August 10, 2009

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:05:07 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:52:05 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

Forgive me for asking a sensible question, Jeff, but why do you give
a **** how good or bad a photographer Doug is?

Seconded.

That's not the issue at hand. Doug's photographic incompetence is a given,
which few would seriously dispute.
The issue, from my point of view, is Doug's dishonesty. I'm just trying to
extract some truth from him.

Bull****. You know that there is nothing you can say in a post that
will change anything about Doug. There is no "issue" here that can be
resolved. You are being dishonest when you claim you are trying to
get him to do something when all you are doing is being equally
annoying.

It keeps me off the streets.

Why? There are more photographic opportunities on the street than
there are huddled over a keyboard fighting a battle that can't be won.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:05:07 +1000, "Jeff
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:52:05 -0400, Robert wrote:

Forgive me for asking a sensible question, Jeff, but why do you give
a **** how good or bad a photographer Doug is?

Seconded.

That's not the issue at hand. Doug's photographic incompetence is a given,
which few would seriously dispute.
The issue, from my point of view, is Doug's dishonesty. I'm just trying to
extract some truth from him.

Bull****. You know that there is nothing you can say in a post that
will change anything about Doug. There is no "issue" here that can be
resolved. You are being dishonest when you claim you are trying to
get him to do something when all you are doing is being equally
annoying.

It keeps me off the streets.

Why? There are more photographic opportunities on the street than
there are huddled over a keyboard fighting a battle that can't be won.



So why are you having a go at Jeff and not Doug?
It was Dog that brought this to the forum instead of keeping it to
private emails.

tony cooper wrote:

Bull****. You know that there is nothing you can say in a post that
will change anything about Doug. There is no "issue" here that can be
resolved.

I don't accept that.
The facts are plain, obvious and uncontestable.
I'd just like Doug to do the right thing and concede his error.
He could actually gain some credibility and (dare I say) some respect that
way.


...You are being dishonest when you claim you are trying to
get him to do something when all you are doing is being equally
annoying.

No - not dishonest.
Naive perhaps.
Foolish maybe...
....but my annoying comments are honest, if nothing else.


It keeps me off the streets.

Why? There are more photographic opportunities on the street than
there are huddled over a keyboard fighting a battle that can't be won.

A metaphor, Tony.
I'm on the streets every day, with a camera in a pouch on my belt... in my
hand if a scene captures my fancy.
If you don't like reading my tussles with Doug then - here's an idea - don't
read them. No-one's forcing you.

Hey! I admit this is a less-than-noble fight.
That doesn't mean I should have to give it up and concede the high ground to
a low-life.

--
Jeff R.
(annoying usenet since 2004)

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:06:36 +1000, ^Tems^
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:05:07 +1000, "Jeff
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:
On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 23:52:05 -0400, Robert wrote:

Forgive me for asking a sensible question, Jeff, but why do you give
a **** how good or bad a photographer Doug is?

Seconded.

That's not the issue at hand. Doug's photographic incompetence is a given,
which few would seriously dispute.
The issue, from my point of view, is Doug's dishonesty. I'm just trying to
extract some truth from him.

Bull****. You know that there is nothing you can say in a post that
will change anything about Doug. There is no "issue" here that can be
resolved. You are being dishonest when you claim you are trying to
get him to do something when all you are doing is being equally
annoying.

It keeps me off the streets.

Why? There are more photographic opportunities on the street than
there are huddled over a keyboard fighting a battle that can't be won.



So why are you having a go at Jeff and not Doug?

Because he's keeping it going. If Doug posts, and I'm in a mood to,
I'll have a go at him. Won't do any good, though.

At least Doug is not being sanctimonious and claiming that he's
posting for the pure and noble reason of stamping out dishonesty.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:

At least Doug is not being sanctimonious and claiming that he's
posting for the pure and noble reason of stamping out dishonesty.

Oh, that's not the *only* reason I'm badgering Doug.
I find my sanctimonious claptrap entertaining.

YMMV.
and IDGAS.

:-)

--
Jeff R.
(and another thing - why don't you identify a single lie I've told...)

Jeff R. wrote:

Hey! I admit this is a less-than-noble fight.
That doesn't mean I should have to give it up and concede the high
ground to a low-life.

The problem with rolling around with pigs in the mud is that eventually
one begins to identify with and behave more and more like the pigs.

These s-slinging sessions are harmful to the group and it is the good of
the group that should be on everyone's minds. Ignore the trolls and
they have a habit of disappearing and people can discuss more relevant
and useful things. And learn more about photography and equipment.
Certainly nobody is learning anything _useful_ in the endless battle
with D-Mac.

On 8/11/2009 9:52 AM Alan Browne spake thus:

Jeff R. wrote:

Hey! I admit this is a less-than-noble fight.
That doesn't mean I should have to give it up and concede the high
ground to a low-life.

The problem with rolling around with pigs in the mud is that eventually
one begins to identify with and behave more and more like the pigs.

These s-slinging sessions are harmful to the group and it is the good of
the group that should be on everyone's minds. Ignore the trolls and
they have a habit of disappearing and people can discuss more relevant
and useful things. And learn more about photography and equipment.
Certainly nobody is learning anything _useful_ in the endless battle
with D-Mac.

Time to trot out some relevant doggerel:

'Twas the pig fair last September, the day I well remember
I was walking up and down in drunken pride
When my knees began to flutter and I sank down in the gutter
And a pig came up and lay down by my side.

As I sat there in the gutter, thinking thoughts I could not utter
I thought I heard a passing lady say
"You can tell the man who boozes by the company he chooses"
And with that the pig got up and walked away.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 07:21:28 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
wrote:

On Aug 11, 9:25*am, tony cooper wrote:

So why are you having a go at Jeff and not Doug?

Because he's keeping it going. *If Doug posts, and I'm in a mood to,
I'll have a go at him. *Won't do any good, though. *

At least Doug is not being sanctimonious and claiming that he's
posting for the pure and noble reason of stamping out dishonesty.

For years now Douggie has been posting outright lies about his pics,
his equipent, photographic processes, his businesses, his galleries,
me ..... not to mention posting them under 100s of aliases so he
cannot be killfiled. And you accept all that

Who says I accept it?

I don't give a **** about how many lies Doug tells, what his business
interests are, or what equipment he does or does not own. It doesn't
affect me - or anyone here - in the slightest. It's not like he's
Bernie Madoff asking you invest in his schemes. The only reason
anyone should be concerned about what Doug writes is if something Doug
is doing directly affects them...and that's not happening.

and object to Jeff trying to expose him for his lies?

You think Jeff is on some crusade to expose Doug? Are you that
****ing stupid? Doug's been posting in these newsgroups for quite
some time. People have already made up their minds about Doug. Jeff
isn't some sort of investigative newsgroup journalist that is going to
turn up any new revelations that are going to expose Doug. Jeff's
posting to amuse himself until it gets dark and he can lock himself in
the bathroom wank off in a different way.

Well **** D-Mac. He needs to be exposed for the fraud that he is

Needs to be exposed? Do you mean you're still not sure if he's a
fraud and you want some further evidence? You still on the fence
about Doug and want him exposed so you can make up your mind? Are you
afraid that if Jeff and the others ignore Doug that you'll start to
believe him or invite him over for 'possum stew?

and
I applaud Jeff, Athiest Chaplain, Colin, Mark Thomas, Charles Stevens,
Helen, and everyone else who does so.

Fat lot of good they're doing. The people who *don't* mention Doug in
any post and don't reply to Doug are doing far more good.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:21:48 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

Bull****. You know that there is nothing you can say in a post that
will change anything about Doug. There is no "issue" here that can be
resolved.

I don't accept that.
The facts are plain, obvious and uncontestable.
I'd just like Doug to do the right thing and concede his error.
He could actually gain some credibility and (dare I say) some respect that
way.


...You are being dishonest when you claim you are trying to
get him to do something when all you are doing is being equally
annoying.

No - not dishonest.
Naive perhaps.
Foolish maybe...
...but my annoying comments are honest, if nothing else.


It keeps me off the streets.

Why? There are more photographic opportunities on the street than
there are huddled over a keyboard fighting a battle that can't be won.

A metaphor, Tony.
I'm on the streets every day, with a camera in a pouch on my belt... in my
hand if a scene captures my fancy.
If you don't like reading my tussles with Doug then - here's an idea - don't
read them. No-one's forcing you.

That's such a lame ****ing answer...kill-file me if you don't like
what I write. I don't kill-file people because I'm optimistic enough
to think that eventually they might say something interesting or
informative.

Hey! I admit this is a less-than-noble fight.
That doesn't mean I should have to give it up and concede the high ground to
a low-life.

There is no high ground.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Tue, 11 Aug 2009 23:30:06 +1000, "Jeff R."
wrote:

tony cooper wrote:

At least Doug is not being sanctimonious and claiming that he's
posting for the pure and noble reason of stamping out dishonesty.

Oh, that's not the *only* reason I'm badgering Doug.

So you don't bully, but you admit to badgering. There's a difference?

I find my sanctimonious claptrap entertaining.


YMMV.
and IDGAS.

(and another thing - why don't you identify a single lie I've told...)

I neither know nor care if you've told lies. And, I did not accuse you
of telling any lies. You are attempting to legitimize your badgering,
though.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida