[SI] Special category: Kodachrome

On 2009-07-08 23:42:17 -0700, Troy Piggins said:

* Savageduck wrote :
On 2009-07-08 23:30:10 -0700, Troy Piggins said:

[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 8 lines snipped |=---]
The first rule of Usenet is that the person who makes the claim has to
provide the proof.

I thought the first rule of usenet is, you don't talk about
usenet.

There's a Usenet? Where? Where?

Did you take the blue pill or the red pill? Remember, all I'm
offering you is the truth. Nothing more.

There are pills to take?
Isn't that a dimensional thing?

I was thinking more in terms of the green & yellow capsule with the
white band. That will delete all traces of the whatever it was net
thing. :-)


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 16:30:10 +1000, Troy Piggins wrote:

The first rule of Usenet is that the person who makes the claim has to
provide the proof.

I thought the first rule of usenet is, you don't talk about
usenet.

Of course. Why talk when a rant will do.

Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 6/07/2009 9:01 PM:

Try a free site?
So which free site is free for the volume of images and views SI
generates, and doesn't have ads?

The SI generates a dozen photos every second month or so. For chrissakes, stop
mis-representing its relevance/importance/size!


I can't say I've seen any free sites
that are ad free, although I'd be glad to be proven wrong.

So what? Couldn't care less about the adds. Never click on them anyway.
Just bleeding ignore them.

Or are you saying you'd prefer everyone who looks at it be subjected to
ads, rather than one or 2 people paying out of the goodness of their
hearts, so that everyone else can see the photos sans-advertisements.

And of course jack-up the traffic for pbase in the process?


If that is what you would prefer, then you are an idiot.

And I think you are nothing but another low-life scumbag cocksucker scammer,
like the lot of pbase are.

Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 9:29 PM:

Adblockers are a good thing you know
Yeah. Ads aren't a problem. Personally I couldn't give a damn where the
thing is hosted. I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of their stance.

Bull****.

Apparently, by their warped view of the world:
Pasting a link to an image stored on a "free" site that gets its revenue
by advertising - OK.
Pasting a link to an image stored on pbase, which directly charges it's
users - NOT OK, because that is "advertising" a commercial website.

No moron. Stop mis-quoting.
It's scamming. Nothing to do with advertising, which is perfectly legit.
Got it now, cocksucker?

Of course the finer points of that hypocrisy seem to be wasted on Noons
and Doug/Shonkei or whatever his sockpuppet is this minute.

Of course simple reality is wasted on cocksuckers like you.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:15:46 +1000, Noons
wrote:

The SI generates a dozen photos every second month or so. For chrissakes, stop
mis-representing its relevance/importance/size!

And of course jack-up the traffic for pbase in the process?


There's some deep thinking. First he points out that the Shoot In
generates very few photos, then he claims the Shoot In jacks-up pBase
traffic.

How many additional hits-per-month does the Shoot In bring pBase? 15?
20? 30, maybe?

It's a wonder pBase's system doesn't crash under that load.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Doug Jewell wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 6:50 PM:


about pro-quality photos, winning cameras etc. It is about a bunch of
people who read this newsgroup taking photos on a specific subject, then

"this" newsgroup? Given this crap has been cross-posted across half a dozen
newsgroups as usual, it's very hard to figure out what sort of distorted,
idiotic reality you live in when calling it the singular "this".


getting feedback on their photos to 1) widen people's photographic
repertoire (so they don't get stuck in a rut of taking photos of dogs in
Bret's case; or in your case, ugly dogs on their wedding day), and
2)allow people to receive constructive criticism on their photos.

Really? Here is a hint: open up a forum in pbase and do all that crap in there.
Instead of polluting public newsgroups with your backyard ventures.


There are oodles of photographic contests on the web and in magazines
where you can win your D3 if that's what floats your boat. If that's
what you want SI to be, then **** off and join one of those other
contests. In the meantime leave SI participants alone.


No. The SI Participants **** OFF public newsgroups so they can be used by the
general public. Instead of by a bunch of backyard rednecks.



Jealous because you couldn't take it over and make it a commercial venture?

I'm glad you openly admit Bret's ulterior motives.


Is your little obsession with causing **** in these newsgroups an effort
to get out of obscurity?

Now it's "these" newsgroups? Make up your mind, MORON! Is it one or many?



So it hasn't occurred to you that some people can have altruistic
motives?

If next you get cry, I'm gonna throw up...

Who the **** is Emily and what do I care what the size of their server
farm and data centre is? Presumably you are making some reference to the
owners of pbase. They run a website hosting photos.

Amazing. Just that, photos? Are you absolutely sure?
Do you still believe in Santa as well?

principle of business as being a means to earn money. But then, you
don't even earn enough to register for GST, so maybe you are all ****
and wind.

Given that you don't either, it's all **** and wind with you as well, eh?

Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 9:37 PM:
Noons wrote:
Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 4/07/2009 2:23 PM:


Now you're just being stupid. In your opinion, where the hell is he
supposed to host the photos? - They have to go *somewhere*!

Try a free site?

A free site, so we'd have to look at ads when we look at the SI photos?
No thanks.

You don't have to look at ads, moron.

Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 7/07/2009 9:33 PM:


Stop lying, twit.

He's telling the truth, genius.


Bwecause you say so, twit?

Savageduck wrote,on my timestamp of 6/07/2009 11:24 PM:


That much I understood.

No, you did not.

I was just amused at his strangely affected use of the word.

"strangely affected"? WTF does that mean, moron?

Did he somehow think it was to be used to imply a threat? How pathetic.

Whenever I feel I have to threaten you, I'll do it directly, moron.
No need to use foreign languages. Capice?

Bob Larter wrote,on my timestamp of 9/07/2009 4:15 PM:

The first rule of Usenet is that the person who makes the claim has to
provide the proof.


The first rule of Usenet is that idiots like you should be exposed for the fakes
they are.