Is nothing sacred? :)
RichA
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300326063462&viewitem=&salenotsupported
Post I did in May:
Doug Jewell
with pbase, but if it allows you to change an image (keeping
the link intact), then change the photo for an image that
says something like "fuck you thieving arseholes" or a porno
image or something - really screw with them lol.
Or alternatively I'm pretty sure in cases like this if you
report it to ebay they'll shut the item down.
Ofnuts
> RichA wrote:
>> Ebay ad: see last image
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300326063462&viewitem=&salenotsupported
>>
>>
>> Post I did in May:
>>
>> http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=14030
> I see they have linked to your pbase page. I'm not familiar with pbase,
> but if it allows you to change an image (keeping the link intact), then
> change the photo for an image that says something like "fuck you
> thieving arseholes" or a porno image or something - really screw with
> them lol.
The same image with added visible distortion, chromatic aberration and
general blur would be more sneaky and make them wonder why the lens tops
at 3 bucks.
>
> Or alternatively I'm pretty sure in cases like this if you report it to
> ebay they'll shut the item down.
--
Bertrand
Rich
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:38:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Ebay ad: see last image
>
>
> Of course, they only have the say-so of a stranger on a web forum, now
> don't they? :) I'm not saying you were lying on that forum, just that
> they have no way of knowing if you were or not. Not entirely sound
> business practices there, even if you overlook the copyright
> infringement issues.
It's not common to see an image on Ebay as an illustration of what a
lens can do. Mostly, what you see are shots of the lens in question.
The odd part is that he might get a fair buck for the lens he's
selling while the one I took the shot with I picked up for $5 at a
historical society show because it has oil on the shutter blades!
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Doug Jewell" <a...@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message
news:4a47e71c$0$2574$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
Stormin Mormon
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ofnuts" <o.f.n...@la.poste.net> wrote in message
news:4a47fc5a$0$31215$426a...@news.free.fr...
Robert Coe
: Ebay ad: see last image
:
: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300326063462&viewitem=&salenotsupported
:
: Post I did in May:
:
: http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=14030
That's a nice picture, Rich. Good composition and technically correct. You had
me fooled; I didn't think you even owned a camera.
Bob
Robert Coe
What if someone buys the lens, but it's not as good as Rich's copy, so he
can't duplicate Rich's results? He'll be unhappy; but if he doesn't read this
newsgroup, he probably never finds out the truth.
Bob
Rich
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 11:38:52 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> : Ebay ad: see last image
> :
> :
> : Post I did in May:
> :
> :http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=14030
>
> That's a nice picture, Rich. Good composition and technically correct. You had
> me fooled; I didn't think you even owned a camera.
>
> Bob
I try to avoid posting images unless they are decent quality or if
it's to illustrate a technical point.
Paul Furman
He's got the same lens back up for bid without your pic.
I'm guessing you emailed the seller...
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Rich
> RichA wrote:
> > Ebay ad: see last image
>
>
> > Post I did in May:
>
> >http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=14030
>
> He's got the same lens back up for bid without your pic.
> I'm guessing you emailed the seller...
>
> --
> Paul Furmanwww.edgehill.netwww.baynatives.com
>
> all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Maybe I should just have asked for a cut of the final sale, like Ebay?
ribbit
Seriously Bob...
Those who need to continually post links to mundane happy snaps and then
abuse anyone who calls them that... Seem to have fooled many people. It
seems you've fallen for it too. Does that tell you anything about your
ability to judge character?
At what point did you think Rich was not a good or even just a competent
photographer?
I used to post my commercial and non commercial photo and announce them
specifically in these groups once. At about the time a jackass from
Tennessee got his nose out of joint because I told him his 'pics' were
crap... He stole a client's proof album off my web site ...took a few of
my quite average photos (which I always leave in there to pad the size),
altered them and re-posted them trying to ridicule me when he had no
answer to the plain truth - he was posting happy snaps and not very good
ones at that.
I get about 10% junk with my wedding photography. Instead of getting 600
usable frames, I end up with 540... Way more than I need to deliver.
He's lucky to get 10% technically correct and then has to sort out those
he didn't cut heads off and mess up the composure with! ROTFL. I know
because when I downloaded his pbase and AOL sites, looking for images
he'd stolen from me, I got all his crap wedding and family portrait
photos too!
Usenet changed for me about that time. Similar behaviour by a few
zealots probably affected many photographers in much the same way at
about the same time or earlier.
Lisa Horton endured more hostility and disgusting personal attacks than
anyone... She was as good a photographer as Rich. Do you see her posts
any more? For that matter, do you see any of her Photos?
I have no doubt Rich could go head to head with the best of them on
technical images. Don't take the Mickey out of him (or anyone else)just
because he (they) chooses not to.
Take some worldly advise Bob... Those who need to YELL ABOUT THEIR
PHOTOS are the insecure ones who need uneducated posters to keep telling
them how good they are lest they realise how bad they are.
--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!
Annika1980
show the good ones.
The good ones don't exist.
The first 12 pics in this gallery were all taken by me on Sunday, June
28, 2009.
http://www.pbase.com/bret/2009
That's just one day's output, and I skipped a lot of them because I
need to go to bed.
Show me 12 pics that you've EVER taken that compare with those.
You won't. You can't. You suck.
Savageduck
Nice osprey family Bret.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
D-Mac
Yeah... They're tame ones in a refuge. You can walk right up to the nest
- if you're game to risk a pecking... I'm told.
Ask him for a link to the shot of his car parked in front of them!
D-Mac
The difference between you and me is I make a living with my cameras,
you only fantasise about doing that.
How much have you made from shooting tame "tamelife" this year? ROTFL.
I make more money in a day taking photos like you stole a copy of and
called "The one legged groom" than you made so far this year from all
your photos. Who the Jackass?
Jeff R.
"D-Mac" <pin...@news.group> wrote in message
news:7ar8r1F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> Yeah... They're tame ones in a refuge. You can walk right up to the nest -
> if you're game to risk a pecking... I'm told.
>
> Ask him for a link to the shot of his car parked in front of them!
>
>
> --
> D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
Well, as far as you're concerned, Doug, I'd settle for just one shot of a
tame "stepped-out" panorama to prove how clever you are.
You know... like the one you brag about here:
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/doug.html
The pano you are too gutless to admit you can't do.
Mind you... you can grab some pretty useful shots:
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/composition.jpg
Very useful!
I show it to my students as an example of "what-not-to-do" (under any
circumstances).
LOL!
--
Jeff R.
Savageduck
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2009-06-28 23:35:28 -0700, Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com> said:
>>
>>> D-Mac, everybody knows why you only show us your crap shots and never
>>> show the good ones.
>>> The good ones don't exist.
>>>
>>> The first 12 pics in this gallery were all taken by me on Sunday, June
>>> 28, 2009.
>>> http://www.pbase.com/bret/2009
>>>
>>> That's just one day's output, and I skipped a lot of them because I
>>> need to go to bed.
>>> Show me 12 pics that you've EVER taken that compare with those.
>>> You won't. You can't. You suck.
>>
>> Nice osprey family Bret.
>>
>>
>
> Yeah... They're tame ones in a refuge. You can walk right up to the
> nest - if you're game to risk a pecking... I'm told.
>
> Ask him for a link to the shot of his car parked in front of them!
Boy! Are you bitter!!
Those are good shots of an osprey family, regardless of who the
photographer was , and what equipment he used. Give credit where credit
is due.
...and of all the birds of prey, tame ospreys, maybe in Oz.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Jeff R.
"D-Mac" <pin...@news.group> wrote in message
news:7ar8r1F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> if you're game to risk a pecking... I'm told.
>
> Ask him for a link to the shot of his car parked in front of them!
>
>
> --
> D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
Hey Bret!
You've got some real competition here:
http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix2/index.html
If you can overlook the "Trial" software being used by a so-called
"professional", then you can see how a *real* man takes caged shots.
Well... how Douggie does at least.
You'd never pick these for caged beasts!
Not if you ignore the concrete, the fences, the sleepy looks etc etc...
(Hope he's going to pay for that software some day.)
You'll have to be quick, though. Douggie will probably pull that page real
soon now.
(Hehehe...)
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
"D-Mac" <pin...@news.group> wrote in message
> How much have you made from shooting tame "tamelife" this year? ROTFL.
>
> I make more money in a day taking photos like you stole a copy of and
> called "The one legged groom" than you made so far this year from all your
> photos. Who the Jackass?
I don't know about jackasses, but look! The old goat has posted a
self-portrait on his site:
http://www.mendosus.com/photography/old-goat.jpg
You'll find the original at http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix2/index.html until
he takes it down in 5,4,3....
LOL!
--
Jeff R.
Ofnuts
> I heard of a fellow doing something that once to folks stealing
> bandwidth on his wireless network. He had a Linux box set up as his
> router, and for systems not on the whitelist he piped all incoming
> images through imagemagick to blur them.
Seen that too... also included random vertical/horizontal flip.
--
Bertrand
D-Mac
you use it as a skin for the free software called "Jalbum" it needs to
function. D-mac.info is a hobby site. Hardly warrants buying a license
when it's quite legal to use the demo stuff.
I uselicensed versions of it on my commercial web sites for the shopping
cart function... If I make a buck out of it, why shouldn't Dhina?
Unlike you Jeffrey... I don't have to steal other people's images in
order to get traffic to my site and try to big note myself. You are just
a nasty little rodent like the Jackasses you find comfort in aligning
yourself with.
So here is official notice that you are in breach of Australian
copyright laws. Take my images off your web site within 24 hours or
suffer the consequences.
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/copyright-information.htm
Maybe one day I'll see you lined up for the street van meals Jeff? Don't
worry mate, I won't hold a grudge. In fact I'll give you an extra ladle
of soup and maybe one of Margie's healthy buns mate.
Just don't go selling any property in the next 90 days if you intend to
keep the images you stole from my web sites. OK? If you do the person
you sell it to is going to me might peeved when he has the sale voided
and you have the find the money to pay for your theft.
--
D-Mac...
D-Mac
Students?
How long have you been holding courses at the Jail? Or are you in it?
Maybe that's why you use a fake address?
--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
Jeff R.
"D-Mac" <pin...@news.group> wrote in message
> So here is official notice that you are in breach of Australian copyright
> laws. Take my images off your web site within 24 hours or suffer the
> consequences.
> http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/copyright-information.htm
>
> Maybe one day I'll see you lined up for the street van meals Jeff? Don't
> worry mate, I won't hold a grudge. In fact I'll give you an extra ladle of
> soup and maybe one of Margie's healthy buns mate.
>
> Just don't go selling any property in the next 90 days if you intend to
> keep the images you stole from my web sites. OK? If you do the person you
> sell it to is going to me might peeved when he has the sale voided and you
> have the find the money to pay for your theft.
>
> --
> D-Mac...
Oh finally!
Bravo!
A threat with a time limit.
Doug, sorry to say this, but you cannot limit my rights under the law simply
by posting a notice on your website.
My resposting, *with full attribution* (I must emphasise that) is totally
in accordance with the "parody and satire" provisions of the act.
I even stated as such (unnecessarily) well over a year ago when I first
pointed out your insulting and deceitful webpage.
But go ahead and make hollow threats, Doug.
That seems to be what you do best.
90 days and counting. What's that? Roughly the end of September.
What'll your excuse be then, Doug?
--
Jeff R.
Jeff R.
"D-Mac" <pin...@news.group> wrote in message
>
> Students?
> How long have you been holding courses at the Jail?
"Jail"?
I thought you claimed to Australian.
The word is "gaol", Doug - unless you're a Yank.
For someone who feigns such contempt for all things American, its strange
how you choose to slavishly follow so many of their conventions.
>...Or are you in it? Maybe that's why you use a fake address?
LOL!
What's your address, Doug?
Or, more reasonably, what's the address of any one of the many galleries
which feature your fine work?
"23 Imaginary Street, Pretendsville"?
LOL
You are a sad and pathetic liar, Doug.
>
> --
> D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
> With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
> I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!
...and a disgusting one as well.
--
Jeff R.
Doug Jewell
>
> The difference between you and me is I make a living with my cameras,
> you only fantasise about doing that.
>
> How much have you made from shooting tame "tamelife" this year? ROTFL.
>
> I make more money in a day taking photos like you stole a copy of and
> called "The one legged groom" than you made so far this year from all
> your photos. Who the Jackass?
And yet you aren't registered for GST:
http://abn.business.gov.au/(32ivsh2m5s4pn4rranv1lb32)/abnDetails.aspx?abn=43604101393
How's business douggy?
>
>
--
Don't blame me - I didn't vote for Kevin Rudd or Anna Bligh!
Annika1980
>
> The difference between you and me is I make a living with my cameras,
> you only fantasise about doing that.
>
> called "The one legged groom" than you made so far this year from all
> your photos. Who the Jackass?
>
Sure you do, Douggie. Sure you do.
Now go drink your Kool-Aid and take your meds.
Annika1980
>
> > Nice osprey family Bret.
>
> Yeah... They're tame ones in a refuge. You can walk right up to the nest
> - if you're game to risk a pecking... I'm told.
>
> Ask him for a link to the shot of his car parked in front of them!
Not unlike baiting tame pelicans, right Douggie?
Here's what the editor of a local news outlet wrote me when he saw my
pics from yesterday:
==============
"Those are incredible! I have been a photographer a long time... I
know how difficult it is to be prepared, and to successfully "execute"
when such a rare moment in time happens. Videographers have it easy...
it takes a special kind of photographer to capture such scenes with a
still camera. You have it!"
==============
Compare that to some of the critiques you receive:
"Where's my disk of the pics?"
"Why are the photos all blurry?"
"Where's my leg?"
"Kite surfers?"
Annika1980
> Robert Coe wrote:
> > : Ebay ad: see last image
> > :
> > :
Obsess much?
Rich
> Ebay ad: see last image
>
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300326063462&viewi...
>
> Post I did in May:
>
> http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=14030
The guy emailed me on Ebay and asked if it was wrong to have used the
image. I explained to him about using someone's else's images for
personal commercial gain. It was a case of clear misunderstanding on
this guy's part.
abo mahab
Published by Alyaa on 2009/4/19 (38 reads) The Qur'an, however,
attributes to Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) certain descriptions like
for instance:
The Beneficent is firmly established on the throne.( 20:5 )
Everything will perish except his Countenance.( 28:88 )
That you are brought up under my eye.( 20:29 )
Allah's hand is above their hands.( 48:10 )
The heavens are rolled in his right hand.( 39:67 )
One whom I created with my two hands.( 38:75 )
And the like. How can we understand these descriptions? Does Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) have organs similar to ours? These and other
verses in the Qur'an are part of what is called allegorical verses in
the holy book whose real meaning only Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala)
knows. This is referred to in the following verse:
It is He who has sent down to you the book, in it are verses of
established meaning, they are the foundation of the book while others
are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversion follow what
is allegorical in it seeking discord and attempting to interpolate it.
No one, however, knows its real interpretation except Allah. Those who
are firmly grounded in knowledge say: we believe in it; each is from
our lord. No one will remember except those who have reason.( 3:7 )
Based on this verse and following the injunctions of prophet Muhammad
p.b.u.h. Early scholars including leaders of the major four schools of
thought took the following attitude. They said: we believe in these
descriptions of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) but leave the knowledge of
their reality to Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala). We should abstain from
interpreting them on the lines of similar descriptions ascribed to
humans; this is simply because as prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h. Warned us:
think of Allah's creation and never think of Allah, for you will never
appreciate him as he deserves.(6) also Muslim scholars said that
whatever we think of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala), he is totally
different from what we think about him. In sahih Muslim Abu Hurairah
said: people will continue to argue and dispute until it is said: this
is the creation of Allah who created Allah? Whoever finds anything
like this let him say: i believe in Allah.(7) we glorify Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) from the imagined description that might come to
our minds. This is because it is impossible for Allah (Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala) to be similar to mortals. Commenting on the verse that says:
The Beneficent is firmly established on the throne.( 20:5 )
Ummu Salama wife of prophet Muhammad said: it is not possible to
imagine how, but the divine establishment on the throne is not
unknown; faith requires that we accept this without any questions for
denying it borders on disbelief. The same attitude is adopted by early
scholars like Imam Malek and many others. Prominent scholars even
today have the same conviction. Another group of scholars, however,
tend to interpret these divine attributes in such a manner that
becomes the glory of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) although they warn
against taking them to be literally equivalent to human qualities. One
example of their approach is their interpretation of verse 75 chapter
38 where they took the two hands of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) to be
only for confirmation and to assert Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala)'s care
of his slave Adam.
In addition to the above two approaches the closer of which to Islamic
creed is the former although the latter is not excluded, there were
some perverted attitudes influenced by alien philosophies like the
Greek and other philosophies. One claimed that all these descriptions
are identical to human ones. Another group gave incarnate descriptions
of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) while a third group went to the other
extreme and denied all description of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala).
These groups died in the bud; and the only ones that remained to exist
are the first two which are very close to each other. The Qur'an gives
us a conclusive answer when it says about Allah (Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala):
Nothing is like Him and He is the Hearer, the Seer. ( 42:11 )
Based on this verse we can safely confirm these descriptions but we do
not compare them to any others. Rather we believe in them and accept
them as they are.
Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) does not perish:
Every soul will taste of death; and you will be paid your wages on the
day of judgement. Whoever is removed from the fire and is made to
enter paradise, he indeed is triumphant; and the life of the world is
but comfort of illusion. (3:185 )
One God in Heaven and Earth:
And He it is who is in heaven is God, and in the earth God; and he is
the Wise, the Knower. And blessed be he unto whom belongs the
sovereignty of heavens and earth and what is between them and with him
is the knowledge of the hour; and to him you will be returned. And
those unto whom they cry instead of him possess no power of
intercession, save them who bear witness to the truth in a state of
knowledge. If you ask them who created them, they will surely say:
Allah. How then are they turned away?( 43:84-88 )
Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) is the only lord of all:
Lord of the east and the west, there is no God save him. So choose him
alone for your defender. (73:9 )
A conclusive verse about Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) is the one
towards the end of chapter two that says:
Unto Allah belongs whatsoever is in heavens and whatsoever is in the
earth; and whether you reveal what is in yourselves or conceal it
Allah will bring you to account for it. He will forgive whom he will
and he will punish whom he will and Allah is capable of all things.
The messenger (Muhammad) believed in that which was revealed to him
from his Lord and so did believers. Each one believed in Allah, His
angels, His books and His messengers; and they said: we heard and we
obeyed. Your forgiveness our Lord. Unto You is the journeying. Allah
tasks not a soul beyond its capacity. For it is that which it has
earned and against it is that which it committed. Our Lord! Condemn us
not if we forget or err. Our Lord! Lay not on us such a burden as you
did lay on those before us. Our Lord! Impose not on us that which we
have not the strength to bear. And pardon us, forgive us and have
mercy on. You are our protector. So grant us victory over disbelieving
folk. ( 2:284-286 )
The ninety nine attributes:
Prophet Muhammad p.b.u.h. Said: "Allah has ninety nine names one
hundred minus one, whoever counts them will enter paradise".(8) the
Qur'an also confirms this fact:
Unto Allah belong the most beautiful attributes, appeal to Him through
them; and leave the company of those who blaspheme his names. They
will be requited what they used to do.( 7:180 )
And again:
Allah: there is no God save Him. His are the most beautiful names.
( 20:8 )
So according to these statements and verses of the Qur'an what are the
ninety nine names of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala)? They are mentioned
in the Qur'an. We already quoted the greatest verse in the Qur'an
called the verse of the divine chair 2:255. Sometimes the Qur'an
mentions a number of these divine names together. Sometimes a couple
of them conclude some verses of the Qur'an and this happens very often
in the holy book. Numerous verses are concluded with two attributes of
Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) that are appropriate to the context and
the theme of the verses. If the context is one that extols the power
and wisdom of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala), then the conclusion is
thus: and he is the mighty, the wise. If the verse speaks about
forgiveness and mercy, then the conclusion is thus: and he is the all-
forgiving, the merciful and so on and so forth. Most of the time many
verses are concluded with two attributes; and very rarely with one.
Before we review the ninety nine names or attributes of Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) let us quote a few verses that mention several
divine names. In chapter 59 we read:
He is Allah, than whom there is no other God; the Knower of the unseen
and visible. He is the Beneficent, the Merciful. He is Allah, than
whom there is no other God, the Sovereign Lord, the Holy One, the
Peace, the Keeper of faith, the Guardian, the Majestic, the Compeller,
the Superb. Glorified be Allah from all that they ascribe as partners
(to him). He is Allah the Creator, the Evolver, the Fashioner. His are
the most beautiful names; and He is the Mighty, the Wise.( 59:22-24 )
Now that we have reviewed some divine attributes, let us enumerate the
ninety nine names that any one who counts them and believes in them
will enter paradise.
Allah is: the Beneficent, the Merciful, the Sovereign, the Holy One,
the Source of Peace, the Guardian of Faith, the Overwhelming, the
Mighty, the Irresistible, the Supreme, the Creator, the Evolver, the
Fashioner, the Ever Forgiving, the Subduer, the Grantor of Bounties,
the Provider, the All-Knowing Judge, the All- Knower, the Withholder,
the Extender, the Abaser, the Exalter, the Honourer, the Humiliator,
the All-Hearer, the All-Seer, the Arbiter, the Justice, Beyond All
Comprehension, the All-Aware, the Most Forebearing, the Glorious, the
Oft- Forgiver, the Most Thankful, the Mot High, the Greatest, the
Guardian, the Saviour, the Holder of Careful Accounts, the Majestic,
the Generous, the Watcher, the Rresponder, the All-Eembracing, the
Wise, the Most Loving, the Owner of Glory, the Resurrector, the
Witness, the Truth, the Most Trusted One, the Powerful, the Steadfast,
the Patron, the Praiseworthy, the Keeper of All Statistics, the
Beginner of Creation, the Restorer of life, the Giver of life, the
Causer of death, the Ever Living, the Self Subsisting, the Founder,
the Deserver of all Praise and Honour, the One, the Eternal Absolute,
the Capable, the Omnipotent, the Forwarder, the Giver of Respite, the
First, the Last, the Manifest, the Invisible, the Protector, the Most
Eminent, the Source of All Good, the Acceptor of Repentance, the
Punisher, the Pardoner, the Most Kind, the Owner of the Universe, the
Lord of Majesty, Bounty and Honour, the Just, the Gatherer, the Self
Sufficient, the Giver of Wealth, the Preventer, the Harmer, the Giver
of Profit, the Light, the Guide, the Orginator, the Everlasting, the
Inheritor, the Most Upright, the Most Patient.
These are the important divine names agreed upon by many scholars
based on the Qur'an. It is not enough, however, to enter paradise just
to count the ninety nine divine attributes mentioned earlier, but one
has to believe in them seriously and to manifest his belief in pious
actions. So it is not simply a lip service to them; but rather the
sincere commitment to these attributes that brings salvation and
bliss.
There are also other names of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala); some
scholars counted more than two hundred as Imam al-Qurtubi says in his
Qur'anic interpretation volume 7 page 325. One may notice some
similarities in the names, or may even claim the existence of
repetition among them. This is not the case. It is only the difficulty
to translate their meanings that might give this wrong impression.
I remember once an argument between a Muslim scholar and a Christian
priest. The latter imagined that he caught something against Islam
when he said: you blame us for saying that god is a trinity while you
have ninety nine gods. The Muslim scholar laughed and then said: don't
confuse between attributes or names of the one god, and the trinity
which is three persons. These attributes describe the only one god in
his capacities, qualities and actions. They all refer to the same god,
the one divine being.
Some perverted people evolved some so-called miracles around number
19. They said that it is composed of two simple numbers, namely 1
which is the first simple number. Thus they claim that it refers to
god being the first, and 9 which is the last simple number, thus,
according to them it refers to god as the last. Based on these claims
they said that this number refers to Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) the
first and the last and they thus claim that it is the foundation of
the Qur'an. They then took one more step and said that the first verse
in the Qur'an which occurs at the beginning of every chapter of the
holy book namely: in the name of Allah, the beneficent, the merciful
is composed in Arabic of 19 letters. Then they began to make baseless
conclusions. They even reached the extreme and said that the day of
judgement will take place after more than 250 years or so and their
leader finally declared himself a messenger of Allah (Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala)! The fact of the matter is that the whole theory falls to
ashes when we confirm that the said verse on which they based their
theory is, in fact, 21 letters and not 19. The Qur'an or god, for that
matter, does not need these baseless claims. He is enough for
believers and his book the Qur'an, introduces him without the need of
any further theories.
God is not Muhammad:
Some non-Muslim writers call Muslims Muhammadans and Islam
Muhammadanism as an analogy of Christianity called after Jesus Christ,
Buddhism called after buddha etc. Muslims do not worship Muhammad or
any other. Their only deity is Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) the god.
Muhammad was nothing but the trusted conveyer of Allah (Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala)'s message. The most honourable title given to Muhammad in the
holy Qur'an is that he is the slave and messenger of Allah (Subhanahu
Wa Ta'ala) almighty. He himself warned his followers not to raise him
above his human status. He said: only say i am the slave and messenger
of Allah.(9)
Another important distortion that has to be clear is the claim that
the Qur'an is the word of Muhammad. Time and again the Qur'an asserts
that it is the revelation of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala). The Qur'an
says:
And if he (Muhammad) had invented false sayings concerning Us, We
would assuredly had taken him by the right hand; and We would have
then severed his life artery.( 69:44-46 )
About the Qur'an we read in the same holy book:
It is the revelation of the Lord of the Worlds; the Honest Spirit
descended with it unto your heart (Muhammad) so that you may be one of
the warners, in a clear Arabic tongue.( 29:192-195 )
Muhammad p.b.u.h. Was not the first but the last messenger of Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala). A series of prophets before him were sent by
Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) to different people at various times
conveying the same message of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala). The problem
of some people is that they do not understand the position of
prophets. On the one hand these prophets were not self appointed
individuals who claimed divine descent but they were chosen by Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) based on their piety and righteous deeds. And as
all previous messages were changed or lost, Muhammad, the praised one,
was sent by Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) with the last message to the
worlds. He is the last messenger simply because his message is the
culmination and completion of all previous messages. That is why Allah
(Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) preserved the Qur'an. The holy book Muslims have
today is exactly the same book revealed to Muhammad p.b.u.h. Over
fourteen centuries ago. Why then should we have another message or
another prophet?
To conclude, this is how Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) is described in
the Qur'an the word of Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) to all the worlds.
It is time to listen to Allah (Subhanahu Wa Ta'ala) and believe in his
word that shows us the way to him and to salvation. This booklet is
just an attempt to guide the fair minded people to Allah (Subhanahu Wa
Ta'ala) the Almighty the Only Lord.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
But wasn't he also claiming that _your_ image had been taken via _his_
lens? That's not quite straight either.
Eric Stevens
D-Mac
> D-Mac wrote:
>
>>
>> The difference between you and me is I make a living with my cameras,
>> you only fantasise about doing that.
>>
>> How much have you made from shooting tame "tamelife" this year? ROTFL.
>>
>> I make more money in a day taking photos like you stole a copy of and
>> called "The one legged groom" than you made so far this year from all
>> your photos. Who the Jackass?
> And yet you aren't registered for GST:
> http://abn.business.gov.au/(32ivsh2m5s4pn4rranv1lb32)/abnDetails.aspx?abn=43604101393
>
> How's business douggy?
>>
>>
>
>
I probably never will be registered for GST either.
Rule #1.
Never have a dog if you are going to bark yourself son.
You and your like minded trolls have been dogging my arse for years and
never found out anything except that I exist...
More than I can say for the idiots you worship. Like "Charles Stevens"
who was later knows as Mark Thomas... Neither of which identities
actually existed. It sounds good to use a plausible name for Usenet,
doesn't it?
I use my name as required by Australian Federal law with every
publication I am responsible for. Web sites and magazines included. I
don't have to provide any information about my corporate structure to
anyone on Usenet and don't intend to. Or were you just elected president
or something?
Who is Bret Douglas? Is he Actually Bret Hogan?
And what of Jeff Ralph?
The process server returned his documents with a note that no such
person exists at the address he gave to register his domain. Either he
lied (previous lies of his would suggest that) or he denied he was
himself when the process server fronted.
Thanks to his willingness to provide a fresh response to my bait here...
Maybe his ISP will cough up his identity now.
What about you Dougie boi? Do you exist?
Bye, bye...
D-Mac
>
>
> Obsess much?
You really ought to wash more often Bret.
That big target you wear is so inviting! ROTFL.
Charles
Here is my impression. RichA posted an image on the Internet which someone
thought was a good example for the lens he was trying to sell. What's the
big deal? I suppose the eBay poster should have given RichA credit, but
that didn't happen and I fail to see any malice or damage or evil intent.
Nothing actionable, as the legal eagles like to say.
As I said, I'm not a lawyer.
But, it is awesome to finally see a RichA photograph and it's a good shot,
by the way. I might consider unblocking his posts.
Forget about bashing Canon, and Sony, and plastics and join the rest of us.
jaf
"Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:h2bf94$vn7$1...@news.motzarella.org...
And suppose the lens for sale is USED!
Can post a picture of a new lens?
Or one owned by anybody else?
No sale!
John
Charles
"jaf" <john...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dZudnX88D7Jr2tTX...@giganews.com...
Topic drift, I assume. Or, I missed something.
Rich
news:h2bf94$vn7$1...@news.motzarella.org:
Ever see the Second City episode where the Man from planet Zontar (John
Candy) took over the minds of Second City TV station personel using
cabbages stuck to the back of their heads? "Join us Blanchard!!"
Rich
news:dZudnX88D7Jr2tTX...@giganews.com:
Most times when that happens, someone is posting an image cribbed off a
manufacture website. Most people expect and image of the genuine article
so it is unlikely that would impress buyers looking at the ad.
It can also be a red flag to a scam. Like where someone posts a tiny image
from a manufacturer site and the price is very low...
Atheist Chaplain
> Doug Jewell wrote:
>> D-Mac wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The difference between you and me is I make a living with my cameras,
>>> you only fantasise about doing that.
>>>
>>> How much have you made from shooting tame "tamelife" this year? ROTFL.
>>>
>>> I make more money in a day taking photos like you stole a copy of and
>>> called "The one legged groom" than you made so far this year from all
>>> your photos. Who the Jackass?
>> And yet you aren't registered for GST:
>> http://abn.business.gov.au/(32ivsh2m5s4pn4rranv1lb32)/abnDetails.aspx?abn=43604101393
>> How's business douggy?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
> I probably never will be registered for GST either.
> Rule #1.
because your nothing more than a hobby photographer with delusions of
grandure Douggie. Its easy to generate $75,000 a year turnover if a business
is sucessful, hell when I worked PART TIME for myself I generated that and
more.
> Never have a dog if you are going to bark yourself son.
>
> You and your like minded trolls have been dogging my arse for years and
> never found out anything except that I exist...
>
> More than I can say for the idiots you worship. Like "Charles Stevens" who
> was later knows as Mark Thomas... Neither of which identities actually
> existed. It sounds good to use a plausible name for Usenet, doesn't it?
>
> I use my name as required by Australian Federal law with every publication
> I am responsible for.
then why this lie on this page
http://www.weddingsnportraits.com.au/wed-plan.htm "Everything on this site
( including this document ) is � Copyright 1968 - 2008 Douglas St James,
Brisbane Australia" when your registered name on your ABN is "MACDONALD,
DOUGLAS JAMES"
--
[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
Martin Brown
> I am not a lawyer.
>
> Here is my impression. RichA posted an image on the Internet which someone
> thought was a good example for the lens he was trying to sell. What's the
> big deal?
Despite the fact that I think RichA is a steaming troll he does still
own copyright over any photographs that he takes (at least in UK law).
> I suppose the eBay poster should have given RichA credit, but
> that didn't happen and I fail to see any malice or damage or evil intent.
> Nothing actionable, as the legal eagles like to say.
I have had it happen to me. Someone on eBay was advertising for sale a
particular cactus but the picture he used was recognisable as one of my
plants in fact bit for bit identical and pinched from my website!
A friend in the cactophile community tipped me off about it. I insisted
that he took the photo down since it was extremely unlikely that the
plant he had on sale would look anything like as good.
>
> As I said, I'm not a lawyer.
I doubt RichA would get much by way of damages for this infringement,
but he should be able to have the image removed if he seeks to do so.
>
> But, it is awesome to finally see a RichA photograph and it's a good shot,
> by the way. I might consider unblocking his posts.
>
> Forget about bashing Canon, and Sony, and plastics and join the rest of us.
He's a troll. He does the same thing in sci.astro.amateur
Regards,
Martin Brown
Annika1980
>
> > I use my name as required by Australian Federal law with every publication
> > I am responsible for.
>
> ( including this document ) is © Copyright 1968 - 2008 Douglas St James,
> Brisbane Australia" when your registered name on your ABN is "MACDONALD,
> DOUGLAS JAMES"
Does it really surprise you that someone who changes names every 15
minutes on Usenet would go by different names in real life as well? I
can only imagine the stress he lives under,with so many ugly brides
trying to track him down for their refunds. I think if I was in his
shoes I'd buy a houseboat or hide out in my daughter's basement on a
remote island.
Bob
charles...@comcast.net says...
-:
-:"jaf" <john...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
-:news:dZudnX88D7Jr2tTX...@giganews.com...
-:>
-:> "Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
-:> news:h2bf94$vn7$1...@news.motzarella.org...
-:>>I am not a lawyer.
-:>>
-:>> Here is my impression. RichA posted an image on the Internet which
-:>> someone thought was a good example for the lens he was trying to sell.
-:>> What's the big deal? I suppose the eBay poster should have given RichA
-:>> credit, but that didn't happen and I fail to see any malice or damage or
-:>> evil intent. Nothing actionable, as the legal eagles like to say.
-:>>
-:>> As I said, I'm not a lawyer.
-:>>
-:>> But, it is awesome to finally see a RichA photograph and it's a good
-:>> shot, by the way. I might consider unblocking his posts.
-:>>
-:>> Forget about bashing Canon, and Sony, and plastics and join the rest of
-:>> us.
-:>
-:> And suppose the lens for sale is USED!
-:> Can post a picture of a new lens?
-:> Or one owned by anybody else?
-:
-:Topic drift, I assume. Or, I missed something.
yes, you did.
the image was stolen,
and used without permission,
for commercial purpose.
if he had used it to sell ford trucks at his dealership,
would you see the difference?
-:
-:
-:
Charles
>I am not a lawyer.
>
> Here is my impression. RichA posted an image on the Internet which
> someone thought was a good example for the lens he was trying to sell.
> What's the big deal? I suppose the eBay poster should have given RichA
> credit, but that didn't happen and I fail to see any malice or damage or
> evil intent. Nothing actionable, as the legal eagles like to say.
>
> As I said, I'm not a lawyer.
>
> But, it is awesome to finally see a RichA photograph and it's a good shot,
> by the way.
It is a good shot, by the way. Kudos to RichA. Take more and post less!
Now some dumb-ass questions:
1/ Are shots like this protected/restricted when they have been publicly
posted without clear warnings of infringement?
2/ Is it OK to assume that a copyright is NOT enforceable, when no specific
notice of such accompanies an image?
3/ Is there actual (legal) fraud (if one "uses" an image without actually
claiming ownership)?
4/ Is there actionable damage if folks "borrow" images from the Internet and
use them for yard sales, eBay, or Craig's List?
I am not a lawyer, but feel that if a major (actionable) issue is not
apparent, one would get nowhere with this kind of bitch in the legal system.
There are no "deep pockets" available in cases like this and, lacking
personal deep pockets, you will not find a lawyer who would take it on.
The bottom line is: don't post your images on the Internet if you think
they are sacred or protected.
John Turco
>
> I am not a lawyer.
<heavily edited for brevity>
Hello, Charles:
Yet, you >play< one, on Usenet? :-P
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
--
Paintings pain and pun
<http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
John Turco
<edited for brevity>
> Ever see the Second City episode where the Man from planet Zontar (John
> Candy) took over the minds of Second City TV station personel using
> cabbages stuck to the back of their heads? "Join us Blanchard!!"
Hello, Rich:
I believe I may have viewed that (or a similar) one, in the 1980's.
If so, it was probably during Second City TV's brief run, on NBC, in
1981.
Damned hilarious show, in any case!
Got to give the devil his due...SCTV has always been far funnier,
than NBC's own, highly-overrated "Saturday Night Live" ever was.
Which simply goes to prove that, you Canadian "hosers" are capable
of doing >something< right, occasionally. <g>
Charles
"John Turco" <jt...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:4A51A00F...@concentric.net...
> Charles wrote:
>>
>> I am not a lawyer.
>
> <heavily edited for brevity>
>
> Hello, Charles:
>
> Yet, you >play< one, on Usenet? :-P
I used to play "doctor" but that was a long time ago.