time of day for your shooting

Roger Whitehead wrote:
In article , Randall Ainsworth
wrote:
Do whatever you want Floyd - I'm just getting the proof that others
feel the same way as I do - I know I;m right. You must be a loser like
dadio. Bring it on ****head.

Floyd is one of those people who can recite facts and figures all day,
but put a camera in his hands and he can't produce ****.

Lovely stuff. Just the kind of rational, informative debate that people
log on to the 'Net for.

Well, actually Randall was just pointing out, as he commonly
does, that what I said was accurate. I can and sometimes *do*
cite facts and figures all day long.

And that *is* what Usenet is all about!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

In article , Roger Whitehead
wrote:

Lovely stuff. Just the kind of rational, informative debate that people
log on to the 'Net for.

Read his posts, then look at his images. Quacks like this abound in any
hobby/profession.

In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Well, actually Randall was just pointing out, as he commonly
does, that what I said was accurate. I can and sometimes *do*
cite facts and figures all day long.

Unfortunately, your knowledge of facts and figures does not translate
into the ability to create quality images.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:

Floyd is one of those people who can recite facts and figures all day,
but put a camera in his hands and he can't produce ****.

Personally, I found his photographs interesting. True, they aren't "art"
but, then, neither are the vast majority of photos made. A photograph need
not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

dadiOH wrote:
Randall Ainsworth wrote:
A photograph need
not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative.

There's a statement made by obviously an amateur. Yeah, no need to
strive for artistic quality pics - just point and shoot and say, "Ah,
that's a pretty picture.

I'll post a link when I have my pics scanned. Will you?

Kernix wrote:
dadiOH wrote:

A photograph need
not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative.

There's a statement made by obviously an amateur.

No, Kermit, one made by a realist.


--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

In article .com, Kernix
wrote:
There's a statement made by obviously an amateur.

Ugh! That's certainly a sentence not made by a professional.

Roger

In article , Randall Ainsworth
wrote:
Read his posts, then look at his images. Quacks like this abound in any
hobby/profession.

And that justifies your adding to the effluvium?

Roger

dadiOH wrote:
Kernix wrote:

dadiOH wrote:


A photograph need
not be "art" to be worthwhile and informative.

There's a statement made by obviously an amateur.


No, Kermit, one made by a realist.

Post Dadaism and Surrealism, it is kind of silly to say that anything
can't be art.
Marcel Duchamp proved that even an ordinary urinal or a bicycle wheel
can be art.
_You_ may think that a plain, simple photo used as an illustration on a
website isn't art; I can guarantee that some-one, some-where will
believe that it is and treat it as though it's an art object.

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
In article , Floyd L. Davidson
wrote:

Well, actually Randall was just pointing out, as he commonly
does, that what I said was accurate. I can and sometimes *do*
cite facts and figures all day long.

Unfortunately, your knowledge of facts and figures does not translate
into the ability to create quality images.

This is a Usenet thread Randall. All that counts here is
knowledge of facts and figures.

You don't have any, and you don't count.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)