If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Thomas - Charles Thomas, Liar, Slanderer, Bully and Stalker
On Jun 16, 3:53 pm, wrote:
Off topic, to the admitted troll. Avoidance of everything noted. What a surprise. Your big chance to bring me down, and what fo you do? Run away AGAIN. Guess we know who the bully is, now. By being the coward again, you admit you a - a liar - an illiterate faker - endowed with little or no talent - Julian, as well as all the other sockpuppets - living in a fantasy world And of course, have no shopfront, lied about your 'patented' enlarging algorithm (that he sold for a fortune to Samsung, doncha know) .. where does it all end? It ends in your complete lack of credibility, and the fact that you are now nothing but a pitied laughingstock when you behave like this. So just post pictures and otherwise stfu. Now to segue to something photographic.. let me see... ah yes, something cliched, so it will appeal to Douglas..! All the evidence points..http://www.marktphoto.com/pencils.jpg .. to you being a nobody, Doug. ---------------------------- Some of us actually have ethics and principals. You just lost any hope of them holding me back. So here it comes, You deserve every moment of it I just feel sorry for whatever family you have when your worthless self joins the heap of unemployable fools who think the only time they do wrong is when they get caught: In December 2005 you wrote: "I'll happily admit I have nothing much up in the way of portraits or other images comparable to wedding photography" So you stole mine and tried to claim "fair Use" when you used them to slander me and post defamatory messages about your idea of their flaws. What an absolutely fantastic job of bullying. On the 18th January 2006 you posted this gem: "For the record: I have never, not once, lied about Douglas MacDonald." Incredibly, in the same message you said: "That's all, folks. In other words, no shopfront address, and Douglas presents his wares at a street market on Sundays. Uhuh. Or isn't that site his? Gee, maybe it's Graham Hunt's?" When I posted this picture to prove your were slandering me and in fact a LIAR: http://www.annika1980.com/evidence/shopfront.htm. You went strangely silent, mate. What happened? Don't like being proven a liar and a bully? The least you could have done was apologize. No. You waited until you though I wouldn't have the archives of every message you ever posted to slander and defame me before getting out the PC and taking me on again. And you have the audacity to claim you are a member of the human race? But wait, there's more... Many years of evidence about your defamatory and slanderous lies about me. Lies you say you never made. And then there's your lie that I was a liar. I posted a message in AUS PHOTO informing (Australian) Photographers intending to sell their pictures taken in National parks, that they need to have permits to take the pictures first ...and said I actually held such permits for National Parks, recreational areas and some restricted areas as well as permission to enter some Aboriginal tribal lands. Your reply? "You are a liar MacDonald, You don't have any permits" I posted this evidence it was you who was the LIAR and demanded you appologise: http://www.annika1980.com/evidence/permit.htm. What happened to the apology mate? Once again, like all bullies who lie, steal their victim's property and slander them without a shred of truth to what they say ...you contradicted yourself with this gem of literatu I *never* said Douglas didn't have a simple permit for photography in national parks - crikey, *anybody* can get one of those - it's just a moneymaker for the Parks and Wildlife Service. Douglas implied it was some badge of honour!! *That* is what I corrected - having a permit for commercial shooting in a national park does *not* mean anything about your ability as a photographer. The fact that Douglas thinks it *does*, probably gives a better indication... (ramble clipped). And now we move on to YOU Charles Stevens or Mark Thomas - Neither of which is your real name, is it? You started bullying me from a workstation at a Government department in Adelaide... Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, I believe. The really interesting part of that, is that neither name you claim is your "real" name is known to anyone at the department. Care to enlighten us on that lot? You said in those early posts (which I have ready to load up to YOUR OWN PERSONAL BULLY SITE) that you had "mates" in ASIC (Australian Securities and Investment Commission) whom you were going to get to investigate me, my corporate structure and (for all I knew) what colour sock I wore. When I pointed out you were in fact using a Government computer to bully people on the Internet, THe game got really nasty and you've had me in your sites ever since. Even when one of the USA's most respected Photographers - to whom I sent an enlargement made using my algorithm, posted his entirely unsolicited comments... The best you could muster was: "Now credit where due, Gordon Moat says he was impressed by Douglas' chosen images. But Douglas has never allowed a test image, or even an image of his own, that actually HAS truly fine detail, to be tried out on his magic algorithm." I guess not having seen the picture I sent him might have clouded you mind. It had exposed threads of 6mm bolts, clearly visible. The picture was a Ford engine. But you never bothered asking that, did you? Instead you continued on your slanted opinion - based on nothing, that my process simply couldn't work. Excellent display of bigotry, eh? His article is still the http://www.allgstudio.com/technology...nology_02.html under "printing". Well or whoever you are today... The period of confidentiality I signed after I sold the algorithm for enlarging digital image is over next month. YOUR WEB SITE will have the details of the sale posted to it... Right beside your defamatory remark that I was lying about the sale. YOUR SITE is going to have a picture of my life long friend and one time manager of Technology Australia Pty Ltd (TECHNOAUSSIE to you) ...GRAHAM HUNT Who you claimed was me, pumping up the value of my print centre's by saying I was in Korea, negotiating for the sale of some Intellectual Property. Tell us now jerk... Are you going to apologize to me for the lies, defamation and slander you've been posting all these years or just sit back and wait for the Federal Police to knock on your door for abusing your position? You got about 12 hours to post the apology before your world turn red. Don't think for a single moment, I'm going to hold back on you. I'm not. Douglas |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Thomas - Charles Thomas, Liar, Slanderer, Bully and Stalker
Off topic, naturally. Only of interest to Doug and his fantasy legal
team. Just repeating stuff oft repeated in the past. So, Hi, Doug. *Who's* button got pushed? (o; Thanks for this - it gives *me* enough to take to a lawyer if I feel inclined. On Jun 16, 5:55 pm, wrote: In December 2005 you wrote: "I'll happily admit I have nothing much up in the way of portraits or other images comparable to wedding photography" So you stole mine That's LIE No. 1 for this thread - didn't take long. I have only ever reposted images, with full credit to you - just as any caching service does. Plus the only ones I have reposted are where you made claims about your prowess and the image showed the reverse. and tried to claim "fair Use" when you used them to slander me and post defamatory messages about your idea of their flaws. So tell us Doug, if *you* criticise work, what do you call it? Satire, eh? Forgive my grin. The funny part is that I have given you permission to repost any of my images that you think are flawed, and you can have at them with genuine criticism. I call it fair game. No cowardice here. Here's the classic example of an image of Doug's that I have criticised: http://www.flickr.com/photos/austral...her/396106853/ It's worth noting that I have NOT *reposted* this image (just linked to it), and I don't know/care who did repost it. It is however, Douglas MacDonald's image, one he cowardly withdrew after it got the rich criticism it deserved. And it is a dreadful image - awful dodging/burning, a completely buggered sky, a tilted horizon, litter in the foreground and a half-chopped windsurfer, poor composition and other distractions. All this despite it being a *posed* shot, and allegedly posted by a professional wedding photographer. I would be ashamed to post this as a snapshot. So is this your image, as you posted it originally Doug? (It is.) Are you proud of it? And speaking of posting other people's work, do you own this?: http://www.annika1980.com/ Douglas, you are the ultimate HYPOCRITE. Don't you realise that as soon as you created those pages, you lost every shred of what little credibility you had? On the 18th January 2006 you posted this gem: "For the record: I have never, not once, lied about Douglas MacDonald." Incredibly, in the same message you said: "That's all, folks. In other words, no shopfront address, and Douglas presents his wares at a street market on Sundays. Uhuh. Or isn't that site his? Gee, maybe it's Graham Hunt's?" When I posted this picture to prove your were slandering me and in fact a LIAR: http://www.annika1980.com/evidence/shopfront.htm You went strangely silent, mate. No, actually I stuck around, and pointed out that YOUR website stated that you had no shop address, and that your photo was hardly convincing. I invite anybody silly enough to read this to take a look at that highly profeshunal looking 'shopfront' (I'd call it an 'annexe'), that Douglas himself admits no longer exists, if it ever did. He refused to give its address. When I went to find it in the phone book or on the web, so I could try out his expertise on some of my images, there wasn't a single trace of it anywhere. Make your own conclusions. But wait, there's more... Many years of evidence about your defamatory and slanderous lies about me. Lies you say you never made. Your reply? "You are a liar MacDonald, You don't have any permits" And there's LIE No. 2. I NEVER said those words. Post a link to the contrary, Doug. You made those words up, and you took my actual reply completely out of context (oh what a surprise!). You claimed you had permits from NON-EXISTING organisations (eg ATSIC, who DIDN'T ever issue photographic permits anyway, and had been disbanded for almost a year when you posted your claims. And it wasn't in response to people asking about permits, it was you trying to imply that having a permit was a badge of honour. Here's what Douglas actually said (NOBODY ASKED for this information, despite Doug's implication otherwise): DOUG: I am also registered (holding the necessary permits) with the EPA, Forest and Wildlife service and ATSIC (the native Aboriginal corporation here)as a working Photographer, able to enter managed and controlled areas to take photographs for sale and conduct "Photographic expeditions" in National Parks and on some tribal lands. Link he http://groups.google.com.au/group/au...0f72c3aad9c839 You will not find the words Douglas "quoted" above (yes, LYING again, he just can't stop), because I didn't say them. And let's just repeat what I said back then ... The 'EPA' doesn't issue commercial photography permits, however, the arm of the Dept of the Environment called the "Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service" (nothing to do with 'Forests', Doug) issues "commercial activity" permits, as do just about all national parks services around the world. You don't become 'registered' in some way that implies any photographic skills, which was clearly Doug's intention with his unsolicited proclamation. You simply have to buy the permit to help raise money for the Dept.. (O; ATSIC? Well, it had been disbanded for about a year when Doug made these claims, and it did NOT EVER issue permits of that kind - permission would need to be sought from the elders of each individual indigenous community. What happened to the apology mate? When I don't lie, I don't apologise. Simple. Once again, like all bullies who lie, steal their victim's property and slander them without a shred of truth to what they say There's LIE No. 3. I never stole his property, and every time I criticised him, it was with backing evidence, as per the quotes and links above. Douglas doesn't seem to have much success when *he* tries to do quotes and links... And now we move on to YOU Charles Stevens or Mark Thomas - Neither of which is your real name, is it? You started bullying me from a workstation at a Government department in Adelaide... Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, I believe. The really interesting part of that, is that neither name you claim is your "real" name is known to anyone at the department. Care to enlighten us on that lot? Gladly. Firstly, it is fascinating that you went to all this trouble (well, you claim to - and you just said you asked *everyone* - forgive my grin again - do you know how many folk work in TAFESA?). And yet, despite all these phone calls you, as usual, get the name of the Department completely wrong! Not surprising really. By the way, there have been at least two Mark Thomas's working for "TAFESA" in the last few years - and it is correctly called the Department of Further Education, Employment, Science and Technology. How is it you get stuff SO wrong? By the way, TAFE's also run many library computers, so the origin of those posts could have been pretty much from anything - not that it is remotely relevant. You said in those early posts (which I have ready to load up to YOUR OWN PERSONAL BULLY SITE) that you had "mates" in ASIC (Australian Securities and Investment Commission) whom you were going to get to investigate me, my corporate structure Umm, that would be their *job*.... And all I was concerned about was the Graham Hunt posting. When I pointed out you were in fact using a Government computer to bully people on the Internet, THe (sic) game got really nasty and you've had me in your sites ever since. Umm, that would be "sights". Get a grip and a dictionary. And it got 'nasty' when you (and Graham) got busted. Even when one of the USA's most respected Photographers - to whom I sent an enlargement made using my algorithm, posted his entirely unsolicited comments... The best you could muster was: "Now credit where due, Gordon Moat says he was impressed by Douglas' chosen images. But Douglas has never allowed a test image, or even an image of his own, that actually HAS truly fine detail, to be tried out on his magic algorithm." And it's true, you never have. Prove otherwise. Here's my proof, still sitting there on Gisle's site. http://hannemyr.com/photo/interpolation.html Scroll right down - Gisle's been waiting nearly 3 years.. Post where your algorithm has been tried on a known image (and these requests were made *well* before you allegedly sold it, so don't bother with that excuse). His article is still thehttp://www.allgstudio.com/technology...nology_02.html under "printing". Yes, and in it Gordon Moat says this: "One thing that needs to be considered is that upsizing any image will never add information to the original file." Which is correct. Later, when you kept making these claims of "added detail" and claiming that it was your images that prompted him to write the article, he clarified his position, by saying this: Question: Can Douglas make nice large prints? Answer: Yes. .... Q: Why did I write those articles? A: I was working on a proposal for funding to include wide format imaging...(and) to supplement my existing photography and graphic design for print business. In other words, I did not write the article for Douglas... .... Q: Did Douglas's images contain more detail information than the original? A: No, only more pixels. In other words, your interpolation was just like anyone else's. No better, no worse, NO magic. Amusingly, he also said this: Douglas can lose his temper and make outbursts and claims that make others question everything else he states. Maybe I am a little idealistic, but I like to focus on the good things people are capable of achieving A good attitude, and I guess you could call that a compliment, Dougie. (O; These words from: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...bc2af22e84217b Interested viewers (with no life) should also read: http://groups.google.com.au/group/au...237b863968a635 Well or whoever you are today... Pardon me, "Bully.Basher"? Or is it Ryadia, Ryadiia, technoaussie, auspics, big guy, ormiston, sebastian po, doug, douglas, douglas macdonald, stool pigeon, duncan donald, an interested bystander, one million pics, one million pictures, alan jones, alienjones, alienjones himself, alvie, the yowie, bigpix, pix on canvas, the administrator, pixby, henretta, joe bailey, graham hunt, healthypcs, random user 12987, MoioM, go go dancer, maddy, huey fong, wilder and wilder, tekoaussie, justintyme, snaps, kakadu, HPC, deciple of EOS, child of EOS, call me any name, keep_it_simple, notsimple, not_just_Simple, tropical treat, d-mac, wraped in canvas, Julian, Cryptopix... and MANY others. For what it is worth, I was until they dropped their email service (Charlie is my childhood nickname), and have used my real name since then. The period of confidentiality I signed after I sold the algorithm for enlarging digital image is over next month. YOUR WEB SITE will have the details of the sale posted to it... Right beside your defamatory remark that I was lying about the sale. Look forward to it. Why is everything a month away, Doug - think we'll forget? YOUR SITE is going to have a picture of my life long friend and one time manager of Technology Australia Pty Ltd (TECHNOAUSSIE to you) ...GRAHAM HUNT Who you claimed was me, pumping up the value of my print centre's by saying I was in Korea, negotiating for the sale of some Intellectual Property. Why haven't you done this beofre - just thought of it? Any picture of any idiot would do. By the way, he DIDN'T say you were in Korea (see below for exact quote). He PRETENDED to have nothing to do with the company, and clearly wanted to be seen as someone with 'inside information'. But he STUPIDLY posted it from your computer (and he also posted and signed his name as Douglas, elsewhere...!!). Doug, I wouldn't keep bringing this upif I was you. But now you did, here's exactly what "Graham" said: In Australia, The franchise is "Techno Aussie digital print centres" The cost of one is around $53k... If you can get one. Word is the Asians have put in an offer for the whole thing, patents and all. The cost is about in line with a Xerox copy shop except you get to print photos and posters too. The technology is changing so fast, you'd need to have a pretty decent customer base to draw on or buy one already set up and making a profit. The printers are the cost. $20,000 plus for the big one. GH This was posted from Doug's IP at the time - easy to verify by the headers. From http://groups.google.com.au/group/re...251efcf54a561c. Are you going to apologize to me for the lies, defamation and slander you've been posting all these years As above. No. Because there is none of the above, and again you have failed to show anything remotely like it. I'll wait. You got about 12 hours to post the apology before your world turn (sic) red. Don't think for a single moment, I'm going to hold back on you. I'm not. Yep, just like you have 'not' before. I'm shakin' uncontrollably, just like Annika. Or maybe it's just a cold night, me bein' unemployed and sleepin' in the gutter and all... (O; |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Thomas - Charles Thomas, Liar, Slanderer, Bully and Stalker
Off topic. Short summary post. (O:
Anyway, here's where it goes from here. Douglas will (in a month?) post an image of some person claiming it to be the real 'Graham Hunt' (strangely Graham was never again seen on usenet, why was that I wonder?). His claims of 'action' will of course come to nothing, and there will of course be excuses for that. In order that he might try to recover from his rather untenable position, may I suggest the following to poor Doug: 1. Accept criticism gracefully, and others will (mostly) offer it constructively. Be willing to learn from those who know more than you, and try a little harder to recognise them. (Hint, it's most people here..) 2. Don't keep dwelling on the past and making lame (and easily proven incorrect) excuses for poor behaviour. 3. Don't keep starting threads attacking individuals. If you shut up, people won't bite back. It is always best to concentrate on content, rather than personality. Let your images speak for themselves! (grin) Note that I haven't descended to *creating* lame threads like this one, but I WILL respond to taunts and 'escape attempts', and I will post corrections to misleading claims, and give criticism to images/ claims that deserve it. I would expect others to do the same. 4. If you withdraw web content or images, expect it to be reposted or available through caching - the Internet is a public place and you cannot run away from things you have done or posted. (I strongly believe it is very bad form to remove images referenced in usenet postings, and I have always made the promise that if anyone finds a link of *mine* that no longer works, I will make every effort to repost it - I keep my archives quite well protected, and am happy to post old (bad!) images..) Learn to admit and laugh at your mistakes and learn from them. 5. Don't post adspeak or bull****, like the 'real added detail' claims, or the 'perspective correction' algorithm claim. 6. If you ignore any of the above, then accept all the criticism that comes your way. In the meantime, just put up or SHUT UP, to use the other Mark's suggestion. I'm sick of this sort of behaviour from you, and while I don't presume to speak for others, I think it is fair to observe that I am not alone. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Thomas - Charles Thomas, Liar, Slanderer, Bully and Stalker
On Jun 16, 8:01 am, wrote:
Off topic. Short summary post. (O: Anyway, here's where it goes from here. Douglas will (in a month?) post an image of some person claiming it to be the real 'Graham Hunt' (strangely Graham was never again seen on usenet, why was that I wonder?). His claims of 'action' will of course come to nothing, and there will of course be excuses for that. In order that he might try to recover from his rather untenable position, may I suggest the following to poor Doug: 1. Accept criticism gracefully, and others will (mostly) offer it constructively. Be willing to learn from those who know more than you, and try a little harder to recognise them. (Hint, it's most people here..) 2. Don't keep dwelling on the past and making lame (and easily proven incorrect) excuses for poor behaviour. 3. Don't keep starting threads attacking individuals. If you shut up, people won't bite back. It is always best to concentrate on content, rather than personality. Let your images speak for themselves! (grin) Note that I haven't descended to *creating* lame threads like this one, but I WILL respond to taunts and 'escape attempts', and I will post corrections to misleading claims, and give criticism to images/ claims that deserve it. I would expect others to do the same. 4. If you withdraw web content or images, expect it to be reposted or available through caching - the Internet is a public place and you cannot run away from things you have done or posted. (I strongly believe it is very bad form to remove images referenced in usenet postings, and I have always made the promise that if anyone finds a link of *mine* that no longer works, I will make every effort to repost it - I keep my archives quite well protected, and am happy to post old (bad!) images..) Learn to admit and laugh at your mistakes and learn from them. 5. Don't post adspeak or bull****, like the 'real added detail' claims, or the 'perspective correction' algorithm claim. 6. If you ignore any of the above, then accept all the criticism that comes your way. In the meantime, just put up or SHUT UP, to use the other Mark's suggestion. I'm sick of this sort of behaviour from you, and while I don't presume to speak for others, I think it is fair to observe that I am not alone. You are NOT alone Mark. The consensus of the group feels the same way you do. In Douglas' eyes, it's your turn to be picked on. He isn't happy unless he's stirring up crap again. The only "bully" on this group is him. Rest assured you have great support. Helen |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Thomas - Charles Thomas, Liar, Slanderer, Bully and Stalker
On Jun 16, 10:53 pm, wrote:
You are NOT alone Mark. The consensus of the group feels the same way you do. In Douglas' eyes, it's your turn to be picked on. Yes, it didn't escape my notice that he got nowhere with Bret - remember Doug's claims of national advertising, FBI raids, local news broadcasts, banning from his ISP, ad infinitum... none of that happened, naturally - all he managed was a lame hate page hosted free on a lowlife provider - so... who to try next? (O: He isn't happy unless he's stirring up crap again. The only "bully" on this group is him. Rest assured you have great support. Helen Thanks, Helen. It's not hard to notice that when it comes to the abuse, there aren't many Doug supporters - other than his vewy best fwends - Cryptopix, Julian, PhotoCritic, Anonymous.. etc. Ya gotta laugh. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Thomas - Charles Thomas, Liar, Slanderer, Bully and Stalker
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Thomas - Charles Thomas, Liar, Slanderer, Bully and Stalker
On Jun 16, 10:30 am, John McWilliams wrote:
Ya gotta laugh. No you don't gotta. You all could give it a rest. But it takes big resolve to not reply to one another, to let go of history. That goes for Douglas and friends, Bret, Helen, Mark2, and yourself. So far, only Mark2 has shown some restraint. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and criticize the combatants when you aren't the one being attacked. Perhaps when he accuses you of being a criminal your perspective may change. All of us "bullies" have been personally attacked by D-Mac. I think we've all shown considerable restraint considering the circumstances. People like Mark2 and Helen seek to avoid conflict. Others like D-Mac and myself crave it. But even I have pulled back recently mainly because it just gets old answering D-Mac's lies and bashing him silly. But the occasional thread still pops up from time to time, usually started by D-Mac like this one. Most of the folks here are like you and sick of them so these threads are easily avoided if you have no interest in the battles. Personally, I kinda enjoy watching Mark Thomas rip D-Mac a new asshole every time he makes some bull**** claim. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Thomas - Charles Thomas, Liar, Slanderer, Bully and Stalker
On Jun 16, 3:55 am, wrote:
Tell us now jerk... Are you going to apologize to me for the lies, defamation and slander you've been posting all these years or just sit back and wait for the Federal Police to knock on your door for abusing your position? You got about 12 hours to post the apology before your world turn red. Don't think for a single moment, I'm going to hold back on you. I'm not. Save your threats, D-Mac, I'll make it easy on you. I am really Mark Thomas and I've been playin you all along. Make sense now? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Thomas - Charles Thomas, Liar, Slanderer, Bully and Stalker
On Jun 17, 12:30 am, John McWilliams wrote:
No you don't gotta. You all could give it a rest. But it takes big resolve to not reply to one another, to let go of history. That goes for Douglas and friends, Bret, Helen, Mark2, and yourself. So far, only Mark2 has shown some restraint. -- john mcwilliams John, Douglas has been playing these games - and targeting many, many people - over several years now. Some of those folks were unable to defend themselves against his onslaughts, and they just backed off. Other folks, notably our own Alan Browne, were almost taken in by his claims - Alan at one stage was asking for a prospectus from Doug on his 'franchises'!! - the very same franchises that Doug used his "Graham Hunt" alias/sockpuppet/employee to try to boost his credibility. It's all in the same thread, he http://groups.google.com.au/group/re...251efcf54a561c As it turns out, there doesn't appear to have ever been such franchises - just another DM fantasy perhaps - but one wonders where it would have gone if Alan's friends had taken it further, or if no- one had spoken up about the origin of "Graham Hunt's" post. When I saw Doug using that sockpuppet (or employee, it doesn't matter), I spoke up VERY loudly - and since then, I have been a fairly regular flavour of the month amongst those that he targets. So be it. Now to me, if someone does the wrong thing, I prefer not to run away, or say "just ignore him, it will be ok", or 'let go of history'. To me it isn't about 'resolve', it's about not letting people get away with poor behaviour and false claims. In simple terms, someone is posting stuff about me (which makes it very easy for you to say "ignore him") in a public forum. Inexplicably perhaps, I would prefer that someone seeing this thread got the whole story. In order not to waste readers time, and to try to ameliorate any adverse reactions from people other than Doug who might be foolishly tempted to read my reply, I responded with Off Topic at the top. Frankly I don't see much problem there, except for the original post, of course. If you have a problem with my response - fine, that's your right. But the only way to see it was to choose to open it - the title IS a bit of a giveaway as to likely content, don't you think? I'd be interested to see your approach, if the same or similar was done to you. And if you have a problem with specific points or language used, or a foolproof solution to these 'happenings', feel free to elaborate. I'm all ears. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Henrietta K Thomas is the resident troll on this group. | Inaccessible | Digital Photography | 0 | February 17th 05 01:29 PM |