Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

40D CAUGHT IN A STAREDOWN!

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Annika1980

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 12:32:13 PM7/19/08
to

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 12:34:19 PM7/19/08
to
Annika1980 wrote:
> Who will blink first?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100386480/original


Those who are getting tired of you crossposting and trying to generate
hits to your site.

--
lsmft

Helen

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 12:40:28 PM7/19/08
to
On Jul 19, 12:32 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> Who will blink first?
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100386480/original

Magnificent macro! Every tiny detail is caught in his eye. Amazing!
The colors are stunning. Perfectly exposed and composed. Excellent
work Bret!!
Helen

Annika1980

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 12:44:39 PM7/19/08
to

I don't understand. You and Noons go apeshit when I crosspost to 3
different Newsgroups. But if I make 3 identical individual posts to
each Newsgroup, that is somehow better?

I say it makes it tougher to see the replies when you have to visit
the same thread on all 3 groups.

And if anyone is getting tired of anything it is probably your endless
whining and bitching about people crossposting. In case you haven't
heard, D-Mac invented the whole Newsgroup thingy and he didn't put you
in charge. So STFU!

FU GAME, SET, MATCH.

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 12:46:36 PM7/19/08
to

Well done, Helen. Amazing how you were completely on top of Bret's
posting world so you could reply off his original and spam it back into
three groups.

--
lsmft

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 12:48:04 PM7/19/08
to

Always the winner!

Helen

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 1:03:19 PM7/19/08
to


I don't understand what the big deal is about crossposting. As Bret
pointed out, it makes it a lot easier to see replies instead of
wasting time checking out replies on each individual group. The topic
is photography, and that is very appropriate.

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 1:57:10 PM7/19/08
to
Helen wrote:
> On Jul 19, 12:46 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Helen wrote:
>>> On Jul 19, 12:32 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>> Who will blink first?
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100386480/original
>>> Magnificent macro! Every tiny detail is caught in his eye. Amazing!
>>> The colors are stunning. Perfectly exposed and composed. Excellent
>>> work Bret!!
>>> Helen
>> Well done, Helen. Amazing how you were completely on top of Bret's
>> posting world so you could reply off his original and spam it back into
>> three groups.

> I don't understand what the big deal is about crossposting. As Bret


> pointed out, it makes it a lot easier to see replies instead of
> wasting time checking out replies on each individual group. The topic
> is photography, and that is very appropriate.

It's inappropriate to cross post, period. That is, the manner in which
your alter ego does, as does "Rita", simply in order to get more
attention. Yes, sometimes it's fine, but judgement and restraint is
required, something in short supply among a very few regulars.

--
john

Message has been deleted

David J Taylor

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 3:23:10 PM7/19/08
to
Helen wrote:
[]
> I don't understand why anyone should care if a photography topic is
> crossposted. Crossposting makes it easy to see replies and saves time.

It is quite clear from some replies that cross-posting to some newsgroups
is seen as an unwelcome intrusion there, and yet people persist in doing
so. Rude? It serves no purpose whatsoever.

David


2SQUID

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 3:30:15 PM7/19/08
to

The real problem with cross posting on the scale you and a couple of
others are doing is that the groups lose their individuality. Most
people will subscribe (or not) to a group because it offers some unique
quality they like.

Wether or not you do this on purpose or whether it is a by product of
your quest for popularity is immaterial. You are actually diminishing
the usefulness of each group by cross posting. Take out your posts and
those of Mark Thomas and Troy Piggins and there is hardly enough
sustainable traffic to support visiting a group.

Certainly anyone seeking to participate in a camera hardware forum would
steer well clear of RPE.35mm and aus.photo. In fact the only remaining
newsgroup offering any useful information is Alan Browne's creation: RPD
.slr-systems and even that is being destroyed by spammers.

Me and big squid.

Troy Piggins

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 5:50:32 PM7/19/08
to
* 2SQUID wrote :

I don't understand something. We're posting links to photos in
photography related groups. I do it for comments and critique
because I'm always learning, can't answer for Mark or Bret but
they both have way more experience than me. I know both have
recently been trying out new techniques as have I. I couldn't
care about popularity, and they're hosted on my own site so it's
immaterial how many hits I get. I'm sure the others couldn't
care less how many hits they get too. I note you don't mention
Rita and D-Mac.

And if we stop posting what we believe are on-topic,
photography-related discussion threads, you are saying there is
hardly enough sustainable traffic to support visiting the groups.
And that's what you /want/? I don't get it.

Ok. Can you please explain which of these groups is the one
where it is only appropriate to post links to photos, which one
it is only appropriate to discuss hardware, which one it is
appropriate only to have discussions about general photography
topics? Please link me the groups' charters supporting your
answers. I'm sure there are other groups, but these are the ones
I frequent:

aus.photo
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
rec.photo.digital
rec.photo.digital.slr-systems

Personally, I don't think it's people posting photos that's
killing the groups, it's the other noise - flame-wars and
off-topic discussions.

--
Troy Piggins
I always appreciate critique.

Troy Piggins

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 5:56:26 PM7/19/08
to
* Troy Piggins wrote :
> * 2SQUID wrote :
> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 25 lines snipped |=---]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I just checked that charter for this group. I won't be crossposting
links to photos in there any more. Sorry.

> rec.photo.digital
> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>
> Personally, I don't think it's people posting photos that's
> killing the groups, it's the other noise - flame-wars and
> off-topic discussions.

I think the others are still ok from what I just read.

THE LORD

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 6:02:08 PM7/19/08
to
RIGHT ON BRET

"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:82487837-f052-4625...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

savvo

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 5:40:44 PM7/19/08
to

Well, it serves one purpose in one particular case. Filtering out
anything here crossposted to aus.photo improves the SNR no end.

F'rinstance I had no idea of this thread's existence until you dropped
aus.photo. Have I missed anything worthwhile? I think not.

--
savvo orig. invib. man

Helen

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 6:34:46 PM7/19/08
to
On Jul 19, 5:40 pm, savvo <spam.goes.h...@devnull.savvo.co.uk> wrote:


Actually I did NOT drop aus.photo or rpe35mm. My second post was in
reply to John M, who must have dropped the other groups. Just as I'm
replying to your post, which is only going to rec.photo.digital.
Google is experiencing problems......AGAIN!

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 6:36:40 PM7/19/08
to

Helen

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 6:44:39 PM7/19/08
to
On Jul 19, 6:36 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> THE LORD wrote:
> > RIGHT ON BRET
>
> > "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote in message


Why bring alt.morons into this?
And yes I'm sorry but I crossposted. Could we perhaps get back on
topic about photography! Why not start by critiquing Bret's work?

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 6:48:01 PM7/19/08
to

You're 100% on the money there, Troy. It did occur to me that you also
post to three groups as the troublemakers do, but then I thought that
since you live in Oz, you weren't messing with that group as it's yours.
And x-posting to rpd gives a wider audience, don't think anyone objects
in the slightest. Adding a third group, rpd-slr may or may not be in
line with general netiquette, but I cannot imagine even this curmedgeon
objecting in the least, as you are posting, not trolling or warring, or
"educating the lesser beings", etc., etc.

Please keep up the fine work; just don't let it go to your head! :)

--
Regards,

John McWilliams

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 6:53:50 PM7/19/08
to
Helen wrote:
> On Jul 19, 6:36 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> THE LORD wrote:
>>> RIGHT ON BRET

> Why bring alt.morons into this?


> And yes I'm sorry but I crossposted. Could we perhaps get back on
> topic about photography! Why not start by critiquing Bret's work?

Because recently Bret's been on about ego, not photos.

But I would like to discuss the can of powder against a black bg.
Interesting, and well done. How?

--
john mcwilliams

THE LORD

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 7:53:05 PM7/19/08
to
BRET HAS NO EGO HE CANT HELP IT IF HE IS THE GREAEST HERE UNLIKE ALL THE
OTHER MORONS THAT POST PICS


"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pdednRi6PuTi7R_V...@comcast.com...

Atheist Chaplain

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 8:04:31 PM7/19/08
to
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:PJudnW9ZiP_k8R_V...@comcast.com...

your just another worthless net cop who thinks his opinion matters, the easy
way to defeat your FU is to just ignore you.

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg


Troy Piggins

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 7:36:42 PM7/19/08
to
* John McWilliams wrote :
> Troy Piggins wrote:
> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 38 lines snipped |=---]

>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I just checked that charter for this group. I won't be crossposting
>> links to photos in there any more. Sorry.
>>
>>> rec.photo.digital
>>> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>>>
>>> Personally, I don't think it's people posting photos that's
>>> killing the groups, it's the other noise - flame-wars and
>>> off-topic discussions.
>
> You're 100% on the money there, Troy. It did occur to me that you also
> post to three groups as the troublemakers do, but then I thought that
> since you live in Oz, you weren't messing with that group as it's yours.
> And x-posting to rpd gives a wider audience, don't think anyone objects
> in the slightest. Adding a third group, rpd-slr may or may not be in
> line with general netiquette, but I cannot imagine even this curmedgeon
> objecting in the least, as you are posting, not trolling or warring, or
> "educating the lesser beings", etc., etc.
>
> Please keep up the fine work; just don't let it go to your head! :)

:) I'll try.

David J. Littleboy

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 8:34:28 PM7/19/08
to

"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote:

If you don't stop playing with the cameras and clean up the garbage, your
wife's going to leave you!

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


Annika1980

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 8:56:27 PM7/19/08
to
On Jul 19, 6:53 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>  Could we perhaps get back on
> > topic about photography!  Why not start by critiquing Bret's work?
>
> Because recently Bret's been on about ego, not photos.

Recently?

So what did you think of the pic, Johnny Boy?

Robert Coe

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 10:34:33 PM7/19/08
to
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 07:50:32 +1000, Troy Piggins <usene...@piggo.com>
wrote:
: Personally, I don't think it's people posting photos that's

: killing the groups, it's the other noise - flame-wars and
: off-topic discussions.

Quite so.

Annika1980

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 11:13:44 PM7/19/08
to
On Jul 19, 8:04 pm, "Atheist Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote:
>
> your just another worthless net cop who thinks his opinion matters, the easy
> way to defeat your FU is to just ignore you.
>

Or better yet, make sure your reply to all his posts goes to at least
3 newsgroups.

Hey Johnny, why do you send all your replies to rec.photo.digital?
Is it proper nettiquette to respond to a post in aus.photo or r.p.e.
35mm and have the replies sent to r.p.d?
Seems like a devious form of cross-posting to me.


Annika1980

unread,
Jul 19, 2008, 11:21:50 PM7/19/08
to
On Jul 19, 12:34 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:

> Annika1980 wrote:
> > Who will blink first?
>
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/100386480/original
>
> Those who are getting tired of you crossposting and trying to generate
> hits to your site.

Pbase isn't MY site. It is run by Slug & Emily, but thanks for
caring.

Oh, and you'll be happy to know that I recently passed the 2 MILLION
hit mark on my Pbase site.
And that doesn't include the over half-million hits I got on my old
Annika1980 Pbase site before I switched to the current one.

I wonder how many of them were D-Mac?

2SQUID

unread,
Jul 20, 2008, 5:14:11 AM7/20/08
to

My comments are based on the charter of the groups. Aus.Photo does not
have a charter but I would presume by the name it is the only group of
the three being cross posted to where photographs are the "specific"
nature of the group.

I have yet to figure out why people post their photos - for comment or
otherwise - to a hardware specific group like R.P.E.35mm. Unless they
were to point out a hardware related issue. There are plenty of these
where a photo would tell a thousand words but surely, a fly on dung is
not one of them.

Rec.Photo.Digital was the original "digital" group. Alan Browne help
fork it into separate digital groups to try and limit the traffic of
"what is the best price" and the like. I notice he did not include a
"digital photos" group in them.

Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings. Maybe
the truth might not be what you want to see?

I would have thought Troy, coming from a computer background you would
understand the need for compartmentalised information. Presuming
aus.photo is the only group where posting photos is encouraged. Why not
just post your links there and if people who visit the other groups are
actually looking for links to photos, they'll give aus.photo their
attention. I won't need to have as large a kill file either.

Let the natural ebb and flow of users decide if the other two groups are
being artificially propped up and they dissolve into cyber space when
you refrain or if they flourish with equipment related posts? Surely you
can see the logic in that Troy?

Troy Piggins

unread,
Jul 20, 2008, 7:51:57 AM7/20/08
to
* 2SQUID wrote :
> John McWilliams wrote:
> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 52 lines snipped |=---]

>> post to three groups as the troublemakers do, but then I thought that
>> since you live in Oz, you weren't messing with that group as it's yours.
>> And x-posting to rpd gives a wider audience, don't think anyone objects
>> in the slightest. Adding a third group, rpd-slr may or may not be in
>> line with general netiquette, but I cannot imagine even this curmedgeon
>> objecting in the least, as you are posting, not trolling or warring, or
>> "educating the lesser beings", etc., etc.
>>
>> Please keep up the fine work; just don't let it go to your head! :)
>
> My comments are based on the charter of the groups. Aus.Photo does not
> have a charter but I would presume by the name it is the only group of
> the three being cross posted to where photographs are the "specific"
> nature of the group.
>
> I have yet to figure out why people post their photos - for comment or
> otherwise - to a hardware specific group like R.P.E.35mm. Unless they
> were to point out a hardware related issue.

There's nothing in the charter that specifically says you can't
post photos. I usually either give specifics about the equipment
used, or soon get questions about the same. That's why I
thought, and still think, it's relevant.

Reason I said I won't post there any more is when reading the
charter I noted a comment about not to crosspost to other
rec.photo.* groups. I've since re-read it, and that note was
referring actually to the rec.photo.marketplace.35mm group, not
RPE35mm.

Still, despite the charter not /specifying/ it, I've decided not
to post photos there. Hope that makes you happy.

> There are plenty of these
> where a photo would tell a thousand words but surely, a fly on dung is
> not one of them.

Lol that was posted for humour in response to a specific request.
If that grossed you out, harden up and/or buy yourself a sense of
humour.

> Rec.Photo.Digital was the original "digital" group. Alan Browne help
> fork it into separate digital groups to try and limit the traffic of
> "what is the best price" and the like. I notice he did not include a
> "digital photos" group in them.
>
> Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
> them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
> group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings. Maybe
> the truth might not be what you want to see?

You know what? I was prepared to accept your request and
apologise as I did 2 posts ago. I was happy to leave it there,
but you're going on with it and starting to piss me off.

Hmm. Your language and condescending tone is starting to sound
familiar. I wonder...

> I would have thought Troy, coming from a computer background you would
> understand the need for compartmentalised information.

I don't come from a computer background. It's (just another)
hobby of mine. Like photography. Got nothing to do with my
full-time job. Never has.

Hmm. I can think of another conversation I had with a certain
regular about me knowing a bit about computers.

Hmm again. Your probably Aussie, or (less likely) British, from
your spelling. I wonder...

Hmm again. Motzarella.org - I know someone who uses or has used
that news server. Another box ticked...

> Presuming
> aus.photo is the only group where posting photos is encouraged.

No it isn't. It's not encouraged there any more than the other
*photo* groups. You presume incorrectly.

> Why not
> just post your links there and if people who visit the other groups are
> actually looking for links to photos, they'll give aus.photo their
> attention.

No, don't think I'll meet that request of yours. Sorry. I need
to make it easier for my fans. I know of at least one little
girl who enjoys looking at some of my macro photos:

http://groups.google.com/group/aus.photo/browse_thread/thread/bef5e1e1a65dc06/29fd22fac73c1bae?lnk=st&q=#29fd22fac73c1bae

and I'd rather make her happy and piss you off than the other way
round.

> I won't need to have as large a kill file either.

I don't care about the size of your killfile. If your hard drive
capacity struggles with a couple more lines of plain text in a
file, you got bigger issues than killfiling me. Do it. I'll
make it easier, killfile aus.photo as a whole - that'll save you
some space.

> Let the natural ebb and flow of users decide if the other two groups are
> being artificially propped up and they dissolve into cyber space when
> you refrain or if they flourish with equipment related posts?

Why don't /you/ let the natural ebb and flow of users decide
while I do continue to post as I wish.

> Surely you
> can see the logic in that Troy?

Don't talk to me like I'm an idiot. I'm not.

Colin.D

unread,
Jul 20, 2008, 7:59:03 AM7/20/08
to

As see it, r.p.e.35mm is an equipment group oriented towards 35mm and
allied cameras, which IMHO includes dslrs that are clearly descended
from 35mm slrs; and as a photographic image is the natural result of
using such equipment, I do not see any impediment in posting a link to
an image. Images are not allowed to be posted directly in the group,
but links IMHO do not violate the charter.

It has been said that r.p.e.35mm is the 'guru' group, with more
experienced long-term photographers here (despite increasing
cross-posting!) than other camera/photo groups, and I agree, as many of
us have long experience in film before switching to digital. This is
too valuable a resource to waste, or to drive away by objecting to links
to images that mostly give insight into the hardware features of the
cameras used.

I guess there are as many opinions as there are contributors, so there
probably will never be a universally agreed answer.

Colin D.

Troy Piggins

unread,
Jul 20, 2008, 8:16:07 AM7/20/08
to
* Colin.D wrote :
> 2SQUID wrote:
> [---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 86 lines snipped |=---]

>> understand the need for compartmentalised information. Presuming
>> aus.photo is the only group where posting photos is encouraged. Why not
>> just post your links there and if people who visit the other groups are
>> actually looking for links to photos, they'll give aus.photo their
>> attention. I won't need to have as large a kill file either.
>>
>> Let the natural ebb and flow of users decide if the other two groups are
>> being artificially propped up and they dissolve into cyber space when
>> you refrain or if they flourish with equipment related posts? Surely you
>> can see the logic in that Troy?
>
> As see it, r.p.e.35mm is an equipment group oriented towards 35mm and
> allied cameras, which IMHO includes dslrs that are clearly descended
> from 35mm slrs; and as a photographic image is the natural result of
> using such equipment, I do not see any impediment in posting a link to
> an image. Images are not allowed to be posted directly in the group,
> but links IMHO do not violate the charter.
>
> It has been said that r.p.e.35mm is the 'guru' group, with more
> experienced long-term photographers here (despite increasing
> cross-posting!) than other camera/photo groups, and I agree, as many of
> us have long experience in film before switching to digital. This is
> too valuable a resource to waste, or to drive away by objecting to links
> to images that mostly give insight into the hardware features of the
> cameras used.
>
> I guess there are as many opinions as there are contributors, so there
> probably will never be a universally agreed answer.

Well put Colin. It's what I was trying to say, but without the
emotion :)

I think you've summed it up well.

Mark Thomas

unread,
Jul 20, 2008, 9:17:35 AM7/20/08
to
Troy Piggins wrote:
> * 2SQUID wrote :
>> Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
>> them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
>> group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings. Maybe
>> the truth might not be what you want to see?
>
> You know what? I was prepared to accept your request and
> apologise as I did 2 posts ago. I was happy to leave it there,
> but you're going on with it and starting to piss me off.
>
> Hmm. Your language and condescending tone is starting to sound
> familiar. I wonder...
>
>> I would have thought Troy, coming from a computer background you would
>> understand the need for compartmentalised information.
>
> I don't come from a computer background. It's (just another)
> hobby of mine. Like photography. Got nothing to do with my
> full-time job. Never has.
>
> Hmm. I can think of another conversation I had with a certain
> regular about me knowing a bit about computers.
>
> Hmm again. Your probably Aussie, or (less likely) British, from
> your spelling. I wonder...
>
> Hmm again. Motzarella.org - I know someone who uses or has used
> that news server. Another box ticked...

I shall merely offer a number and a sardonic grin... 176.

(O:

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 20, 2008, 10:49:03 AM7/20/08
to
John McWilliams wrote:
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>> * Colin.D wrote :

>
>>> As see it, r.p.e.35mm is an equipment group oriented towards 35mm and
>>> allied cameras, which IMHO includes dslrs that are clearly descended
>>> from 35mm slrs; and as a photographic image is the natural result of
>>> using such equipment, I do not see any impediment in posting a link
>>> to an image. Images are not allowed to be posted directly in the
>>> group, but links IMHO do not violate the charter.
>>>
>>> It has been said that r.p.e.35mm is the 'guru' group, with more
>>> experienced long-term photographers here (despite increasing
>>> cross-posting!) than other camera/photo groups, and I agree, as many
>>> of us have long experience in film before switching to digital. This
>>> is too valuable a resource to waste, or to drive away by objecting to
>>> links to images that mostly give insight into the hardware features
>>> of the cameras used.
>>>
>>> I guess there are as many opinions as there are contributors, so
>>> there probably will never be a universally agreed answer.
>>
>> Well put Colin. It's what I was trying to say, but without the
>> emotion :)
>>
>> I think you've summed it up well.
>
Yes, nicely done.

As a point of history, Alan Browne did not create by himself any usenet
group, although IIRC he became a co-proponent of the
re-org/re-do/splitting, call it what you will, of the then main group,
rec.photo.digital, which at that time carried several hundred posts
every few hours, much of it cross posted trolling, but even filtering
that out it left too much for one group to handle well. There was a lot
of tom-foolery (what else is new) injected into the group creating
process, and some names were adopted that may have been slightly off.

--
John McWilliams

Message has been deleted

Annika1980

unread,
Jul 20, 2008, 12:32:14 PM7/20/08
to
On Jul 20, 5:14 am, 2SQUID <2sq...@pacific-ocean.com> wrote:
> Maybe Troy, if you are dedicated to exhibiting your photos by linking to
> them in a newsgroup, you might consider creating (yet another) niche
> group? I notice Annika1980's group is not getting many postings.

What group would that be?

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 20, 2008, 2:11:13 PM7/20/08
to

A fantasy group? Failed experiment? Jive-ass failure to try to put Bret
down?

--
john mcwilliams

^Tems^

unread,
Jul 20, 2008, 11:12:27 PM7/20/08
to

Hey may have meant his annika1980.com site and that it isn't getting
many hits since he stopped posting the link

Noons

unread,
Jul 24, 2008, 6:25:20 AM7/24/08
to

Annika1980

unread,
Jul 24, 2008, 8:58:27 AM7/24/08
to
On Jul 24, 6:25 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Nothing.

John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 24, 2008, 11:58:51 AM7/24/08
to
Don't post this crap in aus.photo!


John McWilliams

unread,
Jul 24, 2008, 11:59:31 AM7/24/08
to
Annika1980 wrote:
> On Jul 24, 6:25 am, Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> Nothing.

Or less

Noons

unread,
Jul 24, 2008, 6:21:57 PM7/24/08
to
0 new messages