Got told, "No photos!" today

In article
,
Rich wrote:

Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...mall-vehicle-c
rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not
allow photography in their stores.

"shiva das" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Rich wrote:

Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...mall-vehicle-c
rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not
allow photography in their stores.

"whose" corporate policy

In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

"shiva das" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Rich wrote:

Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ew-mall-vehicl
e-c
rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not
allow photography in their stores.

"whose" corporate policy

I don't know, whose corporate policy?

Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi in
this day of no usenet postings of any value?"

or "Who's still complaining when we feed the fun trolls in this same age
of no usenet postings of any value?"

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:09:25 +0000, Bruce
wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
"shiva das" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Rich wrote:

Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...mall-vehicle-c
rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not
allow photography in their stores.

"whose" corporate policy


Prepare yourself for *an onslaught* from the more senior posters here
who deplore any correction of spelling, grammar and/or punctuation.

They may consider themselves too old to learn how to improve their
photographic technique, and their advanced age means they are not
really interested in advanced new equipment, but when someone corrects
an errant apostrophe on here, their outrage knows no bounds. ;-)


I'm pretty senior in age, but I'm not about to participate in an
onslaught over this.

That apostrophe isn't "errant", by the way. It has not strayed from
the proper path. It doesn't belong in that path at all.

I also object to "on here". It is on my screen, but only because it
was "in" what you wrote.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"shiva das" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

"shiva das" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Rich wrote:

Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ew-mall-vehicl
e-c
rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not
allow photography in their stores.

"whose" corporate policy

I don't know, whose corporate policy?

Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi in
this day of no usenet postings of any value?"

or "Who's still complaining when we feed the fun trolls in this same age
of no usenet postings of any value?"

I'm.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:22:14 -0500, shiva das
wrote:

In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

"shiva das" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Rich wrote:

Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ew-mall-vehicl
e-c
rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not
allow photography in their stores.

"whose" corporate policy

I don't know, whose corporate policy?

Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi in
this day of no usenet postings of any value?"

While the Nazis were not at all proper, "Nazi" is a proper noun and
should be capitalized.

Sic Heil.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:11:20 -0800, "Frank ess" wrote:
:
:
: "shiva das" wrote in message
: ...
: In article ,
: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
:
: "shiva das" wrote in message
: ...
: In article
: ,
: Rich wrote:
:
: Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
: when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
: permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
: it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
: have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
: shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
: to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
: guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
: telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
: were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
: same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
: and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
: DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.
:
: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc.../bayview-mall-
: vehicle-crash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome
:
: Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
: entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to
: not allow photography in their stores.
:
: "whose" corporate policy
:
: I don't know, whose corporate policy?
:
: Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi
: in this day of no usenet postings of any value?"
:
: or "Who's still complaining when we feed the fun trolls in this same
: age of no usenet postings of any value?"
:
: I'm.

Let us take up the grammarial cudgel and pound all perceived malefactors
therewithal!

Bob

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:09:25 +0000, Bruce wrote:

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
"shiva das" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Rich wrote:

Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...mall-vehicle-c
rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not
allow photography in their stores.

"whose" corporate policy


Prepare yourself for *an onslaught* from the more senior posters here
who deplore any correction of spelling, grammar and/or punctuation.

They may consider themselves too old to learn how to improve their
photographic technique, and their advanced age means they are not
really interested in advanced new equipment, but when someone corrects
an errant apostrophe on here, their outrage knows no bounds. ;-)


At what age does this 'advanced age' begin?
Bought my first reflex camera in 1943, a Houghton-Butcher Ensign,
my latest camera, bought this year, is a Ricoh CX3.

On 2010-12-18 15:12:48 -0800, Robert Coe said:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:11:20 -0800, "Frank ess" wrote:
:
:
: "shiva das" wrote in message
: ...
: In article ,
: "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
:
: "shiva das" wrote in message
: ...
: In article
: ,
: Rich wrote:
:
: Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
: when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
: permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
: it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
: have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
: shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
: to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
: guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
: telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
: were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
: same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
: and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
: DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.
:
: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc.../bayview-mall-
: vehicle-crash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome
:
: Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
: entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to
: not allow photography in their stores.
:
: "whose" corporate policy
:
: I don't know, whose corporate policy?
:
: Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi
: in this day of no usenet postings of any value?"
:
: or "Who's still complaining when we feed the fun trolls in this same
: age of no usenet postings of any value?"
:
: I'm.

Let us take up the grammarial cudgel and pound all perceived malefactors
therewithal!

Bob

Umm... it seems this usage of "therewithal" might be inappropriate and
superfluous.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2010-12-18 15:09:40 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:22:14 -0500, shiva das
wrote:

In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

"shiva das" wrote in message
...
In article
,
Rich wrote:

Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...ew-mall-vehicl
e-c
rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not
allow photography in their stores.

"whose" corporate policy

I don't know, whose corporate policy?

Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi in
this day of no usenet postings of any value?"

While the Nazis were not at all proper, "Nazi" is a proper noun and
should be capitalized.

Sic Heil.

"Sic Heil" ?
Are you making a mocking commentary on spelling and grammatical errors,
or did you goof on the old N.S.D.A.P. call for victory?

--
Regards,

Savageduck