Graphic designer needed
Big Dummy
t-shirts with this theme. I am looking for a designer that has experience
and can help me get this off the ground.
Please submit your resume and rates to april_...@yahoo.com.
Thanks,
April
Danhiel - SoupOrNews Admin
woodsie
Admin <dan...@soupornews.com> wrote:
probably zer0!
SCG
Nothing like a positive attitude...
scg
"woodsie" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:none-18090...@c211-28-190-157.mckinn1.vic.optusnet.com.au...
Big Dummy
you that while I don't have a fortune 500 budget, I'm not looking for
someone that can only supply me with 2nd rate quality work. I require... a
professional that wants to work with me from the beginning. A professional
that is not looking to gouge me for every little dime. A professional that
is seeking a win/win situation. A professional that has been there and
knows what works and what doesn't.
I'm not looking for someone that just graduated from an art institute and is
not able to advise me on some of the more subtle aspects or pitfalls of
building a strong web business.
If you think up meet these reasonable requirements, please send me your
resume.
April
"Danhiel - SoupOrNews Admin" <dan...@soupornews.com> wrote in message
news:BD70B3F7.12720B%dan...@soupornews.com...
Michael Bulatovich
Silly name, yahoo address, trawling for resumes on a NG,
no specific budget, is worried enough about being "gouged"
"for every little dime" to drop that into the most preliminary
introduction.......
Sound promising! : P
"Big Dummy" <april_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:-KqdnaUq14s...@comcast.com...
Big Dummy
"Michael Bulatovich" <Ple...@dont.try> wrote in message
news:veV2d.28622$0h7.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
The Doormouse
> Let me guess....you're the art institute guy that's out of work?
I am going to change your life:
"Nothing happens in a vacuum".
You might want to remember that when posting.
The Doormouse
--
The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.
Cris Zalika
If you want to see some samples of an artist's past work, that is a good
start. I would suggest that you find an artist that does "cute", going by
the sound of your business name.
Plan on spending more than you would think.
in article XZ-dnb9UAJE...@comcast.com, Big Dummy at
SamMan
> Let me guess....you're the art institute guy that's out of work?
>
>
>
Let ME guess... You are a client that knows little to nothing about design,
or the web, but will micro-manage the designer to the point of drink?
--
SamMan
Rip it to reply
Michael Bulatovich
<plonk>
"Big Dummy" <april_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XZ-dnb9UAJE...@comcast.com...
Big Dummy
I have money to spend. I am familiar with design. Win/Win occurs in all
successful relationships. A fair deposit will be placed prior to work
beginning. I'm not looking for a designer that needs mirco-managing. I do
not have time for that. A true professional does not need to be micro
managed.
The yahoo address is for avoiding spam. Once the relationship gets started,
a phone number and better address will be provided.
I am not here to waste your time nor mine, which is certainly what I feel
like I'm doing posting on this negatively energized newsgroup.
Have a good day.
April
"Big Dummy" <april_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:XZ-dnb9UAJE...@comcast.com...
SCG
It has become a ng with no future...
SCG
"Big Dummy" <april_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Bo2dnYCBwJh...@comcast.com...
The Doormouse
> There's nothing positive about ADG...
>
A newsgroup is pretty much what you make of it. There are plenty of good
people here, and (rarely) we actually see some design. :)
The Doormouse
> I am slowly weaning
> myself off the "Design is King" dogma. Graphic design is important when
> you want to *sell stuff*. Big wow. (Next up - how it saves lives too!)
Design was never King. Content is King. Graphic Design is important when
you want *to communicate*. Communicating a product is a necessity of a
consumer-based society. Good design communicates the need for a product
well enough to induce a consumer to buy.
> I think there is a strong (very strong) likelihood that in my lifetime,
> the need for Graphic Designers will plummet.
This happened to Illustrators a couple decades back.
Zuiun
>By and large, this group is concerned with design, marketing, business
>and technology, though not necessarily prioritized in that fashion. I
>find nearly all these topics to be superfluous and banal - but it truly
>fascinates me how much people *believe* in them and I have to admit to
>an occasional interest in them simply for their own sake.
Funny, that...considering that this newsgroup is called "alt.DESIGN.GRAPHICS."
We come here specifically to talk about graphic design. Is it not appropriate
that discussions here are predominately on that topic? Would you go into a
health club and complain because everyone is concerned with lifting weights,
jogging and exercsing?
As for this newsgroup, politics within groups seem to have fairly predictable
patterns and I don't find anything within alt.design.graphics to be atypical.
There are those who come here to talk about their profession, those who come to
share ideas, those who come to cause trouble and disrupt, and so on. It's the
same in any group.
>I think there is a strong (very strong) likelihood that in my lifetime,
>the need for Graphic Designers will plummet.
The role of graphic design may change, but as long as we remain a species
dependent upon visual input, the need for graphic design will not diminish.
The role of graphic design, and the graphic designer, however, may evolve and
change. We may very well move away from consumerism, resulting in less of a
need to "sell stuff." But there will always be the need for visual
communication, if not to sell, then to convey information.
There are certainly some areas of graphic design that are frivolous -- but that
is true in any industry.
Very little of the world we live in has not been touched by graphic design.
It's been that way since we were telling stories on cave walls and it will
likely continue to be that way until (if) we evolve beyond the need for eyes.
And as long as there is a need for it, there will be professionals who
specialize in it.
-- Robert
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Freshly Squeezed Design
Robert Wurth - Creative Director
http://www.freshlysqueezeddesign.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Deranged Video Dude | DVD Rants and Reviews
http://www.dvddude.net
Cris Zalika
zu...@aol.comatose wrote on 09/19/2004 9:04 AM:
> We come here specifically to talk about graphic design. Is it not appropriate
> that discussions here are predominately on that topic?
"We"?
What group do you represent?
Each person decides how they will use the newsgroup. There is no "one"
topic.
> Would you go into a
> health club and complain because everyone is concerned with lifting weights,
> jogging and exercsing?
Your analogy is irrelevant.
Zuiun
>
>"We"?
>
>What group do you represent?
>
>Each person decides how they will use the newsgroup. There is no "one"
>topic.
So, are you in denial that the majority of topics here are graphic design
related?
I don't "represent" any group, but the majority of contributors to this group
are either graphic design professionals, aspiring graphic designers or those
with an interest in graphic design. Thus the logic in them being attracted to
a newsgroup with the title of "alt.design.graphics."
You are correct, there is no "one" topic. However, if you (meaning anyone)
come to a group called alt.design.graphics with any expectations other than to
see discussions about graphic design, then that is a flaw in your interpretive
and reasoning skills.
You are right, each person can decide how they will use the group. That's the
beauty of an unmoderated forum -- no one person decides. I certainly am not
stating that you have no right to talk about anything you want. In this case,
the majority of people posting to the group have CHOSEN to discuss graphic
design related issues. Ranxerox's position seems to be that there is something
wrong with, or that people are arrogant for the fact that in a group called
"alt.design.graphics," they hold the topic of graphic design to be something
important and worth discussion.
If you choose to discuss something else, people will either join in or you will
be talking to yourself -- which you also have the right to do.
Dan
>>>I think there is a strong (very strong) likelihood that in my lifetime,
the need for Graphic Designers will plummet.<<<
Actually, the need for people with design skills will increase.
The people who are finding it tough going are those who decided to skip a
design education and enter the industry because "computers are fun." That's
because "computers are also easy" and it eventually dawns on them that their
skills are on par with the average 12 year old. So is their paycheck.
In your case, this downward career spiral lead to a failed stint in teaching
followed by applying for work in a Canadian factory. Disillusioned? I guess!
All human interaction comes down to six simple words: Nothing Happens Until
Something Gets Sold. Except for the possible exception of drugs ("You ain't
gotta sell crack; crack sells itself!!") it's just a matter of degree. Sex:
easy. Phone services: hard. Vote for me: harder. The better it looks, the
more sales you make.
Visual communication will continue to dominate the human experience as far
into the future as we can possibly see. The skilled graphic designer will
always have more work than s/he can handle.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Fred Bushor" aka "RanXerox" aka "Tag you're It"
<we...@theEndofOilAndIFeelFine.org> wrote in message
news:weare-964BF2....@news.telus.net...
Dan
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Zuiun" <zu...@aol.comatose> wrote in message
news:20040919120458...@mb-m14.aol.com...
Zuiun
>
>Alternative Design Graphics
>Alternative Design Graphics
>
>heh. Funny that.
And what is your point? Are you trying to deny that the name implies the
predominant topic of discussion will be graphic design? It's a simple question
and can be answered with a "yes" or a "no." Is this your claim?
>I missed the complaining part. Please explain.
I would say that labeling on-topic discussions as "banal" and "superfluous" and
calling the people here "arrogant," "self absorbed" and "controlling" an
expression of your dissatisfaction and resentment -- which, by the way, is the
dictionary definition of a "complaint."
>Humanity spent at least 19 out of the 21 centuries since J.C. split
>before it created itself a "Graphic Designer"
Again, what's your point? Humanity also spent a great deal of its time with
everyone building their own houses, tending their own farms and sewing their
own clothes before they realized that specialization can create a superior
product. The fact that graphic design professionals have not existed since the
beginning of time does not make the need or importance of professional quality
design within society any less important RIGHT NOW or in the future.
>Snap out of it.
>Its NOT a "life and death" profession.
You're right. But the beauty of the progress of our society is that our daily
lives no longer need to be concerned just with life and death decisions. This
is what allows us to explore things such as creativity.
Of course, we could just go your route and admit that anything less than life
and death is frivolous and banal, but that might mean going back to nomadic
societies, abandoning technology and foresaking higher knowledge. And then
where would you be without internet newsgroups to complain on? ; )
Cris Zalika
zu...@aol.comatose wrote on 09/19/2004 10:34 AM:
> Cris Zalika wrote:
>
>>
>> "We"?
>>
>> What group do you represent?
>>
>> Each person decides how they will use the newsgroup. There is no "one"
>> topic.
>
> So, are you in denial that the majority of topics here are graphic design
> related?
Majority has nothing to do with what is allowed in a newsgroup. Any topic
is allowed. It does not matter if 99.99% of the messages are about "graphic
design" as you define it. That still does not stop any person from posting
in this -- or any -- newsgroup about any topic.
How are you going to make it any different?
Truth is, you can't.
> I don't "represent" any group, but the majority of contributors to this group
> are either graphic design professionals, aspiring graphic designers or those
> with an interest in graphic design.
Well then your "we" comment is irrelevant, now isn't it.
Plus the "majority" has nothing to do with what is allowed to be posted in a
newsgroup.
> Thus the logic in them being attracted to
> a newsgroup with the title of "alt.design.graphics."
Your fantasies about "logic" and what other people come to the newsgroup
for, are not relevant to anyone but you.
> You are correct, there is no "one" topic. However, if you (meaning anyone)
> come to a group called alt.design.graphics with any expectations other than to
> see discussions about graphic design, then that is a flaw in your interpretive
> and reasoning skills.
No flaw, just experience of reality. There have been and will continue to
be many topics written about in this newsgroup. You limited view of what
happens in this newsgroup has no impact on reality.
> You are right, each person can decide how they will use the group. That's the
> beauty of an unmoderated forum -- no one person decides. I certainly am not
> stating that you have no right to talk about anything you want. In this case,
> the majority of people posting to the group have CHOSEN to discuss graphic
> design related issues.
Once again, majority has nothing to do with what can happen.
> Ranxerox's position seems to be ...
Ask him about his position, if you are confused.
Cris Zalika
zu...@aol.comatose wrote on 09/19/2004 12:24 PM:
>> Try using the FULL name of the group a few times to get the hang of it.
>>
>> Alternative Design Graphics
>> Alternative Design Graphics
>>
>> heh. Funny that.
>
> And what is your point?
The point is, that "alt" is the base core of the newsgroup. Before anything
else. In front of any other descriptor is the name "alt" which gives the
core meaning to the newsgroup.
No rules, no moderation, free speech, any topic is allowed, for any length
of time, each person decides how they will use any "alt" newsgroup.
Not a damn thing little "wanna-be-net cops can do about it.
>
>> I missed the complaining part. Please explain.
>
> I would say that labeling on-topic discussions as ...
The phrase "on-topic" has no relevance.
> But the beauty of the progress of our society is that our daily
> lives no longer need to be concerned just with life and death decisions. This
> is what allows us to explore things such as creativity.
And silly things like you wanting to be a "net-cop".
Fred Doyle
> Take for instance, the supposition in this thread by (IMO) a
> ridiculously self absorbed member of this NG, that a graphic design job
> is 'higher' on some scale of value than 'garbage collector' or 'factory
> worker'.
Fred's projecting his own insecurity at not being able to find a graphic
design job into other people's posts, again. No one here has written that.
He, however, needs to spend a a paragraph or 10 rationalizing why he doesn't
want a graphic design job.
--
Fred Doyle
www.leafpublishing.com
Dan
>>>Fred's projecting his own insecurity at not being able to find a graphic
design job into other people's posts, again. No one here has written that.
He, however, needs to spend a a paragraph or 10 rationalizing why he doesn't
want a graphic design job.<<<
Fred Bushor desperately wants a graphic design job. He isn't willing,
however, to become a graphic designer. He's too cool for school. So he
watches from the sidelines, locked out of the game, locked out of life,
blaming everyone except himself for his failed existence, falling ever
deeper into the lunatic fringe, and cursing those who are successful graphic
designers.
Fred Bushor says he wants to have a romantic, 1930-ish factory job. Yes sir,
that's the ticket for him! Johnny Lunchbucket! Joe Carpool! A chicken in
every pot! He can't wait to join the union, lift himself out of poverty, get
himself a little company-store tract home, plant a tree and go on strike!
His attentive, intelligent factory buddies will listen to his
America-bashing without giving him any guff, unlike those "arrogant, self
absorbed graphic designers."
Oh Toto! If only life could be that good!!
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Fred Doyle" <fdo...@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:NQm3d.238233$bp1.1...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>"Fred Bushor" aka "RanXerox" <we...@theEndofOilAndIFeelFine.org> wrote
The Doormouse
> a graphic design
> job is 'higher' on some scale of value than 'garbage collector' or
> 'factory worker'.
Somewhere, there is a garbageman who wouldn't trade his job for anything
in the world ... I salute him.
For myself, my interest in Art and Design brings meaning to my life that
garbage collection as an activity would not. Therefore, Graphic Design
has more VALUE to me than garbage collection.
Everyone has different values, and soemtimes they project these values
onto others.
> Graphic Design is not a necessity.
It is for me. Even if I was an admin clerk, I would be doodling on my
lunchbag and draeming of cool stuff. Look at the number of guys that have
some very artistic tattoos, despite an unartistic profession (like
construction). Design is close to the hearts of some very different
folks, even if they cannot do the art themselves.
I bet that most people do not think "tattoo artist" when "graphic
deisgn" is mentioned, but the two are not dissimilar. If anything, a
tattoo artist and his book of tatts is pretty close to the guy with a
portfolio of logos - except that the tatt artist has more riding on his
work.
Screw up a logo and you lose some cash - screw up the biker's tatt and
the consequences could be more dire.
:)
> Time for a reality check.
> Graphic design is NOT essential to life, or liberty, or freedom, or
> "human rights" or democracy or "the market" any of those things.
Tatts and body decoration have a history as old as cave paintings. That
is basically graphic design. The religious importance of body art has an
illustrious history, in particular.
Before man was free, there were tatts.
> It
> wasn't around when they were swapping goats for huts
Yes, it was. Six thousand years ago, artists were decorating the tombs of
the Pharoahs with symbols. The symbols changed over time, but there were
very strict rules for what was to be drawn, and how.
Arguably, any form of organized writing is typography.
> Graphic design didn't give us the Koran, or the Bible,
The Koran came after the Bible, which came after the Torah.
They were all written down by scribes - the first Graphic Artists, who
were often tasked with illuminating the work by hand.
> or the Magna
> Carta, or the Constitution. (you might note the absence of graphics in
> these...)
Many early bibles have beautiful illustrations. Additionally, the Magna
Carta and Constitution were written after the fashion of the time. "We
the people", is written in large scrolled letters - did you not notice?
Graphic Design was a skill for educated gentlemen. Calligraphy, the Art
of Lettering, is part of the discipline of Graphic Design.
> I'm here partly to watch (IMO) lazy, careless, "thinkers"
We found one. Grab a mirror. <- meant partly in fun
> Graphic design *isn't* the 'be all and end all'.
> It isn't the meaning of life. Certainly not to me.
I am not you. :)
> Important? Maybe. In specific circumstances.
> Necessary to communicate an idea? Hardly.
Orators and television are your other options.
> Graphic design is NOT how I define myself as a person.
I have so many facets, that calling myself a true "gem" is hardly
exaggeration.
> I dont disrespect graphic design, but I hold it in
> *much* less reverence than many here do.
Infidel! After dessert, we must burn you at the stake!! :)
The Doormouse
> Humanity spent at least 19 out of the 21 centuries since J.C. split
> before it created itself a "Graphic Designer" (and I'm not going to
> include the tens of thousands of years before that little episode) and
> yet people led full, complete, meaningful lives.
Four thousand years before the Christ, a scribe was slapped on the back of
the head for his imperfect rendition of the hieroglyphs for the word
"victory".
That was a graphic designer, employed by the state, but without the title.
Zuiun
>Please clarify how, why, and under what circumstances "marketing"
>consitutes "on topic"?
>I dont see "marketing" in the name of the group.
>Please clarify how "business" is "on topic".
>Neither is it in the "name of the group".
>Repeat this process with "technology", if you don't mind.
>To use your argument - that's not "the name of the group".
>Can we assume then, that they are not "on topic"?
You have claimed that I did not accurately read my posts, but this comment from
you calls into question whether or not you did anything more than simply skim
mine.
Please re-read. No where, as in not in this thread or within any other within
this newsgroup, have I *ever* spoken out against off-topic posts. In fact, I
specifically said:
"You are right, each person can decide how they will use the group."
(psst -- that precision stuff is a real kick in the ass, now, ain't it?)
Now, to specifically address your above point, you are practicing "straw man"
tactics. That is, you are inventing an argument to defend in order to bolster
your own opinion.
My posts have not been telling you, or anyone else, that they can't post
off-topic materials, or even that such posts are wrong. My point began as, and
continues to be, that it is ridiculous to expect that the subject of GRAPHIC
DESIGN (and, if you wish, any related subjects) would not be considered rather
important in a newsgroup called "alt.DESIGN.GRAPHICS".
Your point seems to be that graphic design is not the most important thing in
life. Hopefully you aren't expecting that Nobel prize notification any time
soon for such an Earth-shattering revelation, but the fact remains that you are
the one who made the implication that people in this group (or, if you prefer,
within the "graphic design community" -- of which, many of those here would
qualify) think it's the be-all, end-all of existence, simply so that you can
display your wit in tearing down that notion.
Again with the straw man tactics.
People in the Photoshop groups certainly think that Photoshop is mighty
important thing to discuss. People in the Star Wars groups certainly hold the
opinion that Star Wars is pretty damn spiffy. People in the Underwater Basket
Weaving groups....you guessed it.
So what does that tell us? Maybe that different people have different
interests? And maybe, just maybe, they like to gather around other people
with interests similar to their own and, oh, I don't know, discuss those
interests like they might be important to them?
Kearning may not be the thing that renders life worth living, but using it to
create a more pleasing design is certainly something that is important to those
paying my bills, therefore it is important to me. I bet many here would hold
that same opinion.
Plus, paying attention to the details is just this little thing called taking
pride in one's work, and if you'd like to claim that isn't a worthy endeavor,
than there is really no point in furthering this discussion, because you simply
lack the frame of reference to allow you to "get it."
>Note the phrase *most*. Again a personal generalization which I stand by.
>However, nowhere do I see my calling people *here* that which you have
>asserted.
Your history of posts have made pretty clear what you think of the people here.
Zuiun
>That still does not stop any person from posting
>in this -- or any -- newsgroup about any topic.
>
>How are you going to make it any different?
>
>Truth is, you can't.
>
I never said I wanted to make it different. Do think that I do? Where did you
get that silly notion? It certainly wasn't from anything I actually wrote.
>Well then your "we" comment is irrelevant, now isn't it.
How so? First prove no one else agrees with me. Then you can argue that my
statement isn't justified in saying "we."
> You limited view of what
>happens in this newsgroup has no impact on reality.
Where is this assumption coming from? I agreed with you that there is no "one"
topic, and yet you continue to argue as if I had said otherwise.
Are you so intent on verbal sparring that you have to invent a position to
attribute to me?
I never said that off-topic posts weren't allowed. I never said that off-topic
posts weren't welcome.
What my position has been, and will remain to be, is that coming into a group
called alt.design.graphics and expecting a majority of those participating in
it to NOT hold the topic of graphic design to be something of more than passing
importance is pretty ridiculous.
Zuiun
>Graphic design didn't give us the Koran, or the Bible, or the Magna
>Carta, or the Constitution. (you might note the absence of graphics in
>these...)
>Necessary to communicate an idea? Hardly.
Interesting. By the way, you know those things you're reading right at this
very instant? Yeah, those little designs that seem to have some meaning for
you? Some might call them "letters" and they are used to form words. Some
people find those to be very important, in fact, essential for the foundation
of a society that has gone beyond beating animal skins in caves.
But, then again, graphic design isn't nececessary for communicating an idea,
or writing a bible, or a constitution...
Cris Zalika
zu...@aol.comatose wrote on 09/19/2004 7:19 PM:
> My point began as, and continues to be, that it is ridiculous to expect that
> the subject of GRAPHIC DESIGN (and, if you wish, any related subjects) would
> not be considered rather important in a newsgroup called
> "alt.DESIGN.GRAPHICS".
The topic of "graphic design" is no more important in this newsgroup than
any other topic. You have not been here long enough to know what is "rather
important" in this newsgroup.
You are only taking a guess ... a guess based upon the name of the
newsgroup. Little news for you... the name does not limit the "importance"
of other messages in this newsgroup.
> So what does that tell us? Maybe that different people have different
> interests? And maybe, just maybe, they like to gather around other people
> with interests similar to their own ...
What people like to do in newsgroups does not limit what can be written
about in that very same newsgroup.
Cris Zalika
zu...@aol.comatose wrote on 09/19/2004 7:29 PM:
>
>> Well then your "we" comment is irrelevant, now isn't it.
>
> How so? First prove no one else agrees with me. Then you can argue that my
> statement isn't justified in saying "we."
I don't agree with you, so your "we" is not inclusive of me. So next time
you have the desire to wrap your own personal opinion in some mythical
group, leave me out of your mythology.
> What my position has been, and will remain to be, is that coming into a group
> called alt.design.graphics and expecting a majority of those participating in
> it to NOT hold the topic of graphic design to be something of more than
> passing importance is pretty ridiculous.
You have no way of knowing what the "majority" thinks about "graphic
design". You have no way of knowing what the "majority" thinks about this
newsgroup.
You are guessing.
Plus your guess is not relevant to what can be written about, what people
will enjoy or what they will find "important".
Your opinion is relevant to you, and that's it.
Anything past that, and you are talking out of your ass.
RanXerox
"Dan Turner" <d...@freelanceworkshops.com> could have wrote:
> So I watch from the sidelines, locked out of the game, locked out of
> life, blaming everyone except myself for my failed existence, falling
> ever deeper into the lunatic fringe, and cursing those who are
> successful graphic designers.
> Oh Toto! If only life could be that good!!
Ouch.
Assuming Dan Turner wrote the above, it would be pretty safe to suggest
the cheese had slipped off Dan Turners (aka:our resident graphic design
know-it-all) cracker. Somethings got his dander up. And its pretty
serious "dander".
Dan Turner, shouldn't you be "banging skins" with the neighbourhood kids
in your basement? Or did someone finally and mercifully put a stop to
that? Is that this weeks "problem"?
My condolences.
Maybe while you're posing as a "graphic designer" or "designer" or
"hairstylist" or "marketing expert" or "floral arranger" or "freelancer"
, you could find more useful and productive ways to spend your time? You
know, like having intelligent conversations with adults and stuff. Maybe
even earning respect through rational dialogue. You might have to
exercise some self restraint or learn to compromise a bit here and
there, but hey, you're all about compromising yourself aren't you?
You may discover you're your own worst enemy.
My advice to you is to think real hard *before* you act, because there
are some things you can't take back. (like say, a failed marriage - but
then, that's *your* avenue of expertise.)
Listen, I'm sure being alone is painful, but I wouldn't know, because
personally I've never felt an ounce of loneliness in my life; that's
just something you'll need to work out - perhaps in therapy.
Or I guess you could always call up your "ex" for advice, assuming it's
legal for you to do so nowadays.
Don't worry Dan Turner, you're bound to find some schlub who'll take
whatever bait you troll out in your search for love and understanding -
and you *probably* won't have to resort to taking out those "tried and
true" monthly ads in Phillipino Bride magazine to do it either! (Do
those actually work?)
Anyway, I hope you can learn to live with whatever results arise from
your actions Dan Turner, because "You get what you give", it's said, and
I'd venture you'll be reaping what you sow, but good!
Good Luck with the rest of your life!
... and hang in there buddy - I'm sure there's lots more fun ahead!
I leave it up to you.
:-)
Zuiun
>You have not been here long enough to know what is "rather
>important" in this newsgroup.
>
Better be careful there, Cris. That statement is treading dangerously close to
telling me what I can and cannot think and do in this newsgroup, and that goes
against your own position (a position which I have *still* not disagreed with,
yet you continue to attempt to argue as if I had...).
Besides, you’ve made the totally irrelevant assumption (gee, where have I
heard that sort of talk before?) that I haven’t been here very long, but
really, you have no way to know just how long I’ve been around this group,
now do you? How often I’ve posted is not any evidence that would hold up
even in your flimsy arguments.
Now what was that you were saying about “talking out of your ass?” How’s
that workin’ out for you?
The Doormouse
> Now what was that you were saying about talking out of your ass?
> How's that working out for you?
It seems to work for "Ace Ventura, Pet Detective".
:)
Zuiun
>>> We come here specifically to talk about graphic design.
>
>hmmm...
>I don't see *business*, or *technology* or *marketing* anywhere in your
>statement.
>
>That might lead some people to deduce that *business*, *technology* and
>*marketing* are not "on topic"; since you quite clearly state the
>purpose of what "we" are doing here.
Exactly. Graphic design, which is a hobby and a business to a number of the
people who participate in this group. As a business, it generally, though not
always involves technology and certainly involves marketing.
But that is still beside that point that I *never* stated that the specific
topic of graphic design and ONLY graphic design was the only allowable topic of
discussion around here. You seem to be trying to attribute that claim to me
and arguing against it -- thus, straw man tactics.
Let me spell it out once again: My position is, and will continue to be, that
to come into a group called alt.DESIGN.GRAPHICS and expect the those
participating in that group to NOT place considerable importance upon the
subject of GRAPHIC DESIGN (as a hobby or as a business -- and all that it
encompasses as a business) is ridiculous.
>PS: It's kerning. Not kearning.
>I guess that detail slipped your attention.
Ah, resorting to pointing out typos. I never claimed that I don't make
mistakes, but thank you for pointing out the error. Pardon me if I consider
the topic of discussion more important than pointing out any typos of yours in
return. ; )
>Unfortunately, it appears that we are rapidly edging towards (have
>crossed over to?) name calling and insults, and I think we can both
>agree that's not going to take this any further towards a resolution.
LOL That is priceless -- and thank you for quite the laugh. Consider: one of
your earliest posts in this thread labeled the design community (and most of
those populating it) as "arrogant" and "self absorbed." A few posts later you
referred specifically to a member of this group as "self absorbed" (and then
took some pot shots at said member's personal life) and NOW you hide behind the
"let's end this before it degenerates into name calling" banner?
>I understand your point of view, but I'm not buying.
>Apparently, you can't see mine.
>... and so it goes ...
I do understand your point of view -- as I've stated in previous posts. I
agree that graphic design is not life and death. However, a number of people
who participate in this group make graphic design their profession. That topic
and those related to it are therefore of some importance to many of us and this
group, alt.design.graphics, is a place where we ["we" as in those of us who
choose to do so] can discuss those topics with all the degree of seriousness
that we see fit. To come into the middle of one of these discussions and
proclaim that those topics are "banal" and "superfluous" and to imply that our
taking them seriously puts us on the same level as a cult ("Kool-Aid" drinkers)
just comes across as sour grapes.
Zuiun
>Sorry pal, but that's REALLY reaching. You *might* have a point were we
>discussing Chinese or Asiatic languges which ARE based on pictograms -
>but DEFINITELY not English.
>Completely different ballgame.
Is it really? What would your design for, say, an "s" have been? It may seem
so simple and obvious NOW, but someone, somewhere, had to design it -- and all
of the others. Maybe that person wasn't called a "graphic designer," but
that's certainly what they were doing.
The Doormouse
> I've stated in previous posts. I
> agree that graphic design is not life and death
Is too! ;)
*nyahhh!* :D
TheOtherBigDavey
zu...@aol.comatose wrote on 09/20/2004 7:28 PM:
> Cris Zalika wrote:
>
>> You have not been here long enough to know what is "rather
>> important" in this newsgroup.
>
> Besides, youšve made the totally irrelevant assumption (gee, where have I
> heard that sort of talk before?) that I havenšt been here very long...
I can tell how long you have been exposed to this newsgroup by your lack of
understanding of the players and the games they play. You are a newbie, and
an easily played one at that.
TheOtherBigDavey
zu...@aol.comatose wrote on 09/20/2004 7:52 PM:
> to come into a group called alt.DESIGN.GRAPHICS and expect the those
> participating in that group to NOT place considerable importance upon the
> subject of GRAPHIC DESIGN is ridiculous.
Your fantasies about what people find "important" and what other people
"expect" are irrelevant.
Josh
> however, to become a graphic designer. He's too cool for school. So he
> watches from the sidelines, locked out of the game, locked out of life,
> blaming everyone except himself for his failed existence, falling ever
> deeper into the lunatic fringe, and cursing those who are successful
graphic
> designers.
>
> Fred Bushor says he wants to have a romantic, 1930-ish factory job. Yes
sir,
> that's the ticket for him! Johnny Lunchbucket! Joe Carpool! A chicken in
> every pot! He can't wait to join the union, lift himself out of poverty,
get
> himself a little company-store tract home, plant a tree and go on strike!
> His attentive, intelligent factory buddies will listen to his
> America-bashing without giving him any guff, unlike those "arrogant, self
> absorbed graphic designers."
Does anyone else think that Dan should write meaningless lyrics for punk
rock garage bands? Anyhow, I don't know why you guys are all arguing under
this topic over something so stupid, it's absurd. Somebody came here and
asked for a paying service, don't like it? Don't answer.
Dan
>>>Anyhow, I don't know why you guys are all arguing under this topic over
something so stupid, it's absurd.<<<
Nobody's arguing. We're just helping Fred Bushor with his monthly meltdown.
Steering him, if you will.
Dan
http://www.FreelanceWorkshops.com
"Josh" <shi...@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:YaWdnVEnxJN...@ptd.net...
The Doormouse
> Somebody came here and
> asked for a paying service, don't like it? Don't answer.
Welcome to Usenet :)
You can tell us all how to post, and we can ignore you.
Me
> Better be careful there, Cris. That statement is treading dangerously close to
> telling me what I can and cannot think and do in this newsgroup, and that goes
> against your own position (a position which I have *still* not disagreed with,
> yet you continue to attempt to argue as if I had...).
>
> Besides, you’ve made the totally irrelevant assumption (gee, where have I
> heard that sort of talk before?) that I haven’t been here very long, but
> really, you have no way to know just how long I’ve been around this group,
> now do you? How often I’ve posted is not any evidence that would hold up
> even in your flimsy arguments.
>
> Now what was that you were saying about “talking out of your ass?” How’s
> that workin’ out for you?
Robert, meet Mike Christy the Emperor of Hypocrites.
Drew
John D.
Dan@Freelance[removethis]Workshops.com wrote on 09/21/2004 1:13 AM:
> Josh wrote:
>
>>>> Anyhow, I don't know why you guys are all arguing under this topic over
> something so stupid, it's absurd.<<<
>
> Nobody's arguing. We're just helping Fred Bushor with his monthly meltdown.
> Steering him, if you will.
Danny likes to think he is in charge of something... anything.
Zuiun
>I don't agree with you, so your "we" is not inclusive of me. So next time
>you have the desire to wrap your own personal opinion in some mythical
>group, leave me out of your mythology.
No worries, Cris. I wouldn't think of including you.
But if you still feel insecure about it, please go back and look for any post
where I state "Cris Zalika (or whichever name you choose to post under)
thinks..." You can't do it because it never happened.
The term "we" never has been and never will be intrinsically all-inclusive, no
matter how convenient that would be for your arguments. (By the way, "we"
isn't exclusive, either. Your posts just get sillier and sillier...)
Zuiun
>It seems to work for "Ace Ventura, Pet Detective".
Yeah, but he's a special case. And when he does it, it actually makes some
kind of sense... ; )
Zuiun
>I can tell how long you have been exposed to this newsgroup by your lack of
>understanding of the players and the games they play. You are a newbie, and
>an easily played one at that.
Being “played” would suggest that these posts are somehow “getting” to
me, but they are not. I actually find the rantings and ravings rather amusing
-- so there is some value in them after all. Keeping in line with the argument
at hand, these newsgroups are for posting whatever we want, including pointless
debates.
The dynamics of this group are pretty clear. In fact, they have not even
proven to be very unique. As much as some people posting to this thread would
like to believe otherwise, their points of view are no more original or
revolutionary than the “follow the leader” mentality they try to attribute
to some of the graphic design community – and they are even more predictable.
So just who is playing whom? ; )
Zuiun
>> I've stated in previous posts. I
>> agree that graphic design is not life and death
>
>Is too! ;)
Well, I wasn't actually planning on revealing the "Graphic Design Kills Family
Of Four" campaign until later this year, but now that you've gone and spoiled
it... ; )
John D.
zu...@aol.comatose wrote on 09/21/2004 5:06 PM:
> TheOtherBigDavey wrote:
>
>> I can tell how long you have been exposed to this newsgroup by your lack of
>> understanding of the players and the games they play. You are a newbie, and
>> an easily played one at that.
>
> Being łplayed˛ would suggest that these posts are somehow łgetting˛ to
> me...
Nope, you are wrong again. You are being played and you don't even know it,
so there is no need for you to "get" anything.
Your buttons are being pushed and you respond.
Are you sure you want to play more?
The Doormouse
> Well, I wasn't actually planning on revealing the "Graphic Design
> Kills Family Of Four" campaign until later this year, but now that
> you've gone and spoiled it... ; )
LOL ...
Well, we have all seen a poor web site kill a business or two ...
"Credibility shot dead by Geocities and animated popups".