Amateur Sport Photo Competition with prize

I am neither a plagarist or a liar. You, however seem to be being
deliberately stupid.

The site is a magazine site. The articles are FREE. End of story. I
write articles that seem to make sense to me, or that others have asked
me to write (not companies, readers). You don't have to like my choice
of article subject all the time. So what. You pick on the HP/Epson
article. I had them both here at the same time. That is all. I was
printing the same images on both and could not resist the comparison. So
what? What I do know is that people do find many of the articles useful,
from both posts and offlist emails. I also know some people don't like
them. That's fine too.

Anyone who reads your post and mine will see that you have now switched
to attacking new things and addressed nothing I said, as if you never
really read what I said. So I see no point in continuing this with you.

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Photography and Art Forums http://www.dimagemaker.com/forums/index.php
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



D_Mac wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:55 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote:
Do you enjoy being a moron or what, because little in your statements
are true?

Press releases are sent out so people will publish them. End of story.
It is in the PR companies' interests for this to happen. I plagarise
nothing. I put press releases up for those who are interested and label
them as such, so they know it is straight from the companies' PR agency.
I write original content as well, as that is not labelled as such.
I only post press release announcements when I seem to have got it
before others and for products that seem particularly interesting. Lots
of other press releases go up on my site unannounced.

I earn absolutely nothing from people visiting the site, as such. So you
can go read articles, download RAW files, whatever and I earn nothing.
If someone clicks on a Google ad then yes I do, but no one has to, and
it ONLY happens if someone actually clicks on an ad. If someone buys off
of Amazon from following one of my ads, I earn. The small ads on the
home page are the same, only a commission if someone buys from it. That
is it. You can use the site all you want and I earn NOTHING. Before you
make supid statements learn the truth.

I only post article announcements on relevant lists. By Annika's
definition that makes me a shill for my own site. I don't spam lists
with announcements that are not relevant, nor am I promoting something
you have to pay for. It is all for free if you want. Personally I think
I behave far more morally and fairly than those who like to bag and get
stuck into someone who actually does something. It is really easy to
just waggle your mouth or tap away on a keyboard rather than actually
contribute something that is, at least to many people, a useful site
that is free to use. Do I want people to go to my site? Of course I do.
Do I wish I got enough activity on the ads to actually pay for the time
I put into it? Sure I do. I am neither a communist nor independently
wealthy. If DIMi was done purely as a business I would have shut it down
long ago.

I do not believe it is possible to win on the net. I've had people tell
me I should have no ads at all and make my money off of running
workshops. I've had the moderator of the Yahoo Olympus list tell me I
can't post about my competitions because it will confuse his members (he
runs a no prize competition each month) and that I am commercial because
of the google ads on my site, yet his site which he points to on the
list also has google ads. I get labelled a spammer yet what I post is
relevant and free. There is so much that everyone skips over on lists
(unless all you do is read and write and never shoot photos) yet some
people seem unable to do that with my lists.

If people have a philosophical view that the usenet is only for free
stuff then fine. The stuff on my site is free. Completely. There are no
fees to enter competitions, there was no fee to enter the World of
Photography physical exhibition I mounted last year and there is no fee
to read the articles on the site, mine or press releases. So what free
use rule have I violated? I have gone out and organised prizes for
competitions people on the list have emailed me asking for. Similarly I
have gone a reviewed stuff when asked. I even spent a week researching
and then setting up some appropriate forums so people could post pics in
with their posts to get direct feedback on art. I must be incredibly
stupid because I just don't get it.

Annika, sorry, but your comment came after a number of other attacks,
both on and off list, and I had had enough. You copped it (don't know if
that phrase translates into American).

Now off to do more unpaid work - 40x reviews, a whole bunch of software
reviews, and get the macro competition online.

Cheers,

Wayne

Some sheep eat grass. Some find eternal life in clothes... Others just
get eaten! Wayne has been making money from plagiarizing "news"
articles from photographic equipment vendors via his web site for a
couple of years now. I think it's only fair someone ought to question
his motives for doing it.
No Journalist - Ex or otherwise has any right - ethical or moral - to
use a newsgroup for profit without getting flak from those who want it
kept free of commercial interests. Every click to his site produces
advertising he gets paid to put in your face. If Wayne posted a link
to the "News item," he plagiarizes from the original web site, he
wouldn't make any money. As it is, he really needs to put his house in
order before he starts calling his "customers" idiots.
That's all he's about, making money from "click through" advertising.
He's gotten away with for long enough. How he's done it, is an amazing
feat of deception in the first place. By absolute definition, he is
spamming the newsgroups. I'm sure a complaint to his ISP, listing his
plethora of newsgroup spam - all pointing to plagiarized posts, he'd
pretty soon have no Internet access and his site's perceived
"popularity" would revert back to the zero- rating it deserves.
Doug

Well Wayne... I'm calling your a plagiarist and a liar. Your site is
full of other people's writings and it's a 100% commercial site that
contains some information you promote as being free. Your rendition of
it being a free information site is an absolute lie.

Not only that but you thumb your nose at every convention related to
Usenet. Convention has it that a 3 line sig is a courtesy. Four line
sig's go mostly un-noticed too but yours? FIVE LINES ...all of them
advertising your site AND... You're a bloody top poster to boot!.

http://www.dimagemaker.com/store.php Tell me this where I get all the
*FREE* stuff your site is all about. You are actively selling cameras
and books from a shopping cart on it. You simply can't get any more
commercial than that mate yet you would have us all believe you're
doing it all out of the goodness of your heart. My site is free too.
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com Anyone is free to visit
and it doesn't cost them a cent. I have this site so I can sell my
photography packages but unlike you, I don't come up with a load of
bull**** about the site not being commercial just because I give out
some *FREE* information too.

Tell me again now Wayne, how self righteous you are with your generous
slaving away for the good of humanity, with your *FREE* to use web
site. Tell me how you don't cut and paste information from
manufacturer's in creating your excuse for camera "tests" and I'll
post the links to 6 articles you plagiarized the content for. I took
you to task a few months ago for the subterfuge you tried to pass off
as a legitimate printer comparison.

Trying to compare a full blown $6000 ++ commercial printer to a $2500
desktop model from a different maker. What was that about? Did you get
a free HP printer and decided to heap **** on Epson's consumer printer
because they wouldn't give you one or what? Not only did you try to
make out you were a credible tester but when it came to comparing the
output, you had no method or equipment to measure it with! Was that a
press release too?

Your bull**** now, in trying to pass yourself of as providing a *free*
service for people is laughable in the extreme. You jokers hosting
Photo competitions to get people to your site are the real idiots.
Convince some supplier into providing a prize with the promise of
publicity and then you can't be bothered seeing it through to the
judging.

How pathetic is it then to claim you're busy doing yet more free work
which somehow became more important than the original free work of
getting photographers to come to your site?

Murderer's and child molesters who admit they are just that, have more
credibility that someone who trys to make out they are doing a free
service for the community but direct you to a commercial web site full
of ads and links to your own on-line store. Then you've got the gall
to call someone who questions you an idiot. Looked in the mirror
lately mate?

Doug.

Re the comment about my signature, I have never intended to cause
offense with this and I've been using the usenet for a very long time
and have no idea of such 'rules' but I have changed my signature. It
seemed the only think in your rant that made any sense. I make no
apology for top posting. I makes more sense to me.

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
I am neither a plagarist or a liar. You, however seem to be being
deliberately stupid.

The site is a magazine site. The articles are FREE. End of story. I
write articles that seem to make sense to me, or that others have asked
me to write (not companies, readers). You don't have to like my choice
of article subject all the time. So what. You pick on the HP/Epson
article. I had them both here at the same time. That is all. I was
printing the same images on both and could not resist the comparison. So
what? What I do know is that people do find many of the articles useful,
from both posts and offlist emails. I also know some people don't like
them. That's fine too.

Anyone who reads your post and mine will see that you have now switched
to attacking new things and addressed nothing I said, as if you never
really read what I said. So I see no point in continuing this with you.

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Photography and Art Forums http://www.dimagemaker.com/forums/index.php
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/



D_Mac wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:55 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote:
Do you enjoy being a moron or what, because little in your statements
are true?

Press releases are sent out so people will publish them. End of story.
It is in the PR companies' interests for this to happen. I plagarise
nothing. I put press releases up for those who are interested and label
them as such, so they know it is straight from the companies' PR agency.
I write original content as well, as that is not labelled as such.
I only post press release announcements when I seem to have got it
before others and for products that seem particularly interesting. Lots
of other press releases go up on my site unannounced.

I earn absolutely nothing from people visiting the site, as such. So you
can go read articles, download RAW files, whatever and I earn nothing.
If someone clicks on a Google ad then yes I do, but no one has to, and
it ONLY happens if someone actually clicks on an ad. If someone buys off
of Amazon from following one of my ads, I earn. The small ads on the
home page are the same, only a commission if someone buys from it. That
is it. You can use the site all you want and I earn NOTHING. Before you
make supid statements learn the truth.

I only post article announcements on relevant lists. By Annika's
definition that makes me a shill for my own site. I don't spam lists
with announcements that are not relevant, nor am I promoting something
you have to pay for. It is all for free if you want. Personally I think
I behave far more morally and fairly than those who like to bag and get
stuck into someone who actually does something. It is really easy to
just waggle your mouth or tap away on a keyboard rather than actually
contribute something that is, at least to many people, a useful site
that is free to use. Do I want people to go to my site? Of course I do.
Do I wish I got enough activity on the ads to actually pay for the time
I put into it? Sure I do. I am neither a communist nor independently
wealthy. If DIMi was done purely as a business I would have shut it down
long ago.

I do not believe it is possible to win on the net. I've had people tell
me I should have no ads at all and make my money off of running
workshops. I've had the moderator of the Yahoo Olympus list tell me I
can't post about my competitions because it will confuse his members (he
runs a no prize competition each month) and that I am commercial because
of the google ads on my site, yet his site which he points to on the
list also has google ads. I get labelled a spammer yet what I post is
relevant and free. There is so much that everyone skips over on lists
(unless all you do is read and write and never shoot photos) yet some
people seem unable to do that with my lists.

If people have a philosophical view that the usenet is only for free
stuff then fine. The stuff on my site is free. Completely. There are no
fees to enter competitions, there was no fee to enter the World of
Photography physical exhibition I mounted last year and there is no fee
to read the articles on the site, mine or press releases. So what free
use rule have I violated? I have gone out and organised prizes for
competitions people on the list have emailed me asking for. Similarly I
have gone a reviewed stuff when asked. I even spent a week researching
and then setting up some appropriate forums so people could post pics in
with their posts to get direct feedback on art. I must be incredibly
stupid because I just don't get it.

Annika, sorry, but your comment came after a number of other attacks,
both on and off list, and I had had enough. You copped it (don't know if
that phrase translates into American).

Now off to do more unpaid work - 40x reviews, a whole bunch of software
reviews, and get the macro competition online.

Cheers,

Wayne

Some sheep eat grass. Some find eternal life in clothes... Others just
get eaten! Wayne has been making money from plagiarizing "news"
articles from photographic equipment vendors via his web site for a
couple of years now. I think it's only fair someone ought to question
his motives for doing it.
No Journalist - Ex or otherwise has any right - ethical or moral - to
use a newsgroup for profit without getting flak from those who want it
kept free of commercial interests. Every click to his site produces
advertising he gets paid to put in your face. If Wayne posted a link
to the "News item," he plagiarizes from the original web site, he
wouldn't make any money. As it is, he really needs to put his house in
order before he starts calling his "customers" idiots.
That's all he's about, making money from "click through" advertising.
He's gotten away with for long enough. How he's done it, is an amazing
feat of deception in the first place. By absolute definition, he is
spamming the newsgroups. I'm sure a complaint to his ISP, listing his
plethora of newsgroup spam - all pointing to plagiarized posts, he'd
pretty soon have no Internet access and his site's perceived
"popularity" would revert back to the zero- rating it deserves.
Doug

Well Wayne... I'm calling your a plagiarist and a liar. Your site is
full of other people's writings and it's a 100% commercial site that
contains some information you promote as being free. Your rendition of
it being a free information site is an absolute lie.

Not only that but you thumb your nose at every convention related to
Usenet. Convention has it that a 3 line sig is a courtesy. Four line
sig's go mostly un-noticed too but yours? FIVE LINES ...all of them
advertising your site AND... You're a bloody top poster to boot!.

http://www.dimagemaker.com/store.php Tell me this where I get all the
*FREE* stuff your site is all about. You are actively selling cameras
and books from a shopping cart on it. You simply can't get any more
commercial than that mate yet you would have us all believe you're
doing it all out of the goodness of your heart. My site is free too.
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com Anyone is free to visit
and it doesn't cost them a cent. I have this site so I can sell my
photography packages but unlike you, I don't come up with a load of
bull**** about the site not being commercial just because I give out
some *FREE* information too.

Tell me again now Wayne, how self righteous you are with your generous
slaving away for the good of humanity, with your *FREE* to use web
site. Tell me how you don't cut and paste information from
manufacturer's in creating your excuse for camera "tests" and I'll
post the links to 6 articles you plagiarized the content for. I took
you to task a few months ago for the subterfuge you tried to pass off
as a legitimate printer comparison.

Trying to compare a full blown $6000 ++ commercial printer to a $2500
desktop model from a different maker. What was that about? Did you get
a free HP printer and decided to heap **** on Epson's consumer printer
because they wouldn't give you one or what? Not only did you try to
make out you were a credible tester but when it came to comparing the
output, you had no method or equipment to measure it with! Was that a
press release too?

Your bull**** now, in trying to pass yourself of as providing a *free*
service for people is laughable in the extreme. You jokers hosting
Photo competitions to get people to your site are the real idiots.
Convince some supplier into providing a prize with the promise of
publicity and then you can't be bothered seeing it through to the
judging.

How pathetic is it then to claim you're busy doing yet more free work
which somehow became more important than the original free work of
getting photographers to come to your site?

Murderer's and child molesters who admit they are just that, have more
credibility that someone who trys to make out they are doing a free
service for the community but direct you to a commercial web site full
of ads and links to your own on-line store. Then you've got the gall
to call someone who questions you an idiot. Looked in the mirror
lately mate?

Doug.

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 16:21:55 +1000, Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

Re the comment about my signature, I have never intended to cause
offense with this and I've been using the usenet for a very long time
and have no idea of such 'rules' but I have changed my signature. It
seemed the only think in your rant that made any sense. I make no
apology for top posting. I makes more sense to me.

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Personal art site http://www.cosshall.com/

Doug's idiotic comment about too many signature lines is a couple
of decades too late. I once agreed, and it made much sense when
modems operated at 110 and 300 baud. When I got my first "high
speed" 2400b USR modem, concern about long signatures faded.

Doug's was the first reply to exceed 100 lines and that one as
well as his next 152 line rant could have been immeasurably improved
had they been truncated to zero lines. If anything, your "shill"
messages are too brief, where they resemble chapter titles. Turning
them into short "Press Release" type paragraphs might encourage more
people to follow the links to the articles.

On Aug 23, 4:21 pm, "Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote:
Re the comment about my signature, I have never intended to cause
offense with this and I've been using the usenet for a very long time
and have no idea of such 'rules' but I have changed my signature. It
seemed the only think in your rant that made any sense. I make no
apology for top posting. I makes more sense to me.

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/

Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
I am neither a plagarist or a liar. You, however seem to be being
deliberately stupid.

The site is a magazine site. The articles are FREE. End of story. I
write articles that seem to make sense to me, or that others have asked
me to write (not companies, readers). You don't have to like my choice
of article subject all the time. So what. You pick on the HP/Epson
article. I had them both here at the same time. That is all. I was
printing the same images on both and could not resist the comparison. So
what? What I do know is that people do find many of the articles useful,
from both posts and offlist emails. I also know some people don't like
them. That's fine too.

Anyone who reads your post and mine will see that you have now switched
to attacking new things and addressed nothing I said, as if you never
really read what I said. So I see no point in continuing this with you.

Wayne

Wayne J. Cosshall
Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker,http://www.dimagemaker.com/
Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
Photography and Art Forumshttp://www.dimagemaker.com/forums/index.php
Personal art sitehttp://www.cosshall.com/

D_Mac wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:55 am, "Wayne J. Cosshall" wrote:
Do you enjoy being a moron or what, because little in your statements
are true?

Press releases are sent out so people will publish them. End of story.
It is in the PR companies' interests for this to happen. I plagarise
nothing. I put press releases up for those who are interested and label
them as such, so they know it is straight from the companies' PR agency.
I write original content as well, as that is not labelled as such.
I only post press release announcements when I seem to have got it
before others and for products that seem particularly interesting. Lots
of other press releases go up on my site unannounced.

I earn absolutely nothing from people visiting the site, as such. So you
can go read articles, download RAW files, whatever and I earn nothing.
If someone clicks on a Google ad then yes I do, but no one has to, and
it ONLY happens if someone actually clicks on an ad. If someone buys off
of Amazon from following one of my ads, I earn. The small ads on the
home page are the same, only a commission if someone buys from it. That
is it. You can use the site all you want and I earn NOTHING. Before you
make supid statements learn the truth.

I only post article announcements on relevant lists. By Annika's
definition that makes me a shill for my own site. I don't spam lists
with announcements that are not relevant, nor am I promoting something
you have to pay for. It is all for free if you want. Personally I think
I behave far more morally and fairly than those who like to bag and get
stuck into someone who actually does something. It is really easy to
just waggle your mouth or tap away on a keyboard rather than actually
contribute something that is, at least to many people, a useful site
that is free to use. Do I want people to go to my site? Of course I do.
Do I wish I got enough activity on the ads to actually pay for the time
I put into it? Sure I do. I am neither a communist nor independently
wealthy. If DIMi was done purely as a business I would have shut it down
long ago.

I do not believe it is possible to win on the net. I've had people tell
me I should have no ads at all and make my money off of running
workshops. I've had the moderator of the Yahoo Olympus list tell me I
can't post about my competitions because it will confuse his members (he
runs a no prize competition each month) and that I am commercial because
of the google ads on my site, yet his site which he points to on the
list also has google ads. I get labelled a spammer yet what I post is
relevant and free. There is so much that everyone skips over on lists
(unless all you do is read and write and never shoot photos) yet some
people seem unable to do that with my lists.

If people have a philosophical view that the usenet is only for free
stuff then fine. The stuff on my site is free. Completely. There are no
fees to enter competitions, there was no fee to enter the World of
Photography physical exhibition I mounted last year and there is no fee
to read the articles on the site, mine or press releases. So what free
use rule have I violated? I have gone out and organised prizes for
competitions people on the list have emailed me asking for. Similarly I
have gone a reviewed stuff when asked. I even spent a week researching
and then setting up some appropriate forums so people could post pics in
with their posts to get direct feedback on art. I must be incredibly
stupid because I just don't get it.

Annika, sorry, but your comment came after a number of other attacks,
both on and off list, and I had had enough. You copped it (don't know if
that phrase translates into American).

Now off to do more unpaid work - 40x reviews, a whole bunch of software
reviews, and get the macro competition online.

Cheers,

Wayne

Some sheep eat grass. Some find eternal life in clothes... Others just
get eaten! Wayne has been making money from plagiarizing "news"
articles from photographic equipment vendors via his web site for a
couple of years now. I think it's only fair someone ought to question
his motives for doing it.
No Journalist - Ex or otherwise has any right - ethical or moral - to
use a newsgroup for profit without getting flak from those who want it
kept free of commercial interests. Every click to his site produces
advertising he gets paid to put in your face. If Wayne posted a link
to the "News item," he plagiarizes from the original web site, he
wouldn't make any money. As it is, he really needs to put his house in
order before he starts calling his "customers" idiots.
That's all he's about, making money from "click through" advertising.
He's gotten away with for long enough. How he's done it, is an amazing
feat of deception in the first place. By absolute definition, he is
spamming the newsgroups. I'm sure a complaint to his ISP, listing his
plethora of newsgroup spam - all pointing to plagiarized posts, he'd
pretty soon have no Internet access and his site's perceived
"popularity" would revert back to the zero- rating it deserves.
Doug

Well Wayne... I'm calling your a plagiarist and a liar. Your site is
full of other people's writings and it's a 100% commercial site that
contains some information you promote as being free. Your rendition of
it being a free information site is an absolute lie.

Not only that but you thumb your nose at every convention related to
Usenet. Convention has it that a 3 line sig is a courtesy. Four line
sig's go mostly un-noticed too but yours? FIVE LINES ...all of them
advertising your site AND... You're a bloody top poster to boot!.

http://www.dimagemaker.com/store.php Tell me this where I get all the
*FREE* stuff your site is all about. You are actively selling cameras
and books from a shopping cart on it. You simply can't get any more
commercial than that mate yet you would have us all believe you're
doing it all out of the goodness of your heart. My site is free too.
http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.comAnyone is free to visit
and it doesn't cost them a cent. I have this site so I can sell my
photography packages but unlike you, I don't come up with a load of
bull**** about the site not being commercial just because I give out
some *FREE* information too.

Tell me again now Wayne, how self righteous you are with your generous
slaving away for the good of humanity, with your *FREE* to use web
site. Tell me how you don't cut and paste information from
manufacturer's in creating your excuse for camera "tests" and I'll
post the links to 6 articles you plagiarized the content for. I took
you to task a few months ago for the subterfuge you tried to pass off
as a legitimate printer comparison.

Trying to compare a full blown $6000 ++ commercial printer to a $2500
desktop model from a different maker. What was that about? Did you get
a free HP printer and decided to heap **** on Epson's consumer printer
because they wouldn't give you one or what? Not only did you try to
make out you were a credible tester but when it came to comparing the
output, you had no method or equipment to measure it with! Was that a
press release too?

Your bull**** now, in trying to pass yourself of as providing a *free*
service for people is laughable in the extreme. You jokers hosting
Photo competitions to get people to your site are the real idiots.
Convince some supplier into providing a prize with the promise of
publicity and then you can't be bothered seeing it through to the
judging.

How pathetic is it then to claim you're busy doing yet more free work
which somehow became more important than the original free work of
getting photographers to come to your site?

Murderer's and child molesters who admit they are just that, have more
credibility that someone who trys

...

read more »

Only a bigoted idiot would attempt to reinvent the wheel and claim it
was not a wheel. A magazine is a periodical publication containing a
variety of articles, generally financed by advertising, purchased by
readers, or both.
For web sites that represent an existing print magazine, the web site
is ordinarily referred to as "publication title Online", whereas an
online only magazine should be titled "publication title Online
Magazine".

Your on-line store at: dimagemaker is called What? "DiMi Store"
perhaps?

Having a web site with a name saying it *SUPPLIES* "image, art and
photography needs" is enough evidence it is intended to be a
commercial site for which you are advertising -SPAMMING - newsgroups
with links to that web site.

What's that site called? titleDigital ImageMaker, for all your
image, art and photography needs/title

Before you keep up the tactic of insulting those who are offended by
your lies and and scam competitions by calling them idiots and morons,
read the terms and conditions of access you agreed to when you signed
up with Optus.

I'll make it partly easy for you "Mr Moron". Section seven of the
acceptable use policy.

ELECTRONIC MESSAGING AND SPAM
(a) You must not use the service to spam, send bulk and/or unsolicited
messages. This includes, but is not limited to commercial
advertising, informational announcements, charity requests, petitions
for signatures, chain letters and political or religious messages.
You must only send such a message to those individuals who have
explicitly requested it.

In case you are unaware of the SPAM ACT, this includes forums and
newsgroups which specifically prohibit commercial advertising in their
charter. Although Aus.Photo has no charter as such and it's the only
group you could legally post your spam too, you couldn't leave it
there, could you?

From my count, you've breached Optus's policy and ignored the laws
relating to the spam act on at least 109 instances in other groups and
maybe 10 in this group.

It goes like this Mr. Moron... If you want to play in the big boy's
sand pit, you better bring your own spade and bucket. Right up to the
point you started calling those you rely on for your's site's intended
audience "Idiots and Morons" you got away with it. Now you are
shilling for your scam "photography competitions" and flaunting good
graces with off hand comments about being too busy to see them through
to the end, you have my attention. Keep it up and you'll have the
Minister for Telecommunications' and Optus' management's attention
too.

Far too many Australians think the only time anything is illegal is
when they get caught doing it. Well Wayne, you just got caught doing
it too. If you don't stop right now and start behaving like a
responsible business person, my next messages will be all complaints
about your activities. Having your site hosted in the UK is not going
to exempt you from Australia's laws. The choice is yours mate. Keep on
with the attitude I'm an Idiot and a Moron at your own peril. Step up
to the plate and show some responsibility instead of trying to tell
people how responsible you are whilst showing you are not.

Doug

On Aug 23, 8:42 pm, D_Mac wrote:

Before you keep up the tactic of insulting those who are offended by
your lies and and scam competitions by calling them idiots and morons,
read the terms and conditions of access you agreed to when you signed
up with Optus.

I'll make it partly easy for you "Mr Moron". Section seven of the
acceptable use policy.


Well, D, he could always switch to GoDaddy.
They don't give a damn what you do.