[SI] Don't forget to send a few "Ms" for next Thursday

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:21:11 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 23:36:59 +0000, Remmy Martin said:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:25:12 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 22:41:44 +0000, Vance said:

On Feb 24, 5:41*am, Bowser wrote:
Yes, the "M" mandate is due in just a short week. Amazingly, I was in
Florida this week and failed to get a shot of Mickey Mouse. Maybe next
time. I was in EPCOT, the mouse was not. Wait! Does Mary Poppins count?

The gallery will be hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/letter_m

The Rulz and other info about the Shoot-In can be found
hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

A 28 day month. Damn,now I have to force things.

How about a photo of a month? We are certain they exist, but where is
the photographic evidence?

It doesn't matter what he submits. It'll be sure to be stolen from someone
else, like this one he stole.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

When you hover your cursor on the "Belongs to" link, it clearly states
"Vance Lear".

Yet we find proof-positive that this image is owned and copyrighted by
someone else.

http://mothphotographersgroup.msstat...p?hodges=08262

With this copyright notice clearly stated at the beginning of that page:
"Photographs are the copyrighted property of each photographer listed
Contact individual photographers for permission to use for any purpose."

I guess he fails to understand the meaning of the word "any".

Nothing but a low-life photo thief and troll, 100% confirmed.

Are known thieves allowed to submit photos to the SI? Maybe all the photos
submitted to the SI have been stolen. If one known-photo thief is allowed,
perhaps there's more, many more. Birds of a feather ....

That's all totally beyond me, but I can't wait to have one of my photos
stolen - then I'll become an established photographer.

Look...you steal one of mine and I'll steal one of yours, and we'll
both be established photographers.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2011-03-01 00:24:08 +0000, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:21:11 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 23:36:59 +0000, Remmy Martin said:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:25:12 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 22:41:44 +0000, Vance said:

On Feb 24, 5:41*am, Bowser wrote:
Yes, the "M" mandate is due in just a short week. Amazingly, I was in
Florida this week and failed to get a shot of Mickey Mouse. Maybe next
time. I was in EPCOT, the mouse was not. Wait! Does Mary Poppins count?

The gallery will be hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/letter_m

The Rulz and other info about the Shoot-In can be found
hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

A 28 day month. Damn,now I have to force things.

How about a photo of a month? We are certain they exist, but where is
the photographic evidence?

It doesn't matter what he submits. It'll be sure to be stolen from someone
else, like this one he stole.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

When you hover your cursor on the "Belongs to" link, it clearly states
"Vance Lear".

Yet we find proof-positive that this image is owned and copyrighted by
someone else.

http://mothphotographersgroup.msstat...p?hodges=08262

With this copyright notice clearly stated at the beginning of that page:
"Photographs are the copyrighted property of each photographer listed
Contact individual photographers for permission to use for any purpose."

I guess he fails to understand the meaning of the word "any".

Nothing but a low-life photo thief and troll, 100% confirmed.

Are known thieves allowed to submit photos to the SI? Maybe all the photos
submitted to the SI have been stolen. If one known-photo thief is allowed,
perhaps there's more, many more. Birds of a feather ....

That's all totally beyond me, but I can't wait to have one of my photos
stolen - then I'll become an established photographer.

Look...you steal one of mine and I'll steal one of yours, and we'll
both be established photographers.

It ought to work, but Bob and Martha have already tried it.

--
Pete

On 2011-02-28 16:43:18 -0800, Pete
said:

On 2011-03-01 00:24:08 +0000, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:21:11 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 23:36:59 +0000, Remmy Martin said:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:25:12 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 22:41:44 +0000, Vance said:

On Feb 24, 5:41*am, Bowser wrote:
Yes, the "M" mandate is due in just a short week. Amazingly, I was in
Florida this week and failed to get a shot of Mickey Mouse. Maybe next
time. I was in EPCOT, the mouse was not. Wait! Does Mary Poppins count?

The gallery will be hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/letter_m

The Rulz and other info about the Shoot-In can be found
hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

A 28 day month. Damn,now I have to force things.

How about a photo of a month? We are certain they exist, but where is
the photographic evidence?

It doesn't matter what he submits. It'll be sure to be stolen from someone
else, like this one he stole.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

When you hover your cursor on the "Belongs to" link, it clearly states
"Vance Lear".

Yet we find proof-positive that this image is owned and copyrighted by
someone else.

http://mothphotographersgroup.msstat...p?hodges=08262

With this copyright notice clearly stated at the beginning of that page:
"Photographs are the copyrighted property of each photographer listed
Contact individual photographers for permission to use for any purpose."

I guess he fails to understand the meaning of the word "any".

Nothing but a low-life photo thief and troll, 100% confirmed.

Are known thieves allowed to submit photos to the SI? Maybe all the photos
submitted to the SI have been stolen. If one known-photo thief is allowed,
perhaps there's more, many more. Birds of a feather ....

That's all totally beyond me, but I can't wait to have one of my photos
stolen - then I'll become an established photographer.

Look...you steal one of mine and I'll steal one of yours, and we'll
both be established photographers.

It ought to work, but Bob and Martha have already tried it.

Community property.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:04:39 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 16:43:18 -0800, Pete
said:

On 2011-03-01 00:24:08 +0000, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:21:11 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 23:36:59 +0000, Remmy Martin said:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:25:12 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 22:41:44 +0000, Vance said:

On Feb 24, 5:41*am, Bowser wrote:
Yes, the "M" mandate is due in just a short week. Amazingly, I was in
Florida this week and failed to get a shot of Mickey Mouse. Maybe next
time. I was in EPCOT, the mouse was not. Wait! Does Mary Poppins count?

The gallery will be hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/letter_m

The Rulz and other info about the Shoot-In can be found
hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

A 28 day month. Damn,now I have to force things.

How about a photo of a month? We are certain they exist, but where is
the photographic evidence?

It doesn't matter what he submits. It'll be sure to be stolen from someone
else, like this one he stole.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

When you hover your cursor on the "Belongs to" link, it clearly states
"Vance Lear".

Yet we find proof-positive that this image is owned and copyrighted by
someone else.

http://mothphotographersgroup.msstat...p?hodges=08262

With this copyright notice clearly stated at the beginning of that page:
"Photographs are the copyrighted property of each photographer listed
Contact individual photographers for permission to use for any purpose."

I guess he fails to understand the meaning of the word "any".

Nothing but a low-life photo thief and troll, 100% confirmed.

Are known thieves allowed to submit photos to the SI? Maybe all the photos
submitted to the SI have been stolen. If one known-photo thief is allowed,
perhaps there's more, many more. Birds of a feather ....

That's all totally beyond me, but I can't wait to have one of my photos
stolen - then I'll become an established photographer.

Look...you steal one of mine and I'll steal one of yours, and we'll
both be established photographers.

It ought to work, but Bob and Martha have already tried it.

Community property.

Nice to see that contributors to the SI so openly condone the theft of
others' property. Though I'm not surprised than an ex-cop, who never
admitted why he had to leave his job and is well known for his libelous and
slanderous behavior, would also condone stealing others' property.

I was right ... there's more than one person in the SI that steals others
photos and presents them as their own. All birds of a feather.

Looks like the final downfall of the SI after all. You did it all by your
own little ignorant and childish selves.

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:04:39 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 16:43:18 -0800, Pete
said:

On 2011-03-01 00:24:08 +0000, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:21:11 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 23:36:59 +0000, Remmy Martin said:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:25:12 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 22:41:44 +0000, Vance said:

On Feb 24, 5:41*am, Bowser wrote:
Yes, the "M" mandate is due in just a short week. Amazingly, I was in
Florida this week and failed to get a shot of Mickey Mouse. Maybe next
time. I was in EPCOT, the mouse was not. Wait! Does Mary Poppins count?

The gallery will be hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/letter_m

The Rulz and other info about the Shoot-In can be found
hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

A 28 day month. Damn,now I have to force things.

How about a photo of a month? We are certain they exist, but where is
the photographic evidence?

It doesn't matter what he submits. It'll be sure to be stolen from someone
else, like this one he stole.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

When you hover your cursor on the "Belongs to" link, it clearly states
"Vance Lear".

Yet we find proof-positive that this image is owned and copyrighted by
someone else.

http://mothphotographersgroup.msstat...p?hodges=08262

With this copyright notice clearly stated at the beginning of that page:
"Photographs are the copyrighted property of each photographer listed
Contact individual photographers for permission to use for any purpose."

I guess he fails to understand the meaning of the word "any".

Nothing but a low-life photo thief and troll, 100% confirmed.

Are known thieves allowed to submit photos to the SI? Maybe all the photos
submitted to the SI have been stolen. If one known-photo thief is allowed,
perhaps there's more, many more. Birds of a feather ....

That's all totally beyond me, but I can't wait to have one of my photos
stolen - then I'll become an established photographer.

Look...you steal one of mine and I'll steal one of yours, and we'll
both be established photographers.

It ought to work, but Bob and Martha have already tried it.

Community property.

Nice to see that contributors to the SI so openly condone the theft of
others' property. Though I'm not surprised that an ex-cop, who never
admitted why he had to leave his job and is well known for his libelous and
slanderous behavior, would also condone stealing others' property.

I was right ... there's more than one person in the SI that steals others
photos and presents them as their own. All birds of a feather.

Looks like the final downfall of the SI after all. You did it all by your
own little ignorant and childish selves.

"Remmy Martin" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:04:39 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 16:43:18 -0800, Pete
said:

On 2011-03-01 00:24:08 +0000, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:21:11 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 23:36:59 +0000, Remmy Martin said:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:25:12 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 22:41:44 +0000, Vance said:

On Feb 24, 5:41 am, Bowser wrote:
Yes, the "M" mandate is due in just a short week. Amazingly, I was
in
Florida this week and failed to get a shot of Mickey Mouse. Maybe
next
time. I was in EPCOT, the mouse was not. Wait! Does Mary Poppins
count?

The gallery will be hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/letter_m

The Rulz and other info about the Shoot-In can be found
hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

A 28 day month. Damn,now I have to force things.

How about a photo of a month? We are certain they exist, but where
is
the photographic evidence?

It doesn't matter what he submits. It'll be sure to be stolen from
someone
else, like this one he stole.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

When you hover your cursor on the "Belongs to" link, it clearly
states
"Vance Lear".

Yet we find proof-positive that this image is owned and copyrighted
by
someone else.

http://mothphotographersgroup.msstat...p?hodges=08262

With this copyright notice clearly stated at the beginning of that
page:
"Photographs are the copyrighted property of each photographer listed
Contact individual photographers for permission to use for any
purpose."

I guess he fails to understand the meaning of the word "any".

Nothing but a low-life photo thief and troll, 100% confirmed.

Are known thieves allowed to submit photos to the SI? Maybe all the
photos
submitted to the SI have been stolen. If one known-photo thief is
allowed,
perhaps there's more, many more. Birds of a feather ....

That's all totally beyond me, but I can't wait to have one of my
photos
stolen - then I'll become an established photographer.

Look...you steal one of mine and I'll steal one of yours, and we'll
both be established photographers.

It ought to work, but Bob and Martha have already tried it.

Community property.

Nice to see that contributors to the SI so openly condone the theft of
others' property. Though I'm not surprised that an ex-cop, who never
admitted why he had to leave his job and is well known for his libelous
and
slanderous behavior, would also condone stealing others' property.

I was right ... there's more than one person in the SI that steals others
photos and presents them as their own. All birds of a feather.

Looks like the final downfall of the SI after all. You did it all by your
own little ignorant and childish selves.

Thanks for the compliments. Exactly why are you so jealous of us?

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 04:26:57 -0500, "Tim Conway"
wrote:


"Remmy Martin" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:04:39 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 16:43:18 -0800, Pete
said:

On 2011-03-01 00:24:08 +0000, tony cooper said:

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 00:21:11 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 23:36:59 +0000, Remmy Martin said:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 23:25:12 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-02-28 22:41:44 +0000, Vance said:

On Feb 24, 5:41 am, Bowser wrote:
Yes, the "M" mandate is due in just a short week. Amazingly, I was
in
Florida this week and failed to get a shot of Mickey Mouse. Maybe
next
time. I was in EPCOT, the mouse was not. Wait! Does Mary Poppins
count?

The gallery will be hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/letter_m

The Rulz and other info about the Shoot-In can be found
hehttp://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

A 28 day month. Damn,now I have to force things.

How about a photo of a month? We are certain they exist, but where
is
the photographic evidence?

It doesn't matter what he submits. It'll be sure to be stolen from
someone
else, like this one he stole.

http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink

When you hover your cursor on the "Belongs to" link, it clearly
states
"Vance Lear".

Yet we find proof-positive that this image is owned and copyrighted
by
someone else.

http://mothphotographersgroup.msstat...p?hodges=08262

With this copyright notice clearly stated at the beginning of that
page:
"Photographs are the copyrighted property of each photographer listed
Contact individual photographers for permission to use for any
purpose."

I guess he fails to understand the meaning of the word "any".

Nothing but a low-life photo thief and troll, 100% confirmed.

Are known thieves allowed to submit photos to the SI? Maybe all the
photos
submitted to the SI have been stolen. If one known-photo thief is
allowed,
perhaps there's more, many more. Birds of a feather ....

That's all totally beyond me, but I can't wait to have one of my
photos
stolen - then I'll become an established photographer.

Look...you steal one of mine and I'll steal one of yours, and we'll
both be established photographers.

It ought to work, but Bob and Martha have already tried it.

Community property.

Nice to see that contributors to the SI so openly condone the theft of
others' property. Though I'm not surprised that an ex-cop, who never
admitted why he had to leave his job and is well known for his libelous
and
slanderous behavior, would also condone stealing others' property.

I was right ... there's more than one person in the SI that steals others
photos and presents them as their own. All birds of a feather.

Looks like the final downfall of the SI after all. You did it all by your
own little ignorant and childish selves.

Thanks for the compliments. Exactly why are you so jealous of us?

Is that how you so obviously want to side-step the issue of known
photo-thieves being allowed to participate in the SI, as well as many of
its contributors also condoning the theft of others' property? Are you also
one of them? No need to answer that. You already did by trying to evade the
issue. You just publicly became another nail in SI's coffin, whether you
comprehend this or not. (hint: Who in their right mind would want to be
publicly known as another party to fools like that.)

You idiots sure are slow, aren't you.

On 2011-03-01 10:13:14 +0000, Remmy Martin said:

...
Is that how you so obviously want to side-step the issue of known
photo-thieves being allowed to participate in the SI, as well as many of
its contributors also condoning the theft of others' property? Are you also
one of them? No need to answer that. You already did by trying to evade the
issue. You just publicly became another nail in SI's coffin, whether you
comprehend this or not. (hint: Who in their right mind would want to be
publicly known as another party to fools like that.)

Well, no one could accuse me of being in my right mind :-)

--
Pete

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:49:52 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-03-01 10:13:14 +0000, Remmy Martin said:

...
Is that how you so obviously want to side-step the issue of known
photo-thieves being allowed to participate in the SI, as well as many of
its contributors also condoning the theft of others' property? Are you also
one of them? No need to answer that. You already did by trying to evade the
issue. You just publicly became another nail in SI's coffin, whether you
comprehend this or not. (hint: Who in their right mind would want to be
publicly known as another party to fools like that.)

Well, no one could accuse me of being in my right mind :-)

Though others who are in their right mind will find it quite advantageous
to distance themselves from any further SI participation whatsoever. Even
denying having been involved in it in any way in the past. In the end there
will be nothing left but photo-thieves and trolls until they too tire of
each others' antics.

Oh, wait .... that's already happening, and happened.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2011 10:49:52 +0000, Pete
wrote:

On 2011-03-01 10:13:14 +0000, Remmy Martin said:

...
Is that how you so obviously want to side-step the issue of known
photo-thieves being allowed to participate in the SI, as well as many of
its contributors also condoning the theft of others' property? Are you also
one of them? No need to answer that. You already did by trying to evade the
issue. You just publicly became another nail in SI's coffin, whether you
comprehend this or not. (hint: Who in their right mind would want to be
publicly known as another party to fools like that.)

Well, no one could accuse me of being in my right mind :-)

Though others who are in their right mind will find it quite advantageous
to distance themselves from any further SI participation whatsoever. Even
denying having been involved in it in any way in the past. In the end there
will be nothing left but photo-thieves and trolls until they too tire of
each others' puerile antics.

Oh, wait .... that's already happening, and happened.