40D CAUGHT IN A STAREDOWN!

BRET HAS NO EGO HE CANT HELP IT IF HE IS THE GREAEST HERE UNLIKE ALL THE
OTHER MORONS THAT POST PICS


"John McWilliams" wrote in message
news
Helen wrote:
On Jul 19, 6:36 pm, John McWilliams wrote:
THE LORD wrote:
RIGHT ON BRET

Why bring alt.morons into this?
And yes I'm sorry but I crossposted. Could we perhaps get back on
topic about photography! Why not start by critiquing Bret's work?

Because recently Bret's been on about ego, not photos.

But I would like to discuss the can of powder against a black bg.
Interesting, and well done. How?

--
john mcwilliams

"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
THE LORD wrote:
RIGHT ON BRET

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
On Jul 19, 12:34 pm, John McWilliams wrote:
Annika1980 wrote:
Who will blink first?

http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100386480/original

Those who are getting tired of you crossposting and trying to generate
hits to your site.

I don't understand. You and Noons go ape**** when I crosspost to 3
different Newsgroups. But if I make 3 identical individual posts to
each Newsgroup, that is somehow better?

I say it makes it tougher to see the replies when you have to visit
the same thread on all 3 groups.

And if anyone is getting tired of anything it is probably your endless
whining and bitching about people crossposting. In case you haven't
heard, D-Mac invented the whole Newsgroup thingy and he didn't put you
in charge. So STFU!

FU GAME, SET, MATCH.


your just another worthless net cop who thinks his opinion matters, the easy
way to defeat your FU is to just ignore you.

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

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:50:32 +1000, Troy Piggins
wrote:
: Personally, I don't think it's people posting photos that's
: killing the groups, it's the other noise - flame-wars and
: off-topic discussions.

Quite so.

John McWilliams wrote:
Troy Piggins wrote:
* Troy Piggins wrote :
* 2SQUID wrote :
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 25 lines snipped |=---]
Wether or not you do this on purpose or whether it is a by product
of your quest for popularity is immaterial. You are actually
diminishing the usefulness of each group by cross posting. Take out
your posts and those of Mark Thomas and Troy Piggins and there is
hardly enough sustainable traffic to support visiting a group.

Certainly anyone seeking to participate in a camera hardware forum
would steer well clear of RPE.35mm and aus.photo. In fact the only
remaining newsgroup offering any useful information is Alan Browne's
creation: RPD .slr-systems and even that is being destroyed by
spammers.
I don't understand something. We're posting links to photos in
photography related groups. I do it for comments and critique
because I'm always learning, can't answer for Mark or Bret but
they both have way more experience than me. I know both have
recently been trying out new techniques as have I. I couldn't
care about popularity, and they're hosted on my own site so it's
immaterial how many hits I get. I'm sure the others couldn't
care less how many hits they get too. I note you don't mention
Rita and D-Mac.

And if we stop posting what we believe are on-topic,
photography-related discussion threads, you are saying there is
hardly enough sustainable traffic to support visiting the groups.
And that's what you /want/? I don't get it.

Ok. Can you please explain which of these groups is the one
where it is only appropriate to post links to photos, which one
it is only appropriate to discuss hardware, which one it is
appropriate only to have discussions about general photography
topics? Please link me the groups' charters supporting your
answers. I'm sure there are other groups, but these are the ones
I frequent:

aus.photo
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I just checked that charter for this group. I won't be crossposting
links to photos in there any more. Sorry.

rec.photo.digital
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

Personally, I don't think it's people posting photos that's
killing the groups, it's the other noise - flame-wars and
off-topic discussions.

You're 100% on the money there, Troy. It did occur to me that you also
post to three groups as the troublemakers do, but then I thought that
since you live in Oz, you weren't messing with that group as it's yours.
And x-posting to rpd gives a wider audience, don't think anyone objects
in the slightest. Adding a third group, rpd-slr may or may not be in
line with general netiquette, but I cannot imagine even this curmedgeon
objecting in the least, as you are posting, not trolling or warring, or
"educating the lesser beings", etc., etc.

Please keep up the fine work; just don't let it go to your head!


My comments are based on the charter of the groups. Aus.Photo does not
have a charter but I would presume by the name it is the only group of
the three being cross posted to where photographs are the "specific"
nature of the group.

I have yet to figure out why people post their photos - for comment or
otherwise - to a hardware specific group like R.P.E.35mm. Unless they
were to point out a hardware related issue. There are plenty of these
where a photo would tell a thousand words but surely, a fly on dung is
not one of them.

Rec.Photo.Digital was the original "digital" group. Alan Browne help
fork it into separate digital groups to try and limit the traffic of
"what is the best price" and the like. I notice he did not include a
"digital photos" group in them.

Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings. Maybe
the truth might not be what you want to see?

I would have thought Troy, coming from a computer background you would
understand the need for compartmentalised information. Presuming
aus.photo is the only group where posting photos is encouraged. Why not
just post your links there and if people who visit the other groups are
actually looking for links to photos, they'll give aus.photo their
attention. I won't need to have as large a kill file either.

Let the natural ebb and flow of users decide if the other two groups are
being artificially propped up and they dissolve into cyber space when
you refrain or if they flourish with equipment related posts? Surely you
can see the logic in that Troy?

* 2SQUID wrote :
John McWilliams wrote:
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 52 lines snipped |=---]
post to three groups as the troublemakers do, but then I thought that
since you live in Oz, you weren't messing with that group as it's yours.
And x-posting to rpd gives a wider audience, don't think anyone objects
in the slightest. Adding a third group, rpd-slr may or may not be in
line with general netiquette, but I cannot imagine even this curmedgeon
objecting in the least, as you are posting, not trolling or warring, or
"educating the lesser beings", etc., etc.

Please keep up the fine work; just don't let it go to your head!

My comments are based on the charter of the groups. Aus.Photo does not
have a charter but I would presume by the name it is the only group of
the three being cross posted to where photographs are the "specific"
nature of the group.

I have yet to figure out why people post their photos - for comment or
otherwise - to a hardware specific group like R.P.E.35mm. Unless they
were to point out a hardware related issue.

There's nothing in the charter that specifically says you can't
post photos. I usually either give specifics about the equipment
used, or soon get questions about the same. That's why I
thought, and still think, it's relevant.

Reason I said I won't post there any more is when reading the
charter I noted a comment about not to crosspost to other
rec.photo.* groups. I've since re-read it, and that note was
referring actually to the rec.photo.marketplace.35mm group, not
RPE35mm.

Still, despite the charter not /specifying/ it, I've decided not
to post photos there. Hope that makes you happy.

There are plenty of these
where a photo would tell a thousand words but surely, a fly on dung is
not one of them.

Lol that was posted for humour in response to a specific request.
If that grossed you out, harden up and/or buy yourself a sense of
humour.

Rec.Photo.Digital was the original "digital" group. Alan Browne help
fork it into separate digital groups to try and limit the traffic of
"what is the best price" and the like. I notice he did not include a
"digital photos" group in them.

Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings. Maybe
the truth might not be what you want to see?

You know what? I was prepared to accept your request and
apologise as I did 2 posts ago. I was happy to leave it there,
but you're going on with it and starting to **** me off.

Hmm. Your language and condescending tone is starting to sound
familiar. I wonder...

I would have thought Troy, coming from a computer background you would
understand the need for compartmentalised information.

I don't come from a computer background. It's (just another)
hobby of mine. Like photography. Got nothing to do with my
full-time job. Never has.

Hmm. I can think of another conversation I had with a certain
regular about me knowing a bit about computers.

Hmm again. Your probably Aussie, or (less likely) British, from
your spelling. I wonder...

Hmm again. Motzarella.org - I know someone who uses or has used
that news server. Another box ticked...

Presuming
aus.photo is the only group where posting photos is encouraged.

No it isn't. It's not encouraged there any more than the other
*photo* groups. You presume incorrectly.

Why not
just post your links there and if people who visit the other groups are
actually looking for links to photos, they'll give aus.photo their
attention.

No, don't think I'll meet that request of yours. Sorry. I need
to make it easier for my fans. I know of at least one little
girl who enjoys looking at some of my macro photos:

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.p...fd22fac73c1bae

and I'd rather make her happy and **** you off than the other way
round.

I won't need to have as large a kill file either.

I don't care about the size of your killfile. If your hard drive
capacity struggles with a couple more lines of plain text in a
file, you got bigger issues than killfiling me. Do it. I'll
make it easier, killfile aus.photo as a whole - that'll save you
some space.

Let the natural ebb and flow of users decide if the other two groups are
being artificially propped up and they dissolve into cyber space when
you refrain or if they flourish with equipment related posts?

Why don't /you/ let the natural ebb and flow of users decide
while I do continue to post as I wish.

Surely you
can see the logic in that Troy?

Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. I'm not.

--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.

2SQUID wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Troy Piggins wrote:
* Troy Piggins wrote :
* 2SQUID wrote :
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 25 lines snipped |=---]
Wether or not you do this on purpose or whether it is a by product
of your quest for popularity is immaterial. You are actually
diminishing the usefulness of each group by cross posting. Take out
your posts and those of Mark Thomas and Troy Piggins and there is
hardly enough sustainable traffic to support visiting a group.

Certainly anyone seeking to participate in a camera hardware forum
would steer well clear of RPE.35mm and aus.photo. In fact the only
remaining newsgroup offering any useful information is Alan
Browne's creation: RPD .slr-systems and even that is being
destroyed by spammers.
I don't understand something. We're posting links to photos in
photography related groups. I do it for comments and critique
because I'm always learning, can't answer for Mark or Bret but
they both have way more experience than me. I know both have
recently been trying out new techniques as have I. I couldn't
care about popularity, and they're hosted on my own site so it's
immaterial how many hits I get. I'm sure the others couldn't
care less how many hits they get too. I note you don't mention
Rita and D-Mac.

And if we stop posting what we believe are on-topic,
photography-related discussion threads, you are saying there is
hardly enough sustainable traffic to support visiting the groups.
And that's what you /want/? I don't get it.

Ok. Can you please explain which of these groups is the one
where it is only appropriate to post links to photos, which one
it is only appropriate to discuss hardware, which one it is
appropriate only to have discussions about general photography
topics? Please link me the groups' charters supporting your
answers. I'm sure there are other groups, but these are the ones
I frequent:

aus.photo
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I just checked that charter for this group. I won't be crossposting
links to photos in there any more. Sorry.

rec.photo.digital
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

Personally, I don't think it's people posting photos that's
killing the groups, it's the other noise - flame-wars and
off-topic discussions.

You're 100% on the money there, Troy. It did occur to me that you also
post to three groups as the troublemakers do, but then I thought that
since you live in Oz, you weren't messing with that group as it's
yours. And x-posting to rpd gives a wider audience, don't think anyone
objects in the slightest. Adding a third group, rpd-slr may or may not
be in line with general netiquette, but I cannot imagine even this
curmedgeon objecting in the least, as you are posting, not trolling or
warring, or "educating the lesser beings", etc., etc.

Please keep up the fine work; just don't let it go to your head!


My comments are based on the charter of the groups. Aus.Photo does not
have a charter but I would presume by the name it is the only group of
the three being cross posted to where photographs are the "specific"
nature of the group.

I have yet to figure out why people post their photos - for comment or
otherwise - to a hardware specific group like R.P.E.35mm. Unless they
were to point out a hardware related issue. There are plenty of these
where a photo would tell a thousand words but surely, a fly on dung is
not one of them.

Rec.Photo.Digital was the original "digital" group. Alan Browne help
fork it into separate digital groups to try and limit the traffic of
"what is the best price" and the like. I notice he did not include a
"digital photos" group in them.

Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings. Maybe
the truth might not be what you want to see?

I would have thought Troy, coming from a computer background you would
understand the need for compartmentalised information. Presuming
aus.photo is the only group where posting photos is encouraged. Why not
just post your links there and if people who visit the other groups are
actually looking for links to photos, they'll give aus.photo their
attention. I won't need to have as large a kill file either.

Let the natural ebb and flow of users decide if the other two groups are
being artificially propped up and they dissolve into cyber space when
you refrain or if they flourish with equipment related posts? Surely you
can see the logic in that Troy?

As see it, r.p.e.35mm is an equipment group oriented towards 35mm and
allied cameras, which IMHO includes dslrs that are clearly descended
from 35mm slrs; and as a photographic image is the natural result of
using such equipment, I do not see any impediment in posting a link to
an image. Images are not allowed to be posted directly in the group,
but links IMHO do not violate the charter.

It has been said that r.p.e.35mm is the 'guru' group, with more
experienced long-term photographers here (despite increasing
cross-posting!) than other camera/photo groups, and I agree, as many of
us have long experience in film before switching to digital. This is
too valuable a resource to waste, or to drive away by objecting to links
to images that mostly give insight into the hardware features of the
cameras used.

I guess there are as many opinions as there are contributors, so there
probably will never be a universally agreed answer.

Colin D.

* Colin.D wrote :
2SQUID wrote:
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 86 lines snipped |=---]
understand the need for compartmentalised information. Presuming
aus.photo is the only group where posting photos is encouraged. Why not
just post your links there and if people who visit the other groups are
actually looking for links to photos, they'll give aus.photo their
attention. I won't need to have as large a kill file either.

Let the natural ebb and flow of users decide if the other two groups are
being artificially propped up and they dissolve into cyber space when
you refrain or if they flourish with equipment related posts? Surely you
can see the logic in that Troy?

As see it, r.p.e.35mm is an equipment group oriented towards 35mm and
allied cameras, which IMHO includes dslrs that are clearly descended
from 35mm slrs; and as a photographic image is the natural result of
using such equipment, I do not see any impediment in posting a link to
an image. Images are not allowed to be posted directly in the group,
but links IMHO do not violate the charter.

It has been said that r.p.e.35mm is the 'guru' group, with more
experienced long-term photographers here (despite increasing
cross-posting!) than other camera/photo groups, and I agree, as many of
us have long experience in film before switching to digital. This is
too valuable a resource to waste, or to drive away by objecting to links
to images that mostly give insight into the hardware features of the
cameras used.

I guess there are as many opinions as there are contributors, so there
probably will never be a universally agreed answer.

Well put Colin. It's what I was trying to say, but without the
emotion

I think you've summed it up well.

--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.

Troy Piggins wrote:
* 2SQUID wrote :
Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings. Maybe
the truth might not be what you want to see?

You know what? I was prepared to accept your request and
apologise as I did 2 posts ago. I was happy to leave it there,
but you're going on with it and starting to **** me off.

Hmm. Your language and condescending tone is starting to sound
familiar. I wonder...

I would have thought Troy, coming from a computer background you would
understand the need for compartmentalised information.

I don't come from a computer background. It's (just another)
hobby of mine. Like photography. Got nothing to do with my
full-time job. Never has.

Hmm. I can think of another conversation I had with a certain
regular about me knowing a bit about computers.

Hmm again. Your probably Aussie, or (less likely) British, from
your spelling. I wonder...

Hmm again. Motzarella.org - I know someone who uses or has used
that news server. Another box ticked...

I shall merely offer a number and a sardonic grin... 176.

(O:

John McWilliams wrote:
Troy Piggins wrote:
* Colin.D wrote :

As see it, r.p.e.35mm is an equipment group oriented towards 35mm and
allied cameras, which IMHO includes dslrs that are clearly descended
from 35mm slrs; and as a photographic image is the natural result of
using such equipment, I do not see any impediment in posting a link
to an image. Images are not allowed to be posted directly in the
group, but links IMHO do not violate the charter.

It has been said that r.p.e.35mm is the 'guru' group, with more
experienced long-term photographers here (despite increasing
cross-posting!) than other camera/photo groups, and I agree, as many
of us have long experience in film before switching to digital. This
is too valuable a resource to waste, or to drive away by objecting to
links to images that mostly give insight into the hardware features
of the cameras used.

I guess there are as many opinions as there are contributors, so
there probably will never be a universally agreed answer.

Well put Colin. It's what I was trying to say, but without the
emotion

I think you've summed it up well.

Yes, nicely done.

As a point of history, Alan Browne did not create by himself any usenet
group, although IIRC he became a co-proponent of the
re-org/re-do/splitting, call it what you will, of the then main group,
rec.photo.digital, which at that time carried several hundred posts
every few hours, much of it cross posted trolling, but even filtering
that out it left too much for one group to handle well. There was a lot
of tom-foolery (what else is new) injected into the group creating
process, and some names were adopted that may have been slightly off.

--
John McWilliams

Annika1980 wrote:
On Jul 20, 5:14 am, 2SQUID wrote:
Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings.

What group would that be?

A fantasy group? Failed experiment? Jive-ass failure to try to put Bret
down?

--
john mcwilliams