It's just wrong
Bowser
the library in Beaufort, SC.
Troy Piggins
> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>
> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
Lol. I don't think it's just you. :)
Did you take the shot? Woulda thought you'd avoid getting your
reflection in the window/mirror.
--
Troy Piggins
Savageduck
In so many ways. :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
ray
You're right - it's just you.
Frank ess
You think the same sculptor did this one of a couple about to throw
their kid under a Ferrari?
--
Frank ess
Frank ess
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2221/3541231062_a72756a77b_o.jpg
Pete D
"Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote in message
news:4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front
> of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>
> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
No not really, it is South Carolina.
Paul Heslop
obviously not :O)
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Bob Williams
To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
pedophiles in the town.
Bob Williams
Ron Hunter
> ray wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:02:43 -0400, Bowser wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>
>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>> You're right - it's just you.
>
> obviously not :O)
'Wrong' is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty. I see nothing wrong
in the picture. Perhaps it is your mindset, when you viewed the image.
Ron Hunter
I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
in this sculpture....
Floyd L. Davidson
Same thing a shrink would say about someone who saw
homosexuality in the article you responded to.
Which is also on the same level as seeing pedophilia in
that image.
whisky-dave
"Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote in message
news:4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>
> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
Yes I think your right, it reminds me too much of catholic school ;-)
>
Atheist Chaplain
--
[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
"Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote in message
news:4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
Atheist Chaplain
news:RHaQl.35820$0S....@newsfe22.iad...
so why do you think "paedophiles" when you see an innocent statue of a girl
helping a younger child to get a drink ??
political correctness now has everyone jumping at shadows.........
Bowser
I made no references to homosexuality in my original post. You were the
one who injected homosexuality. If you see a problem, look in the mirror.
George Kerby
On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now>
wrote:
> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>
> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>
If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for you?
George Kerby
On 5/18/09 6:25 AM, in article
BoqdnaGzt_s22IzX...@giganews.com, "Ron Hunter"
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
"Homosexuality"?!? I don't know what you see, but that is clearly a girl
holding a younger boy (little brother?) up to get a drink from the fountain.
George Kerby
On 5/18/09 6:59 AM, in article 4a11...@news.x-privat.org, "Atheist
Chaplain" <abu...@cia.gov> wrote:
> "Bob Williams" <mytbob...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:RHaQl.35820$0S....@newsfe22.iad...
>> Bowser wrote:
>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front
>>> of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>
>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>
>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>> pedophiles in the town.
>> Bob Williams
>
> so why do you think "paedophiles" when you see an innocent statue of a girl
> helping a younger child to get a drink ??
>
> political correctness now has everyone jumping at shadows.........
Ain't it a wonderful world that the "Culturally Diverse" have created?
Miss California is asked her OPINION about gay marriage by a flamer and
before she gives it, she apologized in advance that she did not mean to hurt
anyone's "feelings", and she gets lambasted everywhere. Did the womens'
groups come to her side? Hell no! They were too "P.C."...
Floyd L. Davidson
I don't think that is what it is. It appears to me to
be a pair of young girls, who are definitely not
sisters. Look at the design of that water fountain.
It's old, from the 1930s.
There's just an enormous bit of symbolism in that statue,
and not a bit of it has to do with sexuality.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Savageduck
Naah! It's a public service demonstration of the Heimlich Maneuver in action.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bowser
When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
and see what happened. And look what happened!
Savageduck
Aaaah! The very definition of a successful and worthy troll :-)
You know, you are not supposed to admit that sort of thing.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
ray
OP did not ask if there was anything wrong with the picture - asked if
there was something wrong with the statue. The answer is no - art is
different things to different people - there is no 'right' or 'wrong' art.
Paul Heslop
I find it funny, not 'wrong'
Bowser
Geez, I wouldn't classify this as a troll. It's not like I said all
Nikon users are elitist snobs or anything, is it? Just having a little
fun with the locals, that's all.
Paul Heslop
I wonder what he would make about the lack of a sense of humour in
some people in this group. Obviously there's nothing wrong with the
thing, but humour is to be found in the silliest of places and this is
a perfect example of the absurdity of it. Most of us would probably
not have thought anything of it at all but someone pointed it out and
now I can laugh at it. bit like making your own captions to pictures.
Paul Heslop
Paul Heslop
you injected the humour into the scene. some decided to take that as
being the sign of a sick mind... ah well.
Savageduck
I know, it was just one of those humerous observations.
I always thought it was the Red, 'blad and View camera users who were
the elitist snobs.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
Did I type "humerous?"
What was I thinking? Spell Check, Spell Check, Spell Check!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David Ruether
"Paul Heslop" <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:4A1179B0...@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Paul Heslop wrote:
>> > ray wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:02:43 -0400, Bowser wrote:
>> >>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>> >>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>> >> You're right - it's just you.
>> > obviously not :O)
>> 'Wrong' is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty. I see nothing wrong
>> in the picture. Perhaps it is your mindset, when you viewed the image.
> I find it funny, not 'wrong'
> --
> Paul (We won't die of devotion)
Hmmmm........, after much observation, consideration of the depiction
in all its possible respects, much thought, and much soul-searching,
I heartily agree with you! 8^)
--DR
Bowser
> Bowser wrote:
>> George Kerby wrote:
>>>
>>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
>>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>>
>>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for you?
>>>
>> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
>> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
>> of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
>> some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
>> and see what happened. And look what happened!
>
> you injected the humour into the scene. some decided to take that as
> being the sign of a sick mind... ah well.
>
I did, and somehow, it spun out of control. Whoda thunk it on usenet?
Twibil
>
> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
> in this sculpture....
He'd say they have a sense of humor.
Twibil
> Ain't it a wonderful world that the "Culturally Diverse" have created?
>
> Miss California is asked her OPINION about gay marriage by a flamer and
> before she gives it, she apologized in advance that she did not mean to hurt
> anyone's "feelings", and she gets lambasted everywhere. Did the womens'
> groups come to her side? Hell no! They were too "P.C."...
Ah, I see!
You mean the culturally-diverse-created world where this supposedly
moral Christian beauty-contest entrant had done topless photo shoots
previous to entering the contest, but somehow forgot to mention that
fact because it would have automatically excluded her from
competition? (The same world where she's *still* claimimg that she
didn't know the wind had blown her vest open and her nipples were
showing? Yeah right...)
Or is it the world where she promptly claimed that she'd only lost the
contest because of her views on gay marrage, and then ignored the
terms of her contract with the beauty pageant folks to go out and do
appearences for Fundie groups?
No, I don't think "Cultural Diversity" brought about *that* world.
That's just your every-day right-wing Fundie hypocrisy functioning the
same way it always does.
Paul Heslop
> > I find it funny, not 'wrong'
> > --
> > Paul (We won't die of devotion)
>
> Hmmmm........, after much observation, consideration of the depiction
> in all its possible respects, much thought, and much soul-searching,
> I heartily agree with you! 8^)
> --DR
:O) yay!
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
Paul Heslop
:O)
Bill
>Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
>the library in Beaufort, SC.
>
>http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the statue. What's wrong is
that our current society is teaching everyone to see the evil in every
damn thing that they see or hear.
To me, it represents better days when a sister or friend would not
hesitate to help another in this manner. It truly sucks that today,
the first thing that people scream is PERVERT when someone touches
another person.
Bill in SC
J�rgen Exner
>No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the statue. What's wrong is
>that our current society is teaching everyone to see the evil in every
>damn thing that they see or hear.
>
>To me, it represents better days when a sister or friend would not
>hesitate to help another in this manner. It truly sucks that today,
>the first thing that people scream is PERVERT when someone touches
>another person.
Amen to that!
30 years ago when a kid at school pulled out his new Swiss Army knife
that he got for his birthday, the teacher would pull out his and they
would compare features.
Today they scream for police, SWAT, psychiatrist, and immediately
expelling the kid.
jue
Ron Hunter
picture, and both of them are male, so if there is a pedophile in the
photo, it is homosexual one, is it not?
Ron Hunter
judgment there? NAWWW.
Bowser
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:2o-dnbwBWNcJTIzX...@giganews.com...
I took the picture, and could clearly see that one girl is helping another
younger girl get a drink from a fountain. What did you see?
Bowser
True. But did I say what? Did I lead the reader to some conclusion? Nope.
The perversion started on its own. Hey, I'm just the shooter reflected in
the window. Don't blame me.
Bowser
"Bill" <carver...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:8rh315hg8k5khm6hs...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:02:43 -0400, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote:
>
>>Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front
>>of
>>the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>
>>http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>
> No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the statue. What's wrong is
> that our current society is teaching everyone to see the evil in every
> damn thing that they see or hear.
And that's what I wanted to see. I showed this pic to a few friends, and all
of them had the same reaction; WTF? It's just a couple of kids. You can read
into it what you want, and apparently, provide a glimpse into our minds.
>
> To me, it represents better days when a sister or friend would not
> hesitate to help another in this manner. It truly sucks that today,
> the first thing that people scream is PERVERT when someone touches
> another person.
And you win the prize! Totally agree. BTW, loved Beaufort and SC. Thinking
of retiring down there and getting the hell out of Massachusetts.
Frank ess
Geez, you really need a vacation.
--
Frank ess
Caesar Romano
Re: It's just wrong:
> BTW, loved Beaufort and SC. Thinking
>of retiring down there and getting the hell out of Massachusetts.
Have you ever been there during the summer mosquito season?
Paul Heslop
EVIL? oh come on man. please, its losing its humour because humourless
people are making wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much of it.
The original message of the sculpture hasn't changed.
tony cooper
I guess it was because it was North Carolina, but my first thought was
that it symbolized desegregated drinking fountains. I wouldn't have
thought that if there hadn't been an agenda suggested by the post.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Nicko
What on earth is perverted about a sculpture that might be interpreted
as depicting one kid doing another with a strapon while the other kid
hurls into a drinking fountain? I think it's delightfully charming.
--
YOP...
John McWilliams
> * Bowser wrote :
>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>
>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>
>
> Did you take the shot? Woulda thought you'd avoid getting your
> reflection in the window/mirror.
Yes, and avoided the window frame's strong horizontal passing through
the woman's head, the person and car in the reflection, and her eyes
aren't in focus. [ :-)].
--
john mcwilliams
Atheist Chaplain
so who didn't look at the picture ??
might I recommend you visit an optometrist and get tested as your eyesight
is obviously failing, to the extent you have difficulty telling the
difference between girls and boys. This may lead to later embarrassment when
asking someone out for a date in the future :-)
I hope this helps.
--
[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
Paul Furman
> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>> Did you take the shot? Woulda thought you'd avoid getting your
>> reflection in the window/mirror.
>
> Yes, and avoided the window frame's strong horizontal passing through
> the woman's head, the person and car in the reflection, and her eyes
> aren't in focus. [ :-)].
:-)
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
I saw a woman helping her son to the drinking fountain, and thought wtf
about the obviously funny sexual innuendos <g>.
Floyd L. Davidson
No, you started the perversion. The blame is entirely
yours, and you've *admitted* that was your purpose so
there is little point in denying who should be blamed.
In fact, there is just *nothing* wrong with that statute.
It is a fabulous bit of art.
And now the discussion turns to what is wrong with the
guy who posted the claim that the statue wasn't right...
and you are an appropriate topic.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd L. Davidson
>
>I guess it was because it was North Carolina, but my first thought was
>that it symbolized desegregated drinking fountains. I wouldn't have
>thought that if there hadn't been an agenda suggested by the post.
That appears to be *exactly* what the statue symbolizes.
It's a fabulous bit of art.
Bob Williams
> "Bob Williams" <mytbob...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:RHaQl.35820$0S....@newsfe22.iad...
>> Bowser wrote:
>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>
>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>
>> pedophiles in the town.
>> Bob Williams
>
> girl helping a younger child to get a drink ??
>
> political correctness now has everyone jumping at shadows.........
>
Mea Culpa!
I did not examine the sculpture closely enough.
I thought that the older person was a male, and as such, the position
was suggestive. But as so many pointed out, the older person is
obviously a female.
So the sculpture does not appear to me tosmack of pedophilia.
Bob Williams
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Who said paedophiles are only after boys?
Eric Stevens
Chris Malcolm
Unless of course the older person is a male cross dresser or a
shemale.
Have any of you pornography experts checked out any of the major
public art galleries? They've got filthy pictures and statues in there
which make this one look like two kids at a drinking fountain!
--
Chris Malcolm
Atheist Chaplain
news:77fdh6F...@mid.individual.net...
I get all my best porn from Art Galleries ;-)
Caesar Romano
Davidson) wrote Re Re: It's just wrong:
>It's a fabulous bit of art.
It's junk.
THIS a fabulousbit of art:
http://nooblogs.gr/ballas/files/2008/05/michelangelo_david2.jpg
Bowser
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:t7v415leqbl7grotv...@4ax.com...
Pretty telling, no?
Bowser
"Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:NtmdnXQLQM3NRYzX...@giganews.com...
Hell, I took the pic while I was on vacation. Can't afford another one right
now, unless you'd care to take up a collection from the newsgroup regs. I'm
betting it'd be a total waste of time.
Besides, I bet I can find something else absurd on my next vacation on
Martha's Vineyard. Not to worry, I'll post that one, if it happens, as well.
Bowser
"Floyd L. Davidson" <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote in message
news:878wktz...@apaflo.com...
Nope, I said nothing except I thought something was wrong. Readers were free
to draw their own conclusions, and many did.
>
> In fact, there is just *nothing* wrong with that statute.
> It is a fabulous bit of art.
Well, it's OK. A little strange, but not too bad.
>
> And now the discussion turns to what is wrong with the
> guy who posted the claim that the statue wasn't right...
> and you are an appropriate topic.
Old news. I think the cold winter has taken it's toll.
Bowser
"Caesar Romano" <Sp...@uce.gov> wrote in message
news:eqm31552tg681ep9c...@4ax.com...
Not yet. But the summer mosquito season where I live isn't anything to
relish, either. I'll be down there again in August, so maybe I'll get a
chance.
Bowser
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:q8p315l18tudf31m3...@4ax.com...
There is a Beaufort NC, but this one is in SC. Besides, they pronounce them
differently. Unfortuntely, the pronunciations don't come across clearly on
usenet.
Paul Heslop
which 'bit' :O)
tony cooper
There are differences between North and South Carolina, and I do know
one from the other. As far as segregated drinking fountains in the
past, though, they were the same.
whisky-dave
> Bowser wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>> pedophiles in the town.
>>>> Bob Williams
>>> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
>>> in this sculpture....
>>
>> I made no references to homosexuality in my original post. You were the
>> one who injected homosexuality. If you see a problem, look in the mirror.
> I guess you didn't look at the image. There are two people in the
> picture, and both of them are male, so if there is a pedophile in the
> photo, it is homosexual one, is it not?
I saw incest too. ;-)
I find it strange that two kids of quite different apparent ages would wear
the same
type/style of clothes unless they were related.
And that bloke with the sandals and knee length shorts adjusting his
spectacles
looks a bit of a shady character, and as for the pervert taking the picture
well
what can one say except lock'em all up ;-)
George Kerby
On 5/18/09 8:45 AM, in article EDdQl.283$X6...@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com,
"Bowser" <ov...@the.rainbow> wrote:
> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>
>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>
>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for you?
>>
>
> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
> of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
> some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
> and see what happened. And look what happened!
I was playing "P.C." with the North vs. South thing, but DO look what
happened!
"Ladies and germs, we have a WIN-NAH!"
whisky-dave
"George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:C636C4AD.2A8A7%ghost_...@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> On 5/18/09 6:25 AM, in article
> BoqdnaGzt_s22IzX...@giganews.com, "Ron Hunter"
>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>
>>> pedophiles in the town.
>>> Bob Williams
>>
>> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
>> in this sculpture....
> holding a younger boy (little brother?) up to get a drink from the
> fountain.
I find the clothes too similar to be a boy and a girl, the older girl seems
a little flat chested but that could be because 'she' is young, but those
shoes don;t lok
like young girls shoes, and the smaller child lokos quite tall enough to be
able
to take a drink from the fountain themselves.
Do we know the name or title of this statue or the name of the
sculpture/artist whatever.
>
George Kerby
On 5/18/09 2:37 PM, in article
f92414d2-b74e-40cd...@s1g2000prd.googlegroups.com, "Twibil"
<noway...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 5:59�am, George Kerby <ghost_top...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ain't it a wonderful world that the "Culturally Diverse" have created?
>>
>> Miss California is asked her OPINION about gay marriage by a flamer and
>> before she gives it, she apologized in advance that she did not mean to hurt
>> anyone's "feelings", and she gets lambasted everywhere. Did the womens'
>> groups come to her side? Hell no! They were too "P.C."...
>
> Ah, I see!
>
> You mean the culturally-diverse-created world where this supposedly
> moral Christian beauty-contest entrant had done topless photo shoots
> previous to entering the contest, but somehow forgot to mention that
> fact because it would have automatically excluded her from
> competition? (The same world where she's *still* claimimg that she
> didn't know the wind had blown her vest open and her nipples were
> showing? Yeah right...)
>
You obviously have never been on a shoot that involves glamour.
> Or is it the world where she promptly claimed that she'd only lost the
> contest because of her views on gay marrage, and then ignored the
> terms of her contract with the beauty pageant folks to go out and do
> appearences for Fundie groups?
>
You obviously have never had someone challenge your right of opinion.
> No, I don't think "Cultural Diversity" brought about *that* world.
>
You obviously do not have any 'balance' with that small pointed pinhead.
> That's just your every-day right-wing Fundie hypocrisy functioning the
> same way it always does.
>
You obviously are functioning with the same myopic approach to life as your
ilk always does.
whisky-dave
"Bowser" <u...@gone.now> wrote in message
news:4a11d5e3$0$4888$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Hey, I'm just the shooter reflected in the window. Don't blame me.
Hold on you shot all over the window !
well as long as you wiped it off with a tissue
>
George Kerby
On 5/18/09 4:22 PM, in article
2o-dnbwBWNcJTIzX...@giganews.com, "Ron Hunter"
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Bowser wrote:
>> Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>>> Bowser wrote:
>>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>>>> pedophiles in the town.
>>>> Bob Williams
>>> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
>>> in this sculpture....
>>
>> I made no references to homosexuality in my original post. You were the
>> one who injected homosexuality. If you see a problem, look in the mirror.
> I guess you didn't look at the image. There are two people in the
> picture, and both of them are male,
((((((((((??????????)))))))))))
Dude, this is in the South, not Castro District in S.F.!
The figure holding up the smaller to the fountian is clearly a GIRL! The
other, is a little boy in my opinion. Others see it as another girl.
George Kerby
On 5/19/09 7:06 AM, in article
4a12a1cd$0$4916$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now>
wrote:
I got one right here...
Bowser
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:fQrQl.18706$D32....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> John McWilliams wrote:
>> Troy Piggins wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>
>>> Did you take the shot? Woulda thought you'd avoid getting your
>>> reflection in the window/mirror.
>>
>> Yes, and avoided the window frame's strong horizontal passing through the
>> woman's head, the person and car in the reflection, and her eyes aren't
>> in focus. [ :-)].
Man, tough audience!
Bowser
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote in message
news:guubkn$tta$1@qmul...
Totally agree. The shooter is a total loser.
BTW, don't forget to shoot a filter shot for the Shoot-In!
Bowser
A few years back when Clinton was visiting Martha's Vineyard, the running
gag was this:
Bad news: The Clintons are coming to the Vineyard.
Good news: Ted's driving.
Bowser
OK, look, we all know that the northerners hate the southerners, but I bet
you don't know why. Barbeque. You simply can't get good barbeque up north,
and I don't think that's a coincidence at all. It's a GD barbeque
conspiracy, that's what it is! Once you've had the pulled pork at Charlie
and Jakes or Meemaws in Melbourne, FL, anything up north is simply sub-par.
People up here throw some chicken on the grill, slap on some sugar-sauce,
and call it barbeque. It ain't...
Savageduck
Then go West for Santa Maria style Tri-Tip, more barbeque delights!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Paul Heslop
shoes thing, heck, never heard of kids wearing tough clothes because,
well, they're kids... hardly going tree climbing in a pair of heels
Paul Heslop
use different toilets.
Paul Furman
>
> Have any of you pornography experts checked out any of the major
> public art galleries? They've got filthy pictures and statues in there
> which make this one look like two kids at a drinking fountain!
Ha!
Paul Bartram
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote
> Do we know the name or title of this statue or the name of the
> sculpture/artist whatever.
When this thread started I did a Google and Google News search for Beaufort
SC, and visited the Beaufort Library website (which appears to be way out of
date) and there is no mention of this statue or the exhibition it is part
of. Nothing on the Manzi site the photo comes from gives any clues, or
confirms exactly when the shot was taken - it might be years old for all we
know. Bowser, can you shed any light?
However, from the lack of news links or Blogs on the subject, it would seem
only visitors to this newsgroup saw anything suspicious or noteworthy about
the statue!
>> Bowser added:
>> Man, tough audience!
You got that right!
Paul
Bob Larter
> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>
> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
Oh dear.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
Must've been cold in that studio...
tony cooper
NEAR lizzy.com.au> wrote:
>
>"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote
>
>> Do we know the name or title of this statue or the name of the
>> sculpture/artist whatever.
>
>When this thread started I did a Google and Google News search for Beaufort
>SC, and visited the Beaufort Library website (which appears to be way out of
>date) and there is no mention of this statue or the exhibition it is part
>of.
I couldn't search out anything either.
Paul Heslop
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote
>
> > Do we know the name or title of this statue or the name of the
> > sculpture/artist whatever.
>
> When this thread started I did a Google and Google News search for Beaufort
> SC, and visited the Beaufort Library website (which appears to be way out of
> date) and there is no mention of this statue or the exhibition it is part
> of. Nothing on the Manzi site the photo comes from gives any clues, or
> confirms exactly when the shot was taken - it might be years old for all we
> know. Bowser, can you shed any light?
>
a while, a part of the town, so to speak.
on trying to discover the artist etc I found this page, sure to raise
some smutty comments ho ho but the theme seems to be quite common
http://www.bronze-depot.com/catalog/category.asp?catid=3
Caesar Romano
<paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote Re Re: It's just wrong:
>it looks awfully like a piece of public art which has been around for
>a while, a part of the town, so to speak.
>
>on trying to discover the artist etc I found this page, sure to raise
>some smutty comments ho ho but the theme seems to be quite common
>http://www.bronze-depot.com/catalog/category.asp?catid=3
Well, there it is. The fourth row down on the left. It's not the same
sculpture, but it's the same artist or an intentional copy of his
style of work.
Paul Heslop
yep, and a few of the others are very similar in theme.
whisky-dave
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:77fdh6F...@mid.individual.net...
> Have any of you pornography experts checked out any of the major
> public art galleries? They've got filthy pictures and statues in there
> which make this one look like two kids at a drinking fountain!
>
Then it is classed as Art and not porn. :)
Now lets get back to glamour.
Chris Malcolm
> Bill <carver...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>No, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the statue. What's wrong is
>>that our current society is teaching everyone to see the evil in every
>>damn thing that they see or hear.
>>
>>hesitate to help another in this manner. It truly sucks that today,
>>the first thing that people scream is PERVERT when someone touches
>>another person.
> Amen to that!
> 30 years ago when a kid at school pulled out his new Swiss Army knife
> that he got for his birthday, the teacher would pull out his and they
> would compare features.
> Today they scream for police, SWAT, psychiatrist, and immediately
> expelling the kid.
When I was at school we were encouraged to bring our knives to school
so we could learn the various ways of putting various kinds of point
on pencils, learn how to sharpen them properly, and learn how to use
them without cutting our fingers. I think roughly 30% of the boys
would carry knives to school for pencil sharpening, craft work, apple
peeling, etc.. Which reminds me, we also learned how to peel an apple
so that the peel was one long continuous string.
Fights were common, but any kid who took a weapon to a fight, whether
a knife or a stick or stone, was severely told off and probably beaten
up by bigger boys to teach him a lesson. And a big boy who used a
weapon would be seriously warned and possibly beaten up by men. It was
well understood that letting weapons be used in anger by teenagers and
young men was socially very dangerous lunacy which had to be stamped
out very fast.
--
Chris Malcolm
George Kerby
On 5/19/09 5:07 PM, in article
4a132dae$0$4900$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now>
wrote:
<G!>
George Kerby
On 5/19/09 5:10 PM, in article
4a132e6e$0$4890$ec3e...@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <u...@gone.now>
wrote:
I'll have to remember that next time I'm in FL.
Robert Coe
:
: "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Well, most southerners would spell it "barbecue" (or in large signs, possibly
"Bar-B-Q"), but your point is well taken.
FWIW, I've managed to read most of this thread (an act of largely unjustifed
diligence) and have been surprised that no one seems to have directly
mentioned the statue's most obvious allusion: The older girl is white, and the
younger one is black, and there are those (I'm one of them) who grew up in the
south and can remember when the two girls would not have been allowed to use
the same drinking fountain in South Carolina. (I actually grew up in
Mississippi, but the situation was the same.) The statue evidently celebrates
the fact that we've put those times behind us.
Bob
tony cooper
You didn't read the entire thread, then. My comment was on exactly
this subject: "I guess it was because it was North Carolina, but my
first thought was that it symbolized desegregated drinking fountains.
I wouldn't have thought that if there hadn't been an agenda suggested
by the post."
I did get the state wrong, but North and South Carolina were same in
this aspect.
I noticed this because I'm old enough to have personally seen
segregated facilities. It wasn't just blacks. On my first trip to
Florida with my parents, my father pointed out that some hotels did
not admit Jews. They had signs that said "Restricted". Everyone knew
what that meant. My father refused to stay in one because we were
Catholic and he had experienced discrimination against Catholics.
Robert Coe
wrote:
Yeah, you're right. I hadn't completely worked my way past all the bullshit
about homosexuals and pedophilia, and didn't see your post until after I sent
mine.
: I did get the state wrong, but North and South Carolina were same in
: this aspect.
Almost. North Carolina was, I believe, unique in its recognition of three,
rather than two, races (white, black, and American Indian) for purposes of
segregation. In the rest of the south Indians were considered white, even
tribes whose skin color was very dark.
: I noticed this because I'm old enough to have personally seen
: segregated facilities.
Me too, and I'm of two minds about it: heartened that it now seems part of a
long bygone era, but disconcerted by how old it makes me that I remember it so
well.
: It wasn't just blacks. On my first trip to Florida with my parents, my
: father pointed out that some hotels did not admit Jews. They had signs
: that said "Restricted". Everyone knew what that meant. My father refused
: to stay in one because we were Catholic and he had experienced discrimination
: against Catholics.
The world is a strange place. In my town in Mississippi it was generally
understood that it was the Jews who kept the Syrians out of the country club.
The town had both Jewish and Syrian businessmen who did very well and seemed
about equally wealthy. But it was universally accepted that the richest man in
town was black.
Bob
tony cooper
>Almost. North Carolina was, I believe, unique in its recognition of three,
>rather than two, races (white, black, and American Indian) for purposes of
>segregation. In the rest of the south Indians were considered white, even
>tribes whose skin color was very dark.
>
>: I noticed this because I'm old enough to have personally seen
>: segregated facilities.
>
>Me too, and I'm of two minds about it: heartened that it now seems part of a
>long bygone era, but disconcerted by how old it makes me that I remember it so
>well.
>
>: It wasn't just blacks. On my first trip to Florida with my parents, my
>: father pointed out that some hotels did not admit Jews. They had signs
>: that said "Restricted". Everyone knew what that meant. My father refused
>: to stay in one because we were Catholic and he had experienced discrimination
>: against Catholics.
>
>The world is a strange place. In my town in Mississippi it was generally
>understood that it was the Jews who kept the Syrians out of the country club.
>The town had both Jewish and Syrian businessmen who did very well and seemed
>about equally wealthy. But it was universally accepted that the richest man in
>town was black.
>
My daughter went to college at Valdosta State (Georgia). Her sorority
sisters were mostly from Southern towns and mostly Southern Baptist.
Several had never actually known a Catholic before. My daughter was
always surprised at the myths about Catholics and that some didn't
think that Catholics were Christians. No problems, but some strange
conversations.
One of the things often brought up was the subject of priests and
pedophilia. While my daughter was aware of the problem, neither she
nor my son ever heard of anyone in their Catholic schools who had the
slightest problem with a priest. It's not like it goes on in every
Catholic parish.
My daughter also noted that some of the wildest girls were from strict
Southern Baptist families. Away from home for the first time, and
they went wild.
clifford
>
>FWIW, I've managed to read most of this thread (an act of largely unjustifed
>diligence) and have been surprised that no one seems to have directly
>mentioned the statue's most obvious allusion: The older girl is white, and the
>younger one is black, and there are those (I'm one of them) who grew up in the
>south and can remember when the two girls would not have been allowed to use
>the same drinking fountain in South Carolina. (I actually grew up in
>Mississippi, but the situation was the same.) The statue evidently celebrates
>the fact that we've put those times behind us.
>
>Bob
Then the viewer is left with the choice to view it as the white girl
helping the black girl to get a drink, or what really appears to be
happening. The white girl is trying to pull the black girl away from the
fountain, who refuses to let go. Her ankles even wrapped around the
fountain to try to prevent it. Otherwise the body of the white girl
wouldn't be inclined backward so. Seeing as how the body of the black girl
is large enough to reach the fountain by herself, this appears to be the
artists' obvious intent. The white girl might appear to be smiling with
good intent, but now that smile is more of a malicious sneer or exclamation
of disapproval. Her foot on the fountain's foot-pedal in an attempt to
disguise this fact or her using it as a readily available leverage to
accomplish the task. Her foot is also in control of the water, determining
if the black girl gets to drink it or not.
Put it behind us? Not likely. You're analyzing the statue from a white POV,
hoping that it might depict some altruistic effort, when it is anything
but.
Savageduck
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:39:45 -0400, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
>
>>
>> FWIW, I've managed to read most of this thread (an act of largely unjustifed
>> diligence) and have been surprised that no one seems to have directly
>> mentioned the statue's most obvious allusion: The older girl is white, and the
>> younger one is black, and there are those (I'm one of them) who grew up in the
>> south and can remember when the two girls would not have been allowed to use
>> the same drinking fountain in South Carolina. (I actually grew up in
>> Mississippi, but the situation was the same.) The statue evidently celebrates
>> the fact that we've put those times behind us.
>>
>> Bob
>
> Then the viewer is left with the choice to view it as the white girl
> helping the black girl to g........
Are you really trying to present yourself as legitimate, before you
whip off the sock and reveal your secret identity as "The Phantom P&S
Troll of The Usenet" ?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Geoff
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
that befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and
posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and
models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your
photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can
far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or
will ever be made for larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than
any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used
with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters
can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic
aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this
allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm
equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own
lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic
Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent)
sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much
smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures
and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for
DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than
DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR
you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc.
etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial
DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their
banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera
plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing
just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would
require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a
wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You
also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer,
you will not be barred from using your camera at public events,
stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious
clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's
images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not
endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by
alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you
may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where
any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance.
Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware
into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time
allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for
unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you
may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a
rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all
here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast
subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the
need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone.
Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when
photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions
example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter
flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to
those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the
faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your
camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when
using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter
the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras
where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast
single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of
a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second,
then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't
require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be
used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that
can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously
loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily
damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street;
you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot
(fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete
while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos
that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous
photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of
unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like
food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been
able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating,
natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the
quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with
nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature
where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong.
E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living
field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't
miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like
the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion,
or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of
the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery
of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of
the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with
you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of
human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your
final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your
composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With
the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area
alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your
electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your
exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from
the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display,
ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and
sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as
light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in
total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other
multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of
nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames
of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural
behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is
not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting
and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an
irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly
100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither
scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence.
Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your
direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some
artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the
greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence,
with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving
subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A
leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will
capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S
photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down
another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all
the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those
agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the
shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will
always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss
auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This
allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S
cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every
shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate
preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3
seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the
crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100%
accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot.
What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess
in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or
those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your
client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter
speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could
half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's
30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without
ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter
speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly
seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize
what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use
of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender
on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would
with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject
at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens
in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a
computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the
focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up
the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically
related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up
on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S
camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S
camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in
existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent
camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs
you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings.
Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths
require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs,
you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some
excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of
around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer
today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award
winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago.
If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able
to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a
good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they
NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same
people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only
had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I
will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these
people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin
with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why
these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras
instantly reveal to them their piss-poor photography skills. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera
gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile
and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the
look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that
lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being.
Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that
time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun
experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth
mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that
is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more
award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home,
collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack
or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you.
That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS
STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only
take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with
all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're
not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more
than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras
are just better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of the pretend-photographer usenet trolls yelling "You NEED
a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains
a foolish thing."