Big cat really quite small

Mark Thomas wrote:
Alienjones wrote:
In the words of Gordon Moat:
(snipped)

In the LATER words of Gordon Moat, as posted above, and in direct
reference to our Douglas:
"I should point out that the original requests for me to view image
samples did NOT come directly from Douglas."
(Douglas claimed he had made the request. He LIED.)
"I should also point out that the original claim that Douglas had was
that his algorithm did not LOSE any detail information. I am not sure
how or when that changed in the last year to a claim of adding or
increasing detail information; it is simply not possible regardless of
technology."
(Douglas claimed he could add "real detail", which of course Gordon
flatly and correctly refuted.)

Gordon then repeated:
"..I did NOT write the article for Douglas.."
and to clarify his point about Douglas not being able to do what he
said, he reinforced the salient point:
"Q: Did Douglas's images contain more detail information than the
original?"
"A: NO, ONLY MORE PIXELS."

The emphasis is mine, but those are direct quotes, and the whole thread
may be found he
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p.../browse_frm/th...
..so you can decide for yourself about Douglas and his lies.


Yes,
This from a world recognized printing and photography specialist. Who
do we believe?

Who indeed, Dougie. I'll go with Gordon. Which makes you a liar.

(O:

There is a moot point about a file containing more information or detail
when it's larger. He and you are confusing image elements with data.
Silicon Graphics (the pioneers of digital imaging) describe more data in
an image file as more detail in a graphic.

If there were no more detail, it would be impossible to make a print any
larger than it's original size. The bit you fail (as usual) to
comprehend is the descriptions I use are not mine but those of the
inventors of digital images.

Who do we believe? A runaway hiding under an assumed name or the
inventors (Silicon Graphics) of digital images?

Very clearly you and a bunch of no hopers with no qualifications to make
the calls you do, have embarked on a terribly wrongful campaign to
discredit me when highly qualified people who have been given the
information about my enlargements with no requirement to do anything but
tell it like it is... Have all agreed it (was in 2005) a revolution in
digital imagery.

You can continue to clutch at straws and try to make out I lied by
saying the process "adds detail". To someone with no education in the
field of Science (you) I suppose the fact the people were stoned in the
dark ages for suggesting the world was round is lost on you.

Fact one.
a 10 pixel x 10 pixel image will yield only 100 dots of detail.

Fact two.
A 100 pixel x 100 pixel image will yield 1000 dots of detail.

If I add 90 pixels to a 100 pixel image, I am increasing the detail of
the image by 90%.

Many time in the past you have gotten far too many things wrong and told
far too many lies about me to let you get away with it here.

You have stalked me since 2004. Using classic on-line bullying tactics
you obviously learned in the school ground. Stop it. You are wrong in
what you say, do and how you behave. If you don't stop it now, I'll take
the second step with your ISP and get a court order to restrain you. How
will that go down with your new job?

You've been warned. Ignore it at your peril.

Annika1980 wrote:
On May 15, 6:50 pm, Alienjones wrote:
Very clearly you and a bunch of no hopers with no qualifications to make
the calls you do, have embarked on a terribly wrongful campaign to
discredit me when highly qualified people who have been given the
information about my enlargements with no requirement to do anything but
tell it like it is... Have all agreed it (was in 2005) a revolution in
digital imagery.

What revolution? There were much better enlarging programs available
back then then what you were doing. And it turns out that your Super-
Secret algorithm was no algorithm at all. In a rare display of
honesty, you once admitted that you had to go in and manually change
each pixel to get the desired effect.

See D-Mac, you can't even keep up with your own lies, they come so
fast and furious. Fortunately, we have some diligent folks here who
can.

You're a fraud.


Stop rattling the keys Bret... We know your keyboard works, it's you who
doesn't!

Me a fraud? Not likely. More likely your criminal activities detailed
on http://www.annika1980.com mean you've been a fraud all your life.

"Alienjones" wrote in message
...

Me a fraud? Not likely.
Ethic 1.
Fairness for both parties in a business dealing.

verbiage snipped

Speaking of which, Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing
address yet?

A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing to do.
I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will if
necessary.

TIA

--
Jeff R.
PO Box 255
West Pennant Hills NSW 2125

Annika1980 wrote:
On May 15, 11:36 pm, Alienjones wrote:

Me a fraud? Not likely.

Oh we've proven that on many occasions. Not only on these newsgroups,
but a fraud in your business dealings as well.
Remember your EBAY auction where you sold some stuff to print
calendars and claimed that you would no longer be producing them?

Hmmmm, what happened to that?


The person who bought the package, bought it for the equipment and
software it contained - a few hundred bucks for $3 grand's worth of
office equipment. He had no intention of making more calendars with it.

His letter is framed and hanging in my office, right beside my 10 ethics
of business. Do you know what an ethic is Bret?

Ethic 1.
Fairness for both parties in a business dealing.

You don't get 100% feedback on Ebay - gained over many years of selling
photographic wall art and camera gear with behavior like you
demonstrate. You get it by being honest and trustworthy.

You seem to be floundering a bit here Bret. Like a fool drowning in his
own **** and clutching at straws... Give it up mate.

The US authorities may think your case is a civil matter and your drug
dealing Sheriff might have refused to serve a restraining order on you
but my New York lawyers have no such restraints. They are instructed to
go for the throat and DO NOT NEGOTIATE.

I just sold some paintings they are trustee of the funds from. I'm sure
when you demonstrate your stupidity again, the little lady assigned to
protecting my publishing and copyright interests in the USA - who
incidentally is watching your behavior very closely, won't hesitate to
see a violation and do what she's paid for... Sue the swine without
regard for their financial position or any ability to recover costs.

This is your big chance at international recognition Bret... You can
take on an International magazine publisher (me) and get all the
publicity in the world for it... Smile for the birdie.

"Alienjones" wrote in message
...
snip If you don't stop it now, I'll take
the second step with your ISP and get a court order to restrain you. How
will that go down with your new job?
snip

Speaking of which, Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing
address yet?

A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing to do.
I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will if
necessary.

TIA

--
Jeff R.
PO Box 255
West Pennant Hills NSW 2125

Draco wrote:
On May 15, 6:50 pm, Alienjones wrote:
Mark Thomas wrote:
Alienjones wrote:
In the words of Gordon Moat:
(snipped)

(some more nonsense snipped)

Fact one.
a 10 pixel x 10 pixel image will yield only 100 dots of detail.

ok, can follow that.

Fact two.
A 100 pixel x 100 pixel image will yield 1000 dots of detail.

Uh, doesn't track. 100 x 100 = 10,000 Guess you missed a zero.

If I add 90 pixels to a 100 pixel image, I am increasing the detail of
the image by 90%.

Sound right. But yet not.


Many time in the past you have gotten far too many things wrong and told
far too many lies about me to let you get away with it here.

You have stalked me since 2004. Using classic on-line bullying tactics
you obviously learned in the school ground. Stop it. You are wrong in
what you say, do and how you behave. If you don't stop it now, I'll take
the second step with your ISP and get a court order to restrain you. How
will that go down with your new job?

You've been warned. Ignore it at your peril.-


Sounds like you are the CYBER BULLY. Why are you threating. Just
****ing do it. If you can. If you can't then stop.


Draco


Amazing similar language to Bret Douglas when you are cornered... Why is
that ? Local call rates, perhaps?

Jeff R. wrote:

"Alienjones" wrote in message
...

Me a fraud? Not likely.
Ethic 1.
Fairness for both parties in a business dealing.

verbiage snipped

Speaking of which, Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing
address yet?

A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing to
do.
I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will if
necessary.

TIA

--
Jeff R.
PO Box 255
West Pennant Hills NSW 2125


Yeah right...
Here's a news flash for you fool.

Process servers won't serve a summons on a post box.

Don't worry mate. I'll get the NSW Police to accompany the server
delivering it as a community service to prevent violence.

That'll work.

Annika1980 wrote:
On May 16, 5:44 pm, Alienjones wrote:
The person who bought the package, bought it for the equipment and
software it contained - a few hundred bucks for $3 grand's worth of
office equipment. He had no intention of making more calendars with it.

Bull****. The main part of the package was the detailed instructions
on how to produce calendars. You made it very clear that you would
not be in competition with the guy and claimed you were getting out of
the calendar business completely. That sir, is FRAUD.


You don't get 100% feedback on Ebay - gained over many years of selling
photographic wall art and camera gear with behavior like you
demonstrate. You get it by being honest and trustworthy.

And it helps when you bid on your own items with your own sockpuppets
just to leave positive feedback. The salty old fisherman knows how to
bait the hook when he's fishing for suckers.

The US authorities may think your case is a civil matter and your drug
dealing Sheriff might have refused to serve a restraining order on you
but my New York lawyers have no such restraints. They are instructed to
go for the throat and DO NOT NEGOTIATE.

Have them contact me. I believe my contact info has been posted here
many times. I'm not hard to find. So far, I haven't heard a peep.
And neither has Mark Thomas, Paul Furman or any of the other folks
you've threatened.

This is your big chance at international recognition Bret... You can
take on an International magazine publisher (me) and get all the
publicity in the world for it... Smile for the birdie.


Dude, if I thought you had anything worth owning I'd have already sued
your drunken old ass for your lies and cyber bullying. What would I
get but an old Crapasonic and a computer with 5 Meg of memory.

Have you been hacking Margie's PC again?
You slime bag.

Annika1980 wrote:
Oh by the way, Douggie, you must have my friend Jeff R. killfiled so
allow me to relay this message for him.
=========================
Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing
address yet?


A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing
to do.
I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will
if
necessary.
Jeff R.
==========================

So what's that all about, D-Mac? Didn't he recently post one of your
photos on his website? Hmmm, why didn't I think of that?






As you well know Bret, it goes like this:

You steal my images and forge an account in my name (copyright theft,
fraud and identity theft). Post a link here or in aus photo to the
plagiarized work.

I spend a few bucks at my local friendly lawyers to send a DMCA notice
to the hosting firm and they take it down. That's happened 5 times with
you. Jackass.

Thank you lucky stars you live in the land of the free and in kissin
cousin country too. Be wary too that as my business spreads to the USA,
my US lawyers are more than happy to relieve me of bucks to protect my
interests in your country.

Mr Ralph who's domain address and phone number don't appear to be
legitimate (why am I not surprised) is not so lucky. He lives in the
land of opportunity and social welfare for all.

He - unlike you, will need to deal with Australian law which takes a
pretty dim view of his sort of behavior. Don't fall into complaciency
boy... It'll be your doom.

Jeff R. wrote:

"Alienjones" wrote in message
...
snip If you don't stop it now, I'll take
the second step with your ISP and get a court order to restrain you.
How
will that go down with your new job?
snip

Speaking of which, Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing
address yet?

A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing to
do.
I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will if
necessary.

TIA

--
Jeff R.
PO Box 255
West Pennant Hills NSW 2125


Here's the flash Nero...
While Rome burns and you engage in your pedantic antics and attempts to
thwart the system... The law doesn't recognize a post office address as
a valid address for service.

Like I've said a handful of times in the past few days...
No I haven't received your address and your published phone number
appears to be a fake.

The fact you list a 10 mile long road as your address has not gone un
noticed either. Not having an RMB or RSD in Telegraph road appears to
be a a ploy to avoid discovery of where you are.

Proper rural mailing addresses Use RMB or RSD numbers rather than rural
property names. Rooty Hill is hardly a rural area. When I was in
Ebenezer a few years ago all the area from Rooty Hill to Penrith was
under housing development.

Don't fret mate... My lawyers are on the case. You'll get served with
the court papers just as soon as they establish who you really are and
where you really live.

According to my lawyer, "it is not good practice to rely of the
perpetrator being honest enough to tell you his real identity. Better to
spend the effort (at $250 an hour for me) to obtain it legally". I'll
get it all back as costs from you anyway... Unless you are a dole
bludger and then I'll just write it off as a business expense.

Basically they are saying if you are crooked enough to steal my work and
plagiarize it, the chances of you being a liar too, are pretty high.

Clear enough?