Oh my! Where oh where did all the lying slanderous and libelous DSLR-TROLLS go to?

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 19:59:11 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:



Does owning lots of P&S's have the same effect as taking PCP? Because
you seem to act like it.

Put up or shut up TROLL! Either describe whatever photo that I claimed I
took but which you or others claimed I have stolen; or shut the **** up
with your libelous and slanderous, off-topic, thread-hijacking,
trapped-animals', displacement-activity.

You know, your usual behavior.

LOL!!!!

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 21:33:33 -0500, LOL! wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 22:03:29 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 15:53:37 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2010-09-11 15:21:30 -0700, LOL! said:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:28:30 -0400, "Tim Conway"
wrote:


"LOL!" wrote in message
...



LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's in a slump. Got nothin' bad to say and is feelin' real perplexed.
btw, a real photograph isn't necessarily a museum showpiece. Sometimes a
mere record photo will do. But y'know, a famous world renowned traveler
like our favorite p&s troll would never stand for such a meager critique.
Have a good one!

Oh? Were you one of the many that claimed I stole images that were taken
with DSLRs and posted them as my own? If so, please describe any one of
them that you said I had stolen. I would love nothing better than to hear
all about it again. I'll repost the downsized "stolen" version for you
again just to make sure that it is one of the many that any of you lying
slanderous and libelous DSLR-TROLLs claimed I had stole.

LOL!!!!

How about the hummingbird photos you claimed were your own -- but they
still had the real photographer's copyright notice on the photo?

I think he posted a link to a photgraph of a moth. I think it was a
moth. It was a dark, blurry thing that may have had wings. He said
it was a rare moth. He photographs a lot of rare things that are not
in any of the guide books. Of course, it may be that the guide books
just don't use dark, out-of-focus, blurry shots.

OH LOOK! The ****ingly useless lying libelous and slanderous DSLR-TROLL
proves that's JUST what he is, again!

Are you refering to THIS post?

I dunno. Is that the post where you linked to a dark, blurry thing
that may have had wings and said it was a photo of a rare moth?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:54:00 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 21:33:33 -0500, LOL! wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 22:03:29 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 15:53:37 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2010-09-11 15:21:30 -0700, LOL! said:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:28:30 -0400, "Tim Conway"
wrote:


"LOL!" wrote in message
...



LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's in a slump. Got nothin' bad to say and is feelin' real perplexed.
btw, a real photograph isn't necessarily a museum showpiece. Sometimes a
mere record photo will do. But y'know, a famous world renowned traveler
like our favorite p&s troll would never stand for such a meager critique.
Have a good one!

Oh? Were you one of the many that claimed I stole images that were taken
with DSLRs and posted them as my own? If so, please describe any one of
them that you said I had stolen. I would love nothing better than to hear
all about it again. I'll repost the downsized "stolen" version for you
again just to make sure that it is one of the many that any of you lying
slanderous and libelous DSLR-TROLLs claimed I had stole.

LOL!!!!

How about the hummingbird photos you claimed were your own -- but they
still had the real photographer's copyright notice on the photo?

I think he posted a link to a photgraph of a moth. I think it was a
moth. It was a dark, blurry thing that may have had wings. He said
it was a rare moth. He photographs a lot of rare things that are not
in any of the guide books. Of course, it may be that the guide books
just don't use dark, out-of-focus, blurry shots.

OH LOOK! The ****ingly useless lying libelous and slanderous DSLR-TROLL
proves that's JUST what he is, again!

Are you refering to THIS post?

I dunno. Is that the post where you linked to a dark, blurry thing
that may have had wings and said it was a photo of a rare moth?

First off, I've never claimed to have EVER taken a photo of any rare moth.
And those photos that I have taken of moths have never been dark and blurry
nor were their wings ever nondescript in any of them. They purposely have
to be sharp and clear for identification purposes. Other insects, plants,
and even birds ... yes, I have posted images of RARE species of those. Some
so rare that I have in my possession the only existing photos. One of the
species of insects has not even seen alive by anyone for a whole century.
The only known specimens (2 of them, holotype and allotype) lost in the
1940's in a NY museum from poor storage conditions. I also have in my
possession photos of THE rarest orchid on earth. In fact I even helped to
find two more growing patches of them, when all researchers on that plant
had only known of one patch in existence until then. One patch of them that
I found being twenty times the size of their original discovery.

Secondly, NONE of my photos have been dark and/or blurry. At least not
those parts of the image where they should be dark and blurry. Ever hear of
bokeh? At least they are not like every last DSLR photo ever posted to
these groups, where the subject is blurry 99.99% of the time from always
having a too-shallow DOF, the parts of the subjects that should NOT be
blurry.

I suggest you find that post where you claim otherwise if you don't want to
look like the lying **** of a slanderous and libelous troll that you are.

But both you and I (and everyone else) already knows better, don't we. You
can't back up ANYTHING you say because it's all lies and slander.
Everything that ever comes out of your ****ing keyboard and your pathetic
excuse for a mind is a lousy psychotic's lie.

You pathetic **** of a TROLL.

LOL!!!!!!!

On 9/13/10 12:36 AM, in article ,
"LOL!" wrote:

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 00:54:00 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 21:33:33 -0500, LOL! wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 22:03:29 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Sep 2010 15:53:37 -0700, C J Campbell
wrote:

On 2010-09-11 15:21:30 -0700, LOL! said:

On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:28:30 -0400, "Tim Conway"

wrote:


"LOL!" wrote in message
...



LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's in a slump. Got nothin' bad to say and is feelin' real perplexed.
btw, a real photograph isn't necessarily a museum showpiece. Sometimes
a
mere record photo will do. But y'know, a famous world renowned traveler
like our favorite p&s troll would never stand for such a meager
critique.
Have a good one!

Oh? Were you one of the many that claimed I stole images that were taken
with DSLRs and posted them as my own? If so, please describe any one of
them that you said I had stolen. I would love nothing better than to hear
all about it again. I'll repost the downsized "stolen" version for you
again just to make sure that it is one of the many that any of you lying
slanderous and libelous DSLR-TROLLs claimed I had stole.

LOL!!!!

How about the hummingbird photos you claimed were your own -- but they
still had the real photographer's copyright notice on the photo?

I think he posted a link to a photgraph of a moth. I think it was a
moth. It was a dark, blurry thing that may have had wings. He said
it was a rare moth. He photographs a lot of rare things that are not
in any of the guide books. Of course, it may be that the guide books
just don't use dark, out-of-focus, blurry shots.

OH LOOK! The ****ingly useless lying libelous and slanderous DSLR-TROLL
proves that's JUST what he is, again!

Are you refering to THIS post?

I dunno. Is that the post where you linked to a dark, blurry thing
that may have had wings and said it was a photo of a rare moth?


Secondly, NONE of my photos have been dark and/or blurry. At least not
those parts of the image where they should be dark and blurry. Ever hear of
bokeh? At least they are not like every last DSLR photo ever posted to
these groups, where the subject is blurry 99.99% of the time from always
having a too-shallow DOF, the parts of the subjects that should NOT be
blurry.

LOL!!!!!!!


I found your latest contribution here...

http://tinypic.com/r/166hieu/7