Time-lapse photography

On 26/01/2018 02:39, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Someone in this thread said people were "suckered into" doing the
restoration. That person - as evidenced in all of his posts - doesn't
understand the concept of doing a project like this for someone else
is an enjoyable challenge to many. But, then, we all know that he
participates here only when he wants to argue about something or
express some form of disagreement.

more ad hominem, which is all you do.

If the shoe fits.

it doesn't fit at all.

Why yes - yes it does!

it has absolutely nothing to do with enjoyable challenges. the original
poster is a troll and you fell for it. simple as that.

Q.E.D. The only reason for this post of yours is to argue or express
disagreement.

your posts today were nothing more than to insult me. they served no
other purpose.

i wasn't disagreeing with anyone or anything.

Nonsense. It's what you do.

I don't know what David B does in other newsgroups, and don't care.
He's done nothing in this newsgroup that bothers me.

how quickly you forget.

last summer, he crossposted to a number of irrelevant groups, causing a
significant disruption here, and i recall you being among those who
complained.

If I choose to cross-post it is MY business, not yours. No-one is
obliged to READ what I write.

He had a genuine request and a genuine need, and that's all that
matters to me.

those who have seen his posts and antics know it was anything *but*
genuine.

You are wrong, yet again, 'nospam'.

My request was 100% genuine and I am very pleased with the outcome.

--
David B.

On 2018-01-26 07:09:19 +0000, David B. said:

On 26/01/2018 05:01, PeterN wrote:
On 1/25/2018 6:01 PM, David B. wrote:
On 25/01/2018 22:54, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Someone in this thread said people were "suckered into" doing the
restoration.* That person - as evidenced in all of his posts - doesn't
understand the concept of doing a project like this for someone else
is an enjoyable challenge to many.* But, then, we all know that he
participates here only when he wants to argue about something or
express some form of disagreement.

more ad hominem, which is all you do.

I don't think you understand peeople at all.

Tony is worth 10 of you.


Not true at all. Tony Cooper is a worthwhile, and interesting contributor.

You are correct. He's been most helpful to me.

Since 10*0=0, I cannot agree with your statement.

Some humour hidden there I do believe! ;-)

it has absolutely nothing to do with enjoyable challenges. the original
poster is a troll and you fell for it. simple as that.

Balderdash! *YOU* are the Troll 'nospam'.

There's no question about it! :-P

Divide 'n concur, eh? You proved that you dwell quite happily under
some bridge with other Usenet trolls both here and in the Mac groups.
Not that many of you left so you could be an endangered spices! Do you
care to donate your remains to science?
--
teleportation kills

In article , David B.
wrote:

My request was 100% genuine

no it wasn't. your original request claimed to want to learn how to do
it yourself. that was bull****. you had *zero* intention of learning.

when you 'enrolled' (your words) at the photoshop forum, your first
question was not about retouching, but how the site made money.

and I am very pleased with the outcome.

of course you are, because you mooched off of others.

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 07:16:51 +0000, "David B."
wrote:

On 26/01/2018 02:39, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

Someone in this thread said people were "suckered into" doing the
restoration. That person - as evidenced in all of his posts - doesn't
understand the concept of doing a project like this for someone else
is an enjoyable challenge to many. But, then, we all know that he
participates here only when he wants to argue about something or
express some form of disagreement.

more ad hominem, which is all you do.

If the shoe fits.

it doesn't fit at all.

Why yes - yes it does!

it has absolutely nothing to do with enjoyable challenges. the original
poster is a troll and you fell for it. simple as that.

Q.E.D. The only reason for this post of yours is to argue or express
disagreement.

your posts today were nothing more than to insult me. they served no
other purpose.

i wasn't disagreeing with anyone or anything.

Nonsense. It's what you do.

I don't know what David B does in other newsgroups, and don't care.
He's done nothing in this newsgroup that bothers me.

how quickly you forget.

last summer, he crossposted to a number of irrelevant groups, causing a
significant disruption here, and i recall you being among those who
complained.

If I choose to cross-post it is MY business, not yours. No-one is
obliged to READ what I write.

But they may find they are reading replies heading off at a tangent
from irrelevant groups which have nothing to do with the the purpose
of this group. We have had several examples of your fans from elswhere
pursuing you into this group. Having said that, there is no objection
to cross posting to groups to whom the topic is relevant.

He had a genuine request and a genuine need, and that's all that
matters to me.

those who have seen his posts and antics know it was anything *but*
genuine.

You are wrong, yet again, 'nospam'.

My request was 100% genuine and I am very pleased with the outcome.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 26/01/2018 08:37, nospam wrote:
In article , David B.
wrote:

My request was 100% genuine

no it wasn't. your original request claimed to want to learn how to do
it yourself. that was bull****. you had *zero* intention of learning.

when you 'enrolled' (your words) at the photoshop forum, your first
question was not about retouching, but how the site made money.

You are wrong - yet again.

I asked who was paying to run the forum, and why.

IAMSAM, a moderator, decline to tell me, other than that it is being
paid for "by the forum owner".

You cannot change the truth. Anyone may read what he said at this link:-

https://www.photoshopgurus.com/forum...hats-up.62887/

and I am very pleased with the outcome.

of course you are, because you mooched off of others.

I have neither the software nor the experience to achieve what other
folk have done.

The expression "off of" has always been used by those folk who are
ill-educated. You are showing your true colours now! :-P

http://grammarist.com/usage/off-of/

--
David B.

In article , David B.
wrote:

My request was 100% genuine

no it wasn't. your original request claimed to want to learn how to do
it yourself. that was bull****. you had *zero* intention of learning.

when you 'enrolled' (your words) at the photoshop forum, your first
question was not about retouching, but how the site made money.

You are wrong - yet again.

I asked who was paying to run the forum, and why.

in other words, not wrong.

you went there to troll, not to learn.

IAMSAM, a moderator, decline to tell me, other than that it is being
paid for "by the forum owner".

because it's none of your ****ing business.

You cannot change the truth. Anyone may read what he said at this link:-

https://www.photosh

as you've been repeatedly told, that requires a login.

and I am very pleased with the outcome.

of course you are, because you mooched off of others.

I have neither the software nor the experience to achieve what other
folk have done.

that's very true.

The expression "off of" has always been used by those folk who are
ill-educated. You are showing your true colours now! :-P

http://grammarist.com/usage/off-of/

ad hominem.

On 26/01/2018 09:34, nospam wrote:
In article , David B.
wrote:

My request was 100% genuine

no it wasn't. your original request claimed to want to learn how to do
it yourself. that was bull****. you had *zero* intention of learning.

when you 'enrolled' (your words) at the photoshop forum, your first
question was not about retouching, but how the site made money.

You are wrong - yet again.

I asked who was paying to run the forum, and why.

in other words, not wrong.

Sadly, you completely miss the point. :-(

you went there to troll, not to learn.

Once again you are mistaken. :-(

I went there, at Tony's suggestion, to ask if anyone could help with
renovation of an old photograph of my granddad.

They did! :-)

Photos - there's two, one Sepia, one B&W

https://www.photoshopgurus.com/forum...anf-jpg.83101/

https://www.photoshopgurus.com/forum...fff-jpg.83102/

In granddad's left hand is what is known as a 'Swagger Stick'!

You can read about them he-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swagger_stick

So, granddad wan't just an ordinary soldier - I guess he was at least a
Corporal, or above, to have such a stick! :-)


IAMSAM, a moderator, decline to tell me, other than that it is being
paid for "by the forum owner".

because it's none of your business.

Why do YOU care what *I* do, 'nospam? It's none of YOUR business.

You cannot change the truth. Anyone may read what he said at this link:-

https://www.photosh

as you've been repeatedly told, that requires a login.

So? Log in! Easy.

and I am very pleased with the outcome.

of course you are, because you mooched off of others.

I have neither the software nor the experience to achieve what other
folk have done.

that's very true.

I'm not trying to deny anything.

The expression "off of" has always been used by those folk who are
ill-educated. You are showing your true colours now! :-P

http://grammarist.com/usage/off-of/

ad hominem.

Not applicable. You're a Troll! :-P

--
David B.

In article , David B.
wrote:

I asked who was paying to run the forum, and why.

in other words, not wrong.

Sadly, you completely miss the point. :-(

nope.

you went there to troll, not to learn.

Once again you are mistaken. :-(

I went there, at Tony's suggestion, to ask if anyone could help with
renovation of an old photograph of my granddad.

nope. you asked how the site made money, which you admit.



IAMSAM, a moderator, decline to tell me, other than that it is being
paid for "by the forum owner".

because it's none of your business.

Why do YOU care what *I* do, 'nospam? It's none of YOUR business.

it is when you post on a public forum.




The expression "off of" has always been used by those folk who are
ill-educated. You are showing your true colours now! :-P

http://grammarist.com/usage/off-of/

ad hominem.

Not applicable. You're a Troll! :-P

another ad hominem.