Re: Nikon Capture NX2.10 $180 US No Way!! Free!
Ray Fischer
>Hi Group
>
>Here is another freebie just for you!
You're still a thief and coward.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Twibil
> You're still a thief and coward.
Eh. Theives are at least as able to rationalize their dishonesty as
anyone else. Probably more so. The words "Nikon should be giving this
program away for free or for much less money" tells you everything you
need to know about this worm: he's one of those dim bulbs with an
overwhelming sense of entitlement and an under-developed conscience.
And that sense of entitlement, should someone liberate a portion of
*his* property "for the greater good", would suddenly evaporate like
snow before a blowtorch.
"I shouldn't have to work for anything unless I feel like it" is the
oldest excuse in the world for taking something that doesn't belong to
you.
~Pete
Cynicor
> Hi Group
>
> Here is another freebie just for you!
>
>
> 2-Use universal serial below and register in your name etc.
>
> You MUST block Capture NX with your firewall and it will work fine. If
> you do not block, it will reject your serial number.
How is software theft different from breaking a store's window and
stealing a camera if you don't feel like paying for it?
Bigguy
If I steal your software (and you don't even know it) what have you
lost? At most a possible sale?
There IS a difference - I'm not saying it's not dishonest, but it is
different - copyright infringement and not 'theft'?
I often 'try before I buy' - I do buy if it works for me...
YMMV
G
ray
> Hi Group
>
> Here is another freebie just for you!
>
> 1- Download the 60 day trial at Nikon USA:
>
> http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/
std_adp.php?p_faqid=61
> Scroll down to the 60 day trial and download.
>
> 2-Use universal serial below and register in your name etc.
>
> 46634-46875-57018-15942-30739
>
> You MUST block Capture NX with your firewall and it will work fine. If
> you do not block, it will reject your serial number.
>
> WooHoo!
>
> This is just information. I do not have this on my computer and I did
> not steal it. Information is not illegal. What you choose to do with
> this information is up to you!
>
> I guarantee that this will give you a fully operational copy of Capture
> NX2 and it will work fine, never expires either. Nikon should be giving
> this program away for free or for much less money considering what they
> charge for their gear!
>
> Robin Hood
Or simply use ufraw - free and totally legal.
Marco Tedaldi
This is what the copyright-industry wants you to think.
No, I don't think it's ok to use software without having a valid
license. That's why I don't use software which I don't have a license
for. But it is definitely not the same and there are several reasons.
1. Not everyone who uses a software without having a proper license
would be using it if he had to pay for. So there is no loss for the
producer of this software.
2. One of the main reasons for the great success of PS and also Windows
and other MS-Software is, that it was widely used without proper
license. This made the software a quasi standard. So it might even be a
win for the company!
And that is the main reason why I'm against using software without
proper licensing! It is a problem for REAL free software! Linux and all
the software under the different free licenses would win a big market
share if everyone had to pay for the software they are now using!
Using software without proper license is bad and violates the law, but
it is neither piratery nor theft. That is only what the software
(copyright) industry wants you to believe!
this said I'm leaning back in my char with the good feeling to use a
system without any software without the proper license... without having
paid a fortune!
Marco
--
Agfa isolette, EOS 40D
http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi
And a cool timekiller: http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708
Neil Harrington
"Father Guido Sarducci" <d...@novello.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9BB35A4DE8...@198.186.190.61...
> In message news:3efc9026-1788-46d6-ba7c-
> b31082...@x11g2000pro.googlegroups.com, Twibil <noway...@gmail.com>
> said:
>
>> "I shouldn't have to work for anything unless I feel like it" is the
>> oldest excuse in the world for taking something that doesn't belong to
>> you.
>
<guffaw!>
You've sure got THAT right!
Neil Harrington
"Cynicor" <truu...@opt.i.m.um.net> wrote in message
news:49980a6b$0$3237$607e...@cv.net...
The difference is the store no longer has the camera if you steal it. The
software company may have lost a potential sale, or not, but nothing has
been physically taken from them.
Yes, they are both forms of stealing, and neither should be condoned, but
you cannot reasonably say they are the same thing.
Twibil
> In message news:3efc9026-1788-46d6-ba7c-
> b31082931...@x11g2000pro.googlegroups.com, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com>
> said:
>
> > "I shouldn't have to work for anything unless I feel like it" is the
> > oldest excuse in the world for taking something that doesn't belong to
> > you.
>
You lost. Too bad.
Get over it.
Neil Harrington
We all lost. Some of us realize it now, the rest of you will in time.
Twibil
My goodness! And to think that you clowns frequently accuse the *left*
wing of being arrogant.
It must be very difficult to be a ditto-head just now.
Ray Fischer
Then why is it rethuglicans who invariably take money form others in
order to benefit themselves?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
Historically the US economy has done better under Democratic
administrations than under rethuglican administrations.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
whisky-dave
"Twibil" <noway...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:3efc9026-1788-46d6...@x11g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
wow, I didn't realise RH was a banker ;-0.
Hand back those bonuses'
~Pete
whisky-dave
"Marco Tedaldi" <news010...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:gn9hik$n2$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> Cynicor schrieb:
>> Robin Hood wrote:
>>> Hi Group
>>>
>>> Here is another freebie just for you!
>>>
>>> 1- Download the 60 day trial at Nikon USA:
>>> 2-Use universal serial below and register in your name etc.
>>> You MUST block Capture NX with your firewall and it will work fine. If
>>> you do not block, it will reject your serial number.
>>
>> How is software theft different from breaking a store's window and
>> stealing a camera if you don't feel like paying for it?
>
> This is what the copyright-industry wants you to think.
> No, I don't think it's ok to use software without having a valid
> license. That's why I don't use software which I don't have a license
> for. But it is definitely not the same and there are several reasons.
>
> 1. Not everyone who uses a software without having a proper license
> would be using it if he had to pay for. So there is no loss for the
> producer of this software.
True.
> 2. One of the main reasons for the great success of PS and also Windows
> and other MS-Software is, that it was widely used without proper
> license. This made the software a quasi standard. So it might even be a
> win for the company!
I think it is, it's a definite advantage if your product is out there being
used.
> And that is the main reason why I'm against using software without
> proper licensing! It is a problem for REAL free software! Linux and all
> the software under the different free licenses would win a big market
> share if everyone had to pay for the software they are now using!
True again, but who actaully pays for the software a compnay does use?
Thuink about it, who pays for teh software that creatred the movie or stills
from the camera that you saw as an advertisement......
Answer:- those that brought what was advertised, no one else . :)
So even buying a can of beans might mean a small fraction of what you have
paid for
the can of beans has gone to adobe or whoever.....
Now if teh bean company had used a 'free' version of teh software or an
alterantive
version your beans might be cheaper, but then again all that would have
happend is that the
'manager' would have had an increase in pay via greater profit margins.
Ray Fischer
No, like Reagan and Bush and the rethuglicn congress. About $6,000,000,000,000
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Twibil
> >> > "I shouldn't have to work for anything unless I feel like it" is the
> >> > oldest excuse in the world for taking something that doesn't belong to
> >> > you.
>
> >> No, it's the unofficial Obama campaign theme.
>
> > You lost.
>
> So did you.
One day an extremist (doesn't matter *which* extreme, either) will
read a dictionary and discover the differences between the words
"opinion" and "fact".
Alas, this has yet to occur.
> (BTW I didn't vote for McInsane)
So? Who cares?
~Pete
Father Kodak
wrote:
>In message news:4998c6a6$0$1597$742e...@news.sonic.net, rfis...@sonic.net
>You mean like Blago? William Jefferson? Bill Richardson?
Like Spiro Agnew. Like Dick Cheney (indirectly). Like the former
senator from Alaska. Like John Mccain (look it up!)
Neil Harrington
"Father Guido Sarducci" <d...@novello.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9BB5B02E28...@198.186.190.61...
> In message news:499b324c$0$19844$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com, Me
> <re...@group.please> said:
>
>> On 17 Feb 2009 20:41:47 GMT, in article
>><Xns9BB59FAD62...@198.186.190.61>, Father Guido Sarducci
>><d...@novello.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In message
>>>news:a2b7ab3d-30da-4643...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>>>household's share of the bailout Obama voted for is $10,000. Your
>>>household's share of the national debt is over $150,000.
>>>
>>>Now tell me who lost.
>>
>> Oh, I get it. We use simplistic math to frighten people, since real
>> analysis is apparently beyond us.
>
> $150K is all the analysis I need to know that Obama = fuckup.
>
>> Try again.
>
> I don't need to. Do you have an extra $150K lying around?
Shucks, no need to. Since the government doesn't really have all that money
anyway, and The Bama has promised to give millions of us tax cuts while
spending a trillion dollars or so (to start) largely on pork and political
paybacks, the solution is simple and obvious: just "print" more money.
Nothing wrong with that, is there? . . . Of course we may end up looking
back longingly at Jimmy Carter's last year in office with its 14% inflation
as a time when the dollar was "sound," but such is life.
Twibil
> Now tell me who lost.
First, tell us where you were while Bush and friends sank us into this
economic hole for 8 long years -declaring a budget-busting war on the
wrong country, just for starters- and yet you only began complaining
about the problem when Obama started spending money.
Oh, never mind: we all know why, "Guido".
If a conservative spends us into oblivion it's okay, but when it's a
liberal doing the same thing *then* it's suddenly awful.
Snort. What a maroon.
Ray Fischer
>news:a2b7ab3d-30da-4643...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> said:
>
Which, coincidentally, is just about what Bush's war in Iraq cost.
The key difference that offends the right-wingers is that the Iraq war
was intended to kill people and help Iraqis, while Obama's plan is
intended to help the very Americans that the right-wingers despise and
hate.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Twibil
> > First, tell us where you were while Bush and friends sank us into this
> > economic hole for 8 long years
>
> I have never voted for a Bush for any office, and I am an A-List voter.
An "A-List voter"? You're making up freehand designations and
expecting them to mean something to the rest of humanity? (BTW: you
also ducked answering.)
> Anyway, Bush is out of office, in case you haven't noticed.
So what? His after-effects linger on like a bad tuna salad sandwitch
on it's way back up the esophagus.
> And his replacement is more of the same.
Well, yes, in the sense that he's also a male human being.
> > -declaring a budget-busting war on the
> > wrong country, just for starters- and yet you only began complaining
> > about the problem when Obama started spending money.
>
> Wrong.
You must have been doing so rather quietly, then.
> I do not engage in partisan pissing
> contests with cuntfucks like you.
Uh, (1) you just did. (2) Yes, I fuck cunts, or, more precisely, a
single one these days since the alternatives -gay sex, beastiality,
STDs, etcetera- never *did* appeal to me. (3) Was calling someone a
hetrosexual supposed to be an insult?
> PLONK
Alas! Woe! My heart is broken!
Twibil
> In message news:61eeef41-646f-4dc5-85d9-
> ccc47e0d2...@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com, Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com>
> said:
>
> > On Feb 17, 8:06 pm, Father Guido Sarducci <d...@novello.com> wrote:
>
> >> > First, tell us where you were while Bush and friends sank us into this
> >> > economic hole for 8 long years
>
> >> I have never voted for a Bush for any office, and I am an A-List voter.
>
> > An "A-List voter"? You're making up freehand designations and
> > expecting them to mean something to the rest of humanity?
>
Oh, look!
It was lying outright when it claimed to have plonked me, but forgot
about having made that claim in it's hurry to get in the last word -
and do exactly what it said it would never do: get into a partisan
pissing match. (Hint: when you get caught in a lie it instantly
discredits anything else you've said. In this case, having lied twice
in the same post -and been caught at it red-handed both times- you've
forfeited any remaining shards of self-respect that might have still
been hanging on for dear life. And you've demonstrated that you're
none too bright as well.)
And to think that some people claim that there's no humor on Usenet
these days!
C J Campbell
> Hi Group
>
> Here is another freebie just for you!
>
> 1- Download the 60 day trial at Nikon USA:
>
> http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=61
Scroll
>
> down to the 60 day trial and download.
>
> 2-Use universal serial below and register in your name etc.
>
> 46634-46875-57018-15942-30739
>
> You MUST block Capture NX with your firewall and it will work fine. If
> you do not block, it will reject your serial number.
>
> WooHoo!
>
> This is just information. I do not have this on my computer and I did
> not steal it. Information is not illegal.
You might want to ask Scooter Libby about that...
In theory, Nikon could successfully sue you for lost business and
prosecute you for industrial espionage, copyright violation (the serial
numbers themselves are copyrighted), racketeering and aiding and
abetting a crime. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
ad607
> said:
>
>> Hi Group
>>
>> Here is another freebie just for you!
>>
>> 1- Download the 60 day trial at Nikon USA:
>>
>> http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikonusa.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=61
> Scroll
>>
>> down to the 60 day trial and download.
>>
>> 2-Use universal serial below and register in your name etc.
>>
Theft, just as sure as me grabbing your photographs and using them without
paying for the use. No big deal it's just a sale you lost!
Odd how photographers will condone copyright infringement on software, but
willcry like a stuck pig when their photos are purloined!
Goose, Gander, pot, kettle
D-Mac
> On 17 Feb 2009 20:41:47 GMT, in article
> <d...@novello.com> wrote:
>
>> In message
>> news:a2b7ab3d-30da-4643...@r10g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>> Twibil <noway...@gmail.com> said:
>>
>> household's share of the bailout Obama voted for is $10,000. Your
>> household's share of the national debt is over $150,000.
>>
>
> is apparently beyond us.
>
Real analysis?
How about historical facts? Or don't they matter?
No country that has ever tried to bail out it's crooked bankers by
pouring money into the "economy" has ever succeeded. Japan tried and
failed... And the modern day Japan is a product of American
repatriation, for Christ sake!
Face up to it guys... America alone is responsible for the "world
recession" we are now experiencing and as long as America continues to
support lending money to people who can't afford to pay it back, it'll
continue to be responsible for the destruction of millions of families
all over the world.
Forget looking for a political scape goat ...You're all it v for voting
them in!
D-Mac.info
D-Mac
You're a little off in your claims there mate.
Serial numbers cannot be copyrighted if they did not exist when the
software was copyrighted.
Those clever little serial number generators don't "steal" serial
numbers, they invent them based on a known formula. Hardly theft, is it?
There are some unanswered legal issues about a firm giving you a trial
of their software which you install on your PC in good faith and then
unknown to you, require that software to perform stealth or covert tasks
to keep watch on your PC when they do not spell out in detail what tasks
not related to using it for what they are programmed to do without you
knowledge or permission.
You do own the PC and have the right to know what someone else causes it
to do without your permission... Anything else and it's called spyware.
It's true the company giving you a "free" edition of their software can
choose to end the license to use it. If you type an entry in your
firewall's outgoing block list to keep the software working, there is
little or nothing they can do about that... It is your PC and you have
the right to give or remove access to it to whom you choose.
D-Mac.info
U*U
"Robin Hood" <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> wrote in message
news:con4q4hvbpkp99ft4...@4ax.com...
> >
> BTW: there is information on the net on everything from how to make
> Ricin poison to bomb making and more. None of this information is
> illegal and it's protected by the constitutional right of free speech
> in your country. I don't live in the U.S.of A-holes and my country has
> no real copyright laws.
>
> Robin
>
Not true, usenet is commercial speech, and therefore not public and as such
is not protected under the Consistution. Copyright infringement is not
speech. You have violated copyright with your posting of the serial numbers.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
C J Campbell
> C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2009-02-14 22:40:17 -0800, Robin Hood <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> said:
>
>>>
>>> This is just information. I do not have this on my computer and I did
>>> not steal it. Information is not illegal.
>>
>> You might want to ask Scooter Libby about that...
>>
>> In theory, Nikon could successfully sue you for lost business and
>> prosecute you for industrial espionage, copyright violation (the serial
>> numbers themselves are copyrighted), racketeering and aiding and
>> abetting a crime. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
>>
>
> You're a little off in your claims there mate.
> Serial numbers cannot be copyrighted if they did not exist when the
> software was copyrighted.
To the contrary, the serial number is copyrighted when created. It does
not have to be attached to any software. A copyright does not have to
be registered to be valid.
C J Campbell
> Wrong! Serial numbers are not copyrighted. Show me any proof of your
> allegation that they are copyrighted. As far as the rest of your BS ie
> racketeering and aiding and abetting a crime. You are talking through
> your hat. Man are you du-uumb! Another sidewalk lawyer I presume?
> To you sir I say Pffft!
>
> Robin Hood
>
> PS. Stay tuned for many more free programs!!
You are a lawyer, then? Odd, since you claim to live in a country that
does not have the rule of law.
tony cooper
I don't understand this. How can a number be copyrighted? I
understand copyrighting the program, but how can "234XGi2405" be
copyrighted unless that is used as a name or title? The show "24"
probably owns copyright "24", but only when it is used as a title of
an entertainment product.
You cannot copyright an idea. You can only copyright a discrete
application of an idea. Since serial numbers are individually unique
and associated solely with specific instances ("234XGi2405" is
specifically associated one copy of a program), I would not consider
the serial number to be a discrete application.
I don't normally challenge people to provide a cite to back-up a
claim, but I would like to see something that validates this one.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Chris H
>
>"Robin Hood" <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> wrote in message
>news:con4q4hvbpkp99ft4...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> BTW: there is information on the net on everything from how to make
>> Ricin poison to bomb making and more. None of this information is
>> illegal and it's protected by the constitutional right of free speech
>> in your country. I don't live in the U.S.of A-holes and my country has
>> no real copyright laws.
>>
>> Robin
>>
>Not true, usenet is commercial speech,
> and therefore not public
Yes it is.
> and as such
>is not protected under the Consistution.
Which constitution?
> Copyright infringement is not
>speech. You have violated copyright with your posting of the serial numbers.
>"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
>prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
>or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
>petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Which constitution and whose jurisdiction?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
D-Mac
> On 2009-02-23 00:08:17 -0800, D-Mac <alien...@y7mail.com> said:
>
>> C J Campbell wrote:
>>> On 2009-02-14 22:40:17 -0800, Robin Hood
>>> <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> said:
>>
>>>>
>>>> This is just information. I do not have this on my computer and I did
>>>> not steal it. Information is not illegal.
>>>
>>> You might want to ask Scooter Libby about that...
>>>
>>> In theory, Nikon could successfully sue you for lost business and
>>> prosecute you for industrial espionage, copyright violation (the
>>> serial numbers themselves are copyrighted), racketeering and aiding
>>> and abetting a crime. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
>>>
>>
>> You're a little off in your claims there mate.
>> Serial numbers cannot be copyrighted if they did not exist when the
>> software was copyrighted.
>
> To the contrary, the serial number is copyrighted when created. It does
> not have to be attached to any software. A copyright does not have to be
> registered to be valid.
>
>
SO by your idea of copyright, no one can use the numbers between 1 and
12 because they are copyrighted as part of clock face someone registered
5 years ago?
Come on waddles... You might not like what I said but you cannot
copyright a series of numbers for any reason... At least not in Australia.
D-Mac.info
D-Mac
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009 06:17:25 -0800, C J Campbell
> with some quoted facts. I know you can't because you are wrong about
> serial numbers being copyrighted. That's not true at all and you just
> made it up didn't you? I know it sounds logical to you but your logic
> is not fact.
>
> When a company gives away free software that can be activated by a
> serial number and a person happens to know that serial number then I
> doubt that the company could persue any legal action since they gave
> the software away in the first place. When you download the software
> there is nothing stated by the software company or agreed to by the
> downloader that says you cannot activate the program if you know the
> serial number. It is an interesting point.
>
> Further, some companies give out demo software that can't be activated
> and you have to go back to that company to download/purchase a retail
> version when the demo expires. I think a good lawyer could argue that
> if a company truly wanted to protect their software then they should
> have gone this route rather than have given away a copy that could be
> fully activated by a serial number alone.
>
Snip
> Robin Hood
Multi-national companies do not make laws. A few years ago Microsoft
were taught a very costly lesson in Australia when they contravened our
anti-discrimination laws.
MS tried to limit who could buy "educational" copies of Windows. In
other words ...discriminate on the grounds of educational standards.
They failed to establish that a person buying an educational version of
Windows was not in fact engaged in self education.
They lost the case and even today, "educational" copies of Windows and
Photoshop - to name just 2 applications can be found on the shelves of
office supply stores being sold at 1/3rd of the retail price without any
identification being asked for.
John McWilliams
> PS: I won't be posting anymore free programs even though I have
> working serial numbers for many good things. I decided to quit teasing
> this group. I only do it to generate discussion and to see the
> ridiculous unsupported claims like yours. I like to troll a bit, just
> for fun.
You promised this earlier.
> I'll be back though with a new name so I can get some photographic
> advice from time to time. There are a lot of knowledgeable people here
> and I do enjoy the advice.
What a unique idea! Act like a ______ under one name, then come back and
ask for help under a new nym.
Why not show some cojones and post under one real name for a few years?
--
lsmft
DanRatherNot
wrote:
Because it's more fun. It drives the resident armchair photographers crazy.
The Usenet-living role-playing "X-Spurts" who took up permanent residence
in all the newsgroups ruin it for people with real experience. Those who
live in the real world are now ruining all the Usenet trolls' role-playing
fun. Win win.
Life-long Usenet trolls are way more fun than Google and even better than
reading the tripe from those who live on their heavily defended
"basement-life experience" Wikipedia pages. You can't type a contextual
question in Google. So, with a little cajoling and a few false starts at
trying to make you trolls comprehend the written word we get you to do all
of our menial research for us. We make all of you dead-end
pretend-photographers go look up what we need to know. You are all so easy
to manipulate. Then you can continue to pretend to be the "X-Spurts" that
you claim you are. It's the only role that you have in life so you can't
stop doing it. A dead-end trap of your own making.
Everyone else might as well make use of your useless lives, you certainly
aren't doing anything with them. Those with real experience know damn well
were all of you get your photography and camera "experience" -- from
surfing the net and nothing more. Anyone who has ever held a real camera in
real life is more than aware enough to make that distinction from all your
posts -- the very moment that any of you try to discuss something that you
can't copy from elsewhere on the net.
We make useful Googlers out of useless pretend-photographer Usenet trolls.
It at least it gives them a menial purpose, better than their one and only
chosen role in life. They have such rudimentary purposes -- we give them
useful ones. They'll still remain role-playing lifelong net-living trolls
but at least they are useful to worthwhile people now, without the low-life
permanent resident trolls ever knowing it.
It's the ol' "make lemonade out of lemons" routine.
Mark Thomas
> Life-long Usenet trolls are way more fun..
I beg to differ. Just people who love to hear themselves talk, and who
are social failures who can only exist on Usenet where they can hide and
snipe, and pretend to be the success they aren't.
(rest of rant snipped - but I bet he goes back to re-read all his
masterpieces over and over.. refer previous sentence..)
C J Campbell
Waddles? The cheek. You whipper-snappers have no respect at all for
your elders anymore.
John McWilliams
> In message news:gnvaf4$l8k$1...@news.motzarella.org, John McWilliams
>
>> Why not show some cojones and post under one real name for a few years?
>
There's only one of which I am 100% positive. Others are in the 99%
probability, down to zero in the case of yourself.
The point isn't so much real name, but one consistent handle throughout
the years. Although if folks had to post with their real name, there'd
be fewer cowards mucking up the works. This latter is not aimed at you.
I don't see much mucking, and I doubt you're a coward. Do you use other
nyms?
--
John McWilliams
C J Campbell
I use my real name, not that it clearly identifies me. Do you know how
many Christopher J Campbells there are in the world? Heck, there was
even another flight instructor in the local area who had the same name
as me. There are Chris Campbells in the NFL, on wanted posters, running
photography studios, and everything else. But I agree with you on the
use of sock puppets and other stuff. Very annoying.
Frankly, though, I want Robin Hood to become an outstanding
photographer. I also want to see his face when his images are stolen.
David J Taylor
[]
> I use my real name, not that it clearly identifies me. Do you know how
> many Christopher J Campbells there are in the world? Heck, there was
> even another flight instructor in the local area who had the same name
> as me. There are Chris Campbells in the NFL, on wanted posters,
> running photography studios, and everything else.
I bet there are more "David Taylor"s, Chris (or do you prefer
Christopher).
A magician of the same name as mine lives in the next street.
David
C J Campbell
<david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk> said:
Either "Chris" or "Christopher" will do, though "Christopher" sounds
more artsy to me when talking about photography. :D
Chris H
<jp...@comcast.net> writes
>Father Guido Sarducci wrote:
>> In message news:gnvaf4$l8k$1...@news.motzarella.org, John McWilliams
>><jp...@comcast.net> said:
>>
>>> Why not show some cojones and post under one real name for a few
>>>years?
>> What proof do you have that anyone uses their real name?
>
>There's only one of which I am 100% positive.
Then that's two of us.
>The point isn't so much real name, but one consistent handle throughout
>the years. Although if folks had to post with their real name, there'd
>be fewer cowards mucking up the works.
Quite so. I not that it tends to be the Real-Men tm or the Real-Pros tm
or the Real-Photographers tm who have the fake ID's The ones that are
RIGHT and KNOW everything You see them all over the 'net.
The usual excuse is they don't want to get spam... well after 19 years
on News Groups and the Internet in general with a real email address I
can tell you that that excuse don't wash.