[SI] Shoot-In comments (Road Less Travelled)

Savageduck wrote:


You have chosen to be a non-participant in the SI, but still have the
nerve to comment when you do not have the courage of your convictions to
make a submission to any of the SI mandates.
That alone says much to your fear of criticism of anything you might
submit. So what that you have your ongoing war with Bret?
Relax, throw in a shot or two and suffer the comments with the rest of
us. It is something you expect us to take from you. So why not take a
compliment, or snide remark or two from us?

...and don't even think about sales, or avoiding the cliche as the bench
mark of excellence.


Well there you are wrong again Duck and shooting from the hip
as usual too.

I am a regular contributor to shootin. I don't contribute
presently because of the management and it's attitude, not a
lack of skill or fear of critique.

I seldom made any remarks about photographer's work.
Preferring to just accept the fact they were doing as I was,
posting photos to fit a theme. Anyone wanted to have a say
about my shots did without interference from me.

I got blamed for a lot of crap in this group I never started
(but by hell I defended myself plenty of times).

Even to the point when Annika1980 was running shootin and
every dude on the planet was tested his resolve must have got
a serious giggle when he accused me of being the instigator of
their workmanship.

I guess it shows how little resolve he had, that he gave up
when someone sent him a shot Russian femme that looked too
good to be true! It was and still is. ROTFL.

Even 27848862 Fooled him. LOL. Oh, side splitting laughter there!

Just in case you are as Dyslexic as you make out Duck... A
bakers dozen for 'ya!

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025088
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/90194271
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/82012949
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/80365549
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/79617184
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/76214361
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/75597588
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/73632188
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/55467407
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/28317345
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/26117376
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/27848862(Bret's favourite!)
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/26507811

All my work Dukie... In the days when one submission was enough.

Now they feel the need to post three times as much boring crap
and cross post the even more boring news of it to every group
on the planet - even when the charter of some of them forbid it.

I refrain on principal, make my objection known and comment on
comments, not people who submit. If you have a problem with
that mate... There are other groups more suitable for ex-cops,
you know?

On 2009-07-23 18:46:49 -0700, Alienjones said:

Savageduck wrote:


You have chosen to be a non-participant in the SI, but still have the
nerve to comment when you do not have the courage of your convictions
to make a submission to any of the SI mandates.
That alone says much to your fear of criticism of anything you might
submit. So what that you have your ongoing war with Bret?
Relax, throw in a shot or two and suffer the comments with the rest of
us. It is something you expect us to take from you. So why not take a
compliment, or snide remark or two from us?

...and don't even think about sales, or avoiding the cliche as the
bench mark of excellence.


Well there you are wrong again Duck and shooting from the hip as usual too.

I am a regular contributor to shootin. I don't contribute presently
because of the management and it's attitude, not a lack of skill or
fear of critique.

Well as I appear to mistaken there, regarding some of your past
submissions, I apologise for my presumptuousness.


I seldom made any remarks about photographer's work. Preferring to just
accept the fact they were doing as I was, posting photos to fit a
theme. Anyone wanted to have a say about my shots did without
interference from me.

You are however quick to toot your own horn as a "pro" and denigrate
any photographs you believe have no commercial value, not necessarily
in the SI but at other times.

I got blamed for a lot of crap in this group I never started (but by
hell I defended myself plenty of times).

True enough.

Even to the point when Annika1980 was running shootin and every dude on
the planet was tested his resolve must have got a serious giggle when
he accused me of being the instigator of their workmanship.

I guess it shows how little resolve he had, that he gave up when
someone sent him a shot Russian femme that looked too good to be true!
It was and still is. ROTFL.

Even 27848862 Fooled him. LOL. Oh, side splitting laughter there!

Just in case you are as Dyslexic as you make out Duck... A bakers dozen
for 'ya!

Nope dyslexia is not one of my issues.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/100025088
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/90194271
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/82012949
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/80365549
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/79617184
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/76214361
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/75597588
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/73632188
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/55467407
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/28317345
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/26117376
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/27848862(Bret's favourite!)
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/26507811

All my work Dukie... In the days when one submission was enough.

....and I enjoyed your ship wreck shots & the lightning bolt pic, but
from somebody (me) allergic to cats, you don't think the de rigeur
"kitty cat" shot isn't a little too snap shottish for you, do you?


Now they feel the need to post three times as much boring crap and
cross post the even more boring news of it to every group on the planet
- even when the charter of some of them forbid it.

I refrain on principal, make my objection known and comment on
comments, not people who submit. If you have a problem with that
mate... There are other groups more suitable for ex-cops, you know?

Well, whatever you are implying by my former profession I don't know,
but I don't hang out in rec.ex-cops, or whatever. Now that I am retired
I find I am more and more removed from that line of thought. Though
there are times when I read posts which are based on ignorance which I
find provoking, and I do what I can to restrain myself.
One of my hobbies is photography and I subscribe to the appropriate
photo groups.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-07-23 18:46:49 -0700, Alienjones said:


One of my hobbies is photography and I subscribe to the appropriate
photo groups.


I'd suggest some things to you Duck, if I thought you'd take
my advice.

Hang it all, I'll do it anyway...
I never started a fight in my life but I've won plenty and
lost a few. All I've ever done is make sure I don't put down
by idiots who can't accept it's OK to voice your opinion, just
don't make personal attacks on people because you disagree
with them.

The truth is if no one did anything but talk about photography
with me, I'd let criticising my photos just be part of
conversation, the same way those down the Yacht squadron
who've seen me in action on the water, have a go at my sailing
techniques. None of them ever make personal insults to my face
or behind my back. Why should Usenet be any different?

The problem is... The prominent people in these groups can't
leave things at that. They have to get down to personal
insults and when you think about it, your post I previously
responded to did just that.

Had a go at me personally because I voiced my opinion about a
lacklustre turn out to shootin. No names mentioned, even when
I criticised the management of it, I didn't mention any names,
only the stupidity of writing rules and then ignoring them
when a certain Alan Browne felt like it. For him I'll always
make an exception.

So... If you want to go down the same road as Annika1980 and a
couple of lesser idiots trod before you and start attacking
total strangers with personal insults designed to have maximum
impact on your target... And you decide I'm your target, you
better suit up mate because I simply won't put up with it.

If you want to talk about photography and can separate
yourself from personal insults, I'll happily engage you in
discussion.

DM

On 2009-07-23 23:01:16 -0700, Alienjones said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-07-23 18:46:49 -0700, Alienjones said:


One of my hobbies is photography and I subscribe to the appropriate
photo groups.


I'd suggest some things to you Duck, if I thought you'd take my advice.

Hang it all, I'll do it anyway...
I never started a fight in my life but I've won plenty and lost a few.
All I've ever done is make sure I don't put down by idiots who can't
accept it's OK to voice your opinion, just don't make personal attacks
on people because you disagree with them.

The truth is if no one did anything but talk about photography with me,
I'd let criticising my photos just be part of conversation, the same
way those down the Yacht squadron who've seen me in action on the
water, have a go at my sailing techniques. None of them ever make
personal insults to my face or behind my back. Why should Usenet be any
different?

The problem is... The prominent people in these groups can't leave
things at that. They have to get down to personal insults and when you
think about it, your post I previously responded to did just that.

Hardly a personal insult. Just a comment & observation that you tend
make your critcism of images based on a "pro" bias of saleability.
I was just remarking that not all images are captured and shared with
commercial value in mind. That seems to be your only point of view.


Had a go at me personally because I voiced my opinion about a
lacklustre turn out to shootin. No names mentioned, even when I
criticised the management of it, I didn't mention any names, only the
stupidity of writing rules and then ignoring them when a certain Alan
Browne felt like it. For him I'll always make an exception.

So... If you want to go down the same road as Annika1980 and a couple
of lesser idiots trod before you and start attacking total strangers
with personal insults designed to have maximum impact on your target...
And you decide I'm your target, you better suit up mate because I
simply won't put up with it.

Again the level of any of my respsonses to you in these NGs have been
far from insulting. I have not endorsed any of the well known opinions
regarding your chosen profession. The level of language I have used has
been restrained. As opposed to you voicing your uninformed opinion of
my performance in mine.


If you want to talk about photography and can separate yourself from
personal insults, I'll happily engage you in discussion.

....and that was all I ever thought I would get from the photo groups,
and perhaps the occasional smile when genuine humor appears.


DM


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-07-23 23:01:16 -0700, Alienjones said:


Again the level of any of my respsonses to you in these NGs have been
far from insulting. I have not endorsed any of the well known opinions
regarding your chosen profession. The level of language I have used has
been restrained. As opposed to you voicing your uninformed opinion of my
performance in mine.


"but still have the nerve to comment when you do not have the
courage..."

Yeah... That sounds like a "far from insulting" sort of
personal comment *NOT*. The fact is, Duck... Whilst you remain
anonymous...

I comply with Australia's trade practices Act by listing my
identity on my web sites... despite that you still know
absolutely nothing about me. You've never met me, never seen
me but decided anyhow that I have the nerve to make
constructive comments but not the courage to back up what I
say and my opinions are uninformed.

If I were talking about airplanes or submarines it might be
but photography and shootin? Sorry I'm very well informed there.

My son-in-law is in the force. In the years since he got
promoted to running the watch house, where he's daily locking
up the scum of the world... He too has developed a trait of
making "far from insulting" comments.

I don't feel the need to cut him or you any slack just because
of what you did for a living. Attack me personally and I
respond in kind. Show some respect and I'll respond in kind.

If you think calling me a coward with different words while
not bothering to check and see if I was qualified to comment
or not, you are just demonstrating that Usenet posters as a
whole are becoming immune to common courtesy and in the
process, are dragging it down to a level a lot of normal
people walk away from.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 10:33:36 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
wrote:

On Jul 23, 9:19*pm, Robert Coe wrote:

And none of them were from you, I perceive. At a minimum, you missed an
opportunity to show up D-Mac, who rarely if ever contributes to the SI.


I sure don't need to wait on the next SI mandate to show up D-Mac.

As for my lack of participation in this mandate, it was a mandate that
suggested tired cliches and that ain't how I roll. I could have
easily submitted three new photos that fit the mandate, and that's the
problem ..... too easy. Who wants to see more pics of dirt paths and
rusty gates?

This just admits that you don't have any creative spark. Evidently,
you couldn't figure out how to come up with some imaginative approach
to make the mandate work.

So is the Kodachrome mandate the next official mandate?

No, Kodachrome is dead and buried. I proved that.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Alienjones" wrote in message
...
Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-07-23 23:01:16 -0700, Alienjones said:


Again the level of any of my respsonses to you in these NGs have been far
from insulting. I have not endorsed any of the well known opinions
regarding your chosen profession. The level of language I have used has
been restrained. As opposed to you voicing your uninformed opinion of my
performance in mine.


"but still have the nerve to comment when you do not have the courage..."

Yeah... That sounds like a "far from insulting" sort of personal comment
*NOT*. The fact is, Duck... Whilst you remain anonymous...

I comply with Australia's trade practices Act by listing my identity on my
web sites...

you mean like your web site with photos still attributed to one of your made
up names Douggie ??
or maybe those pages of yours that had to be quickly pulled down because
they were shown to be completly plagarised ??


despite that you still know
absolutely nothing about me. You've never met me, never seen me but
decided anyhow that I have the nerve to make constructive comments but not
the courage to back up what I say and my opinions are uninformed.

If I were talking about airplanes or submarines it might be but
photography and shootin? Sorry I'm very well informed there.

My son-in-law is in the force. In the years since he got promoted to
running the watch house, where he's daily locking up the scum of the
world... He too has developed a trait of making "far from insulting"
comments.


Nah, he probably got that from haning around a "scum of the Earth" like you
Douggie, pathological liar and fraudster to boot, still trying to
fraudulently shill your "Photo Booth" franchises on Usenet Douggie ??


I don't feel the need to cut him or you any slack just because of what you
did for a living. Attack me personally and I respond in kind. Show some
respect and I'll respond in kind.


Bull****!!

If you think calling me a coward with different words while not bothering
to check and see if I was qualified to comment or not,

much like your uninformed comments about the Ducks former profession eh
Douggie ;-)

you are just demonstrating that Usenet posters as a
whole are becoming immune to common courtesy and in the process, are
dragging it down to a level a lot of normal people walk away from.

So thats your game plan Douggie, no common courtesy and always trying to
drag everything down to your scum dwelling bottom level so the decent people
will leave, then you can be king among the swine!!



--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

On 2009-07-24 01:10:34 -0700, Alienjones said:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-07-23 23:01:16 -0700, Alienjones said:


Again the level of any of my respsonses to you in these NGs have been
far from insulting. I have not endorsed any of the well known opinions
regarding your chosen profession. The level of language I have used has
been restrained. As opposed to you voicing your uninformed opinion of
my performance in mine.


"but still have the nerve to comment when you do not have the courage..."

You should have cited my full comment rather than leave your edited
version to be read out of context. So to keep things balanced here is
the unedited version:
"
Savageduck wrote:


You have chosen to be a non-participant in the SI, but still have the
nerve to comment when you do not have the courage of your convictions
to make a submission to any of the SI mandates.
That alone says much to your fear of criticism of anything you might
submit. So what that you have your ongoing war with Bret?
Relax, throw in a shot or two and suffer the comments with the rest of
us. It is something you expect us to take from you. So why not take a
compliment, or snide remark or two from us?

...and don't even think about sales, or avoiding the cliche as the
bench mark of excellence.


Well there you are wrong again Duck and shooting from the hip as usual too.

I am a regular contributor to shootin. I don't contribute presently
because of the management and it's attitude, not a lack of skill or
fear of critique.

Well as I appear to mistaken there, regarding some of your past
submissions, I apologise for my presumptuousness.


I seldom made any remarks about photographer's work. Preferring to just
accept the fact they were doing as I was, posting photos to fit a
theme. Anyone wanted to have a say about my shots did without
interference from me.

You are however quick to toot your own horn as a "pro" and denigrate
any photographs you believe have no commercial value, not necessarily
in the SI but at other times.

I got blamed for a lot of crap in this group I never started (but by
hell I defended myself plenty of times).

True enough."


You might have noted I addressed any error I might have made and
offered an apology, which it seems you were ungracious enough to reject.


Yeah... That sounds like a "far from insulting" sort of personal
comment *NOT*. The fact is, Duck... Whilst you remain anonymous...

....and for most I remain anonymous because of my former profession, the
use of nicks in the World of the Web & Usenet is not illegal, as far as
I know. There are those in these groups who are aware of my identity. I
have a different level of trust with them. I have been consistent with
my use of "Savageduck" in all Groups I have participated in. There are
a few Groups where I have used my true identity, but those were groups
dealing with my wife's medical issues and were totally professional and
non-confrontational.
You on the other hand are in no way consistent. You change up for
various reasons, the most obvious of which is to maneuver around
filters.


I comply with Australia's trade practices Act by listing my identity on
my web sites
....and it is a fine thing that you are abiding with the Australian
trade practices act as you have established commercial web sites, and
web sites to promote your self for your profession.

... despite that you still know absolutely nothing about me.

True, other than all you have told us about yourself, and who am I to
question that?

You've never met me, never seen me but decided anyhow that I have the
nerve to make constructive comments but not the courage to back up what
I say
I did make a comment in that regard, and I clarified that by
reinserting the quote you edited.

and my opinions are uninformed.

That I didn't state. Again your remark is out of context, to clarify
here is the content of the full text;

"The problem is... The prominent people in these groups can't leave
things at that. They have to get down to personal insults and when you
think about it, your post I previously responded to did just that.

Hardly a personal insult. Just a comment & observation that you tend
make your criticism of images based on a "pro" bias of saleability.
I was just remarking that not all images are captured and shared with
commercial value in mind. That seems to be your only point of view.


Had a go at me personally because I voiced my opinion about a
lacklustre turn out to shootin. No names mentioned, even when I
criticised the management of it, I didn't mention any names, only the
stupidity of writing rules and then ignoring them when a certain Alan
Browne felt like it. For him I'll always make an exception.

So... If you want to go down the same road as Annika1980 and a couple
of lesser idiots trod before you and start attacking total strangers
with personal insults designed to have maximum impact on your target...
And you decide I'm your target, you better suit up mate because I
simply won't put up with it.

Again the level of any of my respsonses to you in these NGs have been
far from insulting. I have not endorsed any of the well known opinions
regarding your chosen profession. The level of language I have used has
been restrained. As opposed to you voicing your uninformed opinion of
my performance in mine."

Now if you read that carefully you will note I stated your opinion of
my performance in my profession was uninformed. That I am sure of. I
have absolutly no idea of the level of expertice you possess on any
other subject, and I was not presumptious enough to imply that.


If I were talking about airplanes or submarines it might be but
photography and shootin? Sorry I'm very well informed there.

As I explained I did not impugn your level of expertise on any subject
other than my performance in my former profession.

My son-in-law is in the force. In the years since he got promoted to
running the watch house, where he's daily locking up the scum of the
world... He too has developed a trait of making "far from insulting"
comments.
My congratulations to him for his promotion. I am happy to hear he is
dealing with the stress of all he has to deal with on the job, and you
with the same restraint I do.

I don't feel the need to cut him or you any slack just because of what
you did for a living.
....and we will be able to live with that.

Attack me personally and I respond in kind. Show some respect and I'll
respond in kind.

That is a two way street. You choose denigrate any non-commercial
efforts in these groups demonstrating your lack of respect for those
you demand respect from. When there is a link to an excellent image,
you choose malicious comment rather than constructive criticism or
praise.


If you think calling me a coward with different words while not
bothering to check and see if I was qualified to comment or not, you
are just demonstrating that Usenet posters as a whole are becoming
immune to common courtesy and in the process, are dragging it down to a
level a lot of normal people walk away from.

Again you appear to be fully qualified to comment on many subjects,
just as I have experience and education in fields far removed from Law
Enforcement. I have never questioned your qualifications, only the
spirit in which you make your comments.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

Helen wrote:
Apologizies to everyone for not participating in Alan's Road Less
Travelled SI. I had the perfect idea and I knew exactly how to
execute it. Sadly my aunt passed away and I was in charge of the
funeral arrangements, travelling to Quebec.

My subject was a man I've observed quite a few times in a downtown
greenhouse. Everyone is shooting flowers with their digital cameras,
but this guy is there using a very old 4X5 camera, hence the road less
travelled. I arrived back home days before the SI deadline and I went
back many times to find the guy, but I never seen him.

Perfect idea, thanks for describing it. A guy brought his 'new' Speed
Graphic 4x5 Press Camera to work a few days ago to photograph plants,
with Polaroid film on a stubby little tripod. It looks like this:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/org/came...raphic4x5.html
I'll have to get him to bring it in & set up again to shoot him in
digital g.

On Fri, 24 Jul 2009 21:58:32 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
wrote:

On Jul 24, 1:41*pm, tony cooper wrote:

This just admits that you don't have any creative spark. *Evidently,
you couldn't figure out how to come up with some imaginative approach
to make the mandate work. *

I showed the same lack of imagination as whoever chose that mandate.
That's my point. If you have to rack your brain to figure out a way
to satisfy the mandate without being cliche-ish, then it is a poor
mandate.

Hell, they should've just called it "Cliche."
At least that would have led to some creative interpretations.


I understand your point. You want a mandate that doesn't require you
to put any thought or effort into how to come up with something novel
or interesting that fits. You didn't enter this one because "The Road
Less Traveled" suggested only dirt roads and rusty gates to you, and
you didn't have enough imagination to think of something else.

Maybe we should schedule a "Osprey" mandate so you don't have to rack
your brain to enter something and get all petulant and whiney again.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida