Linear pano - halfway home!

Nice Mice, AKA Indigo Blue, Wanking Wally, AKA several dozen other socks
wrote:


Hi Neil.
You'll find Mark (previously Charles) has a not complete list of mostly
inaccurate screen names D-Mac has used in the past. Be careful using it
because there are some errors in it.

It won't do you any good as a filter. He is working reactively which
doesn't result in any useful information, just historically
insignificant data.

The best idea is to get off Usenet altogether. Sort of like: If you
don't like heat in kitchens, don't choose cook as your occupation".
Usenet is unregulated. That is the reason you are here. Trying to
regulate it for yourself simply doesn't work either.

Why do you keep changing your nick? I suppose that there must be some
reason, but it escapes me. You are instantly recognised, you fool no
one, you gain nothing, you make yourself look even more pathetic than
you are by changing socks every time you get dumped on in a transparent
attempt to support whatever inanity you have just posted then stepped in.

Cal

wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:16 am, Nice Mice wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Indigo Blue wrote:
You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.
IB.
Hi, Douglas MacDonald Identity 173.
Oh, this is the "D-Mac" mentioned in other posts?
I wish somebody would make up a compendium of who's who here.
Neil
Hi Neil.
You'll find Mark (previously Charles) has a not complete list of mostly
inaccurate screen names D-Mac has used in the past. Be careful using it
because there are some errors in it.

It won't do you any good as a filter. He is working reactively which
doesn't result in any useful information, just historically
insignificant data.

The best idea is to get off Usenet altogether. Sort of like: If you
don't like heat in kitchens, don't choose cook as your occupation".
Usenet is unregulated. That is the reason you are here. Trying to
regulate it for yourself simply doesn't work either.

Hi, Douglas 174.

At least Doug's motives are clear - get everyone off usenet - Doug
wants it for himself so he can lie and cheat without anyone keeping
him honest.

This from the swine who posted utter lies and defamation about me not
having a permit for photography? For those interested, here is the
permit: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/permit.htm

The criminal who stole my photos claiming it was in the name of
"Education" and set about posting more lies and tried to interfere with
my business? Yes nice coward you are mate.

Even when you stupidly said the EPA didn't issue permits for photography
in National Parks you were spreading falsehoods and casting aspersions,
attempting to interfere with my lawful business activities. Why? You
never bothered to apologise for anything, even when the evidence was
presented to prove you are just a loser looking for a fight.

And now you stalk my every post. Get yourself down to the Cleveland
court house next Wednesday at 11:00 AM. If you object to the magistrate
making an order for Optus to provide your identity and address, you can
tell him how innocent you are.

Cal I Fornicate wrote:
Nice Mice, AKA Indigo Blue, Wanking Wally, AKA several dozen other socks
wrote:


Hi Neil.
You'll find Mark (previously Charles) has a not complete list of
mostly inaccurate screen names D-Mac has used in the past. Be careful
using it because there are some errors in it.

It won't do you any good as a filter. He is working reactively which
doesn't result in any useful information, just historically
insignificant data.

The best idea is to get off Usenet altogether. Sort of like: If you
don't like heat in kitchens, don't choose cook as your occupation".
Usenet is unregulated. That is the reason you are here. Trying to
regulate it for yourself simply doesn't work either.

Why do you keep changing your nick? I suppose that there must be some
reason, but it escapes me. You are instantly recognised, you fool no
one, you gain nothing, you make yourself look even more pathetic than
you are by changing socks every time you get dumped on in a transparent
attempt to support whatever inanity you have just posted then stepped in.

Cal

And you interest in this is what?

Moose & Squirrel wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Indigo Blue wrote:

You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.

IB.
Hi, Douglas MacDonald Identity 173.
Oh, this is the "D-Mac" mentioned in other posts?

I wish somebody would make up a compendium of who's who here.


You don't need a scorecard, all of the decent "contributors" use just
one name/handle/email address... Nice Mice/Indigo Blue is a sock-puppet
of D-Mac, and isn't the only one currently using a sock-puppet. I could
name names, but why spoil everyones fun, or give them a clue as to how
*I* know.


- JT
enjoys reading some of the "kook" postings made by alleged adults


Are you claiming not to be using several different screen names yourself?

Nice Mice wrote:
Cal I Fornicate wrote:
Nice Mice, AKA Indigo Blue, Wanking Wally, AKA several dozen other
socks wrote:


Hi Neil.
You'll find Mark (previously Charles) has a not complete list of
mostly inaccurate screen names D-Mac has used in the past. Be careful
using it because there are some errors in it.

It won't do you any good as a filter. He is working reactively which
doesn't result in any useful information, just historically
insignificant data.

The best idea is to get off Usenet altogether. Sort of like: If you
don't like heat in kitchens, don't choose cook as your occupation".
Usenet is unregulated. That is the reason you are here. Trying to
regulate it for yourself simply doesn't work either.

Why do you keep changing your nick? I suppose that there must be some
reason, but it escapes me. You are instantly recognised, you fool no
one, you gain nothing, you make yourself look even more pathetic than
you are by changing socks every time you get dumped on in a transparent
attempt to support whatever inanity you have just posted then stepped in.

Cal

And you interest in this is what?

My interest is scatological, I find you fascinating.

Cal

Neil Harrington wrote:
"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Indigo Blue wrote:

You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.

IB.
Hi, Douglas MacDonald Identity 173.
Oh, this is the "D-Mac" mentioned in other posts?

I wish somebody would make up a compendium of who's who here.
Google is your friend. Those able to do so are probably too bored with the
regular boors.

Please also watch where you're sending, Neil. No need to pollute three
groups.

Sorry, I usually just reply without checking that. I'm not always sure which
NG a thread originated in, anyway. Maybe I should just make fewer replies.

Well, the latter applies to me, for sure these past weeks.

A newsreader would help- OE has de minimus capabilities in this area.

--
john mcwilliams

"Nice Mice" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Jul 16, 7:16 am, Nice Mice wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:
"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Indigo Blue wrote:
You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.
IB.
Hi, Douglas MacDonald Identity 173.
Oh, this is the "D-Mac" mentioned in other posts?
I wish somebody would make up a compendium of who's who here.
Neil
Hi Neil.
You'll find Mark (previously Charles) has a not complete list of mostly
inaccurate screen names D-Mac has used in the past. Be careful using it
because there are some errors in it.

It won't do you any good as a filter. He is working reactively which
doesn't result in any useful information, just historically
insignificant data.

The best idea is to get off Usenet altogether. Sort of like: If you
don't like heat in kitchens, don't choose cook as your occupation".
Usenet is unregulated. That is the reason you are here. Trying to
regulate it for yourself simply doesn't work either.

Hi, Douglas 174.

At least Doug's motives are clear - get everyone off usenet - Doug
wants it for himself so he can lie and cheat without anyone keeping
him honest.

This from the swine who posted utter lies and defamation about me not
having a permit for photography? For those interested, here is the permit:
http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/permit.htm

The criminal who stole my photos claiming it was in the name of
"Education" and set about posting more lies and tried to interfere with my
business? Yes nice coward you are mate.

Even when you stupidly said the EPA didn't issue permits for photography
in National Parks you were spreading falsehoods and casting aspersions,
attempting to interfere with my lawful business activities. Why? You never
bothered to apologise for anything, even when the evidence was presented
to prove you are just a loser looking for a fight.

And now you stalk my every post. Get yourself down to the Cleveland court
house next Wednesday at 11:00 AM. If you object to the magistrate making
an order for Optus to provide your identity and address, you can tell him
how innocent you are.


BULL****!!
yet another lie by Douglas, he cannot afford a lawyer to make his case, and
his grasp of the law is tenuous at best so at around 11:01 AM the Judge will
be berating Douggie for wasting the courts time and patience. Or maybe
Douggies "Work for the Dole" program is going to around the courthouse and
he wants to ambush Mark.

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

Moose & Squirrel wrote:
Nice Mice wrote:

And now you stalk my every post. Get yourself down to the Cleveland
court house next Wednesday at 11:00 AM. If you object to the magistrate
making an order for Optus to provide your identity and address, you can
tell him how innocent you are.

Yawn You do seem to make a habit of threatening "legal" action against
the denizens of the photo groups that you perceive as having a problem
with... Do YOU ever actually follow through or do you just like to make
noise?

Yeah he actually paid a lawyer to file papers on my host in the US & I
got an email with 24 hours notice to remove the files or they'd take
down my whole domain. Oh well, delete 2 tiny jpegs & move on... this is
per some clause in the digital millennium copyright crap law :-)

It was a similar situation: some stupid example making some outrageous
claim which turned out to be completely mistaken.. I posted a little
crop & compare & he claimed IMAGE THEIF!, I say it was
editorial/educational use, blah blah blah over a couple years time :-)

There was another one with a supposed full pixel crop and overall view
of an image up-sized with his super secret algorithm, but a minute in
photoshop scaling & comparing showed it was just a crop from an run of
the mill DSLR shot not up-sized at all.

The case where he 'tattled on my mommy' wasn't an outright lie like
that, it was a case of claiming a little panasonic made better images
than a Canon DSLR with web size samples to compare... of course the
oversharpened, noise reduced P&S looked more sparkly! When pressed, he
posted full size originals, I cropped each & presented those side by
side showing the most egregious example of why DSLR images are better
and that's when he brought in the big guns :-)

--
Paul
-who should know better and mark these threads as *ignored* :-)
-and was not fanatically taunting, just noticed big discrepancies which
people seemed to believe, and is seeing that again here.

"Moose & Squirrel" wrote in message
news:Wicfk.294$gH4.149@trnddc05...
Nice Mice wrote:

Moose & Squirrel wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

"Mark Thomas" wrote in message
...
Indigo Blue wrote:

You seem to have such a fixation on this fellow as to do anything to
avoid following his advise. Even to the point of sabotaging your own
attempt. Time to start over.

IB.
Hi, Douglas MacDonald Identity 173.
Oh, this is the "D-Mac" mentioned in other posts?

I wish somebody would make up a compendium of who's who here.


You don't need a scorecard, all of the decent "contributors" use just
one name/handle/email address... Nice Mice/Indigo Blue is a sock-puppet
of D-Mac, and isn't the only one currently using a sock-puppet. I could
name names, but why spoil everyones fun, or give them a clue as to how
*I* know.


- JT
enjoys reading some of the "kook" postings made by alleged adults


Are you claiming not to be using several different screen names
yourself?


My email address hasn't changed in the last ten years... I've used three
different names that go in front of the address (JT's Ghost, and two
variations of Moose & Squirrel), you on the other hand change your sock
names frequently.


Yes but Dugg does it for the right reasons, surely you can see that........

This is strictly for Douglas and his legal team, of course.

Nice Mice wrote:
This from the swine

That will go down well in court.

who posted utter lies and defamation about me not
having a permit for photography? For those interested, here is the
permit: http://www.douglasjames.com.au/evidence/permit.htm

But here is what Douglas claimed:
I am also registered (holding the necessary permits) with the EPA,
Forest and Wildlife service and ATSIC .. as a working Photographer

Let's look closely at that claim and dissect it carefully.

1. Getting a permit to photograph in a national park does not mean you
are "registered as a working photographer". It is not a badge of
honour. You *must* buy a parks photography permit if you intend to use
any images commercially. It's simply a revenue raiser.

2. Note the comma after EPA, which suggests he has 'permits' from 3
organisations, EPA, 'F&WS' and ATSIC.

3. There is, and was, no such thing as a "Forest And Wildlife Service".
Look at Douglas' own link - it very clearly shows it is from the
"Queensland Parks & Wildlife Service", which is indeed a division of the
EPA. The EPA does not issue permits in its own right, and no-one ('cept
Doug) would say they have an 'EPA permit'.. it is a national parks
commercial photography permit.

4. ATSIC (Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Commission) had been
disbanded for some time when Doug made his claim of having a permit from
them. But in any case, ATSIC would *never* issue a blanket permit to
photograph indigenous communities - that is anathema (look it up Doug)
to the whole ethos of indigenous culture. As someone who has spent
significant time in numerous indigenous communities in South Australia,
I know it would be the height of arrogance to take images in those areas
without getting permission from the elders and administrators *of that
community*.

So to summarise, Douglas didn't get the name right of the one permit he
has, LIED about having an ATSIC permit, and made out that having a parks
permit was some sort of indication he was a working photographer. Any
**** can walk in and buy one of those parks permits - indeed, one
clearly did.

What is particularly amusing is that this, apparently, is the best Doug
can come up with in his quest to prove I have lied and defamed him. (O:

The criminal who stole my photos claiming it was in the name of
"Education"

What he refers to is that I have reposted pages that he has, cowardly,
pulled from view. Douglas does not want to be held accountable for
things he has said, like the falsehoods and defamation he posted on this
page about AC:
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html
(kindly reposted for educational use by Jeff R... (O

and set about posting more lies

Well, I just proved the one above wasn't a lie. Wanna try for another?

and tried to interfere with
my business?

In what way? Revealing your scams, like the latest CPPA one, or the
time you used "Graham Hunt" to try to talk up your printing franchise?

Yes nice coward you are mate.

I've offered innumerable times to talk to your legal representative,
because you, clearly, are out of your tree. Why don't you post his/her
name? I believe Jeff R and AC would like it too, amongst others! What
could possibly stop you from doing that, other than your realisation
that you haven't got a leg to stand on?

Even when you stupidly said the EPA didn't issue permits for photography
in National Parks you were spreading falsehoods and casting aspersions,
attempting to interfere with my lawful business activities.

See above. Saying it twice does not make it so.

Why?
Why? Because frauds and liars need to be revealed.

You
never bothered to apologise for anything, even when the evidence was
presented to prove you are just a loser looking for a fight.

I'll happily apologise for anything I have said that was untrue. (O:

So far you have found nothing in that category, and strangely no-one
else is chipping in to back you up. Got a clue why that might be?

And now you stalk my every post.

(O: This is a public forum, and you just lied again. Check carefully
and you will see I have ignored some of your postings. Indeed, I'll
even support you if you ever start telling the truth, stop misusing
sockpuppets, and post useful information.

But mention my name, or lie, or post incorrect information, and here I
am! (Sorry, John McW... (O: )

Get yourself down to the Cleveland
court house next Wednesday at 11:00 AM.
If you object to the magistrate
making an order for Optus to provide your identity and address, you can
tell him how innocent you are.

Needless to say, there is no court listing from Douglas at the Cleveland
Courts at that time. So why did you post that comment, Douglas? Is
that your version of a 'summons'?

Does your legal team think it was a wise move?