Linear pano - halfway home!

Neil Harrington wrote:
"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Indigo Blue wrote:


You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.

IB.
Hi, Douglas MacDonald Identity 173.

Oh, this is the "D-Mac" mentioned in other posts?

I wish somebody would make up a compendium of who's who here.

Neil



Hi Neil.
You'll find Mark (previously Charles) has a not complete list of mostly
inaccurate screen names D-Mac has used in the past. Be careful using it
because there are some errors in it.

It won't do you any good as a filter. He is working reactively which
doesn't result in any useful information, just historically
insignificant data.

The best idea is to get off Usenet altogether. Sort of like: If you
don't like heat in kitchens, don't choose cook as your occupation".
Usenet is unregulated. That is the reason you are here. Trying to
regulate it for yourself simply doesn't work either.

Nice Mice, AKA Indigo Blue, Wanking Wally, AKA several dozen other socks
wrote:


Hi Neil.
You'll find Mark (previously Charles) has a not complete list of mostly
inaccurate screen names D-Mac has used in the past. Be careful using it
because there are some errors in it.

It won't do you any good as a filter. He is working reactively which
doesn't result in any useful information, just historically
insignificant data.

The best idea is to get off Usenet altogether. Sort of like: If you
don't like heat in kitchens, don't choose cook as your occupation".
Usenet is unregulated. That is the reason you are here. Trying to
regulate it for yourself simply doesn't work either.

Why do you keep changing your nick? I suppose that there must be some
reason, but it escapes me. You are instantly recognised, you fool no
one, you gain nothing, you make yourself look even more pathetic than
you are by changing socks every time you get dumped on in a transparent
attempt to support whatever inanity you have just posted then stepped in.

Cal

wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:16 am, Nice Mice wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Indigo Blue wrote:
You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.
IB.
Hi, Douglas MacDonald Identity 173.
Oh, this is the "D-Mac" mentioned in other posts?
I wish somebody would make up a compendium of who's who here.
Neil
Hi Neil.
You'll find Mark (previously Charles) has a not complete list of mostly
inaccurate screen names D-Mac has used in the past. Be careful using it
because there are some errors in it.

It won't do you any good as a filter. He is working reactively which
doesn't result in any useful information, just historically
insignificant data.

The best idea is to get off Usenet altogether. Sort of like: If you
don't like heat in kitchens, don't choose cook as your occupation".
Usenet is unregulated. That is the reason you are here. Trying to
regulate it for yourself simply doesn't work either.

Hi, Douglas 174.

At least Doug's motives are clear - get everyone off usenet - Doug
wants it for himself so he can lie and cheat without anyone keeping
him honest.

This from the swine who posted utter lies and defamation about me not
having a permit for photography? For those interested, here is the
permit: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/permit.htm

The criminal who stole my photos claiming it was in the name of
"Education" and set about posting more lies and tried to interfere with
my business? Yes nice coward you are mate.

Even when you stupidly said the EPA didn't issue permits for photography
in National Parks you were spreading falsehoods and casting aspersions,
attempting to interfere with my lawful business activities. Why? You
never bothered to apologise for anything, even when the evidence was
presented to prove you are just a loser looking for a fight.

And now you stalk my every post. Get yourself down to the Cleveland
court house next Wednesday at 11:00 AM. If you object to the magistrate
making an order for Optus to provide your identity and address, you can
tell him how innocent you are.

Cal I Fornicate wrote:
Nice Mice, AKA Indigo Blue, Wanking Wally, AKA several dozen other socks
wrote:


Hi Neil.
You'll find Mark (previously Charles) has a not complete list of
mostly inaccurate screen names D-Mac has used in the past. Be careful
using it because there are some errors in it.

It won't do you any good as a filter. He is working reactively which
doesn't result in any useful information, just historically
insignificant data.

The best idea is to get off Usenet altogether. Sort of like: If you
don't like heat in kitchens, don't choose cook as your occupation".
Usenet is unregulated. That is the reason you are here. Trying to
regulate it for yourself simply doesn't work either.

Why do you keep changing your nick? I suppose that there must be some
reason, but it escapes me. You are instantly recognised, you fool no
one, you gain nothing, you make yourself look even more pathetic than
you are by changing socks every time you get dumped on in a transparent
attempt to support whatever inanity you have just posted then stepped in.

Cal

And you interest in this is what?

Moose & Squirrel wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Indigo Blue wrote:

You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.

IB.
Hi, Douglas MacDonald Identity 173.
Oh, this is the "D-Mac" mentioned in other posts?

I wish somebody would make up a compendium of who's who here.


You don't need a scorecard, all of the decent "contributors" use just
one name/handle/email address... Nice Mice/Indigo Blue is a sock-puppet
of D-Mac, and isn't the only one currently using a sock-puppet. I could
name names, but why spoil everyones fun, or give them a clue as to how
*I* know.


- JT
enjoys reading some of the "kook" postings made by alleged adults


Are you claiming not to be using several different screen names yourself?

John McWilliams wrote:
Atheist Chaplain wrote:
"Indigo Blue" wrote in message
...
Annika1980 wrote:
Here's what I have so far. It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially
the sidewalk and the roof. I think I'll re-shoot it with a lot more
images.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original

Considering the pasting (pardon the pun) you gave D-Mac over his
seemingly slapped together example which I thought demonstrated the
technique very well, this is an insult to a viewer's senses.

D-Mac may very well troll these groups with an ulterior motive but at
least he knew enough not to try the impossible: matching the tiles on
a roof!

You seem to have ignored every principal of creating one of these
images and now wonder why it doesn't "look right". Back at the first
post D-Mac made about it, he said using a telephoto lens, not a wide
angle one was a key to successfully gathering images to work with.
What did you use? 17mm?

You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.

IB.

Hi Douggie :-)
I thought you said you were not going to inflict yourself on the
aus.photo news groups anymore.

Interesting that so far as I've seen, no one has commented on the
substance of the critique, several of which are valid.


Hey John...
Never let facts or the truth get in the way of a good defamation attempt.

Nice Mice wrote:
Cal I Fornicate wrote:
Nice Mice, AKA Indigo Blue, Wanking Wally, AKA several dozen other
socks wrote:


Hi Neil.
You'll find Mark (previously Charles) has a not complete list of
mostly inaccurate screen names D-Mac has used in the past. Be careful
using it because there are some errors in it.

It won't do you any good as a filter. He is working reactively which
doesn't result in any useful information, just historically
insignificant data.

The best idea is to get off Usenet altogether. Sort of like: If you
don't like heat in kitchens, don't choose cook as your occupation".
Usenet is unregulated. That is the reason you are here. Trying to
regulate it for yourself simply doesn't work either.

Why do you keep changing your nick? I suppose that there must be some
reason, but it escapes me. You are instantly recognised, you fool no
one, you gain nothing, you make yourself look even more pathetic than
you are by changing socks every time you get dumped on in a transparent
attempt to support whatever inanity you have just posted then stepped in.

Cal

And you interest in this is what?

My interest is scatological, I find you fascinating.

Cal

"Nice Mice" wrote in message
...
John McWilliams wrote:
Atheist Chaplain wrote:
"Indigo Blue" wrote in message
...
Annika1980 wrote:
Here's what I have so far. It is kind of sloppy in spots, especially
the sidewalk and the roof. I think I'll re-shoot it with a lot more
images.

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100193296/original

Considering the pasting (pardon the pun) you gave D-Mac over his
seemingly slapped together example which I thought demonstrated the
technique very well, this is an insult to a viewer's senses.

D-Mac may very well troll these groups with an ulterior motive but at
least he knew enough not to try the impossible: matching the tiles on a
roof!

You seem to have ignored every principal of creating one of these
images and now wonder why it doesn't "look right". Back at the first
post D-Mac made about it, he said using a telephoto lens, not a wide
angle one was a key to successfully gathering images to work with. What
did you use? 17mm?

You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.

IB.

Hi Douggie :-)
I thought you said you were not going to inflict yourself on the
aus.photo news groups anymore.

Interesting that so far as I've seen, no one has commented on the
substance of the critique, several of which are valid.


Hey John...
Never let facts or the truth get in the way of a good defamation attempt.

you should know all about defamation Douggie boi, after all your still king
of the hill when it comes to creating defamatory and libellous web sites :-)
Anything else you want to get off your chest before you have to do your next
"work for the Dole" project ??

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

"Nice Mice" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:16 am, Nice Mice wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Indigo Blue wrote:
You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.
IB.
Hi, Douglas MacDonald Identity 173.
Oh, this is the "D-Mac" mentioned in other posts?
I wish somebody would make up a compendium of who's who here.
Neil
Hi Neil.
You'll find Mark (previously Charles) has a not complete list of mostly
inaccurate screen names D-Mac has used in the past. Be careful using it
because there are some errors in it.

It won't do you any good as a filter. He is working reactively which
doesn't result in any useful information, just historically
insignificant data.

The best idea is to get off Usenet altogether. Sort of like: If you
don't like heat in kitchens, don't choose cook as your occupation".
Usenet is unregulated. That is the reason you are here. Trying to
regulate it for yourself simply doesn't work either.

Hi, Douglas 174.

At least Doug's motives are clear - get everyone off usenet - Doug
wants it for himself so he can lie and cheat without anyone keeping
him honest.

This from the swine who posted utter lies and defamation about me not
having a permit for photography? For those interested, here is the permit:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/permit.htm

The criminal who stole my photos claiming it was in the name of
"Education" and set about posting more lies and tried to interfere with my
business? Yes nice coward you are mate.

Even when you stupidly said the EPA didn't issue permits for photography
in National Parks you were spreading falsehoods and casting aspersions,
attempting to interfere with my lawful business activities. Why? You never
bothered to apologise for anything, even when the evidence was presented
to prove you are just a loser looking for a fight.

And now you stalk my every post. Get yourself down to the Cleveland court
house next Wednesday at 11:00 AM. If you object to the magistrate making
an order for Optus to provide your identity and address, you can tell him
how innocent you are.


BULL****!!
yet another lie by Douglas, he cannot afford a lawyer to make his case, and
his grasp of the law is tenuous at best so at around 11:01 AM the Judge will
be berating Douggie for wasting the courts time and patience. Or maybe
Douggies "Work for the Dole" program is going to around the courthouse and
he wants to ambush Mark.

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg

Moose & Squirrel wrote:
Nice Mice wrote:

And now you stalk my every post. Get yourself down to the Cleveland
court house next Wednesday at 11:00 AM. If you object to the magistrate
making an order for Optus to provide your identity and address, you can
tell him how innocent you are.

Yawn You do seem to make a habit of threatening "legal" action against
the denizens of the photo groups that you perceive as having a problem
with... Do YOU ever actually follow through or do you just like to make
noise?

Yeah he actually paid a lawyer to file papers on my host in the US & I
got an email with 24 hours notice to remove the files or they'd take
down my whole domain. Oh well, delete 2 tiny jpegs & move on... this is
per some clause in the digital millennium copyright crap law :-)

It was a similar situation: some stupid example making some outrageous
claim which turned out to be completely mistaken.. I posted a little
crop & compare & he claimed IMAGE THEIF!, I say it was
editorial/educational use, blah blah blah over a couple years time :-)

There was another one with a supposed full pixel crop and overall view
of an image up-sized with his super secret algorithm, but a minute in
photoshop scaling & comparing showed it was just a crop from an run of
the mill DSLR shot not up-sized at all.

The case where he 'tattled on my mommy' wasn't an outright lie like
that, it was a case of claiming a little panasonic made better images
than a Canon DSLR with web size samples to compare... of course the
oversharpened, noise reduced P&S looked more sparkly! When pressed, he
posted full size originals, I cropped each & presented those side by
side showing the most egregious example of why DSLR images are better
and that's when he brought in the big guns :-)

--
Paul
-who should know better and mark these threads as *ignored* :-)
-and was not fanatically taunting, just noticed big discrepancies which
people seemed to believe, and is seeing that again here.