Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 16:37 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:30:08 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:23:22 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser ><questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: > >> >>I'm a well accomplished professional. > >No one here believes that. If you want to cite an exception to my >statement, provide a reference to a person who really is a >professional photographer. > >You can *say* you are anyone you want, but that doesn't mean we >believe you. > Are you aware that you and others of your ilk, now having proved yourselves beyond a shadow of all doubts to be nothing but inexperienced and ignorant trolls, that I might not care what you believe? Stay on topic, you ignorant and inexperienced know-nothing thread hijacking troll. Catch-22. If you did that you wouldn't be a troll. Continue doing that, going off topic, and you have precisely proved my point. Sucks to be as stupid as you, doesn't it.
From: tony cooper on 27 Oct 2009 16:38 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:11:31 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >On 10/27/09 15:06 , nospam wrote: >> In article<hc7jc2$ae7$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, D. Peter Maus >> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> >>> I did a shoot in July for the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation, >>> where one of the 'official' photographers was shooting a P&S. >> >> why the quotes? was he hired to do it, or was he someone on staff that >> happened to volunteer? > > > Like all of us, he was hired to do it. But it was a pro bono job. How can you be "hired" to do pro bono work? Approved or accepted, maybe, but not hired or not pro bono. It's a contradiction in terms. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: D. Peter Maus on 27 Oct 2009 16:45 On 10/27/09 15:38 , tony cooper wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:11:31 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" > <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> On 10/27/09 15:06 , nospam wrote: >>> In article<hc7jc2$ae7$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, D. Peter Maus >>> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I did a shoot in July for the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation, >>>> where one of the 'official' photographers was shooting a P&S. >>> >>> why the quotes? was he hired to do it, or was he someone on staff that >>> happened to volunteer? >> >> >> Like all of us, he was hired to do it. But it was a pro bono job. > > How can you be "hired" to do pro bono work? Approved or accepted, > maybe, but not hired or not pro bono. It's a contradiction in terms. Sematics. The process is the same whether hired for pay or not. There were specifications for performance, required content, and qualification to acceptance. I had to submit a portfolio, a credit sheet, and a reference. That it was not for pay, is trivia. The process of selection is the same. Interesting to note: the P&S shooter's output was rejected in its entirety. And his service were not retained for next year. > >
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 16:53 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:45:39 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >On 10/27/09 15:38 , tony cooper wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:11:31 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" >> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> >>> On 10/27/09 15:06 , nospam wrote: >>>> In article<hc7jc2$ae7$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, D. Peter Maus >>>> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I did a shoot in July for the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation, >>>>> where one of the 'official' photographers was shooting a P&S. >>>> >>>> why the quotes? was he hired to do it, or was he someone on staff that >>>> happened to volunteer? >>> >>> >>> Like all of us, he was hired to do it. But it was a pro bono job. >> >> How can you be "hired" to do pro bono work? Approved or accepted, >> maybe, but not hired or not pro bono. It's a contradiction in terms. > > > Sematics. > > The process is the same whether hired for pay or not. > > There were specifications for performance, required content, and >qualification to acceptance. > > I had to submit a portfolio, a credit sheet, and a reference. > > That it was not for pay, is trivia. The process of selection is >the same. > > Interesting to note: the P&S shooter's output was rejected in its >entirety. And his service were not retained for next year. > How can we believe you? You provide no proof. Hearsay evidence coming from a well-known P&S-bashing DSLR-Troll. Since you love playing that trolls' game so much. Can't stay on topic can you? Of course not. Trolls never do.
From: D. Peter Maus on 27 Oct 2009 17:00
On 10/27/09 15:53 , Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:45:39 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" > <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> On 10/27/09 15:38 , tony cooper wrote: >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:11:31 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" >>> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 10/27/09 15:06 , nospam wrote: >>>>> In article<hc7jc2$ae7$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, D. Peter Maus >>>>> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I did a shoot in July for the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation, >>>>>> where one of the 'official' photographers was shooting a P&S. >>>>> >>>>> why the quotes? was he hired to do it, or was he someone on staff that >>>>> happened to volunteer? >>>> >>>> >>>> Like all of us, he was hired to do it. But it was a pro bono job. >>> >>> How can you be "hired" to do pro bono work? Approved or accepted, >>> maybe, but not hired or not pro bono. It's a contradiction in terms. >> >> >> Sematics. >> >> The process is the same whether hired for pay or not. >> >> There were specifications for performance, required content, and >> qualification to acceptance. >> >> I had to submit a portfolio, a credit sheet, and a reference. >> >> That it was not for pay, is trivia. The process of selection is >> the same. >> >> Interesting to note: the P&S shooter's output was rejected in its >> entirety. And his service were not retained for next year. >> > > How can we believe you? You provide no proof. Hearsay evidence coming from > a well-known P&S-bashing DSLR-Troll. > > Since you love playing that trolls' game so much. > > Can't stay on topic can you? Of course not. Trolls never do. > A-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-nd...Scene! Nicely done. In two transactions, you've turned a civil discussion into personal vitriol. Now THAT's skill. Especially given that, historically, I've supported your position. Do enjoy the rest of your day. p |