Call for mandates
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 46.8 degrees photos are available for viewing
Next: Pack a Gun to Protect Valuables from Airline Theft or Loss?
From: tony cooper on 3 Feb 2010 15:52 On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:14:25 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:00:22 -0500, "Tim Conway" ><tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes to me. >>Look at all the constructive things they could do if they weren't being so >>negative. > > >The constructive things they could do? >The SI hit a nadir when several participants completely failed to >understand the simplest of mandates. But their snapshots were still >included, because no-one takes the mandates seriously. > Are we supposed to take the SI seriously? I didn't know that. Here's me thinking the SI is just a casual way to put some photos on show in an obscure (to the rest of the world of photography) newsgroup. I mean, how seriously can we take something that is captained by someone that goes by the name "Bowser"? What kind of downtown competition has entries by a Savage Duck? At least we're not led by a "Bruce" (snigger) If this is a serious competition, where are the cash prizes? The gold medals? The laurel wreaths? -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Elliott Roper on 3 Feb 2010 15:54 In article <hkcnbu$qup$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: <snip> > Not many replacements, either, so unless there's some event I cannot > forsee, usenet will continue to dwindle. Until it, too, catches the > death badly enough. > > Film at eleven. Dunno. Bad and all as usenet is, it is still way better than cheesy web forums and (shudder) Twitter. Now if the were a troll specific virus transmitted by NNTP, or a drug like commonsenseicillin that could be administered to near terminal cases by simply posting, that *would* be pleasant. -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: Allen on 3 Feb 2010 16:36 On 2/3/2010 2:52 PM, tony cooper wrote: > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:14:25 +0000, Bruce<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:00:22 -0500, "Tim Conway" >> <tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes to me. >>> Look at all the constructive things they could do if they weren't being so >>> negative. >> >> >> The constructive things they could do? >> The SI hit a nadir when several participants completely failed to >> understand the simplest of mandates. But their snapshots were still >> included, because no-one takes the mandates seriously. >> > > Are we supposed to take the SI seriously? I didn't know that. Here's > me thinking the SI is just a casual way to put some photos on show in > an obscure (to the rest of the world of photography) newsgroup. > > I mean, how seriously can we take something that is captained by > someone that goes by the name "Bowser"? What kind of downtown > competition has entries by a Savage Duck? At least we're not led by a > "Bruce" (snigger) > > If this is a serious competition, where are the cash prizes? The gold > medals? The laurel wreaths? > Is Bruce a direct descendant of My Own Brucie? Allen
From: Allen on 3 Feb 2010 16:39 On 2/3/2010 1:44 PM, G. Browne wrote: > On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams<jpmcw(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >> Bruce wrote: >>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe<bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> : >>>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is >>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers. >>>> >>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think >>>> they've been insulted? >>> >>> >>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated >>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's >>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return. >> >> All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as >> canning usenet altogether. > > All thanks to pretend-photographer trolls like you. > Most left when their service "providers" stopped providing access. Allen
From: Robert Coe on 4 Feb 2010 21:50
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 15:52:06 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: : On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 18:14:25 +0000, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> : wrote: : : >On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 12:00:22 -0500, "Tim Conway" : ><tconway_113(a)comcast.net> wrote: : >> : >>All that whining and complaining they do sounds like just sour grapes : >>to me. Look at all the constructive things they could do if they : >>weren't being so negative. : > : > : >The constructive things they could do? : >The SI hit a nadir when several participants completely failed to : >understand the simplest of mandates. But their snapshots were still : >included, because no-one takes the mandates seriously. : > : : Are we supposed to take the SI seriously? I didn't know that. Here's : me thinking the SI is just a casual way to put some photos on show in : an obscure (to the rest of the world of photography) newsgroup. : : I mean, how seriously can we take something that is captained by : someone that goes by the name "Bowser"? What kind of downtown : competition has entries by a Savage Duck? At least we're not led by a : "Bruce" (snigger) : : If this is a serious competition, where are the cash prizes? The gold : medals? The laurel wreaths? Hasn't Bowser been sending you your laurel wreaths? I've received all those that I was entitled to. Possibly yours were intercepted because Florida has agricultural inspections at its borders to keep out boll weevils and spruce budworms. Bob |