D-MAC = GEORGE PREDDY !

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:16:37 GMT, "D-Mac" wrote:
: A juvenile minded American (what other race would be so stupid) from the
: back woods of Tennessee of all places thinks because his cyber lover gave
: him a new camera, he's king **** of the coon hats. Yep... I'll agree with
: that one!
:
: ...
:
: And someone said not to judge a nation full of people by the actions of one?
: American idiots who think they know it all are just weeds in society. Take
: one out and two more pop up. How many idiots actually exist in America?

Out of 300,000,000 people, we're bound to have more than a few. But if there's
an institution in the world that proves that we don't have a monopoly on
idiocy, it's this newsgroup.

Bob

Annika1980 wrote:

On Oct 6, 6:16 pm, "D-Mac" wrote:

Every so often Photo groups spawn idiots with unbelievable jealousy.


Yeah, I've seen that.



So much
hatred they see themselves are needing to stop any threat to themselves by
any means possible... Invariably it leads to situations like this one.


Threats to me? I kinda doubt it.


George Preddy firmly believed at the time, Sigma cameras got a raw deal. I
do too. I owned a SD9 myself.


Most people would have simply owned up and said, "Yeah, I was Preddy.
Had some fun with that one." But I knew you could never do that ...
partly because I am the one outing you, but mainly because the truth
simply isn't in you. Instead you go into one of your incoherent
ramblings. Gee, why am I not surprised?

D-Mac, I know what you are gonna do before you even think about doing
it. You're the string and I'm the cat.
Who Rules ???

Q. What's the difference between D-Mac and a Bösendorfer?
A. A Bösendorfer knows when it is being played.






relevance?

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:46:21 GMT, Willarojo
wrote:

Every so often Photo groups spawn idiots with unbelievable
jealousy.

Even more often you see photo groups spawn even bigger idiots that confuse
jealousy with facts. It's the only way that their small minds can handle being
proved wrong.

Robert Coe wrote:

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 22:16:37 GMT, "D-Mac" wrote:
: A juvenile minded American (what other race would be so stupid) from the
: back woods of Tennessee of all places thinks because his cyber lover gave
: him a new camera, he's king **** of the coon hats. Yep... I'll agree with
: that one!
:
: ...
:
: And someone said not to judge a nation full of people by the actions of one?
: American idiots who think they know it all are just weeds in society. Take
: one out and two more pop up. How many idiots actually exist in America?

Out of 300,000,000 people, we're bound to have more than a few. But if there's
an institution in the world that proves that we don't have a monopoly on
idiocy, it's this newsgroup.

Bob


Relevance

HAL wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:46:21 GMT, Willarojo
wrote:


Every so often Photo groups spawn idiots with unbelievable
jealousy.


Even more often you see photo groups spawn even bigger idiots that confuse
jealousy with facts. It's the only way that their small minds can handle being
proved wrong.

relevance?

Willarojo wrote:

Doug, we've all seen your recent little psychotic break, so any
generalizations you make are simply crazy, about Americans, or
about anyone or anything else. I think you're a loon, but I don't
draw any conclusions about Australians from that. (BTW, that's
loon as in crazy, not the bird.)

Which is good for Australians, Doug, because if America actually
thought you were a typical Australian, we'd probably sink your
island. We'd ship you all our Canon kit lenses and non-upgradable
Sigma lenses and--SPLOOSH!--instant coral reef.

Willa

Just one thing I'd like to clear up
Canon lenses are not made in the USA hence they are not shipped from
there so that last statement is a nonsense
As for all the other things you have said I agree.

SmeeMW vehemently accused in
:

Willarojo wrote:

Doug, we've all seen your recent little psychotic break, so any
generalizations you make are simply crazy, about Americans, or
about anyone or anything else. I think you're a loon, but I
don't draw any conclusions about Australians from that. (BTW,
that's loon as in crazy, not the bird.)

Which is good for Australians, Doug, because if America
actually thought you were a typical Australian, we'd probably
sink your island. We'd ship you all our Canon kit lenses and
non-upgradable Sigma lenses and--SPLOOSH!--instant coral reef.

Willa

Just one thing I'd like to clear up
Canon lenses are not made in the USA hence they are not shipped
from there so that last statement is a nonsense
As for all the other things you have said I agree.


I was suggesting that fools like me who bought a kit lens(es) with
their first SLR (my first was the Rebel 2000) would happily ship
them once/since we upgraded to real glass. I never suggested they
were made in the US.

Willa
--
http://www.pbase.com/willarojo

“I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to
live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad.”
Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

“We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from
Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing
important to communicate.”
Thoreau, Walden
******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

"Willarojo" wrote in message
6.120...
Harvest Man vehemently accused in
:

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 06:13:42 -0700,
wrote:

Where are those
dramatic clouds? The shadows are too dark making your version
too contrasty with very uneven composition.

They clouds are in the other direction. I thought I'd post one
from the direction with scenery similar to the scenery in
Annika's that you erroneously think is so good.

Your critique of this proves what I stated even more. You know
nothing about composition let alone photography, either that or
your eyesight and monitor are as bad as Annika's. Thanks for
also pointing out that you don't even read what you reply to,
you just spout garbage for attention. You sound just like all
the other typical lonely and desperate women on the internet. I
said these were _t_e_s_t_ photos to test some filters, not even
worth printing.

Now go troll someone else for attention. You and Annika make the
perfect couple. A couple of internet trolls. The only thing
that you managed to do was goad someone into proving Annika
completely wrong, probably for the thousandth time. Some friend
you are. A P&S camera can take IR shots better than a DSLR, the
very thing that he said couldn't be done. It can be done better,
faster, more inexpensively, and more easily with a common P&S
camera. I just proved it.

Now apologize to your sad excuse of a photographer, Annika, for
revealing him to be the fool that he is, again.

Don't bother explaining to me why I should help him with
constructive criticism. He claims he's a pro, the best there is,
someone like that shouldn't need any help. (excuse me while I
laugh a bit) Or is that your way of finally admitting that his
photography really is as poor as all others say it is, but
you're too lonely and desperate to be honest with him. That
would be my guess. It's the only explanation of why anyone would
take pity on someone that bad at photography.

Has the humane society stopped in to get rid of some of those
cats that you keep collecting and are starting to smell up the
neighborhood? Because no humans would ever want to be near you?
Who and what you are is becoming all too clear.

Go find your next unsuspecting internet victim you useless
troll. I'm done with you.



So, the *only* pic you've ever posted as 'evidence' is a "test"?
Actually, it's the best pic of yours we've ever seen, but of course
we should take your word that all of your other shots are far
superior.
I very much doubt it is his pic. Notice that he posted a link direct to the
flickr jpg, rather than to the flickr page where it originated? Most
genuine flickr users would post a link to the page, that way they can get
reviews, favourites, etc.
He did the same when he posted hummingbird shots in a recent thread where he
was sprouting off about how much better P&S's are. No exif info to reveal
what the real camera was.
My guess is that if he posted the actual flickr page, it would reveal that
he is indeed a fraud. Not only would it show the exif detail so we'd all get
to see what camera _really_ took the photo, but we'd probably see that the
hummingbird pic, the IR landscape and anything else he's posted were
actually taken by different people.
I call fraud - and I can guarantee that he won't put-up or shut-up, he'll
just keep parroting on about he good he is, and how DSLR users are idiots.


Lemme guess, you have a bumper sticker that reads "My other car is
a Rolls. No really. I swear! Trust me!"

Shut us up: post a good pic. I've never heard of a pro who was
afraid to post *a* pic. No one's asking you to send us a zip file
of your whole portfolio so we can profit from it, but I'm asking
you to post even 1 good pic.

Put up or shut up, and whining "you all don't deserve to see (or
"are too stupid to appreciate") is not an acceptable
counterargument.

Willa
--
http://www.pbase.com/willarojo

"I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to
live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad."
Thoreau, Civil Disobedience

"We are in great haste to construct a magnetic telegraph line from
Maine to Texas; but Maine and Texas, it may be, have nothing
important to communicate."
Thoreau, Walden
******
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusional_disorder

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:27:11 +1000, Rob wrote:

HAL wrote:

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:46:21 GMT, Willarojo
wrote:


Every so often Photo groups spawn idiots with unbelievable
jealousy.


Even more often you see photo groups spawn even bigger idiots that confuse
jealousy with facts. It's the only way that their small minds can handle being
proved wrong.

relevance?

Maybe Xman ??

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 23:17:06 +1000, "Doug Jewell" wrote:

I call fraud - and I can guarantee that he won't put-up or shut-up, he'll
just keep parroting on about he good he is, and how DSLR users are idiots.

Whereas: I call replies of this nature to be just simple, overly transparent,
and highly juvenile manipulation tactics by people desperate to be entertained
for free. Just because they're too ****-poor and/or devoid of talent themselves.
All this just so that they can see photographs far better than anything that's
been posted by anyone.

I should do a special edition of one of my private web-galleries. Yes, they do
exist. There's about 20 of them online. One of my favorites being a
transcontinental wilderness anthology having over 500 high-resolution images.
But I'd do it only as 30x30 pixel thumbnails just for them, only enough to
infuriate these newsgroup imbeciles. A mere glimpse to make them beg and plead
to see the larger ones. Which of course I would never allow, nor would I even
bother doing in the first place, because they could learn composition for free
from even those small samples. It would however be the perfect torture befitting
these desperate and talentless cretins.

You should become clergy or politicians, one of the more popular career-troll
occupations, as their sole purpose is only to manipulate others for their own
self-serving gains too. You just wouldn't be very good at it. None of you
transparent trolls would be. You've failed at being cogent photographers, you
wouldn't be very good clergy nor politicians with your all too transparent
manipulation/troll tactics, the fields are dwindling.

Consider a lucrative career in the fast-food industries. You probably won't
excel at that either but at least you could afford to make payments on the
photography that you are so desperate to see.

Failing all that, consider buying or building a dunk-tank. You could at least
make two-bits a day at trying to heckle someone into throwing a ball at your
obnoxious selves. Make your best and only quality work in your favor.