Images, Photographs or pictures?

"Julian" wrote in message
ups.com...

Actually your reading and comprehension skills match your social
skills Willa.
Where in that message did it say I would not continue my project off
the groups?
Hang on, I'm confused - a while back whenever someone responded to a Julian
post by calling you "doug" you'd respond by saying that you are Julian and
not Doug. Now you are talking about continuing the picture of the day
project (which was doug's project) as if it were your own - implying that
indeed Doug and Julian are one and the same. You've posted recently about
Bret attempting to hack into your ebay account - so did he try to do it to
both Doug and Julian, or just Doug, and you forgot you were posting as
Julian when you said it?

The only time I have an issue with anything anyone says is when it a
personal comment. No one in these groups has ever met me, ever dined
with me or ever been a client of mine. Because of this, none of you
have any right to make personal and often insulting remarks about me
or my business interests. When you do, I'll pay out on you in
retaliation.
Then I suggest you follow your own advice about personal insults. I've
followed a lot of these threads where you start mudslinging, and it is
_always_ you that is the first to start the personal insults. You've made
personal insults and racist remarks against numerous posters here, when all
they've done is criticised some of your photography. If indeed your real
life persona is different to your online persona then good for you - I hope
it bloody well is, because your online persona is that of a crazed,
demented, malicious, lieing, psychotic, self-absorbed, delusional, paranoid,
dickhead. The Australian vernacular term is "cockhead" or "******". If I had
to associate with your online persona in real life I would probably find it
hard to not thump you. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt,
and assume that your real life persona is something different. I suspect
that what you have written above which indicates that your real-life
personality is different, is true. I have noticed some of your posts, when
your not trying to push your barrow of persecution by mark & bret, and you
sometimes do have some sensible things to say. I am assuming that this is
some of the real-life doug showing through.

So why don't you end your personal insults now and we'll get along?
Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt - and assume that all
the crap that you post is just your online persona, so if I ever attack you,
I'm attacking "Doug", "Julian", "Dmac", ".." or whatever else you type in
here, I'm not attacking Mr Douglas J MacDonald.
Keep them going and you'll just end up a nasty fool following in the
footsteps of mongrels like the couple who are doing their best to
destroy what they came to enjoy.
Whether they are justified in what they are doing, I cannot say. What I can
say though is that in this ongoing fight, is that you are the one who is
looking more like a "nasty fool". If they are indeed "mongrels", then your
use of the term is indicates the best way to handle them. I'm sure you'd be
aware that when dealing with a mongrel dog, providing reward for negative
behaviour will only make the dog behave worse. You say you are the bigger
person, well put your typing where your mouth is - I challenge you to leave
alone any posts made by markt or annika, and not make any posts of your own
commenting about them. When one of them says your photo sucks, I challenge
you to ignore their comment and not arc up at it. I challenge you to not
make posts saying how you are commencing legal challenges etc. See if you
can do it dmac - see if you can become an honourable contributor to rpe35.
If what you imply above is true - that your real life persona is a good
bloke - then you should find that becoming an online good bloke is
relatively easy.

On Jul 31, 9:57 pm, "Doug Jewell" wrote:
"Julian" wrote in message

ups.com...

Actually your reading and comprehension skills match your social
skills Willa.
Where in that message did it say I would not continue my project off
the groups?

Hang on, I'm confused - a while back whenever someone responded to a Julian
post by calling you "doug" you'd respond by saying that you are Julian and
not Doug. Now you are talking about continuing the picture of the day
project (which was doug's project) as if it were your own - implying that
indeed Doug and Julian are one and the same. You've posted recently about
Bret attempting to hack into your ebay account - so did he try to do it to
both Doug and Julian, or just Doug, and you forgot you were posting as
Julian when you said it?

The only time I have an issue with anything anyone says is when it a
personal comment. No one in these groups has ever met me, ever dined
with me or ever been a client of mine. Because of this, none of you
have any right to make personal and often insulting remarks about me
or my business interests. When you do, I'll pay out on you in
retaliation.

Then I suggest you follow your own advice about personal insults. I've
followed a lot of these threads where you start mudslinging, and it is
_always_ you that is the first to start the personal insults. You've made
personal insults and racist remarks against numerous posters here, when all
they've done is criticised some of your photography. If indeed your real
life persona is different to your online persona then good for you - I hope
it bloody well is, because your online persona is that of a crazed,
demented, malicious, lieing, psychotic, self-absorbed, delusional, paranoid,
dickhead. The Australian vernacular term is "cockhead" or "******". If I had
to associate with your online persona in real life I would probably find it
hard to not thump you. But I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt,
and assume that your real life persona is something different. I suspect
that what you have written above which indicates that your real-life
personality is different, is true. I have noticed some of your posts, when
your not trying to push your barrow of persecution by mark & bret, and you
sometimes do have some sensible things to say. I am assuming that this is
some of the real-life doug showing through.

So why don't you end your personal insults now and we'll get along?

Well, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt - and assume that all
the crap that you post is just your online persona, so if I ever attack you,
I'm attacking "Doug", "Julian", "Dmac", ".." or whatever else you type in
here, I'm not attacking Mr Douglas J MacDonald. Keep them going and you'll just end up a nasty fool following in the
footsteps of mongrels like the couple who are doing their best to
destroy what they came to enjoy.

Whether they are justified in what they are doing, I cannot say. What I can
say though is that in this ongoing fight, is that you are the one who is
looking more like a "nasty fool". If they are indeed "mongrels", then your
use of the term is indicates the best way to handle them. I'm sure you'd be
aware that when dealing with a mongrel dog, providing reward for negative
behaviour will only make the dog behave worse. You say you are the bigger
person, well put your typing where your mouth is - I challenge you to leave
alone any posts made by markt or annika, and not make any posts of your own
commenting about them. When one of them says your photo sucks, I challenge
you to ignore their comment and not arc up at it. I challenge you to not
make posts saying how you are commencing legal challenges etc. See if you
can do it dmac - see if you can become an honourable contributor to rpe35.
If what you imply above is true - that your real life persona is a good
bloke - then you should find that becoming an online good bloke is
relatively easy.



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some how, Doug (God that sounds stupid) I agree with you. Right up to
point where I imagine that absolute swine of a person - Bret Douglas,
getting away with the damage he's done and that is simply not going to
happen. Even today, he has created site number 3 or 4 using my photos
and in a email last week, refused point blank to end it all by
deleting my images from all his storage devices and agreeing not to
attempt the same stunts again. From where I sit, that's a declaration
of war from the arsehole who started it. It's only going downhill from
here for this group Doug. Maybe from the ashes left after he's
finished, someone might recover the group but make no bones about it,
he's the one responsible for starting it. I'm just the last in a long
line and the only one who refused to take his crap.

Others have tried to reason with him and failed. He's just a childish
and very stupid idiot. If you think for a single moment he's going to
get off Scot free, you don't understand the nature of business and why
he can't be allowed to get away with it. Read it all on http://www.annika1980.com
and when you've finished, consider his photography might look OK on
your monitor but when it comes to shooting real people, he's a rank
loser. http://geocities.com/bret_douglas/

Doug

On Jul 31, 7:29 pm, "D.Mac" wrote:

Maybe from the ashes left after he's
finished, someone might recover the group but make no bones about it,
he's the one responsible for starting it.

"But Mommy, he started it !!!"

I'm also the only one with the power to end it.
Sucks to be you, D-Mac.


consider his photography might look OK on
your monitor but when it comes to shooting real people, he's a rank
loser.

I can only hope to be as great as you someday so I can take awesome
people shots like these:

http://www.pbase.com/figgy/image/82617070
http://www.pbase.com/figgy/image/82617069
http://www.pbase.com/figgy/image/82600455
http://www.pbase.com/figgy/image/82617072

Off topic.

Just pointing out where Douglas is fantasising again.

On Jul 31, 4:45 pm, "dmac" wrote:
wrote in message
On Jul 31, 8:46 am, "dmac" wrote:
Compressing a 32 megabyte image down to a 720 pixel wide will often cause
clear steps in graduated areas of an image. Nothing to do with
monitors...
But you'd never comprehend that, would you?

That's because it isn't true, you moron. Given a decent
(unposterised) original, problems will *only* occur if you are
*incompetent* at your post processing.

... Which explains it perfectly.

First of all I note that Douglas has not tried to defend his
ridiculous and completely incorrect statement about posterisation
being caused by downsizing.

That statement could only be made by someone with a WOEFUL knowledge
of digital imaging. Which is, indeed, Doug.

There is one idiot in this thread who cuts and pastes his photographic
knowledge in hope no one will notice.

It is sadly ironic that the person referring to me as an idiot, made a
glaring error above, that he is now carefully avoiding.

Now he's really ****ed off because Marty over at Usenet.com.au black listed
him from using the service to stalk me

???
Fascinating fantasies from our Douglas. As anyone who cares can
easily verify, I have only ever posted on usenet using two names -
chrlzatgo.com and then, when go.com dropped their email service, this
one.
My email address is valid.
I don't sockpuppet and never have - I don't need to because I don't
LIE.
I have never used usenet.com.au.
I have never heard of 'Marty'.

Douglas - you have made this allegation, so now:
POST ONE EXAMPLE where I have used usenet.com.au.

I'd wager he's even more ****ed off I created the archive in "Flash"
YOU changed the image's location, and you changed the image itself. I
couldn't give a toss what you used.

and he can't figure out how to use a single image in it to get his jollies
If anyone actually wanted any of them at such small sizes, they could
simply use PrtSc. Not familiar with that concept, Doug? Yeah, it's
tricky stuff. If you still wish to believe that you stop anyone
copying your web images, feel free to pursue your dream. I know it
makes you feel good fantasising that people actually WANT those
images. You've made many claims of people stealing them, but haven't
actually given one single example.

Congratulation Markie boy. You mum would have been proud of you. I
recon being as predictable as you are would be a real disadvantage in a
marriage. That probably answers why you get so agro with your keyboard. Go
on Markie, tap it harder, it won't bit back.

It is not lost on anyone here just *who* is 'aggro'. The comments
about mother/marriage could only be regarded as bullying. You seem to
be an expert there.

Sent me your address to get the
calendars yet?

Why would I want something I can do myself, with far better quality
levels? I've seen your work...

Sent me your solicitor's address yet?

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 31, 7:29 pm, "D.Mac" wrote:

Maybe from the ashes left after he's
finished, someone might recover the group but make no bones about it,
he's the one responsible for starting it.

"But Mommy, he started it !!!"

I'm also the only one with the power to end it.
Sucks to be you, D-Mac.
Brett, to be blunt, you D-Mac & Mark are like 3 drunks having a ****ing
contest, you all think you are ****ing higher than the others, but really
all that's happening is the 3 of you are getting covered in ****.
Lets get back to photography - the 3 of you have posted some very good
photos (yes even D-Mac), and the 3 of you have all posted some shockers (yes
even you). I challenged D-Mac to be mature about it, I'm going to challenge
you too - ignore the crap.

Julian vehemently accused in
ups.com:

On Jul 31, 10:39 am, Willarojo
wrote:
"dmac" vehemently accused
:

BTW. The Picture For The Day (POD) project is still going
strong. Sorry to disappoint you and your sheep, you had no
success in getting rid of me there either.

Doug

As I recall, you packed up your POS, oops, "POD" (more
properly, per Douggie himself, it should be PFTD... where'd the
"O" come from??), project yourself. Of course, you blamed your
various, self-inflicted enemies for ending your project.

And I quote:





My Photo For The day [sic] started on 22nd May.
It will end on 22 [sic] June. One month.

I thought it might attract some interest in Photography [sic]
but all it's
done is provide more opportunity for the bullies to cast
aspersions
and distract me from it's [sic] original purpose. [sic]
Photographic discussions.

Thanks to those who posted positive or constructive replies.
An early
death wish to the idiots and morons who decided to use it as
a another
reason to bully me.

I imagine Aus. Photo in particular but the rec group too,
will slow to
a trickle again as the bullies crawl back under their rocks
and wait
for their next victim.

Douglas

Quoting Douggie leaves me sic [sic] to my stomach.

Please note, 1-for-2 on proper use of "it's/its" in the quote
above, pretty good score for Douggie.


- Show quoted text -

Actually your reading and comprehension skills match your social
skills Willa.
Where in that message did it say I would not continue my project
off the groups?

The difference between you and me Willa is more than cultural.
One day when you have no choice but to continue with something
you start - regardless of the personal or financial cost, you'll
discover (or not as the case may be) that starting anything you
don't have the fortitude to keep going is a really bad idea.

Regardless of how good or bad your 10D photos are/were. You
should look closely at why on earth you thought you could keep
up with a picture every day in the first place. If I gave up
just because a few anal retentive idiots thought I was a dud
photographer, I'd never be in business and never have reached
the finals of the "Small Business Achiever's awards".

I recognize some of my daily images are less than stellar but
the important point is that I remain true to myself and stick
with the plan. The seeds I sow in the minds of others provide me
with feedback on what other photographers expect a picture to
be.

Last year I discovered more about why people buy my calendars
than the sheep will ever know. I discovered the pictures I liked
best - which proved for the rest of the year to be significant
sellers as large canvas wall prints, were the very ones the
sheep passed negative comments about.

The only time I have an issue with anything anyone says is when
it a personal comment. No one in these groups has ever met me,
ever dined with me or ever been a client of mine. Because of
this, none of you have any right to make personal and often
insulting remarks about me or my business interests. When you
do, I'll pay out on you in retaliation.

So why don't you end your personal insults now and we'll get
along? Keep them going and you'll just end up a nasty fool
following in the footsteps of mongrels like the couple who are
doing their best to destroy what they came to enjoy.


And where in my reply did I suggest you might not have continued it
off-net? I was just thankful you had stopped, oh so briefly,
posting lame pics. Granted, some were interesting--again, the
printer cartridge pic as an example--but many were blah. By its
nature, a POD project is likely to include many dogs, nothing wrong
with that, but you continue to pretend that you cannot shoot lame
pics.

And I pointed out that I too have continued shooting, though not
every day, since I stopped posting. Posting led to some good
conversations, but also distracted me from shooting & editing. I
still post, thoug not daily, at my PBase site.

I'll readily admit that shooting & posting everyday can be
exhausting, but I don't have any testosterone invested in
pretending I'm a big man that can shoot every day. Kudos for
continuing your project Doug, and not every shot needs to be a
masterpiece, but you're the one who continues to claim greatness
while displaying, at best, a mix of crap and decent shots.

Keep this in mind Doug: you've been shooting longer than I've been
alive, if your professional history is to be believed, and I won't
even argue that you might very well be better than I, but you still
post too much **** for me to believe that.

I didn't "give up" my Plus-or-Minus because of any detractors, nor
did I need to make a grand announcement that I was stopping because
I was being bullied (because I wasn't, nor were you), nor did I
later deny that I had stopped it of my own accord. I did stop
posting daily because it consumed time I wanted to spend elsewhere.
See, Doug, I don't need to blame "bullies" when I change a project.
And I never thought I should get kudos for trying to shoot and post
everyday, I tried it because I wanted to.

One thing you clearly have jumbled in your mind is the difference
between "saleable images" and "good images". If scads of photogs
tell you many of your photos suck, but people still buy them, that
probably means that your photos are both "poor" and "saleable".
But just because they're "saleable", don't think they're actually
good. The two values are not mutually exclusive, nor necessarily
even related.

As for social skills, I have been vulgar a few times, told you to
get ****ed a few times, but I don't recall ever making a comment to
you, or anyone else here, along the lines of "you're father should
have worn a condom". Pretty harsh, even if funny in a sociopathic,
dickless sort of way. Whoops, did I just call you "dickless"?
Yup, I think I did.

Douggie, the only things I know about you are based on observation,
and then interpretation, from your behavior in this NG. In fact,
only this NG, because I can't get aus.photo, which I understand you
frequent also.

If you really want to understand what people must think of you
Doug, here's a challenge:
Refresh all your headers, back to, let's say, January 1st this
year, and reread all of, and *only*, your posts. Read all of your
different personas' posts, heck, if you want to maintain the
illusion, read all of your Samoan assistant's posts, and try to
think about what someone who knew you **only** from these posts and
your photos would think of you.

It's kinda the NG equivalent of Googling yourself. If you're
honest, and thorough, I think it will be a real eye-opener for you.

BTW, where was I insulting in the post you replied to? I made
comments that I feel had sufficient evididence... truth is an
insult only if you feel guilty about what's being pointed out.

Lastly, I respond so vehemently to some of your comments partly
because I was bullied a bit when I was a kid, until I just about
choked to death one of the bullies, so I'm a firm believer that
bullies need to get their teeth bashed. However, I also take
offense to your self-declared "best wedding photog in Brisbane" and
similar claims, because newbies can't always recognize what's
bull**** and what's not, so someone who is clearly giving bad
advice (which you have on occasion) needs to be contradicted, or at
least a dialog opened, so that newbies can make judgments on their
own, with as many relevant facts as possible.

Think about it Doug, you mention quite often how good (saleable
) you are, how long you've been shooting, yet you still post some
poor quality images and tout them as brilliant.

Willa
--
http://www.pbase.com/willarojo

“I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to
live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.”
Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

“We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from
Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing
important to communicate.”
Thoreau, Walden
******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

On Aug 1, 6:17 pm, "Doug Jewell" wrote:

Brett, to be blunt, you D-Mac & Mark are like 3 drunks having a ****ing
contest, you all think you are ****ing higher than the others, but really
all that's happening is the 3 of you are getting covered in ****.
Lets get back to photography - the 3 of you have posted some very good
photos (yes even D-Mac), and the 3 of you have all posted some shockers (yes
even you). I challenged D-Mac to be mature about it, I'm going to challenge
you too - ignore the crap.


How about a better solution? Since us 3 drunks seem to like the crap,
why don't you, John, and anybody else who doesn't want to read it
simply ignore those threads? It seems that you yourself had a long
reply to Doug-Julian just a few posts up.

On Aug 1, 7:46 pm, Willarojo wrote:
Douggie, the only things I know about you are based on observation,
and then interpretation, from your behavior in this NG. In fact,
only this NG, because I can't get aus.photo, which I understand you
frequent also.

That's too bad. They really hate him over there. He's been ****ing
off folks over there longer than I have over here on rpe35mm.


... truth is an insult only if you feel guilty about what's being pointed out.

Well said.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Aug 1, 6:17 pm, "Doug Jewell" wrote:
Brett, to be blunt, you D-Mac & Mark are like 3 drunks having a ****ing
contest, you all think you are ****ing higher than the others, but really
all that's happening is the 3 of you are getting covered in ****.
Lets get back to photography - the 3 of you have posted some very good
photos (yes even D-Mac), and the 3 of you have all posted some shockers (yes
even you). I challenged D-Mac to be mature about it, I'm going to challenge
you too - ignore the crap.


How about a better solution? Since us 3 drunks seem to like the crap,
why don't you, John, and anybody else who doesn't want to read it
simply ignore those threads? It seems that you yourself had a long
reply to Doug-Julian just a few posts up.

Of course you all like it a lot; it's part of your individual psyches.

But I wonder if any of you can think beyond yourselves (and me, whoever)
and think what it does to the NG as a whole.

--
john mcwilliams

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 1, 6:17 pm, "Doug Jewell" wrote:

Brett, to be blunt, you D-Mac & Mark are like 3 drunks having a ****ing
contest, you all think you are ****ing higher than the others, but really
all that's happening is the 3 of you are getting covered in ****.
Lets get back to photography - the 3 of you have posted some very good
photos (yes even D-Mac), and the 3 of you have all posted some shockers
(yes
even you). I challenged D-Mac to be mature about it, I'm going to
challenge
you too - ignore the crap.


How about a better solution? Since us 3 drunks seem to like the crap,
why don't you, John, and anybody else who doesn't want to read it
simply ignore those threads? It seems that you yourself had a long
reply to Doug-Julian just a few posts up.
I'm not keen to just kill-file you all, because hidden amongst the crap, you
all do have positive contributions to the group. But threads that start out
harmless get turned into crap, and (less frequently) sometimes a thread that
has turned to crap turns back into a meaninful thread. Yes I had a long
reply to Ju-doug-lian, and had some harsh words to him - harsher than what I
threw at you.
I wasn't going to get involved in this tiff, but decided to when I thought
about how the tiff has changed over the last few months. There was a time
when these threads were humerous, the to-ing and fro-ing was quite comical,
but now it has got beyond that. There was a time when it seemed d-mac was
just a plain idiot, and you were exposing him, but now it seems that you
have been dragged down almost to his level. There was a time when I thought
you were doing the right thing with the way you were demonstrating his
photos etc to be poor, now I think his term of "internet bully" might
actually apply. Don't misinterpret me, in no way am I "taking d-mac's side"
so to speak, but I'm no longer taking yours either. That probably doesn't
bother you, but you frequently comment that no-one supports d-mac - well now
there is one less supporting you too. Keep this vendetta up against d-mac
and you will find that no-one supports you. I don't particularly want to see
you become the village idiot of rpe35, because you do post (mostly) good
photographs, often touched with good humour.
Anyway, I'm signing out of the _argument_.