Some of my photographs

On May 21, 6:43 am, "Ryadiia" wrote:
This is an attempt to continue a new trend Russell Stewart got going a few
days ago. It's a revolutionary concept in a group full of Usenet bullies.
It's called photography!

http://www.ryadia.com/album1/index.html

How long do you give this post before the bullies hijack it?
10 minutes?
An hour?
Maybe a day?

Make a guess.

I'm not going to steal any of these images. Most I would look at once
and then move on. But a few did grab me and I think they all are
worthy of comments.
Didn't write the captions(names, titles) but starting from the first
through the fourteenth I've numbered them:

1) Could have gotten a better angle on the dragon-fly. Still nice
sharpness and color.
2) To centered for me. Needs to be shot a bit closer and not having
the flowers so centered in the frame.
3) I don't see the clear water that is here. What I do see are
stacked rectangles. The brown contrasting the green above with the
white between. An abstract to be sure. But then I don't get most
abstracts.
4) Nice image that needs a bit more crop. The direction of the flower
and stem coming in from the right is nice. Cropping it more to not
have the unopened bud behind it in view would IMHO improve the over
all image.
5) I like! Funny and off the wall. Well exposed and the image sparks
the though, "How does a tree process film". Nicely done.
6) Good capture of the Kookaburra bird (I think). Nice sharp detail
and the background is fuzzed enough to not compete with the bird. The
Copyright statement is also funny but could have been done better.
7) Very nice. This is what I am talking about when you get in and
crop. The background is nicely out of focus and the petals are nice
and crisp. The soft stamen(?) in the front center of the flower
doesn't disturb me. But allows me to follow it into the flower. Nice
color also.
8) Sorry but fake. Placing fake flowers in a natural setting is like
giving a pig a manicure. Just doesn't work. The scene by its self is
wonderful. Could even have used a colorful shell and it would have
worked. But not with those plastic things.
9) Good. The starfish along with the ripples of sand around them lead
the eye up and through to the red leaf. Then back down again to the
black starfish. Nicely done.
10) To much on horizon. If you could have either cropped a bit
tighter or moved closer I think the image would have been stronger.
Having the horizon dead center surely didn't help this image.
11) A touch out of focus and the plane to close to the left side.
Here you could have pulled back some. Kept the wake to the right but
added more to lift off. Color seems to be a bit dull like it was a
partial cloudy day. Not much to do with that.
( for those who are going to jump in and say PS the color right,
don't. If the photographer were going to PS the images, they would
have already.)
12) I have no idea what you were thinking with this one. If the person
had leaned out a bit so you could see their face and then cropped a
bit more, it would have been better. Almost looks like someone
splashed a huge flash on them and missed.
13) Centered and out of focus. Nice try. Hard to get them skyrats as
they zoom by.
14) I was thinking that this was to centered, but looking at it again
I see it isn't. The whites don't seemed to be blown out and the
blacks look very good. To bad that you couldn't get a catch light in
the eye. But then not everyone does.

Okay Ryadiia, them are my opinions on this showing of your photos. Not
taking any pot shots or debasing you in any way. I'm seeing a
photographer who has a good eye and needs to improve, as do I. These
are your images and you have thrown down the gaullant(so to speak) and
one day I will post mine and you will get the chance to take pot shots
at mine. You where there and you got these images. Good for you. I
envy you to be able to get away and do some photography for yourself.

Now any one else with honest comments?

Draco

"Draco" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 21, 6:43 am, "Ryadiia" wrote:
This is an attempt to continue a new trend Russell Stewart got going a
few
days ago. It's a revolutionary concept in a group full of Usenet bullies.
It's called photography!

http://www.ryadia.com/album1/index.html

How long do you give this post before the bullies hijack it?
10 minutes?
An hour?
Maybe a day?

Make a guess.

I'm not going to steal any of these images. Most I would look at once
and then move on. But a few did grab me and I think they all are
worthy of comments.
Didn't write the captions(names, titles) but starting from the first
through the fourteenth I've numbered them:

1) Could have gotten a better angle on the dragon-fly. Still nice
sharpness and color.
2) To centered for me. Needs to be shot a bit closer and not having
the flowers so centered in the frame.
3) I don't see the clear water that is here. What I do see are
stacked rectangles. The brown contrasting the green above with the
white between. An abstract to be sure. But then I don't get most
abstracts.
4) Nice image that needs a bit more crop. The direction of the flower
and stem coming in from the right is nice. Cropping it more to not
have the unopened bud behind it in view would IMHO improve the over
all image.
5) I like! Funny and off the wall. Well exposed and the image sparks
the though, "How does a tree process film". Nicely done.
6) Good capture of the Kookaburra bird (I think). Nice sharp detail
and the background is fuzzed enough to not compete with the bird. The
Copyright statement is also funny but could have been done better.
7) Very nice. This is what I am talking about when you get in and
crop. The background is nicely out of focus and the petals are nice
and crisp. The soft stamen(?) in the front center of the flower
doesn't disturb me. But allows me to follow it into the flower. Nice
color also.
8) Sorry but fake. Placing fake flowers in a natural setting is like
giving a pig a manicure. Just doesn't work. The scene by its self is
wonderful. Could even have used a colorful shell and it would have
worked. But not with those plastic things.
9) Good. The starfish along with the ripples of sand around them lead
the eye up and through to the red leaf. Then back down again to the
black starfish. Nicely done.
10) To much on horizon. If you could have either cropped a bit
tighter or moved closer I think the image would have been stronger.
Having the horizon dead center surely didn't help this image.
11) A touch out of focus and the plane to close to the left side.
Here you could have pulled back some. Kept the wake to the right but
added more to lift off. Color seems to be a bit dull like it was a
partial cloudy day. Not much to do with that.
( for those who are going to jump in and say PS the color right,
don't. If the photographer were going to PS the images, they would
have already.)
12) I have no idea what you were thinking with this one. If the person
had leaned out a bit so you could see their face and then cropped a
bit more, it would have been better. Almost looks like someone
splashed a huge flash on them and missed.
13) Centered and out of focus. Nice try. Hard to get them skyrats as
they zoom by.
14) I was thinking that this was to centered, but looking at it again
I see it isn't. The whites don't seemed to be blown out and the
blacks look very good. To bad that you couldn't get a catch light in
the eye. But then not everyone does.

Okay Ryadiia, them are my opinions on this showing of your photos. Not
taking any pot shots or debasing you in any way. I'm seeing a
photographer who has a good eye and needs to improve, as do I. These
are your images and you have thrown down the gaullant(so to speak) and
one day I will post mine and you will get the chance to take pot shots
at mine. You where there and you got these images. Good for you. I
envy you to be able to get away and do some photography for yourself.

Now any one else with honest comments?

Draco


I thank you for your comments Draco.
I would however like to correct a few errors in your observations.
I do not generally "crop" my images. I learnt long ago when I shot for stock
with 35mm that cropping images destroyed the value of a picture. I'm sure
there are plenty of instances where people have framed their shots wide and
cursed themselves when it came to making enlargements. The Dragon fly was
cropped but the rest are as shot compositions.

I have a sequence of '11' from start to take off. I seriously thought he
wouldn't get airborne. The chop was bad enough to bounce a small boat.
Congratulations to these Island pilots. Obviously he knew what he was doing.
Sit the back of the plane down and go fo it, seems to be his idea. The
passenger would have needed a spare pair of shorts, I imagine.

Don't bet John, about me. You'll lose.

Douglas

Draco wrote:
On May 22, 12:09 am, John McWilliams wrote:
Ryadiia wrote:

All right, all ready! All 'youse'. Points made, understood.

Now please, the three of youse- see if you can not reply to any post by
either of the other two, nor discuss the matter in other threads for a
period of two hours- days or weeks, if you possibly can.


John,
All I can say is good luck. If these three can behave then there is
hope for all of us. Otherwise it will be business as usual.

How much is 28 quid in US cash anyway. If it isn't more than a couple
of bucks, I'm in.

Even as the British Pound Sterling plummeted when I moved from there,
(was $2.80 for those with a time frame) it's still worth more than a buck.
And it was a whimsical figger (Brit figure of speech) anyway, and I am
not putting up a pfenning of my own dough.

You have a good'un!

--
john mcwilliams

On May 21, 8:43 pm, "Ryadiia" wrote:
This is an attempt to continue a new trend Russell Stewart got going a few
days ago. It's a revolutionary concept in a group full of Usenet bullies.
It's called photography!

http://www.ryadia.com/album1/index.html

How long do you give this post before the bullies hijack it?
10 minutes?
An hour?
Maybe a day?

Make a guess.


Can you explain this image, Douglas?

http://www.julianabbot.com/gallery/sandyfran.htm

Even the *title* seems familiar....

It just goes to show there's nothing new under the sun, just like your
SI submission:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/78945201
...which seems to match another of Julian's.
http://www.julianabbot.com/gallery/lifesend.htm

Guess it's just coincidence. Taught him everything he knows, I
imagine..

(O:

On May 22, 6:20 pm, "Ryadiia" wrote:
"Draco" wrote in message

oups.com...





On May 21, 6:43 am, "Ryadiia" wrote:
This is an attempt to continue a new trend Russell Stewart got going a
few
days ago. It's a revolutionary concept in a group full of Usenet bullies.
It's called photography!

http://www.ryadia.com/album1/index.html

How long do you give this post before the bullies hijack it?
10 minutes?
An hour?
Maybe a day?

Make a guess.

I'm not going to steal any of these images. Most I would look at once
and then move on. But a few did grab me and I think they all are
worthy of comments.
Didn't write the captions(names, titles) but starting from the first
through the fourteenth I've numbered them:

1) Could have gotten a better angle on the dragon-fly. Still nice
sharpness and color.
2) To centered for me. Needs to be shot a bit closer and not having
the flowers so centered in the frame.
3) I don't see the clear water that is here. What I do see are
stacked rectangles. The brown contrasting the green above with the
white between. An abstract to be sure. But then I don't get most
abstracts.
4) Nice image that needs a bit more crop. The direction of the flower
and stem coming in from the right is nice. Cropping it more to not
have the unopened bud behind it in view would IMHO improve the over
all image.
5) I like! Funny and off the wall. Well exposed and the image sparks
the though, "How does a tree process film". Nicely done.
6) Good capture of the Kookaburra bird (I think). Nice sharp detail
and the background is fuzzed enough to not compete with the bird. The
Copyright statement is also funny but could have been done better.
7) Very nice. This is what I am talking about when you get in and
crop. The background is nicely out of focus and the petals are nice
and crisp. The soft stamen(?) in the front center of the flower
doesn't disturb me. But allows me to follow it into the flower. Nice
color also.
8) Sorry but fake. Placing fake flowers in a natural setting is like
giving a pig a manicure. Just doesn't work. The scene by its self is
wonderful. Could even have used a colorful shell and it would have
worked. But not with those plastic things.
9) Good. The starfish along with the ripples of sand around them lead
the eye up and through to the red leaf. Then back down again to the
black starfish. Nicely done.
10) To much on horizon. If you could have either cropped a bit
tighter or moved closer I think the image would have been stronger.
Having the horizon dead center surely didn't help this image.
11) A touch out of focus and the plane to close to the left side.
Here you could have pulled back some. Kept the wake to the right but
added more to lift off. Color seems to be a bit dull like it was a
partial cloudy day. Not much to do with that.
( for those who are going to jump in and say PS the color right,
don't. If the photographer were going to PS the images, they would
have already.)
12) I have no idea what you were thinking with this one. If the person
had leaned out a bit so you could see their face and then cropped a
bit more, it would have been better. Almost looks like someone
splashed a huge flash on them and missed.
13) Centered and out of focus. Nice try. Hard to get them skyrats as
they zoom by.
14) I was thinking that this was to centered, but looking at it again
I see it isn't. The whites don't seemed to be blown out and the
blacks look very good. To bad that you couldn't get a catch light in
the eye. But then not everyone does.

Okay Ryadiia, them are my opinions on this showing of your photos. Not
taking any pot shots or debasing you in any way. I'm seeing a
photographer who has a good eye and needs to improve, as do I. These
are your images and you have thrown down the gaullant(so to speak) and
one day I will post mine and you will get the chance to take pot shots
at mine. You where there and you got these images. Good for you. I
envy you to be able to get away and do some photography for yourself.

Now any one else with honest comments?

Draco

I thank you for your comments Draco.
I would however like to correct a few errors in your observations.
I do not generally "crop" my images. I learnt long ago when I shot for stock
with 35mm that cropping images destroyed the value of a picture. I'm sure
there are plenty of instances where people have framed their shots wide and
cursed themselves when it came to making enlargements. The Dragon fly was
cropped but the rest are as shot compositions.

Hmmm, okay. By "compositions" do you mean in camera or after
processing? Cropping in camera is by far the best way to go. But there
will be times when to get the image you want, cropping after image
capture is the only way to go. This is with either film or digtial. So
by the way you have presented your images I, erroneously, thought you
had cropped the images. Cropping an image does not "...destroyed the
value of a picture..." Several well known photographers crop and their
images become iconic. Henri Cartier-Brensen(I think that is how he
spelled it. If not, my appologies to his family) captured moments in
time and cropped. The one image I am thinking of is the person jumping
over a puddle. The image shows them in mid air and just before "splash-
down". Very well know and very expensive image today that is a crop
from a larger 35mm negative.



I have a sequence of '11' from start to take off. I seriously thought he
wouldn't get airborne. The chop was bad enough to bounce a small boat.
Congratulations to these Island pilots. Obviously he knew what he was doing.
Sit the back of the plane down and go fo it, seems to be his idea. The
passenger would have needed a spare pair of shorts, I imagine.


hehehe I can just see the white knuckles and the ...well enough of
that image thought.
Yes, Island pilots, bush pilots and all the rest who get us to far
away places deserve an extra pat on the back for all thier skills.


Don't bet John, about me. You'll lose.

Only If I take it on the loosing side.



Douglas- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Draco

wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 21, 8:43 pm, "Ryadiia" wrote:
This is an attempt to continue a new trend Russell Stewart got going a
few
days ago. It's a revolutionary concept in a group full of Usenet bullies.
It's called photography!

http://www.ryadia.com/album1/index.html

How long do you give this post before the bullies hijack it?
10 minutes?
An hour?
Maybe a day?

Make a guess.


Can you explain this image, Douglas?

http://www.julianabbot.com/gallery/sandyfran.htm

Even the *title* seems familiar....

It just goes to show there's nothing new under the sun, just like your
SI submission:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/78945201
..which seems to match another of Julian's.
http://www.julianabbot.com/gallery/lifesend.htm

Guess it's just coincidence. Taught him everything he knows, I
imagine..

(O:


Julian is one of the very bright, highly intelligent, and very enthusiastic,
Samoan students which my family trust sponsors for education in Australia.
Julian doesn't have a digital camera but when we go out together, he uses
one of mine. Sometimes Margie lends him hers. While I was away he had full
control over everything, including my imaging PCs. Everything he said did
and does has my absolute 100% support. If you had even a grain of the
personal ethics this man has, you'd be a better person. Of course you've
always had it in for my sponsorship program, haven't you?

The shootin picture was taken at Jacob's wells the day I brought Ryadia
home. It's near where you live, why not go down to Maars landing and see if
you can get a better shot yourself? If you get there this weekend, you
might even get a shot of Ryadia. I'm bringing her home on Sunday. You've
been pretty thin on the ground with pictures in all the years you've bullied
me and posted lies and defamation about me.

This is your opportunity Charles/ Mark or whoever you are, to reverse that
record and prove you aren't just an on-line bully and a Usenet thug ...but
do actually take photos.

Any chance of getting an apology out of you for your post that I was a liar
in claiming to have a Permit for restricted area Photography? You know the
one? I posted a scan of the license and you went quiet for a few weeks
after?

Maybe you could clear the slate by apologising for posting that defamatory
message in Aus Photo where you accused me (again) of being a liar? Claiming
I didn't have any shop fronts. You know the one? Where I posted a picture of
the (now closed) Cleveland print centre to refute your defamation?

Maybe you could elaborate (before I do) on your defamatory posts that my
Interpolation Algorithm was bull****. That it was impossible to enlarge
"post card size" photos to 20"x30" posters? Odd that another bully who
joined in with you a couple of years ago in attacking me about this subject
has recently got a print made in his home town that fits the description
Gordon Moate gave of my (now 3 year old) example print I sent him. Any
chance of an apology for all that bullying you did?

You could also try to rehabilitate yourself and give up on the bullying
altogether. Do as the other bullies have done and simply not reply to any of
my posts. I know it might spoil your fun but it might also save your job and
your assets.

I have no issue with Julian altering our photos and posting them on his
site. I might have objected if he did it the way you did when you stole my
images and committed fraud when you created a 'yahoo' site where you posted
them along with your defamation. He had the good grace to add his own
interpretation of the photo before posting it on-line.

And what about the Tony Polson "soft image" saga you got involved in? Any
apology for the slander you posted about that one? You remember? The one I
posted a full resolution clip showing it was indeed a sharp image but you
went silent after that one too?

Your Claim of "education exclusion" from copyright infringement requires you
to identify the school you teach at, which of course you have never done.
You have never offered any evidence you paid for a Copyright Access License
to use copyright material for education or entertainment purposes, even
though you attempted to use this exclusion as justification for your theft.
That makes you an image thief as well as an on-line bully. Not a nice person
as you once claimed to be: "I really am a nice person when you get to know
me". Your words after posting a load of lies about me and my digital
enlargement process.

I wonder what the education department's attitude is, towards one of their
teachers engaging in on-line bullying? Why don't you save yourself some real
pain and just apologise for your past lies about me? It won't change my
attitude towards you but it could well placate Julian in his dedication to
stopping those couple of idiots who persisted in bullying me for so long
with no valid reason other than to damage my business. Sound familiar,
Charles? (Mark or whatever).

Isn't it strange that the two most prolific on-line bullies who relentlessly
attacked me over a prolonged period, both have multiple real life
identities? We'll know who you are soon enough - Charles Stevens or Mark
Thomas or whoever you really are. Optus are about to be served with a
disclosure notice, issued at the Cleveland Court house to provide your
identity to us.

The same offer made to Annika1980 is made to you. Apologise and it will all
stop. Nothing else will prevent you from being brought to justice for your
unwarranted and totally wrongful attacks on me over the past three years.

Douglas
--
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.
http://www.usenet-bully-faq.org/

On May 23, 1:47 pm, "Ryadiia" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...





On May 21, 8:43 pm, "Ryadiia" wrote:
This is an attempt to continue a new trend Russell Stewart got going a
few
days ago. It's a revolutionary concept in a group full of Usenet bullies.
It's called photography!

http://www.ryadia.com/album1/index.html

How long do you give this post before the bullies hijack it?
10 minutes?
An hour?
Maybe a day?

Make a guess.

Can you explain this image, Douglas?

http://www.julianabbot.com/gallery/sandyfran.htm

Even the *title* seems familiar....

It just goes to show there's nothing new under the sun, just like your
SI submission:
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/78945201
..which seems to match another of Julian's.
http://www.julianabbot.com/gallery/lifesend.htm

Guess it's just coincidence. Taught him everything he knows, I
imagine..

(O:

Julian is one of the very bright, highly intelligent, and very enthusiastic,
Samoan students which my family trust sponsors for education in Australia.
Julian doesn't have a digital camera but when we go out together, he uses
one of mine. Sometimes Margie lends him hers. While I was away he had full
control over everything, including my imaging PCs. Everything he said did
and does has my absolute 100% support. If you had even a grain of the
personal ethics this man has, you'd be a better person. Of course you've
always had it in for my sponsorship program, haven't you?

The shootin picture was taken at Jacob's wells the day I brought Ryadia
home. It's near where you live, why not go down to Maars landing and see if
you can get a better shot yourself? If you get there this weekend, you
might even get a shot of Ryadia. I'm bringing her home on Sunday. You've
been pretty thin on the ground with pictures in all the years you've bullied
me and posted lies and defamation about me.

This is your opportunity Charles/ Mark or whoever you are, to reverse that
record and prove you aren't just an on-line bully and a Usenet thug ...but
do actually take photos.

Any chance of getting an apology out of you for your post that I was a liar
in claiming to have a Permit for restricted area Photography? You know the
one? I posted a scan of the license and you went quiet for a few weeks
after?

Maybe you could clear the slate by apologising for posting that defamatory
message in Aus Photo where you accused me (again) of being a liar? Claiming
I didn't have any shop fronts. You know the one? Where I posted a picture of
the (now closed) Cleveland print centre to refute your defamation?

Maybe you could elaborate (before I do) on your defamatory posts that my
Interpolation Algorithm was bull****. That it was impossible to enlarge
"post card size" photos to 20"x30" posters? Odd that another bully who
joined in with you a couple of years ago in attacking me about this subject
has recently got a print made in his home town that fits the description
Gordon Moate gave of my (now 3 year old) example print I sent him. Any
chance of an apology for all that bullying you did?

You could also try to rehabilitate yourself and give up on the bullying
altogether. Do as the other bullies have done and simply not reply to any of
my posts. I know it might spoil your fun but it might also save your job and
your assets.

I have no issue with Julian altering our photos and posting them on his
site. I might have objected if he did it the way you did when you stole my
images and committed fraud when you created a 'yahoo' site where you posted
them along with your defamation. He had the good grace to add his own
interpretation of the photo before posting it on-line.

And what about the Tony Polson "soft image" saga you got involved in? Any
apology for the slander you posted about that one? You remember? The one I
posted a full resolution clip showing it was indeed a sharp image but you
went silent after that one too?

Your Claim of "education exclusion" from copyright infringement requires you
to identify the school you teach at, which of course you have never done.
You have never offered any evidence you paid for a Copyright Access License
to use copyright material for education or entertainment purposes, even
though you attempted to use this exclusion as justification for your theft.
That makes you an image thief as well as an on-line bully. Not a nice person
as you once claimed to be: "I really am a nice person when you get to know
me". Your words after posting a load of lies about me and my digital
enlargement process.

I wonder what the education department's attitude is, towards one of their
teachers engaging in on-line bullying? Why don't you save yourself some real
pain and just apologise for your past lies about me? It won't change my
attitude towards you but it could well placate Julian in his dedication to
stopping those couple of idiots who persisted in bullying me for so long
with no valid reason other than to damage my business. Sound familiar,
Charles? (Mark or whatever).

Isn't it strange that the two most prolific on-line bullies who relentlessly
attacked me over a prolonged period, both have multiple real life
identities? We'll know who you are soon enough - Charles Stevens or Mark
Thomas or whoever you really are. Optus are about to be served with a
disclosure notice, issued at the Cleveland Court house to provide your
identity to us.

The same offer made to Annika1980 is made to you. Apologise and it will all
stop. Nothing else will prevent you from being brought to justice for your
unwarranted and totally wrongful attacks on me over the past three years.

Douglas
--
Those who can, just do it.
Those who can't become bullies.http://www.usenet-bully-faq.org/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Typical, Mark shows that you and "Julian" have posted the exact same
photo, other then one being B/W
and the next day the photo on Julian's site disappears.

Just how is it that both of you had the same photo, did he copy yours
or did you copy his?

Scott

"Scott W" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 23, 1:47 pm, "Ryadiia" wrote:


Typical, Mark shows that you and "Julian" have posted the exact same
photo, other then one being B/W
and the next day the photo on Julian's site disappears.

Just how is it that both of you had the same photo, did he copy yours
or did you copy his?

Scott


Which one disappeared, Scott?
I just checked and there are four pictures in his gallery plus one on the
front page. He's got a few HTML errors in the site but I wouldn't think they
are serious enough to conceal any images.

Truthfully, I didn't know Julian had finally set up a web site until the
Troll posted the link. More power to Jules for doing it, I say. He's been
talking about it for months. Not a bad start either, don't you think?

I like the carved Polynesian God. The Polynesian's are all descended from
warriors and some of their artefacts and weapons are mean looking stuff.
Julian hasn't got his own digital camera yet although now he's got a part
time job I expect his first purchase will be a Nikon DSLR body. The 100%
mono pictures on his site, (so far) have originated from my 20D. I guess
he'll get around to scanning his films soon enough.

I can identify one pic on his site which I definately I took but who
actually pressed the button for the rest is anyone's guess. They were after
all taken on days of group enjoyment. I use the 20D as a family happy snap
camera now. Anyone on one of our outings is free to pick it up and use it.

I can't say for sure if the frangipanni is his or mine. We participated in
the arranging and shooting with 3 others, using my 20D and Margie's FZ50
Panasonic. That picture could have been shot by him although I'm guessing
because of it's composure it is probably one of Margie's. If it was mine,
the horizon would have been down on the left. He could have straightened it,
I guess. Maybe I used his picture then?

To save confusion in the future, I'll ask him to lay claim to his photos and
credit mine when he uses them. I can say for sure I took the one of piled
up wrecks because he told me he thought it looked better B&W and he was
thinking it would look good on his web site. That's Samoan code for asking
if he can!

Douglas

On May 23, 7:21 pm, wrote:
On May 21, 8:43 pm, "Ryadiia" wrote:

This is an attempt to continue a new trend Russell Stewart got going a few
days ago. It's a revolutionary concept in a group full of Usenet bullies.
It's called photography!

http://www.ryadia.com/album1/index.html

How long do you give this post before the bullies hijack it?
10 minutes?
An hour?
Maybe a day?

Make a guess.

Can you explain this image, Douglas?

http://www.julianabbot.com/gallery/sandyfran.htm

Even the *title* seems familiar....

It just goes to show there's nothing new under the sun, just like your
SI submission:http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/78945201
..which seems to match another of Julian's.http://www.julianabbot.com/gallery/lifesend.htm

Guess it's just coincidence. Taught him everything he knows, I
imagine..

(O:

Sarcasm and wrong assumption seem to be traits of yours, don't they?
Doug took two of the pictures I used on my web site. He said I could.
What exactly is your problem? - Apart from being bully, I mean.

--
Julian
My all time favorite web site:
http;//www.annika1980.com
Exposing the bullies.

Keep wasting words, DougJulian. All your fantasies, distortions and
lies have been discredited over and over. Everyone now knows you for
what you are, and the fact that you haven't twigged to your complete
lack of support, nor have you noticed that everyone can see through
your fantasies with the greatest of ease, speaks volumes..

Maybe you need another few socks? Or set up some more hate pages?
How much of your sad life are you wasting with your obsession? Do you
know...

..... the "SECRET"????


(O: