Photo Challenge (not for the weak hearted)

On Fri, 6 Feb 2015 06:01:28 -0800 (PST), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 6 February 2015 08:18:47 UTC, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 5 Feb 2015 23:51:23 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2015-02-06 07:48:33 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2015-02-06 07:35:09 +0000, Sandman said:

In article , Tony Barry
wrote:

Savageduck:
Savageduck: What version of PS was "destroyed? Certainly not
CS5, CS6, or CC? ...and if you wanted to add captions or mark
up the JPEG in antway you could have used *Preview* in
Yosemite.

-- Regards, Savageduck

Tony Barry:
Sure I could have used something else. I decided the captions
could happily stand alone. Maybe I was wrong. I'm not alone with
the Adobe CS5 problem - see eg
http://feedback.photoshop.com/photos...problems-with-

Sandman:
photoshop-cs5-after-installing-yosemite-version-10-10-on-imac Here
are some tips:
http://helpx.adobe.com/photoshop/kb/...rable-problem-
occurr.html -- Sandman

"destroyed" as in "no longer works, probably will need reinstalling.
Dead, deceased, fallen off its perch, no longer with us ..... etc
etc"

Bleeding demised, passed on, is no more, ceased to be, expired and gone to meet
its maker, is a stiff, bereft of life, rests in peace, pushing up the daisies,
its metabolic process is now history, its off the twig, kicked the bucket,
shuffled off its mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the
bleeding choir
invisible.

This is an EX PHOTOSHOP.

I thought that was a Norwegian Blue pinning for the fjords, not a
Swedish Mynah.

...er, make that pining.

...anyway, he can always get a replacement in Bolton.

Swedish pine?

Don't you mean Swedish pain is the arse, or were you not refering to sandman ;-)

Merely a play on words. No intention to upset Sandman.

Had I intended to prod him along the lines you have suggested, I would
have said something like a 'Swedish pain in the glarse', but then I
didn't, so I didn't.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

I thought that foot looked familiar (Cartier-Bresson)




https://www.dropbox.com/s/gxyauqqdcd...ergeL.jpg?dl=0

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
Don't you mean Swedish pain is the arse, or were you not
refering to sandman ;-)

Sandman:
Poor Dave, still hurting from being proven a liar.

But I know I lie, you've claimed to have never lied.

Quote that claim, or are you yet again lying?

I know you're not lying, that was a joke, you're just mistaken because English is
hard for you.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
Don't you mean Swedish pain is the arse, or
were you not refering to sandman ;-)

Sandman:
Poor Dave, still hurting from being proven a liar.

Whisky-dave:
But I know I lie, you've claimed to have never lied.

Sandman:
Quote that claim, or are you yet again lying?

Why, I don't need to do that to know you're a liar.

No, you need it to prove your claim. What you think you "know" is of no
importance.

You sure lie a lot. Why is that? Insecurities?

--
Sandman

In article , philo
wrote:

Back in 1970 I was amazed that Ilford had ASA1000 film which was more
sensitive than TRI-X . It was thinner and the first time I loaded it
into the developing reel, I ruined a shot (London). Though ruining one
no-so-great shot was no big deal...45 years later I decided to try some
new tools. Before I post the results I wanted to see if anyone wanted a
go at this. I don't blame anyone for not trying but ????




https://www.dropbox.com/s/bpvde9o2km...my008.JPG?dl=0

Well, here's my 5 minutes worth:
http://mhmyers.home.comcast.net/temp/Army008.jpg

--
m-m
http://www.mhmyers.com

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
Don't you mean Swedish pain is the arse, or
were you not refering to sandman ;-)

Sandman:
Poor Dave, still hurting from being proven a
liar.

Whisky-dave:
But I know I lie, you've claimed to have never
lied.

Sandman:
Quote that claim, or are you yet again lying?

Whisky-dave:
Why, I don't need to do that to know you're a liar.

Sandman:
No, you need it to prove your claim. What you think you "know" is
of no importance.

Wrong again.

Sandman:
You sure lie a lot.

Then prove it ?

"you've claimed to have never lied."

That is a false claim you made about me. You were unable to support it and could
not support it, so it's a lie.

You're welcome.

--
Sandman

On 02/10/2015 11:28 PM, M-M wrote:
In article , philo
wrote:

Back in 1970 I was amazed that Ilford had ASA1000 film which was more
sensitive than TRI-X . It was thinner and the first time I loaded it
into the developing reel, I ruined a shot (London). Though ruining one
no-so-great shot was no big deal...45 years later I decided to try some
new tools. Before I post the results I wanted to see if anyone wanted a
go at this. I don't blame anyone for not trying but ????




https://www.dropbox.com/s/bpvde9o2km...my008.JPG?dl=0

Well, here's my 5 minutes worth:
http://mhmyers.home.comcast.net/temp/Army008.jpg




Looks good
thanks

I don't know if anyone here saw the grafted image I posted???

On 2/12/2015 8:49 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:

snip


So then you have lied like I said. If you're not claiming that you've never lied,then that means you must have lied and you know it, as I said to kids about father christmas or many other things so called adults lie to their kids about.


The more interesting lie occurs on those rare occassions when my wife's
dinner doesn't quite live up to expectations.

Another used to occur when I had dinner with a client, and forgot to
tell my wife.

That sort of thing has never happened to the Troll near the Baltic Sea.


--
PeterN

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
Don't you mean Swedish pain is the
arse, or were you not refering to sandman ;-)

Sandman:
Poor Dave, still hurting from being proven a
liar.

Whisky-dave:
But I know I lie, you've claimed to have
never lied.

Sandman:
Quote that claim, or are you yet again lying?

Whisky-dave:
Why, I don't need to do that to know you're a
liar.

Sandman:
No, you need it to prove your claim. What you think
you "know" is of no importance.

Whisky-dave:
Wrong again.

Sandman:
You sure lie a lot.

Whisky-dave:
Then prove it ?

Sandman:
"you've claimed to have never lied."

That is a false claim you made about me. You were unable to
support it and could not support it, so it's a lie.

So then you have lied like I said.

No, you lied. You said I made a claim I have not made, and you can't support it
and you haven't retracted it. That makes you a liar.

If you're not claiming that you've never lied, then that means you
must have lied and you know it

False logic. I have never claimed I haven't murdered your mother either - so
according to your logic, I must have murdered her, right?

Sandman:
You're welcome.

you're just too dim to get it aren't you.

Ironic. You're by far the dumbest person in this group. I know it's not hard, but
I mean by *miles*.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Whisky-dave:
Don't you mean Swedish pain is the
arse, or were you not refering to sandman ;-)

Sandman:
Poor Dave, still hurting from being
proven a liar.

Whisky-dave:
But I know I lie, you've claimed to
have never lied.

Sandman:
Quote that claim, or are you yet again lying?

Whisky-dave:
Why, I don't need to do that to know you're
a liar.

Sandman:
No, you need it to prove your claim. What you
think you "know" is of no importance.

Whisky-dave:
Wrong again.

Sandman:
You sure lie a lot.

Whisky-dave:
Then prove it ?

Sandman:
"you've claimed to have never lied."

That is a false claim you made about me. You were unable to
support it and could not support it, so it's a lie.

Whisky-dave:
So then you have lied like I said.

Sandman:
No, you lied. You said I made a claim I have not made, and you
can't support it and you haven't retracted it. That makes you a
liar.

you've said you don't lie for me that is what you have claimed.

Yes, but I'm still waiting for you to support your claim. I know, you don't
support your claims since you're a liar, which is the point of this.

Whisky-dave:
If you're not claiming that you've never lied, then that means
you must have lied and you know it

Sandman:
False logic. I have never claimed I haven't murdered your mother
either - so according to your logic, I must have murdered her,
right?

No. You haven't claimed it because you'll know you'll be found to
have lied or had a rather strange imagination.

So if I claimed to not having murdered your mother I would be a liar? This is
your claim? This is how lost you are?

Sandman:
You're welcome.

Whisky-dave:
you're just too dim to get it aren't you.

Sandman:
Ironic. You're by far the dumbest person in this group. I know
it's not hard, but I mean by *miles*.

That's you're opinion unless you have supporting evidence that
exists outside your imagination that is.

Of course it's my opinion. I base my opinion on the sheer amount of stupidity
you post in *every single post*.

--
Sandman