Mountain Fun-Guy

No, he's not -- unless people respond to him. Most of us have him
killfiled so we don't see his rubbish unless people like you
respond to him. Stop it!

Chris F.A. Johnson http://cfajohnson.com

An excellent suggestion, Chris, and one I wish more folk would heed.

David

On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 01:21:55 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
wrote:

On Aug 1, 7:58*pm, LOL! wrote:


(C) Twibil, a recent outpatient, thinks he can psychotically pretend to be
one of the many many psychologists, psychiatrists, and counselors that he
was court-ordered to see, with his stack of required-reading self-help
books at his side.

ROFLMAO!

Alas; it takes a serious personality disorder to invent your own
fantasy and then claim that you're actually laughing at your own
invention..... (And yet you still wonder why nobody believes a word
you say?)


Was that in chapter 8 or 11 of "How to pretend to be a psychologist on the
net and get the more stupid 10% of the netizens to fall for it"?

LOL!

Oh, by the way, let us know when you decide to actually talk about cameras
and photography instead of hijacking threads to try to convince others
you're not some psychotic basket-case. (Insecure much? LOL) Then you won't
be so obvious as a ****ed-up psychotic basement-life TROLL.

LOL!!!!!!!!!

LOL! wrote:
. So in advance I only
show them highly degraded jpg-compressed images

....because that's you captured.

On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:01:07 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

LOL! wrote:
. So in advance I only
show them highly degraded jpg-compressed images

...because that's you captured.

Get the **** off of your fingers and see if you can type something that
makes sense next time.

LOL!

I guess you missed the rare white Tiger Swallowtail butterfly shot from 7-8
feet away with a tele-macro lens setup on a superzoom camera. Where I
posted a downsize jpg degraded one (for the trolls like you) then a full
size crop of a wing-section showing individual scales on the butterfly's
wings, resolved down to single pixel details.

Keep on trolling, TROLL-BOY! At least you show more promise at that than
photography.

LOL!

LOL! wrote:
On Mon, 02 Aug 2010 10:01:07 +0100, bugbear
wrote:

LOL! wrote:
. So in advance I only
show them highly degraded jpg-compressed images
...because that's you captured.

Get the **** off of your fingers and see if you can type something that
makes sense next time.

LOL!

I guess you missed the rare white Tiger Swallowtail butterfly shot from 7-8
feet away with a tele-macro lens setup on a superzoom camera. Where I
posted a downsize jpg degraded one (for the trolls like you) then a full
size crop of a wing-section showing individual scales on the butterfly's
wings, resolved down to single pixel details.

Nope. No evidence available.

Case dismissed.

BugBear

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
On 01/08/2010 19:16, LOL! wrote:


Of course not... they are posted so that we can't identify the owning
flickr account. You post the URL, but nothing says the URL belongs to any
of your multiple noms de trolling.


You don't know much about Flickr.

--
N

"N" wrote in message
. au...

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
On 01/08/2010 19:16, LOL! wrote:


Of course not... they are posted so that we can't identify the owning
flickr account. You post the URL, but nothing says the URL belongs to any
of your multiple noms de trolling.


You don't know much about Flickr.


Anyone can open a Flickr account under the name of Sam Phototrol, post a
copy of an image and take it down quickie.

--
Peter

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"N" wrote in message
. au...

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
On 01/08/2010 19:16, LOL! wrote:


Of course not... they are posted so that we can't identify the owning
flickr account. You post the URL, but nothing says the URL belongs to
any of your multiple noms de trolling.


You don't know much about Flickr.


Anyone can open a Flickr account under the name of Sam Phototrol, post a
copy of an image and take it down quickie.

--
Peter

The URL of the image is enough to find the account. Flickr account logs
will identify the owner. The image can be traced to the owner. LOL is
correct in that the theft can be proven. However, to prove a theft had
taken place, it would need to actually take place.

http://www.flickr.com/people/45566790@N02




--
N

"N" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"N" wrote in message
. au...

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
On 01/08/2010 19:16, LOL! wrote:


Of course not... they are posted so that we can't identify the owning
flickr account. You post the URL, but nothing says the URL belongs to
any of your multiple noms de trolling.


You don't know much about Flickr.


Anyone can open a Flickr account under the name of Sam Phototrol, post a
copy of an image and take it down quickie.

--
Peter

The URL of the image is enough to find the account. Flickr account logs
will identify the owner. The image can be traced to the owner. LOL is
correct in that the theft can be proven. However, to prove a theft had
taken place, it would need to actually take place.

http://www.flickr.com/people/45566790@N02


Of course, but who is Sam Phototrol?
The next account is Joe Blyfsheig @ hotmail;
then slimySam @ gmail, etc.




--
Peter

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"N" wrote in message
...

"Peter" wrote in message
...
"N" wrote in message
. au...

"Ofnuts" wrote in message
...
On 01/08/2010 19:16, LOL! wrote:


Of course not... they are posted so that we can't identify the owning
flickr account. You post the URL, but nothing says the URL belongs to
any of your multiple noms de trolling.


You don't know much about Flickr.


Anyone can open a Flickr account under the name of Sam Phototrol, post a
copy of an image and take it down quickie.

--
Peter

The URL of the image is enough to find the account. Flickr account logs
will identify the owner. The image can be traced to the owner. LOL is
correct in that the theft can be proven. However, to prove a theft had
taken place, it would need to actually take place.

http://www.flickr.com/people/45566790@N02


Of course, but who is Sam Phototrol?
The next account is Joe Blyfsheig @ hotmail;
then slimySam @ gmail, etc.




--
Peter

Well, he's had that account since Dec 2009.


--
N