THE CURE FOR RITA!

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.
True.
But I do:
- try to only *respond*, especially if lies are posted about me
- mark posts OT
- cut down the f-u's

I thank you for your untiring efforts and appreciate your comments, but
reserve the right to continue to defend myself, and to ensure liars,
fools, trolls and sockpuppets are held up for appropriate levels of
ridicule..

(O:

"2SQUID" wrote in message
...
Rita Berkowitz wrote:


Only way you'll ever convince anyone worth convincing you are without
guilt
is to go two solid months without mentioning D-Mac or respond to him or
any
of his sockpuppets directly. Try not to use socks to skirt the
challenge.
This should be easy for someone that claims to be "taking the moral high
ground" in all of this. Are you up to the challenge, Mark?

Oh, and show us what kind of man you are by archiving this post in its
entirety instead of creatively snipping it. You're so predictable and so
easy to make dance, my little puppet.



Rita

Don't fall for this criminal's tricks Rita. He will try to come across as
being a nice fellow and while you have your back turned, not just stick a
big knife in it but twist it too.

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. I'm
not sure what your feedback rating is but mine is over 115 and 100%.


I'm actualy surprised you even know how to spell "Honest" doug, let alone
use it in a sentence.
I'm not sure you even know the definition but lets ignore that for the
moment and look at YOUR history on Usenet shall we. The most blatant and
fraudulent incident of yours that imediately springs to mind is your Graham
Hunt sockpuppet coming to your aid when you were trying to sell your bogus
Photo kiosks, now I'm no lawyer (but I have friends who are) and that sets
all the flags for simple *fraud*

As you know, you don't get this sort of response from your clients if you
aren't totally honest. Mark would have all his followers (both of them)
believe he is the only honest person on Usenet. LOL.


Well compared to you Doug, Mark is a saint regardless of anything you may
say to the contrary, have you noticed the only person you have in your camp
is Rita, that should tell you a great deal about your standing within the
photo groups, after all the Troll rita has been getting his ares smacked
nearly as much as you do so I suppose its only natural for a rat to cling to
a turd.

His little escapade with Australia's company watchdog gets me rolling in
the isles - "I'll get my mates at ASIC to investigate you".


Here is a hint, ASIC is probably the least of your worries Doug :-)


No one there has any knowledge of Charles Stevens or Mark Thomas. Maybe
his mates are all dancing to the same tune as him? Just people that don't
exist.

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?

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!

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".

Yeah... Way to go Markie old boy, definitely the way to go! Keep it up and
you could become Usenet's most stupid idiot... If you aren't already
there!


He has a LONG way to go to even see your dust let alone get anywhere close
to overtaking you, after all your so dumb that you cant even creat another
sockpuppet without it being discoverd and outed within moments of its first
appearance.

Hey by the way... Thanks for the Google lift Mark... Number 5 in the
results for "Certified professional Photographers" today. You did an
excellent job of that one Mark. A single page site ranking 6 after it's
first month of existence. It's a good thing I found your strings. I'd hate
to have you on a commission only basis! ROTFL.


It must realy stick in your throat to know that your google ranking is
riding on the back of your blatant abuse of Usenet, after all are you not
the same person that keeps harping on about etics in here. Dont worry, most
of us understand you wont see the irony in that.


The thing is Rita, Those of us who make a living doing what he failed at,
know a thing or two about business and how to run one.

Realy Doug, what sucessful business would that be, you have nothing but
cheap arsed ebay auctions and a plethora of ugly web sites.


Old Markie
and his gang of supporters (both of them)

I dont suppose that fact that you have absolutly NO support in here has
escaped your attention

have demonstrated many, many
times they are just trolls in the hope of making themselves out to be
useful when in fact they are demonstrating with every post to be the most
useless of the useless.


Did you look in a mirror when you wrote that Doug

Me and Big Squid


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

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

Mick B


http://www.pbase.com/shootin

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
m...
savvo wrote:

Ah, I see that when one posts a link to a website that doesn't
support your side you can claim it "evidence-free" and think you can
get away with it.

Still no answer then. OK, I know thinking is hard and you have better
things to do.

You've got your answer long ago with "evidence" from a reputable website, so
take it for what it is worth. And no, I'm not going to get sucked into
going in circles with you. Toby doesn't play that game. Have a nice day
and get over it.


Rita


Who's Toby ???????

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.
2 or 3 months ago when we had the discussion about SI I
committed to contribute, and that commitment still stands.
Unfortunately I missed frauds, not due to a lack of
commitment to participate, but due to a lack of camera. As
soon as I get one of them back from repair I'll be keen to
get back into it.

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.
Yeah, none of the fights affect my participation either. I
find it hard to believe that people would decide not to
contribute just because a couple of others are having an
argument.

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.
Yes, I like the idea of keeping the mandates. But I do think
we need more stylistic type mandates rather than subject
oriented mandates. I'd like to see mandates that encourage
people to develop photographic skills - things like low-key,
high-key, depth-of-field, slow-shutter etc. It's one thing
to be able to make a photo that is low-key, has limited DOF
etc - it's another thing to make a photo that really works
with that style. These types of mandates encourage getting
out there and improving skills. A mandate like Autumn otoh
(when it is spring in the southern hemisphere, but I
digress) simply encourages you to go out and take a snap of
something autumn-related, without really being a tool for
developing skills.

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.
Agree.

Colin D.

XxYyZz wrote:

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
m...
savvo wrote:

Ah, I see that when one posts a link to a website that doesn't
support your side you can claim it "evidence-free" and think you can
get away with it.

Still no answer then. OK, I know thinking is hard and you have better
things to do.

You've got your answer long ago with "evidence" from a reputable
website, so
take it for what it is worth. And no, I'm not going to get sucked into
going in circles with you. Toby doesn't play that game. Have a nice day
and get over it.


Rita


Who's Toby ???????

One half of a nice set of jugs?

Auntie

Auntie Establishment wrote:
XxYyZz wrote:

"Rita Berkowitz" wrote in message
m...
savvo wrote:

Ah, I see that when one posts a link to a website that doesn't
support your side you can claim it "evidence-free" and think you can
get away with it.

Still no answer then. OK, I know thinking is hard and you have better
things to do.

You've got your answer long ago with "evidence" from a reputable
website, so
take it for what it is worth. And no, I'm not going to get sucked into
going in circles with you. Toby doesn't play that game. Have a nice
day
and get over it.


Rita


Who's Toby ???????

One half of a nice set of jugs?

Auntie

Dang. A whoosh. Can you 'splain, please?

[You, Auntie, 'cause "Rita" cannot or will not.]

--
Dis-establishmentarian

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
2SQUID wrote:

Don't be surprised to discover that gorgeous brown dog of Rita's is
called Toby.

Actually, Toby is a ferret.




Rita

OK. That gorgeous brown ferret!

2SQUID wrote:
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
2SQUID wrote:

Don't be surprised to discover that gorgeous brown dog of Rita's is
called Toby.

Actually, Toby is a ferret.




Rita

OK. That gorgeous brown ferret!

Now, you two get a room together, hear? I'm sure you'll have fun with
the ferret.

Butt stay out of aus.photo with the crap.

--
lsmft

John McWilliams wrote:
2SQUID wrote:
Rita Berkowitz wrote:
2SQUID wrote:

Don't be surprised to discover that gorgeous brown dog of Rita's is
called Toby.

Actually, Toby is a ferret.




Rita

OK. That gorgeous brown ferret!

Now, you two get a room together, hear? I'm sure you'll have fun with
the ferret.

Butt stay out of aus.photo with the crap.


I've never been there. What is Aus.photo?