National Zonalism

Uranium Committee wrote:
McLeod wrote in message . ..

On 4 Oct 2004 19:14:01 -0700, (Uranium
Committee) wrote:


THEN the lens forms the image. Irrelevant point.




The person is everything when quality and the workmanship is
concerned, but the person does not make the image: the lens does it.

Then by your standards, the brush makes the painting.


That does not follow. The person makes the painting with a brush, his
hand, or a stick. The point is that the LENS makes a photograph.

Your so full of crap, I can smell it from here, er maybe it's that low
grade weed your smoking....

The lens doesn't make a photograph, it focuses an image, basic optics
101. The light of that image focused on a sensing material is then
captured. The whole thing though, whether brush or camera, comes down,
really to control issues. A brush needs an operator, so does a camera.

I would really have liked to just send my camera up to Algonquin last
Sunday morning, at 4am, let the lens get up early and go, leaving me
here, to sleep in until at least 7:30. However the camera needs an
operator to load the film, select a focal length, mount the whole thing
on the tripod, and push the button, so there I was. I hope to get some
of the photos on-line, once I can get them through the lab.

This is my last comment on this thread, I'm going to mark it for the
killfile now.....

W

Uranium Committee wrote:
McLeod wrote in message . ..

On 4 Oct 2004 19:14:01 -0700, (Uranium
Committee) wrote:


THEN the lens forms the image. Irrelevant point.




The person is everything when quality and the workmanship is
concerned, but the person does not make the image: the lens does it.

Then by your standards, the brush makes the painting.


That does not follow. The person makes the painting with a brush, his
hand, or a stick. The point is that the LENS makes a photograph.

Your so full of crap, I can smell it from here, er maybe it's that low
grade weed your smoking....

The lens doesn't make a photograph, it focuses an image, basic optics
101. The light of that image focused on a sensing material is then
captured. The whole thing though, whether brush or camera, comes down,
really to control issues. A brush needs an operator, so does a camera.

I would really have liked to just send my camera up to Algonquin last
Sunday morning, at 4am, let the lens get up early and go, leaving me
here, to sleep in until at least 7:30. However the camera needs an
operator to load the film, select a focal length, mount the whole thing
on the tripod, and push the button, so there I was. I hope to get some
of the photos on-line, once I can get them through the lab.

This is my last comment on this thread, I'm going to mark it for the
killfile now.....

W

Robert Vervoordt wrote:
: On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:42:18 -0500, Frank Pittel
: wrote:

: Gregory Blank wrote:
: : Perhaps what is required is discouraging (continously)
: : those that feel compelled to answer the call.
: : I'll behave :-)
:
: If you can behave so can I. :-) I do have to admit that I enjoy the poking and am
: asking to be publically rebuked if I show any weakness and give in my base desire and
: feed the troll.

: Your wish is my command. I'll be watching you. ;-/


Thanks. I'm going to hold you to it!! :-)
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

The Wogster wrote in message ...
Uranium Committee wrote:
McLeod wrote in message . ..

On 4 Oct 2004 19:14:01 -0700, (Uranium
Committee) wrote:


THEN the lens forms the image. Irrelevant point.




The person is everything when quality and the workmanship is
concerned, but the person does not make the image: the lens does it.

Then by your standards, the brush makes the painting.


That does not follow. The person makes the painting with a brush, his
hand, or a stick. The point is that the LENS makes a photograph.

Your so full of crap, I can smell it from here, er maybe it's that low
grade weed your smoking....

The lens doesn't make a photograph, it focuses an image, basic optics
101. The light of that image focused on a sensing material is then
captured. The whole thing though, whether brush or camera, comes down,
really to control issues. A brush needs an operator, so does a camera.

I would really have liked to just send my camera up to Algonquin last
Sunday morning, at 4am, let the lens get up early and go, leaving me
here, to sleep in until at least 7:30. However the camera needs an
operator to load the film, select a focal length, mount the whole thing
on the tripod, and push the button, so there I was. I hope to get some
of the photos on-line, once I can get them through the lab.

This is my last comment on this thread, I'm going to mark it for the
killfile now.....

You actually prove my point brilliantly. If you were an artist, you
could simply memorize or imagine a scene and paint it whenever and
however convenient. The fact is that the photograph is dependent upon
the presence of Algonquin right in front of the lens, right then and
there. In other words, the photograph is dependent upon the existence
of Algonquin. Therefore it is not art. Art is independent of the
existence of something else for its subject matter.

Art is depends upon paint, Moron. Petey Wanna Cracker?

In article ,
(Uranium Committee) wrote:

You actually prove my point brilliantly. If you were an artist, you
could simply memorize or imagine a scene and paint it whenever and
however convenient. The fact is that the photograph is dependent upon
the presence of Algonquin right in front of the lens, right then and
there. In other words, the photograph is dependent upon the existence
of Algonquin. Therefore it is not art. Art is independent of the
existence of something else for its subject matter.
--
?
?
?
?
LOL

Udie Lafing wrote:

Art is depends upon paint, Moron. Petey Wanna Cracker?

Udie, like a strike or a boycott -- it only works if we all do it.

Don't feed the troll. When he doesn't get what he wants (which is us
paying attention to him instead of exhanging darkroom techniques and
information) he'll go elsewhere.

Meantime, you're helping him bypass killfiles, and making things worse
instead of better.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

Udie Lafing wrote:

Art is depends upon paint, Moron. Petey Wanna Cracker?

Udie, like a strike or a boycott -- it only works if we all do it.

Don't feed the troll. When he doesn't get what he wants (which is us
paying attention to him instead of exhanging darkroom techniques and
information) he'll go elsewhere.

Meantime, you're helping him bypass killfiles, and making things worse
instead of better.

--
I may be a scwewy wabbit, but I'm not going to Alcatwaz!
-- E. J. Fudd, 1954

Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer
Lathe Building Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/HomebuiltLathe.htm
Speedway 7x12 Lathe Pages http://silent1.home.netcom.com/my7x12.htm

Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth
and don't expect them to be perfect.

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 21:11:28 GMT, Donald Qualls
wrote:

Udie Lafing wrote:

Art is depends upon paint, Moron. Petey Wanna Cracker?

Udie, like a strike or a boycott -- it only works if we all do it.

Don't feed the troll. When he doesn't get what he wants (which is us
paying attention to him instead of exhanging darkroom techniques and
information) he'll go elsewhere.

Meantime, you're helping him bypass killfiles, and making things worse
instead of better.

I never could stand it when I saw a group picking on orphans or
cripples, I have to say there has been a lot of humor generated here.
Perhaps there would have to be a tip of the hat to the instigator, in
that he has showed some grasp of a portion of the field. He is
persistent in his thrusts.

In the end, he is wrong. His crusade is to turn an overwhelming
majority, including real experts, against themselves, or, at least,
their former beliefs. Talk about a no win effort! I'd put my money
on Don Quixote first.

The big problem for him and us is that he is so irrational in his
neediness that he can't get enough. Feeding him just makes him expect
more. So, starvation my be the most humane procedure we can apply
here. It will, at least, give him the option to cease and leave
intact, rather than get into some serious trouble down the road.

I stopped answering him months ago. I only addressed his points in a
reply to one of his direct repliers. It's a quibble, I know. I
intend to forego even that bit of relief.

Frank, I'll be watching you. You watch me.

John Douglass and Pete De Smit can watch us and each other. Someone
else can watch jjs, Ude Lafing and the Wogster. Don?

Whatever, just remember to leave the field with valor, do no harm and
remeber that Scarpitti is a person too.

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

In article ,
Robert Vervoordt wrote:

I stopped answering him months ago.

Months, It seems like hours,....maybe days :-)
--
?
?
?
?
LOL

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:54:03 GMT, Udie Lafing
wrote:

In article ,
Robert Vervoordt wrote:

I stopped answering him months ago.

Months, It seems like hours,....maybe days :-)

I meant answering directly.

But you're right, it does feelike time warp.


Robert Vervoordt, MFA