[SI] Special category: Kodachrome

Post by Bowser
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If you've
shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send them in. Show
us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or variation of emulsion).
Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how they've held up. The older the
better.
http://www.spamlink.com/shootin/kodachrome

Or not.

Sounds like a plagiarists dream.

Bowser

2009-07-02 15:11:39 UTC

Or not.
Sounds like a plagiarists dream.

Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from?

David Nebenzahl

2009-07-02 17:19:17 UTC

Or not.
Sounds like a plagiarists dream.

Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from?

Um, Pbase = spam.

--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Bowser

2009-07-02 19:46:22 UTC

Post by Bowser
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If
you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send
them in. Show us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or
variation of emulsion). Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how
they've held up. The older the better.
http://www.%spamlink*.com/shootin/kodachrome

Or not.
Sounds like a plagiarists dream.

Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from?

Um, Pbase = spam.

Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when?

Shon Kei

2009-07-02 20:16:12 UTC

Post by Bowser
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If
you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and
send them in. Show us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or
variation of emulsion). Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and
how they've held up. The older the better.
http://www.%spamlink*.com/shootin/kodachrome

Or not.
Sounds like a plagiarists dream.

Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from?

Um, Pbase = spam.

Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when?

Since you and that Jackass from Tennessee began spamming every bloody
newsgroup on the planet with links to it.

Bowser

2009-07-02 22:04:10 UTC

Post by Bowser
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If
you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send
them in. Show us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or
variation of emulsion). Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how
they've held up. The older the better.
http://www.%spamlink*.com/shootin/kodachrome

Or not.
Sounds like a plagiarists dream.

Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from?

Um, Pbase = spam.

Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when?

Since you and that Jackass from Tennessee began spamming every bloody
newsgroup on the planet with links to it.

Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos and are asking
nothing in return hardly constitutes spam. It's a photo sharing site, that's
all. Spam is unwanted advertising. We aren't advertising for pbase.

Here's a tip: EVERY SINGLE SHOOTIN POST starts with the prefix "[SI]."
Simply filter that out, and you'll never see the SI posts again. If you need
help configuring your newsreader for filtering, just ask and I'm sure you'll
get the help you need.

John McWilliams

2009-07-02 23:01:59 UTC

Post by Bowser
Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when?

Since you and that Jackass from Tennessee began spamming every bloody
newsgroup on the planet with links to it.

Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos and are asking
nothing in return hardly constitutes spam. It's a photo sharing site,
that's all. Spam is unwanted advertising. We aren't advertising for pbase.
Here's a tip: EVERY SINGLE SHOOTIN POST starts with the prefix "[SI]."
Simply filter that out, and you'll never see the SI posts again. If you
need help configuring your newsreader for filtering, just ask and I'm
sure you'll get the help you need.

The mission posters are back. There are all of two of them who have
these weird beliefs about pBase...

--
john mcwilliams

~A Serenity Prayer~

"God, grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway,
the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the
difference."

D-Mac

2009-07-03 00:34:35 UTC

Post by John McWilliams

Post by Bowser
Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when?

Since you and that Jackass from Tennessee began spamming every bloody
newsgroup on the planet with links to it.

Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos and are asking
nothing in return hardly constitutes spam. It's a photo sharing site,
that's all. Spam is unwanted advertising. We aren't advertising for pbase.
Here's a tip: EVERY SINGLE SHOOTIN POST starts with the prefix "[SI]."
Simply filter that out, and you'll never see the SI posts again. If
you need help configuring your newsreader for filtering, just ask and
I'm sure you'll get the help you need.

The mission posters are back. There are all of two of them who have
these weird beliefs about pBase...

It's not a belief it's a known fact. *ADVERTISING IS SPAM*.

Netetiquette and most of the charters for news groups, as well as
Bowsers own news provider prohibit what he's doing and prohibit cross
posting to more than 3 groups.

Bowser is following in the footsteps of Alan Brown by Cross posting to 4
groups and only 2 of them are photography relative. The other two are
for discussion about equipment.

One of them forbids what he's doing. Does that stop him? No! He doesn't
give a rat's arse about Netetiquette or for that matter, the rules under
which he gets access to Usenet.

The curious part is that Alan Brown formulated the charter for r.p.d.
slr-systems and it reads:

"This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of
any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other
promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography."

Tell me now John, that bowsers posts are not advertising shootin and
pbase. Or are you less of a hypocrite than you come across as being?

Alan in his typical bigoted way, started the spam from shootin going to
groups where it is unwanted and in the process, totally ignored his own
rules. That makes three major transgressions by him of the rules he
formulated for that group. What a bloody hypocrite

In case you have lost track of what society is and why those societies
that have rules prosper and those founded on anarchy eventually fall
into disarray like Usenet is doing, there is no purpose in making rules
if no one bothers to abide by them. The fact Alan Browne formulated the
rules and within hours broke them, is evidence enough that he cares only
about himself... Now Bowser is following in his footsteps.

For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you as
hypocrite too.

--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

Savageduck

2009-07-03 01:01:47 UTC

Post by D-Mac

Post by John McWilliams

Post by Bowser
Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when?

Since you and that Jackass from Tennessee began spamming every bloody
newsgroup on the planet with links to it.

Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos and are asking
nothing in return hardly constitutes spam. It's a photo sharing site,
that's all. Spam is unwanted advertising. We aren't advertising for pbase.
Here's a tip: EVERY SINGLE SHOOTIN POST starts with the prefix "[SI]."
Simply filter that out, and you'll never see the SI posts again. If you
need help configuring your newsreader for filtering, just ask and I'm
sure you'll get the help you need.

The mission posters are back. There are all of two of them who have
these weird beliefs about pBase...

It's not a belief it's a known fact. *ADVERTISING IS SPAM*.
Netetiquette and most of the charters for news groups, as well as
Bowsers own news provider prohibit what he's doing and prohibit cross
posting to more than 3 groups.
Bowser is following in the footsteps of Alan Brown by Cross posting to
4 groups and only 2 of them are photography relative. The other two are
for discussion about equipment.
One of them forbids what he's doing. Does that stop him? No! He doesn't
give a rat's arse about Netetiquette or for that matter, the rules
under which he gets access to Usenet.
The curious part is that Alan Brown formulated the charter for r.p.d.
"This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of
any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other
promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography."
Tell me now John, that bowsers posts are not advertising shootin and
pbase. Or are you less of a hypocrite than you come across as being?
Alan in his typical bigoted way, started the spam from shootin going to
groups where it is unwanted and in the process, totally ignored his own
rules. That makes three major transgressions by him of the rules he
formulated for that group. What a bloody hypocrite
In case you have lost track of what society is and why those societies
that have rules prosper and those founded on anarchy eventually fall
into disarray like Usenet is doing, there is no purpose in making rules
if no one bothers to abide by them. The fact Alan Browne formulated the
rules and within hours broke them, is evidence enough that he cares
only about himself... Now Bowser is following in his footsteps.
For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you as
hypocrite too.

Doug,
You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a
non-commercial Pbase site be considered spam?
The X-Posts were to groups where the proposal was relevant, and
therefore not offensive within posting guidelines.
Certainly given this proposed SI subject (Kodachrome archive shots) it
would be appropriately posted in RPDSS & RPE35mm, given that
Kodachrome could be loosely described as "part of an SLR system" and
"35mm equipment."
In a usual SI proposal I would not be opposed to the exclusion of those
2 groups (RPDSS & RPE35mm) and the inclusion of alt.photography in the
X-Post.

I have no idea what Bowser's news provider limits him to with regard to
X-Posts. Mine limits me to 4, and will block any post with more than 4
X-Posts. There have been times I have had to delete some of the
inappropriate X-Posts to 4 or less, so I could post a response.

The SI provides the photo groups a diversion from some of the annoying
bitching, and gets us back to thinking of photography. So on this issue
lighten up some.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Atheist Chaplain

2009-07-03 01:15:54 UTC

Post by D-Mac

Post by John McWilliams

Post by Bowser
Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when?

Since you and that Jackass from Tennessee began spamming every bloody
newsgroup on the planet with links to it.

Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos and are asking
nothing in return hardly constitutes spam. It's a photo sharing site,
that's all. Spam is unwanted advertising. We aren't advertising for pbase.
Here's a tip: EVERY SINGLE SHOOTIN POST starts with the prefix "[SI]."
Simply filter that out, and you'll never see the SI posts again. If you
need help configuring your newsreader for filtering, just ask and I'm
sure you'll get the help you need.

The mission posters are back. There are all of two of them who have
these weird beliefs about pBase...

It's not a belief it's a known fact. *ADVERTISING IS SPAM*.
Netetiquette and most of the charters for news groups, as well as Bowsers
own news provider prohibit what he's doing and prohibit cross posting to
more than 3 groups.
Bowser is following in the footsteps of Alan Brown by Cross posting to 4
groups and only 2 of them are photography relative. The other two are for
discussion about equipment.
One of them forbids what he's doing. Does that stop him? No! He doesn't
give a rat's arse about Netetiquette or for that matter, the rules under
which he gets access to Usenet.
The curious part is that Alan Brown formulated the charter for r.p.d.
"This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of any
kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other
promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography."
Tell me now John, that bowsers posts are not advertising shootin and
pbase. Or are you less of a hypocrite than you come across as being?
Alan in his typical bigoted way, started the spam from shootin going to
groups where it is unwanted and in the process, totally ignored his own
rules. That makes three major transgressions by him of the rules he
formulated for that group. What a bloody hypocrite
In case you have lost track of what society is and why those societies
that have rules prosper and those founded on anarchy eventually fall into
disarray like Usenet is doing, there is no purpose in making rules if no
one bothers to abide by them. The fact Alan Browne formulated the rules
and within hours broke them, is evidence enough that he cares only about
himself... Now Bowser is following in his footsteps.
For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you as
hypocrite too.

Doug,
You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a
non-commercial Pbase site be considered spam?
The X-Posts were to groups where the proposal was relevant, and therefore
not offensive within posting guidelines.
Certainly given this proposed SI subject (Kodachrome archive shots) it
would be appropriately posted in RPDSS & RPE35mm, given that Kodachrome
could be loosely described as "part of an SLR system" and "35mm
equipment."
In a usual SI proposal I would not be opposed to the exclusion of those 2
groups (RPDSS & RPE35mm) and the inclusion of alt.photography in the
X-Post.
I have no idea what Bowser's news provider limits him to with regard to
X-Posts. Mine limits me to 4, and will block any post with more than 4
X-Posts. There have been times I have had to delete some of the
inappropriate X-Posts to 4 or less, so I could post a response.
The SI provides the photo groups a diversion from some of the annoying
bitching, and gets us back to thinking of photography. So on this issue
lighten up some.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

Douggie is just dirty on the shootin and will take EVERY opportunity to stir
shit, after all HIS idea to set up a web site to do something similar to the
shootin, complete with sponsored themes and prizes was rejected and the
original shootin was resurrected instead. Douggies idea was for financial
gain and he is incapable of understanding that people can just take photos
for fun. It also probably irks him no end that one of those people who takes
photos mostly for fun is demonstrably superior to his pathetic efforts in
just about every respect, you just have to look at the amount of scorn and
ridicule Douggie tries to pile onto any posting by that particular
photographer to see the green monster :-)

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

Alan Browne

2009-07-03 03:06:54 UTC

Post by Savageduck
Doug,
You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a
non-commercial Pbase site be considered spam?

Well, Pbase is commercial in the sense that it asks for money for
hosting the photos. Last person to send them any for the SI was me (I
believe I paid for a 3 year subscription and up to xxx MBytes, but I
don't really recall, Bowser has the keys to the site at present. Prior
to me I believe Bret "Annika" paid the bill for the pbase site.)

Post by Savageduck
The X-Posts were to groups where the proposal was relevant, and
therefore not offensive within posting guidelines.
Certainly given this proposed SI subject (Kodachrome archive shots) it
would be appropriately posted in RPDSS & RPE35mm, given that Kodachrome
could be loosely described as "part of an SLR system" and "35mm equipment."
In a usual SI proposal I would not be opposed to the exclusion of those
2 groups (RPDSS & RPE35mm) and the inclusion of alt.photography in the
X-Post.

Dougie's just frustrated. He's welcome to participate in the SI (and
has in the past), but as he goes on with his inane arguments he actually
puts up arguments against himself participating.

It's so oddly pathetic.

At least even Dougie has participated in the SI. There are many self
claimed professionals and experts in rpd.slr-systems and rpe35mm who
haven't dared (and when the odd photo of theirs has leaked we can see
why...).

Shon Kei

2009-07-03 07:03:56 UTC

Post by Savageduck
Doug,
You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a
non-commercial Pbase site be considered spam?
The X-Posts were to groups where the proposal was relevant, and
therefore not offensive within posting guidelines.
Certainly given this proposed SI subject (Kodachrome archive shots) it
would be appropriately posted in RPDSS & RPE35mm, given that Kodachrome
could be loosely described as "part of an SLR system" and "35mm equipment."
In a usual SI proposal I would not be opposed to the exclusion of those
2 groups (RPDSS & RPE35mm) and the inclusion of alt.photography in the
X-Post.
I have no idea what Bowser's news provider limits him to with regard to
X-Posts. Mine limits me to 4, and will block any post with more than 4
X-Posts. There have been times I have had to delete some of the
inappropriate X-Posts to 4 or less, so I could post a response.
The SI provides the photo groups a diversion from some of the annoying
bitching, and gets us back to thinking of photography. So on this issue
lighten up some.

I see.
So the rules: "Explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements" and
"Whether personal private or commercial" should actually exclude
advertising Shootin, should they?

You can't have it both ways. Either all forms of advertising are
"explicitly prohibited" or they are explicitly permitted. Which is it?

You might think Shootin is "relevant" to the cross posted groups but the
charter of them says differently. Are you suggesting then that everyone
should ignore the rules Alan Brown formulated and make up their own (as
he did) or just go back to anarchy and let anything prevail?

If you don't follow the rules, everything is fair game. Including
posting pornography and binary files in these groups (annika1980 is
going to love the last bit if that's what you are suggesting).

Savageduck

2009-07-03 07:14:52 UTC

Post by Savageduck
Doug,
You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a
non-commercial Pbase site be considered spam?
The X-Posts were to groups where the proposal was relevant, and
therefore not offensive within posting guidelines.
Certainly given this proposed SI subject (Kodachrome archive shots) it
would be appropriately posted in RPDSS & RPE35mm, given that
Kodachrome could be loosely described as "part of an SLR system" and
"35mm equipment."
In a usual SI proposal I would not be opposed to the exclusion of those
2 groups (RPDSS & RPE35mm) and the inclusion of alt.photography in the
X-Post.
I have no idea what Bowser's news provider limits him to with regard to
X-Posts. Mine limits me to 4, and will block any post with more than 4
X-Posts. There have been times I have had to delete some of the
inappropriate X-Posts to 4 or less, so I could post a response.
The SI provides the photo groups a diversion from some of the annoying
bitching, and gets us back to thinking of photography. So on this issue
lighten up some.

I see.
So the rules: "Explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements" and
"Whether personal private or commercial" should actually exclude
advertising Shootin, should they?
You can't have it both ways. Either all forms of advertising are
"explicitly prohibited" or they are explicitly permitted. Which is it?
You might think Shootin is "relevant" to the cross posted groups but
the charter of them says differently. Are you suggesting then that
everyone should ignore the rules Alan Brown formulated and make up
their own (as he did) or just go back to anarchy and let anything
prevail?
If you don't follow the rules, everything is fair game. Including
posting pornography and binary files in these groups (annika1980 is
going to love the last bit if that's what you are suggesting).

You are familiar with the term "anal" aren't you?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

tony cooper

2009-07-03 07:37:13 UTC

I see.
So the rules: "Explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements" and
"Whether personal private or commercial" should actually exclude
advertising Shootin, should they?
You can't have it both ways. Either all forms of advertising are
"explicitly prohibited" or they are explicitly permitted. Which is it?
You might think Shootin is "relevant" to the cross posted groups but the
charter of them says differently. Are you suggesting then that everyone
should ignore the rules Alan Brown formulated and make up their own (as
he did) or just go back to anarchy and let anything prevail?
If you don't follow the rules, everything is fair game. Including
posting pornography and binary files in these groups (annika1980 is
going to love the last bit if that's what you are suggesting).

Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations.
Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Noons

2009-07-03 15:26:14 UTC

Post by tony cooper
Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations.
Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment.

Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific commercial site,
namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Savageduck

2009-07-03 15:50:37 UTC

Post by tony cooper
Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations.
Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment.

Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific
commercial site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Not true.
I have made submissions to SI and have yet to become a Pbase
subscriber. In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and
have no intention of doing so.

I have 20GB (additional space is available) of storage on my mac.com
(now me.com) iDisc and I share by posting links to any of my files
stored there, or provide access to full file sharing to designated
recipients.
BTW this is not in anyway my archive method, 20GB would not do.

So if I want to share a link to an individual resized file of an html
(or to really piss some people off a Flash) web gallery, it is as easy
as this Loading Image...

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Annika1980

2009-07-03 16:24:25 UTC

Post by Noons
Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific
commercial site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Not true.
I have made submissions to SI and have yet to become a Pbase
subscriber. In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and
have no intention of doing so.

Next, the idiot Noons and his butt-buddy, D-Mac, will be claiming that
the Shootin is spam for Internet Explorer and Firefox since most
people use them to view the pics.
Or maybe it's spam for Apple if you have a Mac?

Noons

2009-07-03 16:48:48 UTC

Post by Annika1980
Next, the idiot Noons and his butt-buddy, D-Mac, will be claiming that
the Shootin is spam for Internet Explorer and Firefox since most
people use them to view the pics.
Or maybe it's spam for Apple if you have a Mac?

Stop proving you are an idiot, Bret.

D-Mac

2009-07-03 22:07:36 UTC

Post by Annika1980

Post by Noons
Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific
commercial site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Not true.
I have made submissions to SI and have yet to become a Pbase
subscriber. In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and
have no intention of doing so.

The cute thing about you Bret, is not your charming personality but your
hill billy stupidity. Do you have to be careful not to scrape the scar
when you shave?

Anything you post pointing to a photo you have taken - regardless of
where it's hosted - is *ADVERTISING* by the most pure of definitions.

*ALL* advertising is *EXPLICITLY* (that big word means very specific,
clear, or detailed) *PROHIBITS* (this big word means NOT ALLOWED). Now
what part of that don't you understand?

Posting links to Pbase (where lots of advertising of *PERSONAL* photos
goes on) is *ADVERTISING* the location of personal photographs.

All other *PROMOTIONAL* material (that big word can be read as
advertising) like promoting shootin or your bloody pathetic attempt at
being a Professional wedding photographer with a 16mm lens is
*PROHIBITED* too.

------------------------------------------------------------------
"This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of
any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other
promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography."
------------------------------------------------------------------

You bigots can all pile shit on me all you like. The undeniable fact is
that Alan Brown forked the R.P. Digital groups to reduce traffic and end
the shit fights as well stop advertisements on Usenet photo groups.

You brought to shit fights to a new hight of filth which raises the
question: Were you the creep who posted the pornographic smut about poor
Lisa?

Now Bowser thinks he can stuff shootin down the throat of every group
subscriber on the planet. Ignoring the fact that since he and the clown
Brown have been running it... Participation in shooting is at an all
time low. Tripling the number of entries per person has been a huge
success at getting new entries. *NOT*.

You need to get a life Bret. Defending the abhorrent behaviour of
yourself and your cronies is no way for a family man to behave.

--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

Bowser

2009-07-03 23:06:04 UTC

Post by Noons
Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific
commercial site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Not true.
I have made submissions to SI and have yet to become a Pbase
subscriber. In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and
have no intention of doing so.

Nope. Here's a definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advertising

We're not selling anything. Nothing.

Case closed.

Post by D-Mac
*ALL* advertising is *EXPLICITLY* (that big word means very specific,
clear, or detailed) *PROHIBITS* (this big word means NOT ALLOWED). Now
what part of that don't you understand?
Posting links to Pbase (where lots of advertising of *PERSONAL* photos
goes on) is *ADVERTISING* the location of personal photographs.
All other *PROMOTIONAL* material (that big word can be read as
advertising) like promoting shootin or your bloody pathetic attempt at
being a Professional wedding photographer with a 16mm lens is *PROHIBITED*
too.
------------------------------------------------------------------
"This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of any
kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other
promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography."
------------------------------------------------------------------
You bigots can all pile shit on me all you like. The undeniable fact is
that Alan Brown forked the R.P. Digital groups to reduce traffic and end
the shit fights as well stop advertisements on Usenet photo groups.
You brought to shit fights to a new hight of filth which raises the
question: Were you the creep who posted the pornographic smut about poor
Lisa?
Now Bowser thinks he can stuff shootin down the throat of every group
subscriber on the planet. Ignoring the fact that since he and the clown
Brown have been running it... Participation in shooting is at an all time
low. Tripling the number of entries per person has been a huge success at
getting new entries. *NOT*.
You need to get a life Bret. Defending the abhorrent behaviour of yourself
and your cronies is no way for a family man to behave.
--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

Shon Kei

2009-07-04 00:11:06 UTC

Post by D-Mac
Anything you post pointing to a photo you have taken - regardless of
where it's hosted - is *ADVERTISING* by the most pure of definitions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advertising
We're not selling anything. Nothing.
Case closed.

Well not so fast.

You conveniently focused on "Advertising" whilst ignoring "Promoting".
You are promoting shootin are you not? If I take away the part about
advertising in the charter, what is left?
----------------------------------------------------------
"This newsgroup explicitly prohibits all other
promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography."
-----------------------------------------------------------
These are the words I removed: "the posting of advertisements of any
kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as"

What are you trying to achieve Bowser?
All you are doing is arguing that you have the right to behave badly and
ignore the rules of a group whilst everyone else must abide by your
rules if they are going to submit photos to shootin.

You really are a pathetic loser Bowser. Ignore the charter if you will
but don't try to make out you are some sort of clean skin for abusing
the rules that are supposed govern your behaviour.

Annika1980

2009-07-04 03:52:13 UTC

Post by Shon Kei
What are you trying to achieve Bowser?
All you are doing is arguing that you have the right to behave badly and
ignore the rules of a group whilst everyone else must abide by your
rules if they are going to submit photos to shootin.
You really are a pathetic loser Bowser. Ignore the charter if you will
but don't try to make out you are some sort of clean skin for abusing
the rules that are supposed govern your behaviour.

The bottom line, Douggie, is that we can do any damn thing we want and
there isn't one damn thing you can do about it.

Sux to be you, D-Mac!

Bowser

2009-07-04 21:20:08 UTC

Post by D-Mac
Anything you post pointing to a photo you have taken - regardless of
where it's hosted - is *ADVERTISING* by the most pure of definitions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advertising
We're not selling anything. Nothing.
Case closed.

Well not so fast.
You conveniently focused on "Advertising" whilst ignoring "Promoting". You
are promoting shootin are you not? If I take away the part about
advertising in the charter, what is left?

No, you focused on advertising, and when I proved you absolutely wrong, you
changed your argument. You have proven that any attempt to carry on a
conversation with you is a total waste of time. Goodbye, and good luck.

D-Mac

2009-07-04 22:21:43 UTC

Post by D-Mac
Anything you post pointing to a photo you have taken - regardless of
where it's hosted - is *ADVERTISING* by the most pure of definitions.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advertising
We're not selling anything. Nothing.
Case closed.

Well not so fast.
You conveniently focused on "Advertising" whilst ignoring "Promoting".
You are promoting shootin are you not? If I take away the part about
advertising in the charter, what is left?

No, you focused on advertising, and when I proved you absolutely wrong,
you changed your argument. You have proven that any attempt to carry on
a conversation with you is a total waste of time. Goodbye, and good luck.

They were right!
Never give a mug an even break!

--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

Jeff R.

2009-07-04 00:05:33 UTC

Post by D-Mac
You bigots can all pile shit on me all you like.

Thanks Doug.
I'll take that as explicit, written permission to continue to post my
satirical review of your work:

http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html

...and continue to invite you to refute *any* of the facts I present there.

Any of them.

Just one.

(You can't, can you!)

--
Jeff R.

George Kerby

2009-07-05 16:39:14 UTC

Post by Noons
Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific
commercial site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Not true.
I have made submissions to SI and have yet to become a Pbase
subscriber. In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and
have no intention of doing so.

I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

Too bad you can't add "photography" to that list of 'talents' that are so
proud...

Noons

2009-07-03 16:48:21 UTC

Post by tony cooper
Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations.
Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment.

Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific
commercial site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Not true.
I have made submissions to SI and have yet to become a Pbase subscriber.
In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and have no
intention of doing so.

You run your own server. How many other folks who are potential SI users do you
think do that? 1?
Before I get "heaps more", consider this: the number of potential server users
in SI is a very small fraction compared to the number of those who use hosted
servers.
Which in this case is easier if it is pbase.
Therefore, it is a scam.
The fact there is one exception - yours- is no proof of lack of intention.

Savageduck

2009-07-03 17:24:19 UTC

Post by tony cooper
Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations.
Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment.

Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific
commercial site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Not true.
I have made submissions to SI and have yet to become a Pbase
subscriber. In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and
have no intention of doing so.

You run your own server. How many other folks who are potential SI
users do you think do that? 1?

Who knows? That is my choice, and since many ISPs provide some space on
their servers most could use a similar option.

Post by Noons
Before I get "heaps more", consider this: the number of potential
server users in SI is a very small fraction compared to the number of
those who use hosted servers.
Which in this case is easier if it is pbase.
Therefore, it is a scam.
The fact there is one exception - yours- is no proof of lack of intention.

I think if you took an actual poll amongst the regulars in these NGs (&
the lurkers) you might find many of them have accounts with more than
one photo sharing site and quite a few use server space they have
access to.

I probably shouldn't have confused this further by saying how I did things.
If you actually understood what I wrote, you might have noted that any
individual, however late they come to the party can submit an image to
SI. There is no obligation to share in the costs of the Pbase account,
thanks to the altruism of some of the contributers to these NGs.

At which point do you feel you have in anyway been solicited, or had
your arm twisted to contribute financially??

...and since you have decided you have no interest in SI, I suggest you
filter on [SI] and not bother yourself with any of this discussion in
the future.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

tony cooper

2009-07-03 17:59:26 UTC

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:24:19 -0700, Savageduck

Post by tony cooper
Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations.
Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment.

Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific
commercial site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Not true.
I have made submissions to SI and have yet to become a Pbase
subscriber. In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and
have no intention of doing so.

You run your own server. How many other folks who are potential SI
users do you think do that? 1?

Who knows? That is my choice, and since many ISPs provide some space on
their servers most could use a similar option.

I have a (paid) SmugMug account and gallery, I use the (free)
Photobucket image host, I (infrequently) use Flickr, my ISP provides
me with some image hosting, and I have registered with two other hosts
that I rarely use.

I suspect that Noons has manufactured this excuse because he is
insecure about his photographic abilities and wants some excuse not to
enter submissions in the Shoot-In. Why, I don't know. I can't
imagine anyone caring if he does or doesn't.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Frank ess

2009-07-03 18:45:32 UTC

Post by tony cooper
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 10:24:19 -0700, Savageduck

Post by tony cooper
Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations.
Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment.

Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific
commercial site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Not true.
I have made submissions to SI and have yet to become a Pbase
subscriber. In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing
sites, and have no intention of doing so.

You run your own server. How many other folks who are potential SI
users do you think do that? 1?

Who knows? That is my choice, and since many ISPs provide some
space on their servers most could use a similar option.

Post by Noons
Before I get "heaps more", consider this: the number of potential
server users in SI is a very small fraction compared to the
number of those who use hosted servers.
Which in this case is easier if it is pbase.
Therefore, it is a scam.
The fact there is one exception - yours- is no proof of lack of intention.

I have a (paid) SmugMug account and gallery, I use the (free)
Photobucket image host, I (infrequently) use Flickr, my ISP provides
me with some image hosting, and I have registered with two other
hosts that I rarely use.
I suspect that Noons has manufactured this excuse because he is
insecure about his photographic abilities and wants some excuse not
to enter submissions in the Shoot-In. Why, I don't know. I can't
imagine anyone caring if he does or doesn't.

I suspect "Noons" posts here - or anywhere - just to reassure himself
he exists. I suspect your post (and mine) are exactly what he is
after.

I quit, twice and for all.

--
Frank ess

Alan Browne

2009-07-03 19:55:00 UTC

Post by Savageduck
I think if you took an actual poll amongst the regulars in these NGs (&
the lurkers) you might find many of them have accounts with more than
one photo sharing site and quite a few use server space they have access
to.

I have phot accounts with photo.net (3 yr) and several others, non paid,
that I don't use very much.

Recently I've taken to adding photos to Google Earth via panorimo,
however the time from uploading a photo to it appearing in Google Earth
is 1 - 2 months (they do 1 cycle and upload every month).

I don't know how Noons got the notion that the use of Pbase for the SI
is some sort of scam to the benefit of Pbase. It's laughable. It was
just the pick of Bret way back when the SI was founded and he
volunteered to find hosting space for it - and paid the dues. If Noons
were not such a lazy prat he could Google away for the conversations in
rpe35mm around the time that Lisa proposed the SI and see how it came about.

Noons

2009-07-06 10:26:46 UTC

I have phot accounts with photo.net (3 yr) and several others, non paid,
that I don't use very much.
Recently I've taken to adding photos to Google Earth via panorimo,
however the time from uploading a photo to it appearing in Google Earth
is 1 - 2 months (they do 1 cycle and upload every month).
I don't know how Noons got the notion that the use of Pbase for the SI
is some sort of scam to the benefit of Pbase. It's laughable. It was
just the pick of Bret way back when the SI was founded and he
volunteered to find hosting space for it - and paid the dues. If Noons
were not such a lazy prat he could Google away for the conversations in
rpe35mm around the time that Lisa proposed the SI and see how it came about.

Stop lying, twit.

Noons

2009-07-06 10:25:41 UTC

Post by Noons
You run your own server. How many other folks who are potential SI
users do you think do that? 1?

Who knows? That is my choice, and since many ISPs provide some space on
their servers most could use a similar option.

"similar" does not mean "the same".

I think you have an over-inflated opinion about the number
of people involved. The multiple voices from the trolls are not "people"...

Post by Savageduck
I probably shouldn't have confused this further by saying how I did things.

But it helps others understand my points, so thank you.

Post by Savageduck
SI. There is no obligation to share in the costs of the Pbase account,
thanks to the altruism of some of the contributers to these NGs.

<yawn>

Post by Savageduck
At which point do you feel you have in anyway been solicited, or had
your arm twisted to contribute financially??

At the point where ANY photo posted that is not hosted in pbase is immediately
pounced upon and commented or defaced in a derogatory manner by the pbase users
here.

Post by Savageduck
...and since you have decided you have no interest in SI, I suggest you
filter on [SI] and not bother yourself with any of this discussion in
the future.

I don't participate in the SI and I made it very clear. Nothing new there.

But if you had the intelligence to go back to my first reply in this thread,
you'd notice that it came about after the moron hillbilly twit decided to make
a derogatory remark about me.

THAT, I replied to and I shall do so ANY time it happens, and there is
preciously NOTHING that will stop me from doing so.

You don't want to see those in SI threads? Stop that twit from using the SI to
make derogatory comments about others . Very simple.

I told you twits a long time ago that I don't sit by and shut up when someone
presses my buttons: never did, never will, and not a single one or all of
you together will ever be able to stop me from doing so.

Capice?

Savageduck

2009-07-06 12:37:35 UTC

Post by Noons
You run your own server. How many other folks who are potential SI
users do you think do that? 1?

Who knows? That is my choice, and since many ISPs provide some space on
their servers most could use a similar option.

"similar" does not mean "the same".

I think you have an over-inflated opinion about the number
of people involved. The multiple voices from the trolls are not "people"...

Post by Savageduck
I probably shouldn't have confused this further by saying how I did things.

But it helps others understand my points, so thank you.

Post by Savageduck
SI. There is no obligation to share in the costs of the Pbase account,
thanks to the altruism of some of the contributers to these NGs.

<yawn>

Post by Savageduck
At which point do you feel you have in anyway been solicited, or had
your arm twisted to contribute financially??

At the point where ANY photo posted that is not hosted in pbase is
immediately pounced upon and commented or defaced in a derogatory
manner by the pbase users here.

Post by Savageduck
...and since you have decided you have no interest in SI, I suggest you
filter on [SI] and not bother yourself with any of this discussion in
the future.

I don't participate in the SI and I made it very clear. Nothing new there.
But if you had the intelligence to go back to my first reply in this
thread, you'd notice that it came about after the moron hillbilly twit
decided to make
a derogatory remark about me.
THAT, I replied to and I shall do so ANY time it happens, and there is
preciously NOTHING that will stop me from doing so.
You don't want to see those in SI threads? Stop that twit from using
the SI to make derogatory comments about others . Very simple.
I told you twits a long time ago that I don't sit by and shut up when
someone presses my buttons: never did, never will, and not a single one
or all of
you together will ever be able to stop me from doing so.
Capice?

"Capice?" ???! :-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck

DRS

2009-07-06 12:48:24 UTC

[...]

Post by Noons
Capice?

"Capice?" ???! :-)

"Understand?"

He was having a Godfather moment.

Doug Jewell

2009-07-03 22:26:54 UTC

Post by tony cooper
Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations.
Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment.

Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific
commercial site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Not true.
I have made submissions to SI and have yet to become a Pbase
subscriber. In actual fact I do not use any of the sharing sites, and
have no intention of doing so.

You run your own server. How many other folks who are potential SI
users do you think do that? 1?
Before I get "heaps more", consider this: the number of potential server
users in SI is a very small fraction compared to the number of those who
use hosted servers.
Which in this case is easier if it is pbase.
Therefore, it is a scam.
The fact there is one exception - yours- is no proof of lack of intention.

I have contributed to the SI, not nearly as frequently as I
should have (I think it might only be twice), but I have
never used pbase, nor paid them a cent, nor have I ever had
pbase want money from me. While I know that at various times
Alan & Bret (& possibly others) have paid the pbase
subscription fee, at no time has either of these said "Doug,
we want money from you if you are going to participate".

If you are going to use the argument that every SI post is
advertising pbase, then I will use the argument that every
post made by someone use uses bigpond, aol, etc is
advertising their isp. Someone who posts a letter is
advertising Australia Post or the US Postal Service. This is
rubbish. Just because you need (or choose) to use a
commercial provider as a carriage medium doesn't mean you
are advertising their services.

As research for this post I went to their home page for the
first time ever and looked at what they do offer for
accounts. They don't offer free accounts, (other than 30
day trials), but that's not surprising because it (shock
horror) costs money to provide their service. There are
sites like Picasa & Flickr which will allow more storage for
free than pbase, but they put advertising on their pages.
They need to get the money to pay for the service from
somewhere.

I ask, which activity is closer to spam: hosting the photos
on a commercial site that someone has paid a subscription
fee so that the viewers don't see ads, or hosting the photos
on a free site but every viewer gets subjected to ads?

IMO neither is spamming the newsgroups, because in both
cases it is the photo being promoted not the carriage
medium, but the 2nd option does subject the viewer to more
advertising.

--
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!

Noons

2009-07-06 10:30:33 UTC

If you are going to use the argument that every SI post is advertising
pbase, then I will use the argument that every post made by someone use
uses bigpond, aol, etc is advertising their isp. Someone who posts a
letter is advertising Australia Post or the US Postal Service. This is
rubbish. Just because you need (or choose) to use a commercial provider
as a carriage medium doesn't mean you are advertising their services.

With the slight difference of course that the ones you described are ISPs and
therefore essential to anyone online. While pbase is not a ISP nor does it need
to be.

I could go on, but let's not allow a simple fact like that destroy your well
manufactured piece of flawed logic...

tony cooper

2009-07-03 16:10:39 UTC

Post by tony cooper
Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations.
Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment.

Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific commercial site,
namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Wazzat? Is that why you haven't entered the Shoot-In? You thought
you needed to purchase a subscription?

Pbase is an image host. One way or the other, all image hosts require
someone to pay. It may be part of your ISP's bill, it might be by
advertising, it might be by subscription, or it might be by purchasing
a domain.

In any case, *you* are not being solicited to subscribe to Pbase.
Someone else has done that for you.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Noons

2009-07-03 16:51:53 UTC

Post by Noons
Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific commercial site,
namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Wazzat? Is that why you haven't entered the Shoot-In?

No.

Post by tony cooper
You thought
you needed to purchase a subscription?

No.

Post by tony cooper
Pbase is an image host. One way or the other, all image hosts require
someone to pay. It may be part of your ISP's bill, it might be by
advertising, it might be by subscription, or it might be by purchasing
a domain.

And that is new information exactly how?

Post by tony cooper
In any case, *you* are not being solicited to subscribe to Pbase.
Someone else has done that for you.

Perhaps someone who has a vested interest in pbase increasing its traffic and
therefore attracting more customers? I call that a scam.

tony cooper

2009-07-03 18:12:15 UTC

Post by Noons
Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific commercial site,
namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Wazzat? Is that why you haven't entered the Shoot-In?

No.

Post by tony cooper
You thought
you needed to purchase a subscription?

No.

And that is new information exactly how?

Based on the type of comments you make here, that the sun appears
first in the east may be new information for you. I would never make
the mistake of over-estimating your knowledge of anything.

Post by tony cooper
In any case, *you* are not being solicited to subscribe to Pbase.
Someone else has done that for you.

Perhaps someone who has a vested interest in pbase increasing its traffic and
therefore attracting more customers? I call that a scam.

Explain that. Pbase is owned by Chuck and Emily Neel out of Chapel
Hill, NC. It appears to be a private venture by these two
individuals. You can read about the particulars at
http://www.pbase.com/slug/profile

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Noons

2009-07-06 10:32:51 UTC

And that is new information exactly how?

Based on the type of comments you make here, that the sun appears
first in the east may be new information for you. I would never make
the mistake of over-estimating your knowledge of anything.

That's ok, because I don't give a shit what you might think, say or do.

Post by tony cooper
Explain that. Pbase is owned by Chuck and Emily Neel out of Chapel
Hill, NC. It appears to be a private venture by these two
individuals. You can read about the particulars at
http://www.pbase.com/slug/profile

Are you saying they are the ONLY employees of that company?
The ONLY ones? And that it is the only business they participate in?

Bowser

2009-07-03 19:52:13 UTC

Post by Noons
Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific commercial
site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Wazzat? Is that why you haven't entered the Shoot-In?

No.

Post by tony cooper
You thought
you needed to purchase a subscription?

No.

And that is new information exactly how?

Post by tony cooper
In any case, *you* are not being solicited to subscribe to Pbase.
Someone else has done that for you.

Perhaps someone who has a vested interest in pbase increasing its traffic
and therefore attracting more customers? I call that a scam.

The shootin has been "hosted" be several of the regs here. I'm just the
latest one. I have no interest in Pbase, that's just where it was set up
originally. If you can prove otherwise, have at it. I'll bet my house
against a donut you can't.

Bob Larter

2009-07-04 04:23:33 UTC

Post by Noons
Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific
commercial site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Wazzat? Is that why you haven't entered the Shoot-In?

No.

Post by tony cooper
You thought
you needed to purchase a subscription?

No.

And that is new information exactly how?

Post by tony cooper
In any case, *you* are not being solicited to subscribe to Pbase.
Someone else has done that for you.

Perhaps someone who has a vested interest in pbase increasing its
traffic and therefore attracting more customers? I call that a scam.

Now you're just being stupid. In your opinion, where the hell is he
supposed to host the photos? - They have to go *somewhere*!

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Noons

2009-07-06 10:33:33 UTC

Post by Bob Larter
Now you're just being stupid. In your opinion, where the hell is he
supposed to host the photos? - They have to go *somewhere*!

Try a free site?

Doug Jewell

2009-07-06 11:01:56 UTC

Post by Bob Larter
Now you're just being stupid. In your opinion, where the hell is he
supposed to host the photos? - They have to go *somewhere*!

Try a free site?

So which free site is free for the volume of images and
views SI generates, and doesn't have ads? I can't say I've
seen any free sites that are ad free, although I'd be glad
to be proven wrong.

Or are you saying you'd prefer everyone who looks at it be
subjected to ads, rather than one or 2 people paying out of
the goodness of their hearts, so that everyone else can see
the photos sans-advertisements.

If that is what you would prefer, then you are an idiot.

Bowser

2009-07-03 19:50:21 UTC

Post by tony cooper
Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations.
Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment.

Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific commercial
site, namely pbase.
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

Say hi to your dad the Lama for me.

You don't need any such thing to submit a photo for the Shootin. Just the
correct e-mail address to send you pic. Nice try...

Bob Larter

2009-07-04 04:14:34 UTC

Post by tony cooper
Shoot-In posts are not an advertisement. They are invitations.
Invitations to submit, to show, and to comment.

Which you can only do if you buy a subscription to a specific commercial
site, namely pbase.

Huh? You mail your submissions to Bowser, & he puts them up on the page.
No subscription or purchase required.

Post by Noons
Of course: that is not scamming. And I am the Dalai Lama's lost son.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bowser

2009-07-03 19:48:36 UTC

Post by Savageduck
Doug,
You are loosing me on this one. first how on Earth could a link to a
non-commercial Pbase site be considered spam?
The X-Posts were to groups where the proposal was relevant, and therefore
not offensive within posting guidelines.
Certainly given this proposed SI subject (Kodachrome archive shots) it
would be appropriately posted in RPDSS & RPE35mm, given that Kodachrome
could be loosely described as "part of an SLR system" and "35mm equipment."
In a usual SI proposal I would not be opposed to the exclusion of those 2
groups (RPDSS & RPE35mm) and the inclusion of alt.photography in the
X-Post.
I have no idea what Bowser's news provider limits him to with regard to
X-Posts. Mine limits me to 4, and will block any post with more than 4
X-Posts. There have been times I have had to delete some of the
inappropriate X-Posts to 4 or less, so I could post a response.
The SI provides the photo groups a diversion from some of the annoying
bitching, and gets us back to thinking of photography. So on this issue
lighten up some.

I see.
So the rules: "Explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements" and
"Whether personal private or commercial" should actually exclude
advertising Shootin, should they?

An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts
constitute advertising? Please explain.

Post by Shon Kei
You can't have it both ways. Either all forms of advertising are
"explicitly prohibited" or they are explicitly permitted. Which is it?
You might think Shootin is "relevant" to the cross posted groups but the
charter of them says differently. Are you suggesting then that everyone
should ignore the rules Alan Brown formulated and make up their own (as he
did) or just go back to anarchy and let anything prevail?
If you don't follow the rules, everything is fair game. Including posting
pornography and binary files in these groups (annika1980 is going to love
the last bit if that's what you are suggesting).

Shon Kei

2009-07-03 23:13:31 UTC

Post by Bowser
An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts
constitute advertising? Please explain.

This is from a Wiki. There are thousands of other site providing
descriptions of what constitutes an advertisment.

Almost all of them mention alternative ways for you arouse awareness of
shootin. Why don't you use them? You don't seem to be doing too well
pissing people off with your cross posted crap.

---------------------------------------
Organizations that frequently spend large sums of money on advertising
that sells what is not, strictly speaking, a product or service include
political parties, *interest groups*, religious organizations, and
military recruiters.
----------------------------------------

It is quite wrong of you to presume just because you don't charge a fee
or sell a product that you are not advertising a service as an interest.
For that matter, you are promoting pbase although probably not
intentionally.

The service you advertise could well be seen as critique of entries or
somewhere to display your alternative techniques. Whatever it is, you
are offering a service - paid or not.

You encourage critique activity which is also cross posted to groups
where discussions of this nature are "Explicitly" off topic.

I don't have a problem with shootin's existence or the plethora of
mistakes each manager seems hell bent on reproducing.

My concern is that the way you are promoting it is counter productive
and very annoying. Where did you get the idea subscribers to a group
don't read similar groups? The whole idea of forking RPD in the first
place was to avoid shit like this being all in one big group. Here you
are a few years on, going backwards so it is in one big group - Four of
them!

You are losing contributors, not gaining them and seem hell bent on
destroying the whole thing out of bigotry and pig headedness. You made
rules for shootin - why not follow the rules (charter) of the groups you
cross post into?

Alan Browne

2009-07-04 03:43:58 UTC

Post by Shon Kei
You don't seem to be doing too well
pissing people off with your cross posted crap.

Shon Kei come lately?

*plonk*

Bowser

2009-07-04 21:21:49 UTC

I killed him, as well. Another sock puppet, I guess...

Post by Shon Kei
You don't seem to be doing too well
pissing people off with your cross posted crap.

Shon Kei come lately?
*plonk*

Atheist Chaplain

2009-07-04 05:11:37 UTC

Post by Bowser
An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts
constitute advertising? Please explain.

This is from a Wiki. There are thousands of other site providing
descriptions of what constitutes an advertisment.
Almost all of them mention alternative ways for you arouse awareness of
shootin. Why don't you use them? You don't seem to be doing too well
pissing people off with your cross posted crap.
---------------------------------------
Organizations that frequently spend large sums of money on advertising
that sells what is not, strictly speaking, a product or service include
political parties, *interest groups*, religious organizations, and
military recruiters.
----------------------------------------
It is quite wrong of you to presume just because you don't charge a fee or
sell a product that you are not advertising a service as an interest. For
that matter, you are promoting pbase although probably not intentionally.
The service you advertise could well be seen as critique of entries or
somewhere to display your alternative techniques. Whatever it is, you are
offering a service - paid or not.
You encourage critique activity which is also cross posted to groups where
discussions of this nature are "Explicitly" off topic.
I don't have a problem with shootin's existence or the plethora of
mistakes each manager seems hell bent on reproducing.
My concern is that the way you are promoting it is counter productive and
very annoying. Where did you get the idea subscribers to a group don't
read similar groups? The whole idea of forking RPD in the first place was
to avoid shit like this being all in one big group. Here you are a few
years on, going backwards so it is in one big group - Four of them!
You are losing contributors, not gaining them and seem hell bent on
destroying the whole thing out of bigotry and pig headedness. You made
rules for shootin - why not follow the rules (charter) of the groups you
cross post into?

Actually YOUR the one doing his best to destroy it Douggie, after all your
the only one here objecting to the SI postings, your the only one trying to
pick the fights over the SI postings and your the only one dirty with the
whole thing, and maybe a bit of history will show why, wasn't it you (In one
of your many many guises/sock puppets/ever changing names) that suggested
that you could host a photographic competition, hell you suggested that
because of your standing within the industry you could even get sponsorship
and prizes from major companies and maybe you could make a few dollars from
the whole thing. That idea was soundly rejected by everyone and instead
someone recommended that the SI be resurrected and a FREE photo sharing and
critiquing (and I use this word loosely) competition was re-born. Everyone
rejected your idea because lets face it, no one here trusts you as far as we
could throw your fat ugly arse. So from then on you have had the dirt's with
the SI and take every opportunity to try and stir dissent, it didn't work
then and its not working now so maybe you should just man up, grow a spine
(now that you finally have one surgically implanted) and maybe submit
something instead of trying to bring it down.

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

Riahlitty Czech

2009-07-04 05:23:37 UTC

Post by Bowser
An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts
constitute advertising? Please explain.

This is from a Wiki. There are thousands of other site providing
descriptions of what constitutes an advertisment.
Almost all of them mention alternative ways for you arouse awareness of
shootin. Why don't you use them? You don't seem to be doing too well
pissing people off with your cross posted crap.
---------------------------------------
Organizations that frequently spend large sums of money on advertising
that sells what is not, strictly speaking, a product or service include
political parties, *interest groups*, religious organizations, and
military recruiters.
----------------------------------------
It is quite wrong of you to presume just because you don't charge a fee or
sell a product that you are not advertising a service as an interest. For
that matter, you are promoting pbase although probably not intentionally.
The service you advertise could well be seen as critique of entries or
somewhere to display your alternative techniques. Whatever it is, you are
offering a service - paid or not.
You encourage critique activity which is also cross posted to groups where
discussions of this nature are "Explicitly" off topic.
I don't have a problem with shootin's existence or the plethora of
mistakes each manager seems hell bent on reproducing.
My concern is that the way you are promoting it is counter productive and
very annoying. Where did you get the idea subscribers to a group don't
read similar groups? The whole idea of forking RPD in the first place was
to avoid shit like this being all in one big group. Here you are a few
years on, going backwards so it is in one big group - Four of them!
You are losing contributors, not gaining them and seem hell bent on
destroying the whole thing out of bigotry and pig headedness. You made
rules for shootin - why not follow the rules (charter) of the groups you
cross post into?

The only ones destroying [SI] are those that are posting images to it.
Seriously. Have you ever looked at those beginner's snapshots that people
post there?

C'mon. Get real. It's nothing but beginner snapshooters who are looking for
praise for their lack of talent. That's all it is. I could care less if it
exists or not. It's only meant to attract snapshooters who are trying to
figure out if their camera purchase was worth it or not. That's all it is
and ever was.

So what if a bunch of happy snapshooters are looking for a place to
congregate. All of Flickr is loaded to the brim with that type. What's the
big deal if there's yet one more outlet for their doubts and insecurities
about their inability to hold a camera properly. It matters not.

Ghetta Gryp

Atheist Chaplain

2009-07-04 05:28:57 UTC

Post by Riahlitty Czech

Post by Bowser
An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts
constitute advertising? Please explain.

This is from a Wiki. There are thousands of other site providing
descriptions of what constitutes an advertisment.
Almost all of them mention alternative ways for you arouse awareness of
shootin. Why don't you use them? You don't seem to be doing too well
pissing people off with your cross posted crap.
---------------------------------------
Organizations that frequently spend large sums of money on advertising
that sells what is not, strictly speaking, a product or service include
political parties, *interest groups*, religious organizations, and
military recruiters.
----------------------------------------
It is quite wrong of you to presume just because you don't charge a fee or
sell a product that you are not advertising a service as an interest. For
that matter, you are promoting pbase although probably not
intentionally.
The service you advertise could well be seen as critique of entries or
somewhere to display your alternative techniques. Whatever it is, you are
offering a service - paid or not.
You encourage critique activity which is also cross posted to groups where
discussions of this nature are "Explicitly" off topic.
I don't have a problem with shootin's existence or the plethora of
mistakes each manager seems hell bent on reproducing.
My concern is that the way you are promoting it is counter productive and
very annoying. Where did you get the idea subscribers to a group don't
read similar groups? The whole idea of forking RPD in the first place was
to avoid shit like this being all in one big group. Here you are a few
years on, going backwards so it is in one big group - Four of them!
You are losing contributors, not gaining them and seem hell bent on
destroying the whole thing out of bigotry and pig headedness. You made
rules for shootin - why not follow the rules (charter) of the groups you
cross post into?

The only ones destroying [SI] are those that are posting images to it.
Seriously. Have you ever looked at those beginner's snapshots that people
post there?
C'mon. Get real. It's nothing but beginner snapshooters who are looking for
praise for their lack of talent. That's all it is. I could care less if it
exists or not. It's only meant to attract snapshooters who are trying to
figure out if their camera purchase was worth it or not. That's all it is
and ever was.
So what if a bunch of happy snapshooters are looking for a place to
congregate. All of Flickr is loaded to the brim with that type. What's the
big deal if there's yet one more outlet for their doubts and insecurities
about their inability to hold a camera properly. It matters not.
Ghetta Gryp

Gee Douggie your really pulling out all the stops today in your trolling
attempts :-)

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

Savageduck

2009-07-04 05:36:43 UTC

Post by Riahlitty Czech

Post by Bowser
An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts
constitute advertising? Please explain.

This is from a Wiki. There are thousands of other site providing
descriptions of what constitutes an advertisment.
Almost all of them mention alternative ways for you arouse awareness of
shootin. Why don't you use them? You don't seem to be doing too well
pissing people off with your cross posted crap.
---------------------------------------
Organizations that frequently spend large sums of money on advertising
that sells what is not, strictly speaking, a product or service include
political parties, *interest groups*, religious organizations, and
military recruiters.
----------------------------------------
It is quite wrong of you to presume just because you don't charge a fee or
sell a product that you are not advertising a service as an interest. For
that matter, you are promoting pbase although probably not intentionally.
The service you advertise could well be seen as critique of entries or
somewhere to display your alternative techniques. Whatever it is, you are
offering a service - paid or not.
You encourage critique activity which is also cross posted to groups where
discussions of this nature are "Explicitly" off topic.
I don't have a problem with shootin's existence or the plethora of
mistakes each manager seems hell bent on reproducing.
My concern is that the way you are promoting it is counter productive and
very annoying. Where did you get the idea subscribers to a group don't
read similar groups? The whole idea of forking RPD in the first place was
to avoid shit like this being all in one big group. Here you are a few
years on, going backwards so it is in one big group - Four of them!
You are losing contributors, not gaining them and seem hell bent on
destroying the whole thing out of bigotry and pig headedness. You made
rules for shootin - why not follow the rules (charter) of the groups you
cross post into?

The only ones destroying [SI] are those that are posting images to it.
Seriously. Have you ever looked at those beginner's snapshots that people
post there?
C'mon. Get real. It's nothing but beginner snapshooters who are looking for
praise for their lack of talent. That's all it is. I could care less if it
exists or not. It's only meant to attract snapshooters who are trying to
figure out if their camera purchase was worth it or not. That's all it is
and ever was.
So what if a bunch of happy snapshooters are looking for a place to
congregate. All of Flickr is loaded to the brim with that type. What's the
big deal if there's yet one more outlet for their doubts and insecurities
about their inability to hold a camera properly. It matters not.
Ghetta Gryp

Gee Douggie your really pulling out all the stops today in your
trolling attempts :-)

Doug isn't to blame for that one. That was the nym shifting P&S troll.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Atheist Chaplain

2009-07-04 05:47:55 UTC

Post by Riahlitty Czech

Post by Bowser
An advertisement is an invitation to do business. How do the SI posts
constitute advertising? Please explain.

This is from a Wiki. There are thousands of other site providing
descriptions of what constitutes an advertisment.
Almost all of them mention alternative ways for you arouse awareness of
shootin. Why don't you use them? You don't seem to be doing too well
pissing people off with your cross posted crap.
---------------------------------------
Organizations that frequently spend large sums of money on advertising
that sells what is not, strictly speaking, a product or service include
political parties, *interest groups*, religious organizations, and
military recruiters.
----------------------------------------
It is quite wrong of you to presume just because you don't charge a fee or
sell a product that you are not advertising a service as an interest. For
that matter, you are promoting pbase although probably not
intentionally.
The service you advertise could well be seen as critique of entries or
somewhere to display your alternative techniques. Whatever it is, you are
offering a service - paid or not.
You encourage critique activity which is also cross posted to groups where
discussions of this nature are "Explicitly" off topic.
I don't have a problem with shootin's existence or the plethora of
mistakes each manager seems hell bent on reproducing.
My concern is that the way you are promoting it is counter productive and
very annoying. Where did you get the idea subscribers to a group don't
read similar groups? The whole idea of forking RPD in the first place was
to avoid shit like this being all in one big group. Here you are a few
years on, going backwards so it is in one big group - Four of them!
You are losing contributors, not gaining them and seem hell bent on
destroying the whole thing out of bigotry and pig headedness. You made
rules for shootin - why not follow the rules (charter) of the groups you
cross post into?

The only ones destroying [SI] are those that are posting images to it.
Seriously. Have you ever looked at those beginner's snapshots that people
post there?
C'mon. Get real. It's nothing but beginner snapshooters who are looking for
praise for their lack of talent. That's all it is. I could care less if it
exists or not. It's only meant to attract snapshooters who are trying to
figure out if their camera purchase was worth it or not. That's all it is
and ever was.
So what if a bunch of happy snapshooters are looking for a place to
congregate. All of Flickr is loaded to the brim with that type. What's the
big deal if there's yet one more outlet for their doubts and
insecurities
about their inability to hold a camera properly. It matters not.
Ghetta Gryp

Gee Douggie your really pulling out all the stops today in your trolling
attempts :-)

Doug isn't to blame for that one. That was the nym shifting P&S troll.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

sorry, jumping at shadows here.
Its been a long day so far and it aint over yet :-)

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

Annika1980

2009-07-04 15:33:11 UTC

Post by Atheist Chaplain
Actually YOUR the one doing his best to destroy it Douggie, after all your
the only one here objecting to the SI postings, your the only one trying to
pick the fights over the SI postings and your the only one dirty with the
whole thing, and maybe a bit of history will show why

Douggie is simply using the Shootin as a way to resurrect old battles
with me and Alan Browne, and perhaps start some new ones with anyone
who has anything to do with us.

D-Mac conveniently forgets how he attempted to sabotage the old SI
when I was hosting it by sending in fake pics under a variety of
names. Right, Svetlana?

Shon Kei

2009-07-04 21:20:01 UTC

Post by Annika1980

Douggie is simply using the Shootin as a way to resurrect old battles
with me and Alan Browne, and perhaps start some new ones with anyone
who has anything to do with us.
D-Mac conveniently forgets how he attempted to sabotage the old SI
when I was hosting it by sending in fake pics under a variety of
names. Right, Svetlana?

I seriously didn't send that one but I wish I had. It got you running
around in circles like a chook with feather stuck up it's arse, big
time! Ha, ha.

Mine were a lot more conservative. Like the fake lightning bolt I pasted
over a midday sun shot I darkened. You thought it was awesome!
You, the self promoting, chest beating Photoshop Guru! ROTFL. Anything
that makes you look stupid is good fun.

Annika1980

2009-07-05 04:15:27 UTC

Post by Annika1980
D-Mac conveniently forgets how he attempted to sabotage the old SI
when I was hosting it by sending in fake pics under a variety of
names. Right, Svetlana?

I seriously didn't send that one but I wish I had. It got you running
around in circles like a chook with feather stuck up it's arse, big
time! Ha, ha.

If you didn't post it then you wouldn't have known about me running
around in circles. You must be talking about some e-mail
correspondence I had with Svetlana.

Larry Thong

2009-07-05 12:19:11 UTC

Post by Annika1980
D-Mac conveniently forgets how he attempted to sabotage the old SI
when I was hosting it by sending in fake pics under a variety of
names. Right, Svetlana?

I knew Svetlana a long time ago.

http://www.rfparts.com/tubesvet.html

jurgenhaus

2009-07-05 21:53:32 UTC

Post by Larry Thong

Post by Annika1980
D-Mac conveniently forgets how he attempted to sabotage the old SI
when I was hosting it by sending in fake pics under a variety of
names. Right, Svetlana?

I knew Svetlana a long time ago.
http://www.rfparts.com/tubesvet.html

Ha, ha, ha... ROTFL.
He never did get it and you had to go and spoil it all!

Annika1980

2009-07-03 01:16:42 UTC

Post by D-Mac
It's not a belief it's a known fact. *ADVERTISING IS SPAM*.
Netetiquette and most of the charters for news groups, as well as
Bowsers own news provider prohibit what he's doing and prohibit cross
posting to more than 3 groups.
Bowser is following in the footsteps of Alan Brown by Cross posting to 4
groups and only 2 of them are photography relative. The other two are
for discussion about equipment.
One of them forbids what he's doing. Does that stop him? No! He doesn't
give a rat's arse about Netetiquette or for that matter, the rules under
which he gets access to Usenet.
The curious part is that Alan Brown formulated the charter for r.p.d.
"This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of
any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other
promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography."
Tell me now John, that bowsers posts are not advertising shootin and
pbase. Or are you less of a hypocrite than you come across as being?
Alan in his typical bigoted way, started the spam from shootin going to
groups where it is unwanted and in the process, totally ignored his own
rules. That makes three major transgressions by him of the rules he
formulated for that group. What a bloody hypocrite
In case you have lost track of what society is and why those societies
that have rules prosper and those founded on anarchy eventually fall
into disarray like Usenet is doing, there is no purpose in making rules
if no one bothers to abide by them. The fact Alan Browne formulated the
rules and within hours broke them, is evidence enough that he cares only
about himself... Now Bowser is following in his footsteps.
For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you as
hypocrite too.
--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

WHAT? Not one mention of me or EBAY accounts?
I feel slighted!

http://www.pbase.com/bret

ASAAR

2009-07-04 00:29:27 UTC

Post by Annika1980
WHAT? Not one mention of me or EBAY accounts?
I feel slighted!

Then go to DPReview's forums and feel slightly better. A guy
there (quite the egomaniac) claims to commune with a secret troll
hunting society and occasionally refers to a master troll that
taught "Annika80" all of the evil trollish arts. Not mentioning his
name here just to see if you're even aware of who he is.

Dyna Soar

2009-07-03 01:32:04 UTC

Post by D-Mac
Netetiquette and most of the charters for news groups, as well as
Bowsers own news provider prohibit what he's doing and prohibit cross
posting to more than 3 groups.
For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you
as hypocrite too.

Oh, the bloody irony.
You, Mr Hypocrite, cross posted *your* reply to four groups. Rules, as
described by you for everyone else, are to be obeyed, except by you?

And, yes, I crossposted to four groups. The difference is, I don't regard
four as excessive provided they're relevant.

--
Dyna

All rights reserved. All wrongs avenged.

Doug Jewell

2009-07-03 08:33:56 UTC

Post by D-Mac
It's not a belief it's a known fact. *ADVERTISING IS SPAM*.

And you have openly admitted that you use these newsgroups
to promote your commercial websites and lift your google
rankings.
Very hypocritical don't you think.

Post by D-Mac
Netetiquette and most of the charters for news groups, as well as
Bowsers own news provider prohibit what he's doing and prohibit cross
posting to more than 3 groups.

And yet you've cross-posted your rant to 4 groups.
Very hypocritical don't you think.

Post by D-Mac
Bowser is following in the footsteps of Alan Brown by Cross posting to 4
groups and only 2 of them are photography relative. The other two are
for discussion about equipment.

And yet you've cross-posted your rant to 4 groups, including
the 2 which are "photography relative" by your own admission.
Very hypocritical don't you think.

Post by D-Mac
"This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of
any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other
promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography."

Yet you've posted links to your commercial websites.
Very hypocritical don't you think.

Post by D-Mac
Tell me now John, that bowsers posts are not advertising shootin and
pbase.

They are doing neither. Shootin is not "advertising". The
best way to enhance photography skills is to take
photographs and get critiqued on them, which is what shootin
encourages. It is an invitation to take photographs and have
them critiqued by other participants.
Similarly they are not advertising pbase, they are merely
using it as a medium to distribute the photographs because
newsgroups don't allow binary posts. If posting a link to a
photo that is stored on pbase is advertising then noone
would be able to post any links to any photos.

Post by D-Mac
Or are you less of a hypocrite than you come across as being?

If posting a link to a photo stored on a photo site is
advertising according to you, then posting a link to a photo
stored on a website run by a professional (cough splutter)
photographer is even more so.
Very hypocritical don't you think.

Post by D-Mac
Alan in his typical bigoted way, started the spam from shootin going to
groups where it is unwanted and in the process, totally ignored his own
rules. That makes three major transgressions by him of the rules he
formulated for that group.

Alan's promotion of SI is only against the charter by your
extremely narrow-minded definition.

Post by D-Mac
What a bloody hypocrite

You are, aren't you.

Post by D-Mac
For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you as
hypocrite too.

For you to be even more guilty of spamming, and then accuse
the SI of being spam is more hypocritical than anything done
by any of the SI promoters or participants.

Why all the hatred against SI douggy? is it because people
who aren't "professional" can take better photos than you?
Is it because you think your photos are perfect and can't
handle the critique when people advise tips on how they
could be made better? Or is it just because you are a
bitter old man?

Shon Kei

2009-07-03 23:34:50 UTC

Similarly they are not advertising pbase, they are merely using it as a
medium to distribute the photographs because newsgroups don't allow
binary posts.

That says it all.

So Dougie boy, if newsgroups don't allow binary posts and
RPD.slr-systems doesn't allow discussions side tracking into even
bizarre areas like critique of a photographic submission site - only
about DSLR equipment, where is the difference?

Oh, that's right!
When you want to engage in an activity that is off topic to a group, you
just accuse those who point out the charter of being against whatever it
is that is prohibited in the charter and specifically whatever it is
that you want to do.

That makes sense - *NOT*!

Slow night at the pizza shop is it?

Doug Jewell

2009-07-04 02:42:41 UTC

Similarly they are not advertising pbase, they are merely using it as
a medium to distribute the photographs because newsgroups don't allow
binary posts.

The difference, is in the mechanisms involved in
transmitting the data. Most readers of the NG's don't care
if someone posts something that is only marginally on topic.
That's why posts have subject lines - you can skip over the
subject lines to find the messages that are of interest to
you. Most newsreaders allow filtering so you can chop out
messages that you know will be irrelevant. It's only the
handful of posters that get upset about completely off-topic
posts, and an even smaller group of pedants who get upset by
slightly off-topic posts.

A binary on the other hand will get rejected by most
newsfeeds because newsgroups are designed to be a
low-bandwith communication medium. Although there are binary
newsgroups, very few newsfeeds carry them. The standard
method used for posting in an NG when binary information
needs to be communicated, is to post a link. That way
readers can choose whether they want to follow the link and
download the binary content or not. This is the standard
method that has been used pretty much since the time HTML /
HTTP were first used to display graphics on a website, and
maybe even before that.

Post by Shon Kei
Oh, that's right!
When you want to engage in an activity that is off topic to a group, you
just accuse those who point out the charter of being against whatever it
is that is prohibited in the charter and specifically whatever it is
that you want to do.

For one, posting a link to a photo on a website is not
advertising just because that website is commercial in
nature. Posting links is standard practice to disseminate
information that can't otherwise be posted due to the
non-binary nature of newsgroups, and since almost all
hosting sites are commercial, it's going to be pretty hard
to post a link that isn't hosted on some commercial site.

Furthermore, face facts: posts about a co-ordinated effort
to take photos in a photographic equipment related
newsgroup, are only slightly off-topic, because whether you
like it or not, every photo ever posted on SI has been taken
with photographic equipment. Furthermore, what is the point
of all the photographic equipment if not to take photos.

Post by Shon Kei
That makes sense - *NOT*!

Makes more sense than your hypocritical stance. I take it
that since you didn't challenge me for calling you a
hypocrite, that you agree you are?

Post by Shon Kei
Slow night at the pizza shop is it?

Dunno, I decided to have a lovely home-cooked meal last
night, instead of going out and buying pizza.
I see you are posting on a saturday morning, what would
normally be a very busy time for a wedding photographer.
Slow day in the wedding photography business is it? Drove
past 3 this morning...

--
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!

Bowser

2009-07-03 19:46:34 UTC

Post by D-Mac
It's not a belief it's a known fact. *ADVERTISING IS SPAM*.

How? Where? Can you show me?

Post by D-Mac
Netetiquette and most of the charters for news groups, as well as Bowsers
own news provider prohibit what he's doing and prohibit cross posting to
more than 3 groups.

Once again, USE YOUR FILTER!!! And you'll never see these posts again. Why
can't you just do that?

Post by D-Mac
Bowser is following in the footsteps of Alan Brown by Cross posting to 4
groups and only 2 of them are photography relative. The other two are for
discussion about equipment.
One of them forbids what he's doing. Does that stop him? No! He doesn't
give a rat's arse about Netetiquette or for that matter, the rules under
which he gets access to Usenet.
The curious part is that Alan Brown formulated the charter for r.p.d.
"This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of any
kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other
promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography."
Tell me now John, that bowsers posts are not advertising shootin and
pbase. Or are you less of a hypocrite than you come across as being?
Alan in his typical bigoted way, started the spam from shootin going to
groups where it is unwanted and in the process, totally ignored his own
rules. That makes three major transgressions by him of the rules he
formulated for that group. What a bloody hypocrite
In case you have lost track of what society is and why those societies
that have rules prosper and those founded on anarchy eventually fall into
disarray like Usenet is doing, there is no purpose in making rules if no
one bothers to abide by them. The fact Alan Browne formulated the rules
and within hours broke them, is evidence enough that he cares only about
himself... Now Bowser is following in his footsteps.
For you to speak out in defence of the indefensible just exposes you as
hypocrite too.
--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

Noons

2009-07-03 15:23:27 UTC

Post by John McWilliams
The mission posters are back. There are all of two of them who have
these weird beliefs about pBase...

And the indecent pbase scamming you and others do who have a direct financial
interest in pbase's membership is of course a scenario that conveniently is avoided.

Bruce

2009-07-03 09:21:46 UTC

Post by Bowser
Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos

Interesting use of the word "all" to describe a minority activity.

And a very small minority at that! ;-)

Bob Larter

2009-07-03 09:40:05 UTC

Post by Bowser
Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos

Interesting use of the word "all" to describe a minority activity.
And a very small minority at that! ;-)

<rolls eyes>

We discussed all this when the SI was first invented. Get the fuck over it.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Shon Kei

2009-07-03 23:55:08 UTC

Post by Bob Larter

Post by Bowser
Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos

Interesting use of the word "all" to describe a minority activity.
And a very small minority at that! ;-)

<rolls eyes>
We discussed all this when the SI was first invented. Get the fuck over it.

What was agreed to when Shootin was born was that it would exist in
rec.photo.equipment.35mm. There was never any discussion to cross post
the every newsgroup only vaguely related to photography - whilst
excluding those groups specifically related to photography. It is all
too easy for photographers to see no difference between talking about
their new 1200mm lens and discussing photographic techniques - but there
is a difference and groups exist to differentiate them.

Targeting high traffic groups to cross post into whilst leaving relative
but low traffic groups where the activity would be welcome, to fend for
themselves... Fantastic behaviour by fanatical individuals who can't get
attention any other way but to stick their crap in where it is forbidden
from being. Sort of ironical, isn't it?

There was never any agreement to ignore the charter of other groups.
There was never any discussion about the ethics of posting to groups
where in depth discussion of a person's photographs is prohibited.

In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin. Claiming it was
an off topic activity in r.p.e.35mm and doing your hardest to get rid of
it. Quite a turn around for you.

Less than a handful of people in shootin now. Cosy little thing the
proponents of are very loud in promoting and defending.

I might be swayed into accepting that in the USA Advertising is directly
related to selling something.

I might also be swayed into accepting that shootin is not advertising
anything but you seriously can't try to tell me the posts Bowser is
making are not "promoting it".

--------------------------------------------
"This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of
any kind, whether personal, private or commercial, *as well as all other
promotional material*, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography."
--------------------------------------------

I remember Alan Brown going into depth discussing this issue when he
formulated the forked groups and the rules were specifically written to
prevent this sort of activity. There is quite simply no excuse for even
trying to defend it, much less continuing with it.

GET THE HELL OUT OF R.P.D.slr-systems

mikey4

2009-07-04 00:05:56 UTC

Post by Shon Kei
I might also be swayed into accepting that shootin is not advertising
anything but you seriously can't try to tell me the posts Bowser is making
are not "promoting it".

*Every time* you talk about your Canon or Nikon or whatever camera (film or
digital) you use;
you are "promoting that brand and model. So the question is......... what
is your point?

Bob Larter

2009-07-04 04:33:07 UTC

Shon Kei wrote:
[...]

Post by Shon Kei
In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin. Claiming it was
an off topic activity in r.p.e.35mm and doing your hardest to get rid of
it. Quite a turn around for you.

That's an out & out lie. I was an enthusiastic supporter of the Shoot-In
from day one. I've even submitted a few pictures to it.

Post by Shon Kei
I remember Alan Brown going into depth discussing this issue when he
formulated the forked groups and the rules were specifically written to
prevent this sort of activity. There is quite simply no excuse for even
trying to defend it, much less continuing with it.

Rubbish. By your 'logic', Douggie, you've frequently promoted your own
business in all these groups.

Post by Shon Kei
GET THE HELL OUT OF R.P.D.slr-systems

Go fuck yourself, hypocrite.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bruce

2009-07-04 12:38:15 UTC

Post by Shon Kei
In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin.

A "resister"? It was no effort at all to resist the SI, and I can
assure you I made no effort at all!

Post by Shon Kei
Claiming it was
an off topic activity in r.p.e.35mm and doing your hardest to get rid of
it. Quite a turn around for you.

What turnaround? I have *never* changed my opinion; the Shoot-In is,
and always has been, a futile exercise in mediocrity and an insult to
capable photographers.

And yes, it is also off-topic. ;-)

Shon Kei

2009-07-05 10:23:12 UTC

Post by Shon Kei
In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin.

A "resister"? It was no effort at all to resist the SI, and I can
assure you I made no effort at all!

Post by Shon Kei
Claiming it was
an off topic activity in r.p.e.35mm and doing your hardest to get rid of
it. Quite a turn around for you.

What turnaround? I have *never* changed my opinion; the Shoot-In is,
and always has been, a futile exercise in mediocrity and an insult to
capable photographers.
And yes, it is also off-topic. ;-)

Watch out Lionel...
Your socks are showing!

Bruce

2009-07-05 12:28:06 UTC

Post by Shon Kei
In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin.

A "resister"? It was no effort at all to resist the SI, and I can
assure you I made no effort at all!

Post by Shon Kei
Claiming it was
an off topic activity in r.p.e.35mm and doing your hardest to get rid of
it. Quite a turn around for you.

What turnaround? I have *never* changed my opinion; the Shoot-In is,
and always has been, a futile exercise in mediocrity and an insult to
capable photographers.
And yes, it is also off-topic. ;-)

Watch out Lionel...
Your socks are showing!

Sorry, it was my mistake. I didn't take sufficient care checking the
attribution before replying. Lionel has been in my kill file for years
along with a few other parasites so I see none of his posts. I didn't
immediately realise that you had replied to Lionel, not me.

Alan Browne

2009-07-05 16:25:10 UTC

Post by Bruce
Lionel has been in my kill file for years
along with a few other parasites so I see none of his posts.

Is Tony Polson in there? Or would that be self defeating?

Bob Larter

2009-07-06 01:22:50 UTC

Post by Shon Kei
In fact you were one of the early resister of shootin.

A "resister"? It was no effort at all to resist the SI, and I can
assure you I made no effort at all!

Post by Shon Kei
Claiming it was an off topic activity in r.p.e.35mm and doing your
hardest to get rid of it. Quite a turn around for you.

What turnaround? I have *never* changed my opinion; the Shoot-In is,
and always has been, a futile exercise in mediocrity and an insult to
capable photographers.
And yes, it is also off-topic. ;-)

Watch out Lionel...
Your socks are showing!

That's not me, you moron.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Alan Browne

2009-07-05 17:07:10 UTC

Post by Bruce
What turnaround? I have *never* changed my opinion; the Shoot-In is,
and always has been, a futile exercise in mediocrity and an insult to
capable photographers.

One that you've never had the balls to submit a photo to, right?

Given your standard of photography, you can't make many claims now, can you?

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6688626

Loading Image...

Loading Image...

tony cooper

2009-07-05 17:51:07 UTC

On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:07:10 -0400, Alan Browne

Post by Bruce
What turnaround? I have *never* changed my opinion; the Shoot-In is,
and always has been, a futile exercise in mediocrity and an insult to
capable photographers.

One that you've never had the balls to submit a photo to, right?
Given your standard of photography, you can't make many claims now, can you?
http://abpr.railfan.net/abprphoto.cgi?september98/09-24-98/d9000a.jpg

If the mandate is ever "noise", this would be the one to submit.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Shon Kei

2009-07-05 22:22:40 UTC

Post by tony cooper
On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:07:10 -0400, Alan Browne

Post by Bruce
What turnaround? I have *never* changed my opinion; the Shoot-In is,
and always has been, a futile exercise in mediocrity and an insult to
capable photographers.

If the mandate is ever "noise", this would be the one to submit.

Far be it for me to stick up for the swine but those rail photos were
taken in the days of film and with very high ISO stuff at that. Then he
cropped them which makes the grain even more prominent.

Polson's lies about being terminally ill and at death's doorstep in one
group and being a hard working Paris Match cover shooter (where the
editors having no knowledge of him) and his willingness to be critical
of other people's images when he really hasn't a clue are what gets him
into trouble.

He got off side with me when he said a photo I used Corel Photopaint to
get the size down on, was out of focus when in fact it was perfectly
focused. Had he apologised when I posted an uncompressed version I
wouldn't be on his case now.

Like Alan Browne. Getting an apology out of him is like pulling teeth
from a chook. He seems to think it is possible to measure Lpmm with 12
inch ruler!

Noons

2009-07-03 15:27:16 UTC

Post by Bowser
Uh, pointing people to a site where we all post photos

Interesting use of the word "all" to describe a minority activity.
And a very small minority at that! ;-)

Shhhhhhhh! Don't go around upsetting the voices...

Atheist Chaplain

2009-07-03 01:18:48 UTC

Post by Bowser
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If
you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send
them in. Show us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or
variation of emulsion). Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how
they've held up. The older the better.
http://www.%spamlink*.com/shootin/kodachrome

Or not.
Sounds like a plagiarists dream.

Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from?

Um, Pbase = spam.

Pbase, the photosite, is spam? Since when?

Since you and that Jackass from Tennessee began spamming every bloody
newsgroup on the planet with links to it.

unlike you posting links to your COMMERCIAL web sites eh Douggie. Might be
time for me to point this out every time you link to one of your
"commercial" web sites, though from all the evidence so far, they could be
classed as "Not for Profit" LOL

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

Bill Graham

2009-07-03 02:00:47 UTC

Post by Bowser
Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from?

I wonder if Hormel has a www.spam website?

Bob Larter

2009-07-03 04:49:00 UTC

Post by Bowser
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If
you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send
them in. Show us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or
variation of emulsion). Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how
they've held up. The older the better.
http://www.%spamlink*.com/shootin/kodachrome

Or not.
Sounds like a plagiarists dream.

Where the hell did the "spamlink" link come from?

The idiot kook edited the quoted material.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Pete D

2009-07-02 09:07:27 UTC

Post by Bowser
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If you've
shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send them in.
Show us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or variation of
emulsion). Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how they've held up.
The older the better.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/kodachrome

Might have to load up with some I have in the cupboard gathering dust.

Personally I am normally a RealA person.

Marvin

2009-07-02 14:53:24 UTC

Post by Bowser
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If
you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send
them in. Show us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or variation
of emulsion). Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how they've held
up. The older the better.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/kodachrome

I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors
over-intensely. I won't miss it. One of the things I like
about digital photography is the ability to control color
rendition.

Bowser

2009-07-02 15:13:49 UTC

Post by Bowser
Kodachrome is gone soon, but the images will live quite a while. If
you've shot some Kodachrome, find some good ones, scan them and send
them in. Show us what you liked about Kodachrome (any speed or
variation of emulsion). Show us your oldest Kodachrome shots and how
they've held up. The older the better.
http://www.pbase.com/shootin/kodachrome

I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I
won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is
the ability to control color rendition.

You have company on that one, but I really liked the way Kodachrome
displayed whites and how it looked for landscapes. Flesh tones were OK,
but you had to like the films overall look in order to live with it.
Also, I agree it's no competition for a good digital camera, and that's
why it's gone. But for those of us who have been shooting since the 60s,
and earlier, we may have some fond memories of what was a great film.

John Navas

2009-07-02 16:08:13 UTC

I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I
won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is
the ability to control color rendition.

It's gone because it's too expensive to manufacture and too difficult to
process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or
surpassed it in terms of quality.

--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)

Bowser

2009-07-02 19:49:25 UTC

Post by John Navas

I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I
won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is
the ability to control color rendition.

It's gone because it's too expensive to manufacture and too difficult to
process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or
surpassed it in terms of quality.

I always preferred the look of K25 to the new stuff, but that's highly
subjective, of course. Never cared for Velvia, or any of the hypersaturated
films. Some of the Kodak Ektachromes weren't too bad, but I always went back
to K25. Of course, shooting at ASA 25 was a real issue. and yes, it was a
money loser.

Can't compete with digital, though.

David J. Littleboy

2009-07-02 20:18:04 UTC

Post by John Navas

I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I
won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is
the ability to control color rendition.

It's gone because it's too expensive to manufacture and too difficult to
process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or
surpassed it in terms of quality.

None of the above. Kodachrome died because the whole landscape universe
switched over to Velvia 50, leaving Kodachrome without a niche. It has
nothing to do with digital, and nothing to do with Velvia being "better
quality" (if anything, it's worse). It's that Velvia, with it's insane
contrast, ultrasaturation, and off the wall color rendition
"out-Kodachromed" Kodachrome.

My reading between the line of Fuji's own dance of death over Velvia and
Velvia 100F is that Fuji's film engineers where horribly embarrassed at
Velvia 50's shortcomings, and decided to fix them in Velvia 100F. Velvia
100F has the same high contrast and the same supersaturation, but it has
much more accurrate color rendition, finer grain, better MTF
characteristics, and far superior reciprocity characteristics than Velvia
50. You'd have to be nuts to prefer the grossly inferior Velvia 50. But
everyone _hates_ Velvia 100F, and Fuji was forced to reintroduce Velvia 50
after discontinuing it.

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

John Navas

2009-07-02 20:47:15 UTC

On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 05:18:04 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"

Post by David J. Littleboy

Post by John Navas
It's gone because it's too expensive to manufacture and too difficult to
process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or
surpassed it in terms of quality.

None of the above. Kodachrome died because the whole landscape universe
switched over to Velvia 50, leaving Kodachrome without a niche. It has
nothing to do with digital, and nothing to do with Velvia being "better
quality" (if anything, it's worse). It's that Velvia, with it's insane
contrast, ultrasaturation, and off the wall color rendition
"out-Kodachromed" Kodachrome.
My reading between the line of Fuji's own dance of death over Velvia and
Velvia 100F is that Fuji's film engineers where horribly embarrassed at
Velvia 50's shortcomings, and decided to fix them in Velvia 100F. Velvia
100F has the same high contrast and the same supersaturation, but it has
much more accurrate color rendition, finer grain, better MTF
characteristics, and far superior reciprocity characteristics than Velvia
50. You'd have to be nuts to prefer the grossly inferior Velvia 50. But
everyone _hates_ Velvia 100F, and Fuji was forced to reintroduce Velvia 50
after discontinuing it.

Tortured and entertaining straw man hand waving that doesn't really
contradict what I wrote. ;)

From "Velvia vs. Provia 100F, A Digital Perspective"
<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/velvia_vs_povia.shtml>

"Soon after its introduction a number of years ago, Velvia became the
film of choice for many professional landscape photographers..."

There is no one perfect film, Kodachrome included. Velvia is my choice
for some things. Provia or Astia or Kodak Elite would be my choice for
other things. It all depends on what I'm shooting and the kind of
results I want.

--
Best regards,
John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)

Bill Graham

2009-07-03 02:18:40 UTC

Post by John Navas
There is no one perfect film, Kodachrome included. Velvia is my choice
for some things. Provia or Astia or Kodak Elite would be my choice for
other things. It all depends on what I'm shooting and the kind of
results I want.

Yes, but I hate to see them discontinued, one by one.......Pretty soon,
there won't be any left, and my F-5 will become a museum piece.......$2,000
worth of beautiful machinery with absolutely no purpose....

Mr.T

2009-07-03 06:07:49 UTC

Post by Bill Graham
Yes, but I hate to see them discontinued, one by one.......Pretty soon,
there won't be any left, and my F-5 will become a museum

piece.......$2,000

Post by Bill Graham
worth of beautiful machinery with absolutely no purpose....

Kodak Gold will probably be all that's left pretty soon. I think that will
last a bit longer.
Better get used to it :-(

MrT.

George Kerby

2009-07-02 20:55:04 UTC

Post by David J. Littleboy

Post by John Navas

I never liked the way Kodachrome displayed colors over-intensely. I
won't miss it. One of the things I like about digital photography is
the ability to control color rendition.

It's gone because it's too expensive to manufacture and too difficult to
process as compared to more modern slide films that have now matched or
surpassed it in terms of quality.

None of the above. Kodachrome died because the whole landscape universe
switched over to Velvia 50, leaving Kodachrome without a niche. It has
nothing to do with digital, and nothing to do with Velvia being "better
quality" (if anything, it's worse). It's that Velvia, with it's insane
contrast, ultrasaturation, and off the wall color rendition
"out-Kodachromed" Kodachrome.
My reading between the line of Fuji's own dance of death over Velvia and
Velvia 100F is that Fuji's film engineers where horribly embarrassed at
Velvia 50's shortcomings, and decided to fix them in Velvia 100F. Velvia
100F has the same high contrast and the same supersaturation, but it has
much more accurrate color rendition, finer grain, better MTF
characteristics, and far superior reciprocity characteristics than Velvia
50. You'd have to be nuts to prefer the grossly inferior Velvia 50. But
everyone _hates_ Velvia 100F, and Fuji was forced to reintroduce Velvia 50
after discontinuing it.

I never liked Velvia because it reminded me of cheap cheese...

Bill Graham

2009-07-03 02:21:22 UTC

Post by George Kerby
I never liked Velvia because it reminded me of cheap cheese...

That must have been why Herb Cain never shot it either......

Annika1980

2009-07-02 15:55:28 UTC

Here's one from 1948, not taken by me, obviously.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/73548875

I think I've taken a roll or two of Kodachrome. I'll have to look for
them.

Scott W

2009-07-02 20:46:17 UTC