[SI] New Mandates!

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:00:01 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-09-22 09:48:21 -0700, Bruce said:
Bowser wrote:
Time for some new mandates for the Shoot-In. The committee has met and
chosen these three mandates for your consideration:

Last 90: Simply put, send your favorite shot(s) of the last 90 days.
This should be easy, but you MUST explain why these are your favorite
shots. No explanation, no shot posted. I'll include the explanation
with each shot.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/last90
Due October 24th, 2010

Open: Yes, a shooter's choice mandate. The shootin dictator likes to
do this every so often to give the shooters freedom to fire at will
and show us the results.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/open2
Due November 21st, 2010


How will anyone know the difference between these two? It is a
certain sign of creative bankruptcy to have two completely open
mandates one after another.

I grudgingly agree, there was a Bowser cop-out on this proposal, given
that we had a "Favorite Shot" mandate a mere 9 months ago. There is
still an opportunity for him to change at least the second of these
mandates.


But experience shows that the mandates mean nothing. In the "50mm"
mandate, a shot that clearly wasn't taken with a 50mm lens (or
equivalent) was allowed entry to the SI. Then, the "Pinhole" mandate
was liberally interpreted by some as "choose one of your favourite
photo locations and stick a pin in the map at that point".

For those who take them even slightly seriously, we try to find some
way to meet the mandate. That is the challenge after all. Which is
where the problem with a "favorite" or a "Shooter's Choice" mandate
lies. Then it becomes subjective and a matter of personal taste, and no
challenge at all.
Part of this game is trying to think out of the box, not to work within
a comfort zone.

So perhaps, if the mandates are ignored, they are a waste of time, and
all SIs should be open. In which case, the SI has no point, but we
knew that anyway.

...but this should give you an opportunity to participate in and enjoy,
rather than criticize something you apparently are not interest in.


A few months ago I made some genuinely positive, constructive
suggestions as to how the SI could be improved out of all recognition.
They were all rejected by Bowser. That was his choice, and the SI
remains a joke.

My choice is, and always has been, not to participate in anything
which does not have improvement as its core objective, and as the new
mandates prove, the SI just gets steadily worse, and worse.

It should be allowed to die, now.

Show me that message...

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 07:46:13 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2010-09-22 05:29:07 -0700, Bowser said:

Time for some new mandates for the Shoot-In. The committee has met and
chosen these three mandates for your consideration:

Last 90: Simply put, send your favorite shot(s) of the last 90 days.
This should be easy, but you MUST explain why these are your favorite
shots. No explanation, no shot posted. I'll include the explanation
with each shot.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/last90
Due October 24th, 2010



Open: Yes, a shooter's choice mandate. The shootin dictator likes to
do this every so often to give the shooters freedom to fire at will
and show us the results.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/open2
Due November 21st, 2010


So we have in effect, TWO "Favorite" "Open Shooter's Choice" type mandates.
Mmmmmm, methinks there was an SI Mandate committee cop-out.



Panorama/Mosaic: Send photo(s) that are either stitched, scanned, or
cobbled together "collage" style to form a single picture. Shoot a
bunch of pictures and send a spherical panorama. Lay a bunch of
Polaroids on a scanner and scan them. Your choice.

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/pano_mosaic
Due December 19th, 2010.


If you are new to the Shoot-In, you can get more info he

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/rulzpage

There is no scoring, there is no prize, only the comments you might
read in the primary newsgroup, rec.photo.equipment.35mm. This is
simply a monthly (sort of) shooting excercise for anyone who wants to
participate.

How about "Journalism" for the second of the three mandates?

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:03:02 -0500, LOL! wrote:

Does bad-patch-job editor Peter even know what is meant by "skimmers
skimming?" Or is he referring to his skimming the bottom of the barrel
trying to find something to show? I'll chalk this up to his obvious
displays of dementia. And Cooper, if you're going to take that much time to
clone in stuff on a worthless shot at least you should get the lighting
something closer to what happens in this universe.

The lighting is called "sunlight". It comes from that big fiery ball
in the sky that you will see if you come out of your basement in the
day time. The speaker was sitting outside in a salvage yard.

You should have submitted something. Surely you have photographed
something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.
If you sent in a second shot, we'd be able to judge your Photoshop
skills by how well you cloned out the real photographer's watermark.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:31:50 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

Surely you have photographed
something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.

Oh look! The lying slanderous libelous TROLL is at it again! Show me again
where I posted ANY photo claiming it to be a RARE MOTH.

Can't you at least be a little more creative in your lies so you're not so
EASILY exposed for the lying mother****ing **** of a libelous and
slanderous TROLL that you are? Not to mention total crapshooter.

LOL!!

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:31:50 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

Surely you have photographed
something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.
If you sent in a second shot, we'd be able to judge your Photoshop
skills by how well you cloned out the real photographer's watermark.

OH, btw, we're ALL still waiting for you to describe or post a link to the
evidence where I stole ANY image at ANY time. Until you do you just keep
digging your lying slanderous and libelous ****'s grave even deeper and
deeper.

Got proof? NOPE! Not even a post where it was claimed I stole an image.
Because the MOMENT that you do, you and I both know that I'll be able to
provide a 100% crop from that image I posted PROVING it was mine in the
first place. That's how much of a slanderous and libelous **** that you
are.

OUTTED AGAIN!

Do it some more!

LOL!

On 2010-09-23 01:31:50 +0100, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:03:02 -0500, LOL! wrote:

Does bad-patch-job editor Peter even know what is meant by "skimmers
skimming?" Or is he referring to his skimming the bottom of the barrel
trying to find something to show? I'll chalk this up to his obvious
displays of dementia. And Cooper, if you're going to take that much time to
clone in stuff on a worthless shot at least you should get the lighting
something closer to what happens in this universe.

The lighting is called "sunlight". It comes from that big fiery ball
in the sky that you will see if you come out of your basement in the
day time. The speaker was sitting outside in a salvage yard.

You should have submitted something. Surely you have photographed
something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.
If you sent in a second shot, we'd be able to judge your Photoshop
skills by how well you cloned out the real photographer's watermark.

10/10

--
Pete

On 2010-09-23 01:45:05 +0100, LOL! said:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 20:31:50 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

Surely you have photographed
something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.

Oh look! The lying slanderous libelous TROLL is at it again! Show me again
where I posted ANY photo claiming it to be a RARE MOTH.

Can't you at least be a little more creative in your lies so you're not so
EASILY exposed for the lying mother****ing **** of a libelous and
slanderous TROLL that you are? Not to mention total crapshooter.

0/10

--
Pete

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:18:49 +0100, Pete
wrote:

On 2010-09-23 01:31:50 +0100, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:03:02 -0500, LOL! wrote:

Does bad-patch-job editor Peter even know what is meant by "skimmers
skimming?" Or is he referring to his skimming the bottom of the barrel
trying to find something to show? I'll chalk this up to his obvious
displays of dementia. And Cooper, if you're going to take that much time to
clone in stuff on a worthless shot at least you should get the lighting
something closer to what happens in this universe.

The lighting is called "sunlight". It comes from that big fiery ball
in the sky that you will see if you come out of your basement in the
day time. The speaker was sitting outside in a salvage yard.

You should have submitted something. Surely you have photographed
something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.
If you sent in a second shot, we'd be able to judge your Photoshop
skills by how well you cloned out the real photographer's watermark.

10/10

Again, you claim I stole some images and posted them by agreeing with a
fellow lying slanderous and libelous **** of a troll.

I'll still chalk this up to your senility dementia. But it's no excuse once
you've already been proved to ALSO being a lying slanderous and libelous
mother****ing **** of a troll as I already have before this. And now again.

LOL!!!!!

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:18:49 +0100, Pete
wrote:

On 2010-09-23 01:31:50 +0100, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:03:02 -0500, LOL! wrote:

Does bad-patch-job editor Peter even know what is meant by "skimmers
skimming?" Or is he referring to his skimming the bottom of the barrel
trying to find something to show? I'll chalk this up to his obvious
displays of dementia. And Cooper, if you're going to take that much time to
clone in stuff on a worthless shot at least you should get the lighting
something closer to what happens in this universe.

The lighting is called "sunlight". It comes from that big fiery ball
in the sky that you will see if you come out of your basement in the
day time. The speaker was sitting outside in a salvage yard.

You should have submitted something. Surely you have photographed
something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.
If you sent in a second shot, we'd be able to judge your Photoshop
skills by how well you cloned out the real photographer's watermark.

10/10

Again, you claim I stole some images and posted them by agreeing with a
fellow lying slanderous and libelous **** of a troll.

I'll still chalk this up to your senility and dementia. But it's no excuse
once you've already been proved to ALSO being a lying slanderous and
libelous mother****ing **** of a troll as I already have before this. And
now again.

LOL!!!!!

On 2010-09-23 02:38:23 +0100, LOL! said:

On Thu, 23 Sep 2010 02:18:49 +0100, Pete
wrote:

On 2010-09-23 01:31:50 +0100, tony cooper said:

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 18:03:02 -0500, LOL! wrote:

Does bad-patch-job editor Peter even know what is meant by "skimmers
skimming?" Or is he referring to his skimming the bottom of the barrel
trying to find something to show? I'll chalk this up to his obvious
displays of dementia. And Cooper, if you're going to take that much time to
clone in stuff on a worthless shot at least you should get the lighting
something closer to what happens in this universe.

The lighting is called "sunlight". It comes from that big fiery ball
in the sky that you will see if you come out of your basement in the
day time. The speaker was sitting outside in a salvage yard.

You should have submitted something. Surely you have photographed
something other than that fuzzy blob you claimed to be a rare moth.
If you sent in a second shot, we'd be able to judge your Photoshop
skills by how well you cloned out the real photographer's watermark.

10/10

Again, you claim I stole some images and posted them by agreeing with a
fellow lying slanderous and libelous **** of a troll.

I'll still chalk this up to your senility and dementia. But it's no excuse
once you've already been proved to ALSO being a lying slanderous and
libelous mother****ing **** of a troll as I already have before this. And
now again.

Did you forget that you posed this same message three minutes before?

--
Pete