Got told, "No photos!" today

shiva das wrote:
In article , Mort
wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"shiva wrote in message
...
In article
,
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...iew-mall-vehic
le-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.

Hi,

I'm not an attorney, so can't quote cases. However, I remember reading a
few years ago that malls are considered public venues in the USA.

Whoever may consider shopping malls in the USA public property might

There is a vast difference between "public property" and "public place".
Don't pretend that they're the same thing.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
| The new GOP ideal

On 12/19/2010 12:30 AM, shiva das wrote:


At no point in Tony and my bantering did either of us misunderstand the
meaning of what was being "said".

Can't resist:

"Tony's and......."

Or "while tony and I were bantering......." ;-)



Now if, as a self-appointed grammar nazi (spelled in lower case on
purpose), you think it more important to hurl the kind of
passive-aggressive remarks typical of your calling, then _you_ have
chosen to highjack the thread.

Most people of normal intelligence and having English as their first or
second language don't give a rat's ass about "correct" grammar (the
existence of which several tons of linguistics textbooks have sought to
disprove) and fully understand the content without melting down into an
elementary-school spelling teacher's hissy fit.


Seriously, Absolutly true.


--
Peter

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 00:30:24 -0500, shiva das
wrote:

Most people of normal intelligence and having English as their first or
second language don't give a rat's ass about "correct" grammar

If we're into unsubstantiated generalizations, mine is that only those
of normal intelligence who are insufficiently educated or those who
have some deficiency like dyslexia are the ones who don't give a rat's
ass. Usually, the people who proclaim they don't give a rat's ass
about correct grammar are those who have made a grammatical mistake
and are making an excuse to cover their carelessness.

Intelligence describes the capacity to learn, but it does not describe
the area of learning. The person of normal intelligence, or even high
intelligence, is not necessarily learned in grammar or proficient in
spelling.

(the
existence of which several tons of linguistics textbooks

That's another pet peeve of mine: misunderstanding what the field of
linguistics is all about. Linguistic textbooks are mostly about the
study of languages and language origins, not grammar and spelling.
Certainly, you cannot study linguistics without covering grammar, but
that is not the main thrust of the field. If you wanted to learn more
about the rules and conventions of grammar you would not look to
linguistics textbooks.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:19:00 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2010-12-18 22:48:08 -0800, John McWilliams said:
:
: On 12/18/10 PDT 8:41 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:26:04 +1300, Eric
: wrote:
: : On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:02:19 -0800, Savageduck
: wrote:
: :
: :On 2010-12-18 15:12:48 -0800, Robert said:
: :
: : On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:11:20 -0800, "Frank wrote:
: : :
: : :
: : : "shiva wrote in message
: : : ...
: : : In om,
: : : "Gary wrote:
: : :
: : : "shiva wrote in message
: : : ...
: : : In article
: : :
: ,
: : : 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.
:
: Not at all. It means "by use of the thing previously mentioned" (i.e., the
: cudgel).
:
: : Pounding their head, legs, backside or shoulders I can understand, but
: : what part of a malefactor is their 'therewithall'?
:
: Look again. You'll see that I used no apostrophe in "malefactors". It's a
: plural noun, not a possessive.
:
: Excellent, lest we end up where we started. Although....."grammarial"?!
: A most excellent term.
:
: If you learned to speak perfect English, whom would you speak it to?
:
: No smilies tonight.
:
: "grammarial"? That sounds very much like a Warren Harding, or
: Palinesque non-word, somewhat like "normalcy" and "refudiate".

Actually, I had never heard the word either, but inferred its existence. I
Googled to see if I was sticking my neck out, and there it was! ;^)

Bob

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 22:50:51 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:
: On 12/18/10 PDT 4:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
: On 2010-12-18 16:25:31 -0800, tony cooper
:
:
: Oh, c'mon, if you know when "sic" is used, then you should be able to
: figure out why I ended a comment about an error with "sic".
:
:
: Damn! It seems I am constantly replacing burned out irony meters.
:
: Well, just remember that tony is good with puns.
:
: And the trimming Gods have eschewed just about everyone in this thread.

Maybe it's time for the thread to be spooled.

Bob

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:41:29 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
: On 2010-12-18 16:29:42 -0800, shiva das said:
:
: In article ,
: tony cooper wrote:
:
: 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...yview-mall-veh
: icl
: 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.
:
: Maybe. However, I was not referring to a member of the
: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. In German _all_ nouns,
: whether common or proper, are capitalized. In fact, German is the only
: world language that capitalizes all nouns. So while the NSDAP is in fact
: a name, and therefore a proper noun to be capitalized in English,
: "Scheißewischer" and "Arschlochreinigungsmittel" are never capitalized
: in English (for example).
:
: Grammar nazi (note that under usage #3 is it a proper noun. However,
: like aspirin and xerox is also has a set of common noun meanings) and
: also has an un-capitalized verb form:
:
: 1. A person who uses proper grammar at all times, esp. online in emails,
: chatrooms, instant messages and webboard posts; a proponent of
: grammatical correctness. Often one who spells correctly as well.
:
: 2. a * A person who believes proper grammar (and spelling) should be
: used by everyone whenever possible. b * One who attempts to persuade or
: force others to use proper grammar and spelling. c * One who uses proper
: grammar and spelling to subtly mock or deride those who do not; an
: exhibitor of grammatical superiority. d * One who advocates linguistic
: clarity; an opponent of 1337-speak. e * One who corrects others'
: grammar; the spelling police.
:
: proper noun
: 3. A nickname, pseudonym or handle for a well-known grammar nazi (defs.
: 1 and 2) within a particular social circle, used to show either great
: respect or great contempt for his or her abilities.
:
: verb (transitive)
: 4. To correct the grammar of (a person's speech, a piece of writing,
: etc.); to edit for grammar and spelling; to proofread.
: 1. A grammar nazi knows the difference between "there," "their" and
: "they're."
:
: 2. Teh grammar nazis haev invadd r formu.
:
: 3. Grammar Nazi, help me with my English homework please.
:
: 4. He totally grammar nazied my article, replacing pronouns and
: rewriting clauses.
:
: Aaaaaaaaaaagh!!

I might have expected "Quaaaaaaaaack!!"

Bob

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 23:01:07 -0800, John McWilliams wrote:
: On 12/18/10 PDT 9:30 PM, shiva das wrote:
:
: Language is about sound. Writing is a shorthand convention, a woefully
: inadequate attempt to graphically convey sound and meaning.
:
: That's true for many, but I cannot agree that the written word is
: inadequate—much less woefully so—to convey meaning.
:
: Besides, in an earlier post you wrote:
:
: 4. He totally grammar nazied my article, replacing pronouns and
: rewriting clauses.
:
: Their should be a high phen between "grammer" and "nazeed".

Didn't you mean to say "phents"?

Bob

In article ,
John McWilliams wrote:

On 12/18/10 PDT 9:30 PM, shiva das wrote:

Language is about sound. Writing is a shorthand convention, a woefully
inadequate attempt to graphically convey sound and meaning.

That's true for many, but I cannot agree that the written word is
inadequate‹much less woefully so‹to convey meaning.

Besides, in an earlier post you wrote:

4. He totally grammar nazied my article, replacing pronouns and
rewriting clauses.

Their should be a high phen between "grammer" and "nazeed".

YMMV.

You'll have to take that up with Dictionary.app, the built-in Macintosh
dictionary/thesaurus.

On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:59:13 -0500, Mort wrote:
: Gary Eickmeier wrote:
: "shiva wrote in message
: ...
: In article
: ,
: 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.
:
: Hi,
:
: I'm not an attorney, so can't quote cases. However, I remember reading a
: few years ago that malls are considered public venues in the USA.

I'm not an attorney either, but I believe the situation is more complicated
than that statement suggests. A case in point:

When I lived in Connecticut, there was an area in downtown Hartford known as
Constitution Plaza. It had been built as part of a commercial development by
several banks and insurance companies. It was an open area and freely
accessible to the public. But one day a year its owners would put up chains
and attempt to block all public access for 24 hours. It was said that this was
done to protect the companies' ownership rights from "adverse occupancy" laws
that basically say that you can't block the public's right to use a piece of
land if you've allowed it for a certain period of time.

There may be no exactly analogous situation for an indoor mall, unless the
mall is open 24 hours a day. But it's a good bet that no mall owners will let
their ownership rights lapse without taking all available steps to prevent it.

Bob

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 09:32:04 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:
: On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 00:30:24 -0500, shiva das
: wrote:
:
: Most people of normal intelligence and having English as their first or
: second language don't give a rat's ass about "correct" grammar
:
: If we're into unsubstantiated generalizations, mine is that only those
: of normal intelligence who are insufficiently educated or those who
: have some deficiency like dyslexia are the ones who don't give a rat's
: ass. Usually, the people who proclaim they don't give a rat's ass
: about correct grammar are those who have made a grammatical mistake
: and are making an excuse to cover their carelessness.
:
: Intelligence describes the capacity to learn, but it does not describe
: the area of learning. The person of normal intelligence, or even high
: intelligence, is not necessarily learned in grammar or proficient in
: spelling.
:
: (the
: existence of which several tons of linguistics textbooks
:
: That's another pet peeve of mine: misunderstanding what the field of
: linguistics is all about. Linguistic textbooks are mostly about the
: study of languages and language origins, not grammar and spelling.
: Certainly, you cannot study linguistics without covering grammar, but
: that is not the main thrust of the field. If you wanted to learn more
: about the rules and conventions of grammar you would not look to
: linguistics textbooks.

My college linguistics professor was fond of saying that "a language is the
way people talk, not the way someone thinks they ought to talk". But when we
were about to take an exam, he'd remind us to be attentive to grammar and to
"spell like gentlemen".

Bob