even if 1000
    answers all claim the same thing from Google, your tests might reveal
    something that all the rest forgot to consider, making all 1000 of their
    answers in error. But "prolific-posting experts" realize none of this. How
    can they? That's like asking someone with severe brain-damage to truthfully
    answer the question, "Do you have brain damage?" They'll never know.
    They'll defend their answers borne from ignorance to their death.

    "Prolific online poster" and "expert" are mutually exclusive. Unless that
    topic is directly dealing with their keyboard and mouse. It's the only
    thing with which they'll ever have any first-hand expertise in life.

    Post, post, post you expert role-playing fools.

    If nothing else, you are an interesting form of entertainment for those
    with real-life experience who know more than you ever will. This is a bit
    like Einstein sitting on the fence of a pig-sty and pondering why its
    inhabitants are doing what they do. A frivolous distraction. Summarized
    well, from of all places, the story of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate
    Factory". When Mr. Wonka states, "A little nonsense now and then is
    relished by the wisest of men." One need only read these groups for a few
    minutes to enjoy an overwhelming amount of nonsense posted by the most
    prolific-posting, zero-life-experience, "experts" each day.
    Geoff G, Feb 22, 2010
    #33
  14. Calvin Sambrook

    whisky-dave Guest

    "nate bishop" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > What a fine tribute to computer-chair and armchair role-playing experts.
    > Outsitting in their fields of imaginary expertise!


    Surely the Depths of those Fields are what we need to focus on. :p
    >
    whisky-dave, Feb 24, 2010
    #34
  15. Calvin Sambrook

    Noons Guest

    Alan Browne. wrote,on my timestamp of 5/10/2010 10:01 AM:

    > I do recall the comments of one of them, a pro that you ceaselessly sucked up
    > to. He was the fellow who "outed" you and your "train" pics to show your
    > profound inadequacy as a photographer.


    Ah, ok: criticism of images is "outing", unless of course it's yours, in which
    case it's the word of the gods. Keep up the good work, I'm sure there are a lot
    of followers.
    All 4 of them in the last SI, wasn't it?
    Crap, we get more participants than that in the "dead film" contests at dA and
    apug...


    > You are pathetic beyond words Tony "Bruce" Polson.


    Pot: meet kettle.


    > Your incessant attacks on the SI and its participants serves only to drown out
    > your complete and utter lack of ability as a photographer, and as a human being,
    > for that matter.


    Ah, you're a pschologist as well now, Alan?
    Yup! Perfectly in character...

    What an idiot...
    Noons, Oct 6, 2010
    #35
  16. Calvin Sambrook

    John Turco Guest

    "Alan Browne." wrote:
    >
    > Bruce wrote:
    > > On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce <> wrote:
    > >> :
    > >> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is
    > >> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers.
    > >>
    > >> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think
    > >> they've been insulted?

    > >
    > >
    > > There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated
    > > in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's
    > > sponsoring newsgroup, never to return.
    > >
    > > You should hear what they think of the SI, and particularly of Alan
    > > Browne's contributions! If you think I am overly critical, their
    > > comments make mine look very gentle indeed.
    > >

    >
    > I do recall the comments of one of them, a pro that you ceaselessly
    > sucked up to. He was the fellow who "outed" you and your "train" pics
    > to show your profound inadequacy as a photographer.
    >
    > You are pathetic beyond words Tony "Bruce" Polson.
    >
    > Your incessant attacks on the SI and its participants serves only to
    > drown out your complete and utter lack of ability as a photographer,
    > and as a human being, for that matter.



    So, Alan...why did you reply to a post that was 8 months old?

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Oct 31, 2010
    #36
    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. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    866
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  2. Bruce

    Re: [SI] Call for mandates

    Bruce, Jan 19, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    296
    Robert Coe
    Jan 22, 2010
  3. Richard

    Re: [SI] Call for mandates

    Richard, Jan 2, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    224
    John A.
    Jan 8, 2011
  4. otter

    Re: Call for mandates

    otter, Jan 3, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    268
    otter
    Jan 4, 2011
  5. John A.

    Re: [SI] Call for mandates

    John A., Jan 5, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    278
    Whisky-dave
    Jan 5, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page