Linear pano - halfway home!

Paul Furman wrote:
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 :-)

Thanks for posting this, Paul. You are one of the few with credibility
when it comes to what the characters here do or do not. Here is rpd,
where followups are set.

--
john mcwilliams

"Moose & Squirrel" wrote in message
news:Wicfk.294$gH4.149@trnddc05...
Nice Mice wrote:

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?


My email address hasn't changed in the last ten years... I've used three
different names that go in front of the address (JT's Ghost, and two
variations of Moose & Squirrel), you on the other hand change your sock
names frequently.


Yes but Dugg does it for the right reasons, surely you can see that........

This is strictly for Douglas and his legal team, of course.

Nice Mice wrote:
This from the swine

That will go down well in court.

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

But here is what Douglas claimed:
I am also registered (holding the necessary permits) with the EPA,
Forest and Wildlife service and ATSIC .. as a working Photographer

Let's look closely at that claim and dissect it carefully.

1. Getting a permit to photograph in a national park does not mean you
are "registered as a working photographer". It is not a badge of
honour. You *must* buy a parks photography permit if you intend to use
any images commercially. It's simply a revenue raiser.

2. Note the comma after EPA, which suggests he has 'permits' from 3
organisations, EPA, 'F&WS' and ATSIC.

3. There is, and was, no such thing as a "Forest And Wildlife Service".
Look at Douglas' own link - it very clearly shows it is from the
"Queensland Parks & Wildlife Service", which is indeed a division of the
EPA. The EPA does not issue permits in its own right, and no-one ('cept
Doug) would say they have an 'EPA permit'.. it is a national parks
commercial photography permit.

4. ATSIC (Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission) had been
disbanded for some time when Doug made his claim of having a permit from
them. But in any case, ATSIC would *never* issue a blanket permit to
photograph indigenous communities - that is anathema (look it up Doug)
to the whole ethos of indigenous culture. As someone who has spent
significant time in numerous indigenous communities in South Australia,
I know it would be the height of arrogance to take images in those areas
without getting permission from the elders and administrators *of that
community*.

So to summarise, Douglas didn't get the name right of the one permit he
has, LIED about having an ATSIC permit, and made out that having a parks
permit was some sort of indication he was a working photographer. Any
**** can walk in and buy one of those parks permits - indeed, one
clearly did.

What is particularly amusing is that this, apparently, is the best Doug
can come up with in his quest to prove I have lied and defamed him. (O:

The criminal who stole my photos claiming it was in the name of
"Education"

What he refers to is that I have reposted pages that he has, cowardly,
pulled from view. Douglas does not want to be held accountable for
things he has said, like the falsehoods and defamation he posted on this
page about AC:
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html
(kindly reposted for educational use by Jeff R... (O

and set about posting more lies

Well, I just proved the one above wasn't a lie. Wanna try for another?

and tried to interfere with
my business?

In what way? Revealing your scams, like the latest CPPA one, or the
time you used "Graham Hunt" to try to talk up your printing franchise?

Yes nice coward you are mate.

I've offered innumerable times to talk to your legal representative,
because you, clearly, are out of your tree. Why don't you post his/her
name? I believe Jeff R and AC would like it too, amongst others! What
could possibly stop you from doing that, other than your realisation
that you haven't got a leg to stand on?

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.

See above. Saying it twice does not make it so.

Why?
Why? Because frauds and liars need to be revealed.

You
never bothered to apologise for anything, even when the evidence was
presented to prove you are just a loser looking for a fight.

I'll happily apologise for anything I have said that was untrue. (O:

So far you have found nothing in that category, and strangely no-one
else is chipping in to back you up. Got a clue why that might be?

And now you stalk my every post.

(O: This is a public forum, and you just lied again. Check carefully
and you will see I have ignored some of your postings. Indeed, I'll
even support you if you ever start telling the truth, stop misusing
sockpuppets, and post useful information.

But mention my name, or lie, or post incorrect information, and here I
am! (Sorry, John McW... (O: )

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.

Needless to say, there is no court listing from Douglas at the Cleveland
Courts at that time. So why did you post that comment, Douglas? Is
that your version of a 'summons'?

Does your legal team think it was a wise move?

Paul Furman wrote:
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 :-)


Actually Paul, it was a lot more than that. I posted two processed
image. One shot RAW and the other shot as JPEG (Panasonic jpeg - 60%
compression) to demonstrate the **** poor quality of a Canon 20D image
and question the value of spending 4 times as much as the Panasonic cost
on an outfit that at best took marginally better photos.

That's when you and your mentally retarded mate in the frozen wastes of
Alaska tried to tell me I'd be sued off the face of the earth if I even
tried to to have the pictures removed from your site.

Even when I sent you a copy of the law saying what you had done was
illegal and demanding you take my photos off your web site, you as much
as told me to go **** myself. Arrogances in the extreme.

The sorry part of this is that you claim to come from a heritage of
professional photographers ...yet you have no value in the laws that
allow professionals to say what and by whom their images are used for.

You don't know how luck you really were. Moving the images elsewhere on
your site was a really dumb thing to do. By just 12 hours you managed to
avoid my lawyer putting a lien on your house and suing you for more
money than you'll likely make before you die.

Do not now make fun of it. Read this:

" Although you gave us instructions to halt civil proceedings against Mr
Furman, I urge you to consider that we believe you still have a solid
case against him for damages. Before returning your funds, I urge you to
consider continuing the case. Mr Furman appears to have sufficient
identifiable assets to meet any award likely to made against him."

Steal intellectual property from a working professional at your own
risk. Common sense should tell you no business person can afford NOT to
continue through with a legal case against an image thief. If they did,
there might as well not be any copyright laws.

Noons seems to think he was responsible for Annika1980 losing his AOL
account. I've got a $387 (USD) account here that says my lawyer was the
one who did it.

Now we're about to see some home grown stalkers try and make out their
disgusting and illegal behaviour is beyond reproach too. Oh well. At
least it's a tax write off!

Moose & Squirrel wrote:


My email address hasn't changed in the last ten years... I've used three
different names that go in front of the address (JT's Ghost, and two
variations of Moose & Squirrel), you on the other hand change your sock
names frequently.


- JT
thanks for playing, here is a copy of the play at home game you...


It seems you arithmetic is a little out. That makes four!

Atheist Chaplain wrote:

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 ??

I just figured it out.
Suitcase bride.
100+ Kg bloke with a sore ass.
"Work for the Dole" ...I seriously never knew you had to.
And it all pans out to the Atheist being a dole bludger.

Go on mate!
You really had me wondering for a while. Silly me, trying to figure out
if you were a web developer or a computer techo... Neither.

Just a plain vanilla dole bludger. Hey mate... How's it feel knowing my
taxes are helping feed your family? And you have the cheek to put ****
on me? what a bloody loser.

Nice Mice wrote:
Paul Furman wrote:
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 :-)


Actually Paul, it was a lot more than that. I posted two processed
image. One shot RAW and the other shot as JPEG (Panasonic jpeg - 60%
compression) to demonstrate the **** poor quality of a Canon 20D image
and question the value of spending 4 times as much as the Panasonic cost
on an outfit that at best took marginally better photos.

That's when you and your mentally retarded mate in the frozen wastes of
Alaska tried to tell me I'd be sued off the face of the earth if I even
tried to to have the pictures removed from your site.

Even when I sent you a copy of the law saying what you had done was
illegal and demanding you take my photos off your web site, you as much
as told me to go **** myself. Arrogances in the extreme.

The sorry part of this is that you claim to come from a heritage of
professional photographers ...yet you have no value in the laws that
allow professionals to say what and by whom their images are used for.

You don't know how luck you really were. Moving the images elsewhere on
your site was a really dumb thing to do. By just 12 hours you managed to
avoid my lawyer putting a lien on your house and suing you for more
money than you'll likely make before you die.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I read some of your BS.

Your lawyer was about to put a lien on his house? How? A lien comes
AFTER a SUCCESSFUL lawsuit, not before it. You have to prove a debt
before you can attach property.


Do not now make fun of it. Read this:

No one can read anything you write without making fun of it. You are an
idiot.


" Although you gave us instructions to halt civil proceedings against Mr
Furman, I urge you to consider that we believe you still have a solid
case against him for damages. Before returning your funds, I urge you to
consider continuing the case. Mr Furman appears to have sufficient
identifiable assets to meet any award likely to made against him."

A law firm 'urging' a client? Not likely, not if they want to stay in
business.


Steal intellectual property from a working professional at your own
risk.

Intellectual property? I thought you were whining about him misusing a
photograph of yours. Where does the intellectual property come into it?

Common sense should tell you no business person can afford NOT to
continue through

Continue through?


with a legal case against an image thief. If they did,
there might as well not be any copyright laws.

Noons seems to think he was responsible for Annika1980 losing his AOL
account. I've got a $387 (USD) account here that says my lawyer was the
one who did it.

You have an account with only $387 in it? Why bother, just keep it in
your top pocket.


Now we're about to see some home grown stalkers try and make out their
disgusting and illegal behaviour is beyond reproach too. Oh well. At
least it's a tax write off!

No it isn't. You can't get anything right, can you?

Hey, if I take some of your pathetic images and post them somewhere,
modify them first of course, will you try to sue me? I'd really love to
see you make an open idiot of yourself. We could sell tickets to the
court case.

How about this, it's a very public critical comment on your website.
Wanna try to sue me for it?

See: http://tinyurl.com/5rmov5

Cal

Nice Mice wrote:

Just a plain vanilla dole bludger. Hey mate... How's it feel knowing
my taxes are helping feed your family? And you have the cheek to put
**** on me? what a bloody loser.


The pills Doug - the pills.

For pity's sake, take your pills.

--
Jeff R.

Cal I Fornicate wrote:

How about this, it's a very public critical comment on your website.
Wanna try to sue me for it?

See: http://tinyurl.com/5rmov5

Cal

Oh Lordy!
My side is aching!
My keyboard is soaked in coffee.
My monitor needs a rinse, too.

Who can I sue?

--
Jeff R.

On 7/16/08 3:13 AM, in article , "Nice Mice"
wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:
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 :-)


Actually Paul, it was a lot more than that. I posted two processed
image. One shot RAW and the other shot as JPEG (Panasonic jpeg - 60%
compression) to demonstrate the **** poor quality of a Canon 20D image
and question the value of spending 4 times as much as the Panasonic cost
on an outfit that at best took marginally better photos.

That's when you and your mentally retarded mate in the frozen wastes of
Alaska tried to tell me I'd be sued off the face of the earth if I even
tried to to have the pictures removed from your site.

Even when I sent you a copy of the law saying what you had done was
illegal and demanding you take my photos off your web site, you as much
as told me to go **** myself. Arrogances in the extreme.

The sorry part of this is that you claim to come from a heritage of
professional photographers ...yet you have no value in the laws that
allow professionals to say what and by whom their images are used for.

You don't know how luck you really were. Moving the images elsewhere on
your site was a really dumb thing to do. By just 12 hours you managed to
avoid my lawyer putting a lien on your house and suing you for more
money than you'll likely make before you die.

Do not now make fun of it. Read this:

" Although you gave us instructions to halt civil proceedings against Mr
Furman, I urge you to consider that we believe you still have a solid
case against him for damages. Before returning your funds, I urge you to
consider continuing the case. Mr Furman appears to have sufficient
identifiable assets to meet any award likely to made against him."

Steal intellectual property from a working professional at your own
risk. Common sense should tell you no business person can afford NOT to
continue through with a legal case against an image thief. If they did,
there might as well not be any copyright laws.

Noons seems to think he was responsible for Annika1980 losing his AOL
account. I've got a $387 (USD) account here that says my lawyer was the
one who did it.

Now we're about to see some home grown stalkers try and make out their
disgusting and illegal behaviour is beyond reproach too. Oh well. At
least it's a tax write off!



Get a life, windbag!