enlarger question

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 01:22:38 -0700, Tom Phillips
wrote:


it's either a drug induced deformity from W's
cocaine days or a calculated tactic to dumb
him down so the common folk don't think he's
too intelligent and thus dislike him ;-)

I think it a combination of cocaine and alcohol. Imagine that he went
to bed one night like that and it stuck !

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 12:02:05 -0500, G- Blank
wrote:

Given enough time the Iraq admin might just set Saddam free.


January 31, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Now that we've seen the results of the
election in Palestine, it's pretty clear we
should expect elections in Iraq to eventually
bring about a stern Islamic state such as
exist elsewhere.

Islamic societies are very old and highly
developed. They are not easily disrupted, and
they have a long history of withstanding the
frequent attempts to disrupt them. They are
by no means inferior in this regard to Jews,
who have withstood disruption for along time,
or Christians, who learned to survive Roman
persecution almost two thousand years ago.

So we should not expect change to occur in
Iraqi society just because there has been an
American occupation for a few years.

I'm curious to see if they will put execution
of Saddam on the table. There must be plenty
of Iraqis who know he could eventually get
out of jail. A lot of people must be very
frightened to think he's still alive.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 23:42:59 -0600, John
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Jan 2006 10:27:28 -0500, "Creeker"
wrote:

In summary they are afraid of the facts.

Why be afraid of something that they can easily manage ? Facts are not
an issue unless the can be verified and used. You could wrap a bat in
facts and smack the majority of people right between the eyes with it
and they would swear it's irrelevant. If facts were relevant Bush
would be impeached.

==
John - Photographer & Webmaster
www.puresilver.org - www.xs750.net


January 31, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Dumbification, my new favorite word ... (You
could wrap a bat in facts ...)

--le

In article ,
Lloyd Erlick Lloyd at @the-wire. dot com wrote:

A lot of people must be very
frightened to think he's still alive.

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________

It frightens me, why because although he was first said
to be feeble and incompetent he has shown himself
to be quite resilient in recent goings on-hardly an old
dolt.


--
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

greg_____photo(dot)com

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:42:27 -0500, Lloyd Erlick Lloyd at @the-wire.
dot com wrote:

Now that we've seen the results of the
election in Palestine,

[... long snip, none of which have anything to with enlargers or
darkrooms ...]

Please, this is to all of the posters going off on this politically
loaded tangent, not only Lloyd Erlick (who I may have targetted
somewhat unfairly in this message).

Whatever the merits (or lack of same) of your views, this has nothing
to do with the theme of this newsgroup, nor indeed the topic of this
thread. Please remove your discussion to a more appropriate forum.
--
- Helge Nareid
Nordmann i utlendighet, Aberdeen, Scotland
For e-mail, please use my initials with the same domain as the posted address
Website: http://www.nareid-web.me.uk/

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:07:24 -0800, "Dana H.
Myers" wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

doggone, that little smirk of his works it's media
charm every time ;^)

Stunning, isn't it? I'm always amazed how the smirk seems to
be ignored or even liked. It's a *smirk*, for goodness-sake.


Dana

February 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

It's an administration of exclusion. The
smirk is the expression the excluders like to
direct at the excluded. It's meaning is 'us,
not you.'

Civilizations or societies may have
interludes during which the smirk is regarded
as disqualification for high office. Those
interludes are characterized by high levels
of education amongst a populace (which is
also likely an electorate). Most periods of
history are characterized by ignorance and
mob-mentality. When we turn from one of our
interludes back toward ignorance, we call it
dumbification ...

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:09:30 -0500, G- Blank
wrote:


....

he was first said
to be feeble and incompetent he has shown himself
to be quite resilient in recent goings on-hardly an old
dolt.


February 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

Yes, "said to be". Indeed. Who would benefit
from such a public perception?

regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email:
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:01:37 +0000, Helge
Nareid wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:42:27 -0500, Lloyd Erlick Lloyd at @the-wire.
dot com wrote:

Now that we've seen the results of the
election in Palestine,

[... long snip, none of which have anything to with enlargers or
darkrooms ...]

Please, this is to all of the posters going off on this politically
loaded tangent, not only Lloyd Erlick (who I may have targetted
somewhat unfairly in this message).

Whatever the merits (or lack of same) of your views, this has nothing
to do with the theme of this newsgroup, nor indeed the topic of this
thread. Please remove your discussion to a more appropriate forum.


February 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

OK.
--le

Lloyd Erlick wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:01:37 +0000, Helge
Nareid wrote:

On Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:42:27 -0500, Lloyd Erlick Lloyd at @the-wire.
dot com wrote:

Now that we've seen the results of the
election in Palestine,

[... long snip, none of which have anything to with enlargers or
darkrooms ...]

Please, this is to all of the posters going off on this politically
loaded tangent, not only Lloyd Erlick (who I may have targetted
somewhat unfairly in this message).

Whatever the merits (or lack of same) of your views, this has nothing
to do with the theme of this newsgroup, nor indeed the topic of this
thread. Please remove your discussion to a more appropriate forum.

February 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

OK.


I agree there's been way to many sprawling
off topic theads both here and in LF
equipment.

Lloyd Erlick wrote:

On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 00:07:24 -0800, "Dana H.
Myers" wrote:

Tom Phillips wrote:

doggone, that little smirk of his works it's media
charm every time ;^)

Stunning, isn't it? I'm always amazed how the smirk seems to
be ignored or even liked. It's a *smirk*, for goodness-sake.


Dana

February 1, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,

It's an administration of exclusion. The
smirk is the expression the excluders like to
direct at the excluded. It's meaning is 'us,
not you.'

Civilizations or societies may have
interludes during which the smirk is regarded
as disqualification for high office. Those
interludes are characterized by high levels
of education amongst a populace (which is
also likely an electorate). Most periods of
history are characterized by ignorance and
mob-mentality.

Otherwise known as political parties...

When we turn from one of our
interludes back toward ignorance, we call it
dumbification ...

Another word for dumbification: The State
of the Union. I ever so glad I have a darkroom
to duck into whenever W is on the TV...