THE CURE FOR RITA!

"Helen" wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 1:25 pm, Jufí wrote:
Don't you get enough of that crap on tv, billboards, magazines, etc?!
Rent yourself the porn flick "Debbie Does Dallas".

Nah, even porn gets old after several thousand viewings. It's variety we
want. Now get to work.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Jul 21, 1:25 pm, Jufí wrote:

Then you're spending too much time obsessing about Reata, the Fat Ass. Why
not some pix of cheerleaders, like the old days? What the hell is with all
the damed bugs and horses? Nobody wants them! We want cheerleaders!

It ain't football season.

And this is why we need the pictures even more than ever. Sheesh, do I have
to explain everything? At least Helen offered some constructive advice.

2SQUID wrote:


Snipped bits out

Me and Big Squid

Douglas: You protest entirely too much.
Mark: You post way too much about D-Mac.

--
lsmft

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 21, 12:43 am, 2SQUID wrote:

And the difference between Annika1980 and Rita is what?
Rita can afford her hobby and Annika1980 relies on the generosity of a
woman his wife must surely not know about.

Both these people make remarkably similar posts but Rita never slips up
and posts a message as Helen without switching feeds. What does that
tell you about them?

Hi D!

You can't have it both ways, dog killer. Either I am Helen or I'm
not.
Everyone here (except you) knows that I'm not.

As for the differences between me and Rita there is that one little
distinction. I can take a decent photo and he cannot. You do know
that Rita is a he don't you?

Me and Rita are like a Zeiss and a Sigma .... one is the real deal and
one is a cheap imitation. Not surprising that you would gravitate
toward the cheap imitation, given your past history of buying Chinese
counterfeit knockoffs and shilling Sigmas, right Preddy?







Steal any photographs today, you pompous, arrogant ass?



mike


--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail,
Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
It also filters everything from a .cn server.

http://improve-usenet.org/

John McWilliams wrote:
2SQUID wrote:


Snipped bits out

Me and Big Squid

Douglas: You protest entirely too much.
Mark: You post way too much about D-Mac.


See here's the thing John...
You made the same mistake as the troll himself thinking because the big
Squid gave me the keys to the shop while he went to play with the
whales, I was him. I'm just the bait, if you get my drift! But boy, do I
love playing with the sharks in this pool!

Me and the Big Squid

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 20, 7:49 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
So far, one comment about the photo itself and two comments about
trolls and killfiles. It is very obvious who the photographers are in
this group and who is just here to play Usenet games.
You posted a photo? And you have to ask why SI was a complete and total
failure?

The Shoot-In has had 129 different mandates and over 1,000,000 hits
since we started it in 1993. Call me when any of your sites reach
that level of "total failure." Given what Lisa and I thought about
the project back then, I'd call it a wild success. If I thought it
would ever run this long I wouldn't have used Roman Numerals to number
the mandates.
(BTW, Kramer, 128 is CXXVIII and 98 is XCVIII.)

Besides, the Shoot-In isn't dead, it's just asleep. Hell, I might
even take it back over if it would **** you off.

Some thoughts arising:

Some sort of commitment to support the SI from posters here might help
Annika or Alan to take it on.

I didn't feel that any influence from trolls or denigrators affected my
participation - when I did submit an image, that is, and I did submit a
few - but usually other pressures, and probably laziness intervened, so
I could have done better.

If it revives, I'll commit to submitting more often.

Mandates; some have been better than others, and I confess that as
president of our local camera club I have used some of them in the
monthly comps to get away from the usual CC fodder of bland subjects, to
stretch the members' minds a bit. They protested at first that the
subjects were too hard - chiaroscuro had them going for a while - but
after the comp. was over, they admitted it had been good for them.


I think mandates are needed. A mandateless(?) SI would soon lose appeal.
We could recycle some of the past mandates, and of course entertain
new ones with an eye to improving knowledge.

Mind-stretching mandates are valuable as a tool to improve photographic
repertoire - broadening how we approach a subject, how to handle a
difficult shot, a wider appreciation of lighting, and so on.

Colin D.

Just for Douglas "St James" MacDonald.

2SQUID wrote:
Don't fall for this criminal's tricks Rita.
Too late. (O: And your use of 'criminal' is in what sense, again? Were
you advised to say that by your crack legal team? They seem to be still
struggling to actually achieve anything...

The amazing part of all his stunts is he believes he alone is capable of
clearing Usenet of all the honest people he "discovers" are on to him.
But everyone is now onto *you*, Douglas. *My* goal is achieved.

I'm not sure what your feedback rating is but mine is over 115 and 100%.
Oooh, a high Ebay rating!!! But a quick peek at your feedback shows the
one from "clocksnprints", in which that person says "Thanks. Reputation
is everything. I will certainly buy from you again".. If you click on
that buyer, you are returned to: Douglas MacDonald. Well deserved
reputation, Douglas.

As you know, you don't get this sort of response from your clients if
you aren't totally honest.
The previous example makes that pretty funny.

Mark would have all his followers (both of
them) believe he is the only honest person on Usenet. LOL.
I think you'll be in deep trouble if you want to start counting
supporters. But feel free to list them and compare.

His little escapade with Australia's company watchdog gets me rolling in
the isles - "I'll get my mates at ASIC to investigate you".
And they found you had *no* printing franchise, liar. TechnoAusssie is
just a defunct business name. Feel free to prove otherwise.
If you had a real franchise, you would have been prosecuted for the
Graham Hunt stunt. ASIC don't bother prosecuting fantasisers.

No one there has any knowledge of Charles Stevens or Mark Thomas.
Who did you ask, Doug? Which office? Which department? Which section?
Name names instead of making up more fantasy stories.

Let's not forget this gem: "Lies, all lies. You don't have a shop front"
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/shopfront.htm I wonder where he
keeps his guide dog?
*Current* shopfront, Douglas. As you should probably know (dementia?),
you haven't been there for years, and you weren't even there when you
posted it.

And then there was this (recent) display of Markie gross stupidity:
"The EPA doesn't issue photography permits"
Hullo, hullo, wot's this then?
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/permit.htm ...Hmm he's dyslexic
too!
But you claimed you had *ATSIC* permits, and that the one you just
posted was from the "Forests and Wildlife Service". It isn't, and those
permits do NOT, as you claimed, make you a 'Registered Photographer'.

And to cap off this condensed version of the little dancer's stupidity,
is the incredible gem of wisdom about the Queensland State PRESIDENT of
the AIPP (Photbyron)'s wedding photography: "Amateurish".
Link and context? What's a "Photbyron"?

Hey by the way... Thanks for the Google lift Mark... Number 5 in the
results for "Certified professional Photographers"
I prefer the results you get if you search on "Douglas MacDonald
Photographer". The CPPA doesn't exist, so it is irrelevant. (How is
the incorporation going? Are you going to fix the grammatical error in
its name?)

The thing is Rita, Those of us who make a living
Doing what again, failed Ebay wedding auctions and setting up fake
self-certification schemes? Otherwise, post an address for one of your
many chain stores, or the CPPA.

Second lastly, now that you have admitted that this is another
sockpuppet, why did you initially talk about yourself in the third
person...?

Finally, can you explain this post, apparently from you?:

================================================== ====================
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Nice Mice
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 08:35:16 +1000
Local: Wed, Jul 16 2008 8:35 am
Subject: Oh Dear!

I've sure gotten old! I've had two bypass surgeries, a hip
replacement, new knees, fought prostate cancer and diabetes. I'm half
blind, can't hear anything quieter than a jet engine, take 40 different
medications that make me dizzy, winded, and subject to blackouts. Have
bouts with dementia. Have poor circulation; hardly feel my hands and
feet any more. Can't remember if I'm 85 or 92. Have lost all my friends.
But, thank God, I still have my driver's license.
================================================== =====================

I'd love to know why you have lost all your friends, poor thing.

"2SQUID" wrote in message
...
John McWilliams wrote:
2SQUID wrote:


Snipped bits out

Me and Big Squid

Douglas: You protest entirely too much.
Mark: You post way too much about D-Mac.


See here's the thing John...
You made the same mistake as the troll himself thinking because the big
Squid gave me the keys to the shop while he went to play with the whales,
I was him. I'm just the bait, if you get my drift! But boy, do I love
playing with the sharks in this pool!

Do you Douggie, here is a great big hint, some of the sharks in here have a
great big bite and you being a soft squishy squid makes you all the more
appetising ;-)
Now how is it that you can apparently afford to bankroll an association for
professional photographers, (not yet incorporated) then use the fledgling
association to claim some professional competence so you can dupe the
unsuspecting on your eBay auctions. you are after all a pauper living in
your daughters basement.

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

Call me ignorant, but where is this site you are all talking about?

Mick B


On 22/7/08 9:40 AM, in article ,
"Colin.D" wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 20, 7:49 pm, "Rita Berkowitz" wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
So far, one comment about the photo itself and two comments about
trolls and killfiles. It is very obvious who the photographers are in
this group and who is just here to play Usenet games.
You posted a photo? And you have to ask why SI was a complete and total
failure?

The Shoot-In has had 129 different mandates and over 1,000,000 hits
since we started it in 1993. Call me when any of your sites reach
that level of "total failure." Given what Lisa and I thought about
the project back then, I'd call it a wild success. If I thought it
would ever run this long I wouldn't have used Roman Numerals to number
the mandates.
(BTW, Kramer, 128 is CXXVIII and 98 is XCVIII.)

Besides, the Shoot-In isn't dead, it's just asleep. Hell, I might
even take it back over if it would **** you off.

Some thoughts arising:

Some sort of commitment to support the SI from posters here might help
Annika or Alan to take it on.

I didn't feel that any influence from trolls or denigrators affected my
participation - when I did submit an image, that is, and I did submit a
few - but usually other pressures, and probably laziness intervened, so
I could have done better.

If it revives, I'll commit to submitting more often.

Mandates; some have been better than others, and I confess that as
president of our local camera club I have used some of them in the
monthly comps to get away from the usual CC fodder of bland subjects, to
stretch the members' minds a bit. They protested at first that the
subjects were too hard - chiaroscuro had them going for a while - but
after the comp. was over, they admitted it had been good for them.


I think mandates are needed. A mandateless(?) SI would soon lose appeal.
We could recycle some of the past mandates, and of course entertain
new ones with an eye to improving knowledge.

Mind-stretching mandates are valuable as a tool to improve photographic
repertoire - broadening how we approach a subject, how to handle a
difficult shot, a wider appreciation of lighting, and so on.

Colin D.

* Michael Brown wrote :
Call me ignorant, but where is this site you are all talking about?

The Shootin?

http://www.pbase.com/shootin

--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.