America: Land of the Free !

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 24, 2007, 8:00:32 PM2/24/07
to
Listen up you wrong-siders! This is what it has come to in the U.S.
of A.

I'm bored this afternoon so I go over to the dam to try to get some
pics of the herons flying (they were very uncooperative). I'm also
shooting a few ducks, some cardinals, and the lone falcon that lives
there. The light is terrible, it's about to rain, but hey ... I love
a challenge.
Anyway, I'm minding my own business when I notice there's some rookie
cop standing there beside me asking me what I was shooting. "Birds,"
I told him without even looking up from my 20D and the Forgotten 400 f/
5.6L.

"Show me," he demands. So he makes me scroll through the entire CF
card showing him the photos to make sure I'm not shooting a picture of
little kids or the bridge ... you know, like terrorists always do. So
I'm narrating the pics as I scroll, "Great Blue Heron, duck, falcon,
duck, Presidential Motorcade, me flipping off the Pres, another duck,
me and the old lady doing it ..... "
You know, the usual stuff.

Just kidding about the Presidential pics. Thankfully, I deleted them
from the card before today's shoot. Otherwise, I might be typing this
from Guantanimo.

I was very polite with the flatfoot (since I don't really like jail),
but the more I thought about it after he left the madder I got. At
what point does having a nice camera make one a terrorist suspect?
When did that happen? (I know it must've been in the last 6 years.) I
know Bush (and his gang of crooks) wipes his ass with the
Constitution, but I must've missed it when photography became a crime.

I'm just glad my pal, Kamran, wasnt with me. He's from Pakistan and
he's got a quick tongue. Can you say, "Taser?"

This isn't the first time this has happened to me, either. I think
the next time it happens I will politely ask the officer for a list of
things that I may and may not photograph. If he can't provide such a
list I shall politely ask him to go piss up a rope.

Anyway, here's a crappy pic from today's crappy shoot.
http://www.pbase.com/image/74796772

Mustafa Shite

unread,
Feb 24, 2007, 8:51:04 PM2/24/07
to
I don't think that Australia is interested in your fucked up USA. So piss
off!!!

Mr.T

unread,
Feb 24, 2007, 9:50:27 PM2/24/07
to

"Mustafa Shite" <sunnisideo...@dadsbag.com.iraq> wrote in message
news:cY5Eh.3187$8U4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> I don't think that Australia is interested in your fucked up USA. So piss
> off!!!

You think it is all that much different here? You haven't tried taking
photo's at Bondi beach lately have you?
(especially if your appearance really matched your handle :-)

MrT.


Joan

unread,
Feb 24, 2007, 10:06:25 PM2/24/07
to
I take photos at Manly beach without problems.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:45e0f996$0$5745$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
:
: You think it is all that much different here? You haven't tried

:
:

Pete D

unread,
Feb 24, 2007, 10:12:43 PM2/24/07
to
Yes but Bondi is far from Manly and so are you.

"Joan" <Jo...@home.t2> wrote in message
news:45e0fddd$0$5400$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

D. Springthorpe

unread,
Feb 24, 2007, 10:16:41 PM2/24/07
to
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:06:25 +1100, "Joan" <Jo...@home.t2> wrote:

>I take photos at Manly beach without problems.

Would it be different if you were male 'tho ?

Mr.T

unread,
Feb 24, 2007, 10:58:53 PM2/24/07
to

"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:45e0fe40$0$5441$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

> Yes but Bondi is far from Manly and so are you.

Well put :-)

MrT.


Mr.T

unread,
Feb 24, 2007, 11:01:39 PM2/24/07
to

"D. Springthorpe" <david.spr...@idx.com.au> wrote in message
news:3sv1u255gfu7i8ve1...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 14:06:25 +1100, "Joan" <Jo...@home.t2> wrote:
> >I take photos at Manly beach without problems.
>
> Would it be different if you were male 'tho ?

Do you really need to ask?
Being a woman is a HUGE advantage in our society, just as being a man is in
some others.

MrT.


Pete D

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 2:28:39 AM2/25/07
to

"Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote in message
news:45e10a46$0$4753$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

Yes, I wish I was a man!! Oh hang on, never mind!!!


Joan

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 2:30:48 AM2/25/07
to
I wasn't suggesting otherwise. I also have no intention of going to
Bondi to challenge the situation.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:45e0fe40$0$5441$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

: Yes but Bondi is far from Manly and so are you.
:

Pete D

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 3:06:31 AM2/25/07
to
If you did the situation would be different than if I did.

"Joan" <Jo...@home.t2> wrote in message

news:45e13bd0$0$5426$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

Joan

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 3:35:27 AM2/25/07
to
Call me next time you're up here and we'll test it out.

However, I have read, either here or elsewhere, the there is actually
no problem at Bondi, since the council gave in, on the matter.

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message

news:45e1431a$0$5421$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
: If you did the situation would be different than if I did.

: > :
: >
:

kosh

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 3:52:26 AM2/25/07
to

and nobody seemed to mind this little change during the last
election..... they voted for more of the same!

Can't say they shouldn't have seen it coming.

Graham Fountain

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 6:53:17 AM2/25/07
to

"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1172365232....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

> Listen up you wrong-siders! This is what it has come to in the U.S.
> of A.
pretty much the same crap goes on here too - although it seems the further
you are from "civilisation" the better you are. I've been challenged a
couple of times in Brisvegas. Never been challenged in the larger country
towns though. Because I shoot film though, I don't have the advantage of
being able to show my shots - all the plods who have questioned me have been
satisfied with my answers though. Most annoying challenge was in a national
park behind the gold coast. I unfortunately timed my visit with a busload of
japanese tourists. The tourists were led by a jap who worked for NPWS. I'm
happily snapping away at a waterfall when the group of tourists come
through, and their leader for some reason took objection to my presence and
started saying "no photo in national park, you give me camera now". When the
little prick tried to grab my camera, I pushed him away, which put him on
his arse, and then walked off. Made a complaint at the park headquarters,
where my right to photograph was supported - and the power-hungry little
jerk got a good dressing down.

Noons

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 6:59:48 AM2/25/07
to
Annika1980 wrote:


> This isn't the first time this has happened to me, either. I think
> the next time it happens I will politely ask the officer for a list of
> things that I may and may not photograph. If he can't provide such a
> list I shall politely ask him to go piss up a rope.

can't you make a formal complaint against the bastard?
I would, if it had happened to me...

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 10:15:17 AM2/25/07
to

The problem is not the officer who is just doing what he's told.
The problem is the people in charge who make those decisions.

Mick Brown

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 4:36:13 PM2/25/07
to
"Joan" <Jo...@home.t2> wrote in news:45e14afe$0$5437$5a62ac22@per-qv1-
newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:

> Call me next time you're up here and we'll test it out.
>
> However, I have read, either here or elsewhere, the there is actually
> no problem at Bondi, since the council gave in, on the matter.
>

Correct they did give up, in fact I would suggest that everyone has a good
read here

http://4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml

I would even suggest printing it out and keeping a copy with you.

Mike Brown
www.photo.net/photos/mbrown

Mr.T

unread,
Feb 25, 2007, 11:00:00 PM2/25/07
to

"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1172416517....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...

Actually the problem is those in charge who make stupid decisions AND those
below them who mis-understand/mis-interpret the actual regulations and go
too far.
Couple that with the usual power trippers who occupy those positions, and
you have a real problem.

MrT.


Pete D

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 2:09:53 AM2/26/07
to
That is good to here that the situation is not as bad as it has been. Sounds
like a plan, I do get up your way occasionally but not normally to Bondi.

"Joan" <Jo...@home.t2> wrote in message

news:45e14afe$0$5437$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

PHATRS

unread,
Feb 26, 2007, 11:25:03 PM2/26/07
to
Annika1980 wrote:
> Listen up you wrong-siders! This is what it has come to in the U.S.
> of A.

Sorry to hear about your experience with the mouth breather.

I take photos and videos of my toddler aged daughters at my local
swimming school here in Australia, as do many other parents. I wonder
how long that will be "allowed".

> Anyway, here's a crappy pic from today's crappy shoot.
> http://www.pbase.com/image/74796772
>

I wish I had the equipment and skills to take photos as "crappy" as
yours. :)

--
Ben - Wipe off 25

"My name is Korg from planet dyslexia, your arses are fruity, take me
to your dealer, or you will all be laminated, ." RV, melb.general

Annika_Hogan

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 3:37:03 AM2/28/07
to

"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:45e0fe40$0$5441$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
: Yes but Bondi is far from Manly and so are you.
: > :
: >
:
My mother takes photos at Bondi Beach and never gets harassed. It's the raw
sewage floating past that give her the creeps.

Annika
http://www.annika1980.com


Mr.T

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 4:36:32 AM2/28/07
to

"Annika_Hogan" <annispi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:PabFh.4637$8U4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

> My mother takes photos at Bondi Beach and never gets harassed.

Yes I think we established that women don't get harassed, not for taking
photo's anyway :-)

>It's the raw sewage floating past that give her the creeps.

I doubt she is the only one.

MrT.


mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 5:54:39 AM2/28/07
to
On Feb 28, 6:37 pm, "Annika_Hogan" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
> My mother takes photos at Bondi Beach and never gets harassed (sic). It's the raw
> sewage floating past that give (sic) her the creeps.

Hi, Douglas.

(Clearly still haven't seen the psychiatrist, then?)


For those who aren't aware, this is our beloved Douglas MacDonald, who
has now *completely* lost the plot against Annika.


Don't encourage him.

Noons

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 6:32:26 AM2/28/07
to
On Feb 28, 9:54 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:


> For those who aren't aware, this is our beloved Douglas MacDonald, who
> has now *completely* lost the plot against Annika.

because he's applying a bit of
the medicine used against him,
he's now "completely lost the plot"?
I can see the fairness in all that...

> Don't encourage him.

never did

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 7:07:26 AM2/28/07
to

OK, maybe I exaggerate, but I would call:
- changing your *posting identity* (which he's now done over 60 times)
*and* creating a new domain name, both in Brett's name
- on that domain, posting personal attacks and fantasy stories

..is all just a *teeny* bit off the planet. It's er.. not *quite* the
same as reposting Doug's images on a free pbase page, with Doug's name
at the top...

Now, Noons, let's make sure everything is out in the open - is it
possible that your opinion is affected because of a dislike of *me*,
after I criticised your assertion that film scans were 'vastly
superior' to dslr images, some time ago in comp.periphs.scanners?
Perhaps we should start a new thread on that, and you can post your
evidence again...

But in the meantime, do you think Douglas' post added anything useful
to this thread? Do you think he should be allowed to hide behind
identities, and not be 'outed'?

Be honest as you answer those questions... (O;

> > Don't encourage him.
> never did

I think if you re-read your comments about him using the same
'medicine'... what exactly *do* you call it?

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 11:13:22 AM2/28/07
to
On Feb 28, 5:54 am, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi, Douglas.
>
> (Clearly still haven't seen the psychiatrist, then?)
>
> For those who aren't aware, this is our beloved Douglas MacDonald, who
> has now *completely* lost the plot against Annika.
>
> Don't encourage him.

Don't be so quick to assume that this was posted by D-Mac.
I think it is an imposter, trying to have a little fun at our expense.
D-Mac and I have agreed to a cease-fire. I don't believe he would
break it so quickly, knowing the consequences that this would cause.

Having said that, I'm impressed that someone is so obsessed about me
to create a web site devoted to me featuring not only my pics, but old
photos of me at golf tournaments that have been on the web for 5
years.

WHO RULES?

-Annika ----> often imitated, never duplicated !!!


Message has been deleted

Annika_Hogan

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 3:24:29 PM2/28/07
to

"Lionel" <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
news:iahbu2dopdvfka7hr...@4ax.com...
: On 28 Feb 2007 08:13:22 -0800, "Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com>
: wrote:
:

: >On Feb 28, 5:54 am, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
: >> Hi, Douglas.
: >>
: >> (Clearly still haven't seen the psychiatrist, then?)
: >>
: >> For those who aren't aware, this is our beloved Douglas MacDonald, who
: >> has now *completely* lost the plot against Annika.
: >>
: >> Don't encourage him.
: >
: >Don't be so quick to assume that this was posted by D-Mac.
: >I think it is an imposter, trying to have a little fun at our expense.
:
: It's possible, but it was posted via the news server at Doug's ISP
: (although that news server is available to at least a million of their
: other users), & the posting IP is from his general geographical
: region. That said, one of the people who likes screwing with him is
: based in that part of the country as well.
: Back to the first hand, check out the 'annika1980.com' registration
: data:
: ==========================================

As you well know Lionel...
Revenge is not enough.
"Some people are alive today only because it is illegal to kill them"
Your words, I believe?

Annika Hogan
http://www.annika1980.com
A totally legal web site.
Created with the help of many, many people
Bret has stuck it up in the past.


Annika1980

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 4:23:38 PM2/28/07
to
On Feb 28, 3:24 pm, "Annika_Hogan" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
>
> Annika Hoganhttp://www.annika1980.com

> A totally legal web site.

Why is it illegal for me to post your pics under your name but legal
for you to do the same thing? Put your legal team on that and have
your people call my people.

Message has been deleted

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 5:52:57 PM2/28/07
to
On Feb 28, 1:16 pm, Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
> Back to the first hand, check out the 'annika1980.com' registration
> data:
> ==========================================> whois > Registrant:
> Douglas MacDonald
> P.O. Box 2116
> Wellington Point, Queensland 4160
> Australia
> (042) 128-8815

I was prepared to give D-Mac the benefit of the doubt, but he e-mailed
me today and admitted that he set up this new "tribute" account.
We had privately agreed to a cease-fire 8 days ago after I set up the
pbase account at: http://www.pbase.com/dsjm/favs

So I immediately pulled the pics thinking all was well. And now he
goes and does something like this. He claims that I put that site up
after agreeing to the cease-fire. In fact, I put it up the night
before he e-mailed me and took the pics down right after we exchanged
e-mails. I'm starting to believe that the guy really does have some
mental issues he needs to address. In his latest e-mail he threatens
me with everything from more legal action by his crack legal team, to
threatening to run a full page ad in one of my local newspapers about
me (as if they would print slander like that). I don't know whether
to pity the fool or just continue to crush him.

I am just an amateur photographer so any attempt by him to hurt my
reputation is fruitless. However, he claims to be a professional and
as such is an easy target for someone wanting to hurt his business by
posting more of his crappy photos for all to see or by messing with
his EBAY auctons. But if he wants to play, I'll play.

So D-Mac, the ball is now in your court. What do you want to do?
Do you want to take down your stupid sites featuring 5 year-old photos
of me playing in (and winning) golf tournaments, so we can continue
our agreed-upon cease-fire? Or would you rather resume the
hostilities that everyone here is pretty tired of? It makes no diff
to me. I can post your pics much faster than you can have them taken
down.

It's your call, D-Mac. Either extend a conciliatory handshake or bend
over, spread those big pink cheeks wide, and say, "Please sir, may I
have another?"

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 6:02:52 PM2/28/07
to
On Feb 28, 5:54 pm, Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>
> >Why is it illegal for me to post your pics under your name but legal
> >for you to do the same thing? Put your legal team on that and have
> >your people call my people.
>
> Pfft. You great wimp.
> You /did/ start the whole "parody website with the other guy's
> photos", Brett. (Which is not to say that Doug wasn't begging for it,
> but it's still pretty lame to complain about him doing the same thing
> back to you.)

I'm not complaining ... I could give a rat's ass. Just more publicity
for me and my pics, dontcha know.

What I would like to know is why D-Mac thinks it's illegal for me to
"steal" his photos and post his pics under his name and yet he's
perfectly fine with doing the exact same thing.

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 7:06:33 PM2/28/07
to
On Feb 28, 6:02 pm, Lionel <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote:
>
> You're both adults, so please don't act like testosterone-crazed
> teenagers on their very first Friday night at the pub.

Yes, mother. But he started it!

Hey D-Mac, here's one I took today just for you.
http://www.pbase.com/image/75016080

(There's a message in there somewhere.)

Message has been deleted

Noons

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 8:53:52 PM2/28/07
to
On Feb 28, 11:07 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:


> OK, maybe I exaggerate, but I would call:
> - changing your *posting identity* (which he's now done over 60 times)
> *and* creating a new domain name, both in Brett's name
> - on that domain, posting personal attacks and fantasy stories
>
> ..is all just a *teeny* bit off the planet. It's er.. not *quite* the
> same as reposting Doug's images on a free pbase page, with Doug's name
> at the top...

well, both picked public photos.
and dissed each other out in a big way.
so, he's just continuing the plot.
to me, it's equally deranged and infantile.

Now, in Brett's case, I don't have a problem
with that: he does it all in a goofy kind of way.
Known him to do so for a long time. NP.

Douglas? I don't know enough to comment. Other
than just state a fact. Which was: he's just applying
a bit of the same medicine back. pbase or not, the site
with his photos was created without his authorisation.
So, he's entitled to do the same, in whatever format.

Deserved? Dunno. Funny? Questionable.
Fair? Certainly: it's a free world, if one dishes out,
one better be prepared to cop it back.

In Brett's case, he's big enough to not
make anything of it. Or at least I think he is,
from my previous contacts with him.

> Now, Noons, let's make sure everything is out in the open - is it
> possible that your opinion is affected because of a dislike of *me*,
> after I criticised your assertion that film scans were 'vastly
> superior' to dslr images, some time ago in comp.periphs.scanners?

No, not at all: that is not what you criticised.

> Perhaps we should start a new thread on that, and you can post your
> evidence again...

not interested. Couldn't care less about your opinion.

> But in the meantime, do you think Douglas' post added anything useful
> to this thread?

yes, of course: I had a good chuckle. Is there anything else
"meaningful" to be had from this type of thread?

> Do you think he should be allowed to hide behind
> identities, and not be 'outed'?

Of course. It's a free net, no? Or would you like to
apply the same criteria to ANYONE who does use
"identities" to hide behind? No? Thought so.

> Be honest as you answer those questions... (O;

never been anything else.

> > > Don't encourage him.
> > never did
>
> I think if you re-read your comments about him using the same
> 'medicine'... what exactly *do* you call it?


Fairness? Oh, I'm sorry: you're not familiar with
the concept. My apologies.

Noons

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 8:57:59 PM2/28/07
to
On Mar 1, 9:52 am, "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:


> of me playing in (and winning) golf tournaments,

with the help of Sparkie?...
<g,d&r>


Annika_Hogan

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 9:01:59 PM2/28/07
to
"Lionel" <use...@imagenoir.com> wrote in message
news:142cu2hfrraq9iv59...@4ax.com...
: On 28 Feb 2007 14:52:57 -0800, "Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com>
: wrote:
:
: >I was prepared to give D-Mac the benefit of the doubt, but he e-mailed

: >me today and admitted that he set up this new "tribute" account.
: >We had privately agreed to a cease-fire 8 days ago after I set up the
: >pbase account at: http://www.pbase.com/dsjm/favs
: >
: >So I immediately pulled the pics thinking all was well. And now he
: >goes and does something like this. He claims that I put that site up
: >after agreeing to the cease-fire. In fact, I put it up the night
: >before he e-mailed me and took the pics down right after we exchanged
: >e-mails. I'm starting to believe that the guy really does have some
: >mental issues he needs to address. In his latest e-mail he threatens
: >me with everything from more legal action by his crack legal team, to
: >threatening to run a full page ad in one of my local newspapers about
: >me (as if they would print slander like that). I don't know whether
: >to pity the fool or just continue to crush him.
:
: You had you parody site up for how long, exactly? - Just let Doug have
: his turn at taking the piss out of you for however long your sites
: were up, resist the temptation to up the stakes on him, call it even,
: & let the whole thing fizzle out.
:
: You're both adults, so please don't act like testosterone-crazed

: teenagers on their very first Friday night at the pub.
:
-------------------------------
Heyyyy...
Words of experience from one of the experienced. All well said mate but
don't forget the nationality of the man... They have a habit of very bad
behaviour when they don't get the drop on someone... Sort of like a 'King
hit" fighter. No answer for when the bloke they slug get back up!

What Bret says here and what he says when he emails me privately has a
different flavour. After spending $700 on a Yankee lawyer to find out suing
Bret Hogan would set me back a hell of a lot more than a $10 domain name, I
decided to play. He decides it unfair! YANKEE GO HOME is all I can say!

And lets not forget your reaction to what he did, eh? Encouragement in the
first order, I believe.
--
http://www.annika1980.com


Fred

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 9:35:28 PM2/28/07
to


Regardless of the toing and froing you are still a shitful wedding
photographer

Annika1980

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 10:23:21 PM2/28/07
to
On Feb 28, 9:01 pm, "Annika_Hogan" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
> What Bret says here and what he says when he emails me privately has a
> different flavour. After spending $700 on a Yankee lawyer to find out suing
> Bret Hogan would set me back a hell of a lot more than a $10 domain name, I
> decided to play.

I can post the actual e-mails if you like.
And if you really did spend $700 on an Arkansas lawyer, then that's
the best yet! Why don't you just spend $20 on a T-Shirt with "I'M A
LOSER!" printed on it? LOL!

Like I said in one of the e-mails. Maybe you should just send me your
5D and we'll call it square. Might save you some cash in the long
run.
Oh, and for what it's worth, I haven't spent the first penny
tormenting you.
Which, coincidentally, is exactly what you are worth.


MJW

unread,
Feb 28, 2007, 11:34:45 PM2/28/07
to
Hey Brett, great pic! Here is one I took last year.

www.members.optusnet.com.au/mjwyllie/Shark.htm


--
>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<<

Annika1980

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 12:54:40 AM3/1/07
to
On Feb 28, 11:34 pm, MJW <e...@cool.com.au> wrote:
> > Hey D-Mac, here's one I took today just for you.
> >http://www.pbase.com/image/75016080
>
> > (There's a message in there somewhere.)
>
> Hey Brett, great pic! Here is one I took last year.
> www.members.optusnet.com.au/mjwyllie/Shark.htm

Sweet!


Noons

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 1:20:16 AM3/1/07
to
On Mar 1, 4:54 pm, "Annika1980" <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:

> > > Hey D-Mac, here's one I took today just for you.
> > >http://www.pbase.com/image/75016080
>
> > > (There's a message in there somewhere.)
>
> > Hey Brett, great pic! Here is one I took last year.
> >www.members.optusnet.com.au/mjwyllie/Shark.htm
>
> Sweet!

found this one:
http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/uw01.jpg
in my pool...
<g, d&r>

MJW

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 1:23:29 AM3/1/07
to

In your pool??? I would never swim there again!

--
>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<<

Mr.T

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 1:26:42 AM3/1/07
to

"Noons" <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1172730016.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...

> found this one:
> http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/uw01.jpg
> in my pool...

I wish I could afford your pool :-)

MrT.


MJW

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 1:34:23 AM3/1/07
to
Is it the Manly Aquarium by any chance?

--
>>>M.J.Wyllie.<<<

ANNIKA1980.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 1:51:16 AM3/1/07
to

"Fred" <fr...@ner.com> wrote in message news:45e63...@x-privat.org...
:
:
: Regardless of the toing and froing you are still a shitful wedding
: photographer
---------------------

Fred, you have never seen any of my photographs, never seen a wedding album
of mine and never met me yet you can base your condemnation on a few images
you see on your screen. There are only three people in this group who have
seen my photographs. One of them was pretty vocal about how I never sent him
a free ($45 cost to me) poster. He's got it now and keeps his mouth shut.
The other is a notorious troll who hasn't a clue anyway. The third is
mysteriously silent when idiots criticize me. He could too and with the
authority of having seen one but doesn't.

Why don't you take the time to read what my clients say. They are more than
happy with my photography. Then ask yourself if you really have a clue or
just chime in for a bit of good old aussie head kicking... You know, mob
mentality.

From where I sit, 40 happy clients in two years had enough gratitude in
their hearts to write me letters or send me Emails thanking me for the job I
did of their wedding. Why would they shell out major bucks and be pleased
they did if I was as bad as you say?

So I compare this with comments from people like you and come up with the
realisation that those who criticize me here are:
(a) Never likely to see my photographs.
(b) Never likely to contribute a single cent to my rent or anything else.
(c) Probably totally unable to do it themselves.

Why do you think Fred, all the other Pros who read this group, keep their
heads down?
It's because we are all human and all work to our own standard. Few of them
will ever let the likes of you see their work because of exactly what you
just did.

The arguments are rife in the industry about wether to post good work to the
Internet or not. Two years ago I did and had it ripped off by a rival who
cobbled together her web site with other people's images. Today I only post
what has no commercial value to me and you say they are shit images. Well
Bravo! Why don't you get a handle on what you judge before making reckless
comments?

ANNIKA1980.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 3:27:19 AM3/1/07
to

"MJW" <em...@cool.com.au> wrote in message
news:45e673eb$0$9776$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...

How is it Aussie sharks always look more realistic than Yankee ones?


Rob

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 3:10:40 AM3/1/07
to
ANNIKA1980.com wrote:
> "Fred" <fr...@ner.com> wrote in message news:45e63...@x-privat.org...
> :
> :
> : Regardless of the toing and froing you are still a shitful wedding
> : photographer
> ---------------------
>
> Fred, you have never seen any of my photographs, never seen a wedding album
> of mine and never met me yet you can base your condemnation on a few images
> you see on your screen.


Why do you insist on displaying sub standard images on you web site. Its
usual to illustrate with professionally executed images. Even just a
50x50 thumb for them to have a idea of your professionalism. But then if
a person does receive above average images taken by yourself, that's
maybe a bonus.

If your recent images were that good, why did you remove them from your
web sites????? embarrassment??

There are only three people in this group who have
> seen my photographs. One of them was pretty vocal about how I never sent him
> a free ($45 cost to me) poster. He's got it now and keeps his mouth shut.
> The other is a notorious troll who hasn't a clue anyway. The third is
> mysteriously silent when idiots criticize me. He could too and with the
> authority of having seen one but doesn't.
>

Are you quite sure of that?

> Why don't you take the time to read what my clients say. They are more than
> happy with my photography. Then ask yourself if you really have a clue or
> just chime in for a bit of good old aussie head kicking... You know, mob
> mentality.
>

What's acceptable by your clients and what shows excellence are two
different things.


> From where I sit, 40 happy clients in two years had enough gratitude in
> their hearts to write me letters or send me Emails thanking me for the job I
> did of their wedding. Why would they shell out major bucks and be pleased
> they did if I was as bad as you say?


>
> So I compare this with comments from people like you and come up with the
> realisation that those who criticize me here are:
> (a) Never likely to see my photographs.
> (b) Never likely to contribute a single cent to my rent or anything else.
> (c) Probably totally unable to do it themselves.
>
> Why do you think Fred, all the other Pros who read this group, keep their
> heads down?
> It's because we are all human and all work to our own standard. Few of them
> will ever let the likes of you see their work because of exactly what you
> just did.
>

Now that's a line "working to our own standard".

> The arguments are rife in the industry about wether to post good work to the
> Internet or not.


Well its like a portfolio, for a person who shops on the internet, to
evaluate - it's your choice to market your product that way.


Two years ago I did and had it ripped off by a rival who
> cobbled together her web site with other people's images. Today I only post
> what has no commercial value to me and you say they are shit images. Well
> Bravo! Why don't you get a handle on what you judge before making reckless
> comments?
>
>
>

Why would anyone want to rip off another persons wedding images for
there own gain. Could you please post a URL to her site.

I do know of other photographers who rip off image locations to
photograph. One does try to improve on those images.

I find what your saying very unbelievable.


mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 5:48:37 AM3/1/07
to
On Mar 1, 6:10 pm, Rob <m...@mine.com> wrote:
> ANNIKA1980.com (Douglas MacDonald) wrote:
> > Fred, you have never seen any of my photographs..

So here we have a professional photographer who now says they only
post their crap images on the Internet, despite initially promoting
them as their best work.

Mmm. Good business plan, Sherlock.

> If your recent images were that good, why did you remove them from your
> web sites????? embarrassment??

Correct! Now Doug is a bit stuck. He has to stick to the line that
he will only post substandard images, because he has nothing better to
post. He thinks he can get away with the line about people stealing
his images. But remember, these are WEDDING images. Even the most
wonderful wedding photos are of NO commercial interest to anyone other
than the couple. And at web-resolution they are useless for anything
beyond about 7x5 anyway.

> There are only three people in this group who have
> > seen my photographs.

And as Doug has admitted, ALL of them have now 'disowned' him. What
would a normal person infer from that?

> > One of them was pretty vocal about how I never sent him
> > a free ($45 cost to me) poster. He's got it now

I presume this is Avery? I might contact him and find out what is
happening - Douglas tends to be a little loose with the truth..

> > The other is a notorious troll who hasn't a clue anyway.

Hmm. Is this Colin D.? He's actually quite knowledgable from what
I've seen, and definitely does not meet the criteria for a troll.

> What's acceptable by your clients and what shows excellence are two
> different things.

Well said, Rob. You don't have to be good to sell stuff, and any twit
can make up testimonials for snake-oil products.

> > Why do you think Fred, all the other Pros who read this group, keep their
> > heads down?

I think it's because they have seen what a loony Doug is, and are more
sensible than those who engage with him... (O;

> > Few of them
> > will ever let the likes of you see their work because of exactly what you
> > just did.

*Every* decent photographer (who wishes to) just posts their stuff on
the web and they all mange to post their BEST stuff or a sampling
thereof. They may keep them small, or put copyright notices on them,
but they issue no stupid claims about how they are worried about being
ripped off, nor do they make up fairy stories about being ripped off
in the past. Those claims are the sign of a paranoid (and
unwarrantedly egotistical) mind.

> > The arguments are rife in the industry about whether to post good work to the
> > Internet or not.
Only by newcomers, or those with paranoid delusions. Keep work under
800x600 and get over it. If you discover someone ripping you off,
'out' them with proof and get great publicity..

> >Two years ago I did and had it ripped off by a rival who
> > cobbled together her web site with other people's images.

POST the link or name. There could be no possible reason why Douglas
wouldn't do so. Except that he is lying. Again.
A quick search on posts from your 60+ identities reveals no past
threads about this alleged event - why have you been so quiet about
it? Or are there more identities we don't know about? (O:

> > Today I only post
> > what has no commercial value to me and you say they are shit images. Well
> > Bravo! Why don't you get a handle on what you judge before making reckless
> > comments?

???? What sort of person thinks like this? "I post rubbish, so you
will know how good my real stuff is." Yep, I understand..

> Why would anyone want to rip off another persons wedding images for
> there own gain. Could you please post a URL to her site.

Rob wants to know too - there's two people asking, Douglas. Post the
link or her name. Or drop the bullshit.

> I find what your saying very unbelievable.

You are not alone...

Joan

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 6:15:02 AM3/1/07
to
Aren't most of the yankee sharks human?

--
Joan
http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly

"ANNIKA1980.com" <annispi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:H7wFh.5378$8U4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
:
:
: How is it Aussie sharks always look more realistic than Yankee ones?
:
:

Noons

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 6:22:27 AM3/1/07
to
On Mar 1, 5:34 pm, MJW <e...@cool.com.au> wrote:

>
> Is it the Manly Aquarium by any chance?
>

Bingo. Manly Marineland. Taken from the
inside in one of the night dives we did there
back in the 80s.
:-)

Noons

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 6:27:06 AM3/1/07
to
On Mar 1, 10:15 pm, "Joan" <J...@home.t2> wrote:
> Aren't most of the yankee sharks human?
>
> --
> Joanhttp://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly
>
> "ANNIKA1980.com" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

>
> news:H7wFh.5378$8U4....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> :
> :
> : How is it Aussie sharks always look more realistic than Yankee ones?
> :
> :

Joan, don't tell him about the Cronulla Sharks...
<g,d&r>

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 6:32:48 AM3/1/07
to
On Mar 1, 11:53 am, "Noons" <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> well, both picked public photos.
> and dissed each other out in a big way.
> so, he's just continuing the plot.
> to me, it's equally deranged and infantile.

I largely agree. But in Douglas' case, he has a looong history of
posting wild claims, and then removing pages so the evidence of his
falsehoods no longer remains. He also does the same thing whenever an
image is criticised - it, or the whole gallery in which it resided,
vanishes.

> Douglas? I don't know enough to comment.

Which is why I pointed out the history above. Doug does that all the
time. Brett doesn't, nor do I. Any bad image that I have ever posted
is still there - (if I've reshuffled stuff and a link no longer works
I will be happily repost *anything*).

> Other
> than just state a fact. Which was: he's just applying
> a bit of the same medicine back. pbase or not, the site
> with his photos was created without his authorisation.

To be fair, Brett's effort did not include anything other than
Douglas' images and teasing titles. It was the comments from visitors
that got nasty... But your point is made.

> So, he's entitled to do the same, in whatever format.

True enough.

> Deserved? Dunno. Funny? Questionable.

> Fair? Certainly: it's a free world, if one dishes out,
> one better be prepared to cop it back.

As long as the responses are measured and in kind, yes.. But this is
getting a bit out of hand, imo.

> > Now, Noons, let's make sure everything is out in the open - is it
> > possible that your opinion is affected because of a dislike of *me*,
> > after I criticised your assertion that film scans were 'vastly
> > superior' to dslr images, some time ago in comp.periphs.scanners?
>
> No, not at all: that is not what you criticised.

OK, the thread's called "Scanning vs digital image" in
comp.periphs.scaners if anyone is interested. Make up your own minds,
and we'll leave it there.


> > Perhaps we should start a new thread on that, and you can post your
> > evidence again...
> not interested. Couldn't care less about your opinion.

I'm trying to be nice.

> > But in the meantime, do you think Douglas' post added anything useful
> > to this thread?
>
> yes, of course: I had a good chuckle. Is there anything else
> "meaningful" to be had from this type of thread?

Hmm, you said the humour was questionable before... The thread is
about photographers rights being eroded (isn't it??), and some very
useful stuff was posted including an excellent link to information
that should probably be in every outdoor/street photographers bag.
Personally, I think a joke about somebody's mother swimming in sewage
is a little offtopic. But each to his own!

> > Do you think he should be allowed to hide behind
> > identities, and not be 'outed'?
>
> Of course. It's a free net, no?

I disagree. If I spot anyone hiding behind an identity in order to
deceive (which is what Douglas does), I will point out their
behaviour.

> Or would you like to
> apply the same criteria to ANYONE who does use
> "identities" to hide behind?

Yes. If they do so to deceive/taunt/troll.

> No? Thought so.
Er, well you thought wrong. Is there some inference there? Perhaps
you would like to say what it is you are alluding to? If it's
directed at me, I have only ever had two usenet identities, and they
were not used simultaneously. When I first began interneting (back in
the days when joining in usenet groups meant bucketloads of spam), I
used the ch...@go.com address (Charles being a boyhood nickname - like
Noons?) - it was a real address and the *only* one I used for several
years. When go.com dropped their mail service and I moved interstate,
I started using this name, which is my own and again, it is real..
When I changed names, I declared it on any thread containing both
names. Good enough?

Douglas has used over 60 nicknames (I can list them if you really
want, or just do a groups search on "douglas ryadia yowie" if you
doubt this), and he has been busted several times sockpuppeting to
promote his business, or to support his own causes. Admittedly he
hasn't done much lately, but I think that is only because he got
busted so often in the past.

> > > > Don't encourage him.
> > > never did
>
> > I think if you re-read your comments about him using the same
> > 'medicine'... what exactly *do* you call it?
>
> Fairness? Oh, I'm sorry: you're not familiar with
> the concept. My apologies.

Very sincere ones by the sound of it..

You said Douglas was entitled to continue in this vein and he was
simply using the same medicine. *I* think that's encouragement, you
don't. We differ.

Insults about my comprehension of fairness are not particularly
helpful, and a bit rich when you said yourself you don't know the
history, yet were prepared to offer opinions...

Noons

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 7:19:50 AM3/1/07
to
On Mar 1, 10:32 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:

> > Douglas? I don't know enough to comment.
>
> Which is why I pointed out the history above. Doug does that all the
> time. Brett doesn't, nor do I. Any bad image that I have ever posted
> is still there - (if I've reshuffled stuff and a link no longer works
> I will be happily repost *anything*).

I didn't say I didn't know the history.
Notice that I said, very clearly and in simple English:
"I dont know enough about Douglas to comment".
And prior to that I said: it's all a bit infantile and deranged.

So, again:
that means I don't know enough about Douglas to comment
about him being infantile or deranged. Nothing to do with
history of his posts. That, I *do* know enough about.

I *do* know a bit about Brett being sometimes infantile
and deranged in his posts. Actually, I kind of like his
style and I've known him in cyberspace for a while now,
enough to appreciate his kind of humour. 's fine by me.
He's what Aussies would call a "larrikin". NP.

> As long as the responses are measured and in kind, yes.. But this is
> getting a bit out of hand, imo.

not really. I've seen a lot worse online before.
They both dissed each other out. Fair. Out of hand?
Narh. And I don't buy the "legal" threats posturing either.

> OK, the thread's called "Scanning vs digital image" in
> comp.periphs.scaners if anyone is interested. Make up your own minds,
> and we'll leave it there.

They might as well look at the prior thread here
where you interjected against me. It was my
rejection of your comment that caused you to enter
the thread you mention above to get back at me.
Just getting ALL facts out there, not just the ones
you chose to bring in, ok?

> Hmm, you said the humour was questionable before... The thread is
> about photographers rights being eroded (isn't it??),

narh, stopped being that long ago. It was, at the start.
Like it so often happens in the Usenet. Nothing new.

> I disagree. If I spot anyone hiding behind an identity in order to
> deceive (which is what Douglas does), I will point out their
> behaviour.

C'mon, Douglas' "hiding" is obvious.
He doesn't even bother changing the
IP address!


> Yes. If they do so to deceive/taunt/troll.

Dude, you're in for a lot of frustration...
Bread and butter in the Usenet.
Notice I didn't say I approved. It's just not
that important.


> Er, well you thought wrong. Is there some inference there? Perhaps
> you would like to say what it is you are alluding to? If it's
> directed at me, I have only ever had two usenet identities, and they
> were not used simultaneously. When I first began interneting (back in
> the days when joining in usenet groups meant bucketloads of spam), I

> used the c...@go.com address (Charles being a boyhood nickname - like


> Noons?) - it was a real address and the *only* one I used for several
> years. When go.com dropped their mail service and I moved interstate,
> I started using this name, which is my own and again, it is real..
> When I changed names, I declared it on any thread containing both
> names. Good enough?

Of course it is. I didn't say it was you. I said
it happens a lot in Usenet. Which is a fact.


> > > I think if you re-read your comments about him using the same
> > > 'medicine'... what exactly *do* you call it?
>
> > Fairness? Oh, I'm sorry: you're not familiar with
> > the concept. My apologies.
>
> Very sincere ones by the sound of it..

what can I say?

> You said Douglas was entitled to continue in this vein and he was
> simply using the same medicine. *I* think that's encouragement, you
> don't. We differ.

That is certainly the case. Stating someone's entitlement
to a reply in kind is not encouragement. And yes, I had
a chuckle with it. It doesn't mean I approve of the methods
used. Kind of like what I feel when I hear Dubbya talk:
makes me laugh but I don't approve.

> Insults about my comprehension of fairness are not particularly
> helpful, and a bit rich when you said yourself you don't know the
> history, yet were prepared to offer opinions...

No. Like I pointed out at the start of this reply,
and very clearly: I didn't say I didn't know the history.
That is your interpretation, which you now claim
as my words. Perhaps if you stopped projecting
you'd understand?

Oh, and it was not an insult. Just a statement
and an apology. Insult would be if I had told you
to f*** off, or similar. That was not the case
here, was it?

As for me offering opinions: I'll do that any time I
want and feel like, in the Usenet. May I suggest
you use a forum or your own group if you don't
agree with that state of affairs? Because otherwise
you're in for a lot of frustration.

ANNIKA1980.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 4:52:27 PM3/1/07
to

"Noons" <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1172751590.8...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
: On Mar 1, 10:32 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
:
:
The really sad part about Mark (if that's his real name) is that although I
never "Hide" when I use a different name, he seems to not know how to
read-between-the-lines. No need to "read the IP address".

You don't need to be a Rhodes scholar to figure out my writing style. I'm
probably the only bloke on Usenet who puts '...' at least once in every
post... Mark has a formidable history of lies and false accusations on
Usenet. It started many years ago when he got his nose out of joint about my
"plain English warranty" for computer parts.

It seems he didn't like the notion that when you bought an OEM part (one not
in a retail box) I wouldn't give you any warranty with it because Original
Equipment Manufacturer parts where not a retail item. The concept still
escapes some people who think it's OK to drop a glass platter drive or plug
a hard drive in backwards and still expect a warranty claim when they
shatter or fry it.

He posts false allegations about people and then attempts to conceal his
blunder when someone else points it out. Like when he can't "find" my photo
labs in the phone book. With his history, why on earth would I tell him the
name of them or their location?

He does an excellent job of living in Queensland while maintaining his
official identity in South Australia. I go along with concealing your
identity on Usenet (I should have done it from the start) but when you
conceal who you are and then proceed to attack whoever you feel like, that
really is pretty poor form.

The real teaser in his posts ...and he's done it to you Noons, is to create
conjecture where none existed. To use someone else as the target in his
attempt to gain recognition. He's getting more and more persistent at doing
this too. If you think my published pics are shit, take a look at his. He
has no right to use attack as his primary means of communication.

Everyone has a right to participate in these groups. No one has any right at
all to post lies and defamation in an attempt to discover even more about
someone to do it over again and that is Mark Thomas7's and Ch...@go.com's
method of operation. He is a troll be definition.

At least Bret Hogan (Annika1980) doesn't try to obfuscate his identity.
Doesn't troll and for the most part, is a useful participant in Usenet.
Although he's an arsehole of the highest order in my opinion, he's not half
as bad as this lizard. Hiding behind a rock to lash out at anyone and
everyone he sees as a soft target.

For a long time I got incensed every time Mark lied about me. Every time he
ripped off one of my images and when he (caught on security camera) waited
until Margie's canvas print exhibition was vacant and photographed the
pictures in it.

I couldn't care less what he says now because he's not just attacking me,
He's attacking a dozen or so other participants. It would be good (probably
asking too much) if he got his facts straight once in a while.

TT
(Short for Tropical Treat, my next naming adventure)


Avery

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 8:05:08 PM3/1/07
to


Yes, that was referring to me.

Let's get it right. Some months ago during one of those discussions
about enlarging photographs, Doug said that he had some left over
posters that he would send to the first 3 or 4 (i can't remember the
number)to contact him via his website. He said he required a valid
email address and a valid postal address. I sent him same. Some days
went past and there was no reply. I posted a message asking him if he
was going to come good with his offer. He said he did not get my
email. I sent it again. Once again there was no response. I left
reminders in various thread over the ensuing months.

Eventually he offered again to send it. This time he require my full
name, address, email, business name and a.b.n. I sent them. He checked
one against the other and found them to be all correct He told me to
expect the poster in a few days. 8 days later there was nothing. He
sent me an email saying that there had been a delay owing to sickness
in his family. A couple of days later he reaised the subject again and
I commented that 10 days or more to get a package from Brisbane to
Sydney was a bit OTT. This seemed to upset Douglas no end.

A couple of days later the poster arrived. I have looked at every day
for nearly two weeks. It is quite a nice 900 x 600(approx.) poster. A
picture of a pelican walking on a beach. The bird takes up the full
frame. In the lower left corner there is a shadow box containing the
EXIF data. Canon 20D ,55mm, 1/400 , f14. I can only assume that this
data relates to the image. An acceptable image I guess. Viewed from
half a room away it is more than acceptably sharp and the colours are
good.

I was going to have a really, really close look at it and email my
opinions to Douglas. , but he seemed to think that this was a bad
idea. Now I just can't be bothered.

Fred

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 8:24:11 PM3/1/07
to
ANNIKA1980.com wrote:
> "Fred" <fr...@ner.com> wrote in message news:45e63...@x-privat.org...
> :
> :
> : Regardless of the toing and froing you are still a shitful wedding
> : photographer
> ---------------------
>
> Fred, you have never seen any of my photographs,

> Yes I have you had them on your website before you were shamed to
take them down.

> never seen a wedding album
> of mine and never met me yet you can base your condemnation on a few images
> you see on your screen.

> They are YOUR images


> There are only three people in this group who have
> seen my photographs. One of them was pretty vocal about how I never sent him
> a free ($45 cost to me) poster. He's got it now and keeps his mouth shut.
> The other is a notorious troll who hasn't a clue anyway. The third is
> mysteriously silent when idiots criticize me. He could too and with the
> authority of having seen one but doesn't.

So the photos on the website you had are not photos then?

>
> Why don't you take the time to read what my clients say. They are more than
> happy with my photography. Then ask yourself if you really have a clue or
> just chime in for a bit of good old aussie head kicking... You know, mob
> mentality.

Imaginary testimonials are not the real deal


>
> From where I sit, 40 happy clients in two years had enough gratitude in
> their hearts to write me letters or send me Emails thanking me for the job I
> did of their wedding. Why would they shell out major bucks and be pleased
> they did if I was as bad as you say?
>
> So I compare this with comments from people like you and come up with the
> realisation that those who criticize me here are:
> (a) Never likely to see my photographs.

But we have seen them

> (b) Never likely to contribute a single cent to my rent or anything else.

Not after witnessing your efforts.

> (c) Probably totally unable to do it themselves.

Wrong but you'll never know

>
> Why do you think Fred, all the other Pros who read this group, keep their
> heads down?

I'd say to stifle their laughter


> It's because we are all human and all work to our own standard. Few of them
> will ever let the likes of you see their work because of exactly what you
> just did.

Rubbish your rubbish?

>
> The arguments are rife in the industry about wether to post good work to the
> Internet or not. Two years ago I did and had it ripped off by a rival who
> cobbled together her web site with other people's images. Today I only post
> what has no commercial value to me and you say they are shit images. Well
> Bravo! Why don't you get a handle on what you judge before making reckless
> comments?

I have and I have come to the conclusion that you are mentally disturbed.

mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 9:19:39 PM3/1/07
to
On Mar 2, 7:52 am, "ANNIKA1980.com" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

> Mark has a formidable history of lies and false accusations on
> Usenet.

Once again, note that Douglas has NEVER been able to actually quote,
in context, a single one of my alleged lies. Can you do it today,
Doug?

> It started many years ago when he got his nose out of joint about my
> "plain English warranty" for computer parts.

Again, I have NEVER, not once, engaged with Douglas about his former
computer business. He's been told this several times, but it just
doesn't sink in. Prove otherwise, Douglas, or simply admit you made
this up.

My first argument with him was when he posted as 'Graham Hunt' to
promote what proved to be a non-existent printing franchise, the
famous 'Techno-Aussie Digital Print Centres'.. Douglas later claimed
Graham was an employee, but didn't manage to explain "Graham's"
fraudulent behaviour in posting from Doug's IP, using Doug's sig line
(!), and pretending to be a happy customer with special knowledge
about how valuable the franchise was, instead of admitting to be an
employee. Of course there is no Graham Hunt - he was never heard from
again, and is just another sockpuppet figment of Doug's imagination,
like the 'boys on the boat'. Why don't you ask 'Graham' to post an
explanation of his immoral behaviour, Doug?

> ... he can't "find" my photo


> labs in the phone book. With his history, why on earth would I tell him the
> name of them or their location?

*Why* would you not name them - you don't work at these shops, so what
would be your concern? I'm sure there are many fans ready to go try
your services out... but you seem *very* reticent to name these shops
- they aren't on your (very fine) webpage, nor in the whitepages under
any of your business names. It's not like we are after your home
address...

> He does an excellent job of living in Queensland while maintaining his
> official identity in South Australia.

Yes, I live in Qld and revisit SA frequently, staying at my old
address. What's the problem?

> I go along with concealing your
> identity on Usenet (I should have done it from the start)

But you seem to only post to try to promote your ..er.. 'business' -
so how would that work? (O:

> but when you
> conceal who you are and then proceed to attack whoever you feel like, that
> really is pretty poor form.

I'm not the one with 60 nicknames. And this is my real name and real
email. Douglas even has my address, which he is welcome to send mail
to, but hasn't.

> If you think my published pics are shit

Which they mostly are, except for the excellent pelican shot (credit
where due), and that marina shot is ok... I just object when you do
things like:
- post using sockpuppets to fradulently promote your business
- complain about cameras exposing wrongly when the image and EXIF
shows it was *your* mistake
- post pages allegedly showing enlargements or secret algorithms when
they actually show reductions or poor quality cloning
- post incorrect information, like about perspective, and d-o-f
calculation..
- launch into torrents of abuse and insults when criticised

You'll note that this post contains a lot of criticism but only *one*
insult - that you are a liar - which you are.

*I* don't post misleading rubbish about prosumers defeating medium
format, or silly claims about enlargements that contain new, real
detail. Nor am I promoting a business or claiming to be an
'internationally recognised photographer' on my website/s. They are
just there for interest, and I am happy for anybody to visit and
criticise.

> ...take a look at his.

Knock yourselves out:
http://www.marktphoto.com/
http://community.webshots.com/album/131033374bWiBJm

I am happy to discuss problems with these images (there are many!) and
I'll even reprocess and repost them if applicable. I like learning
from my mistakes. I'm also happy to accept suggestions for new
images, or to post samples to illustrate issues.

> ..He has no right to use attack as his primary means of communication.
Attack? I just respond to *bullshit* appropriately.

> Everyone has a right to participate in these groups. No one has any right at
> all to post lies and defamation

Feel free, AGAIN, to post evidence of that. Criticism is very
different to defamation.

It is interesting to note that *your* page on Brett has now been
withdrawn (in fear of legal action? (O:). The term 'hypocritical'
springs to mind. Why not post it up again so we can discuss the
concept of defamation in more detail..

> He is a troll be (sic) definition.

The only one who bites seems to be Doug.

> For a long time I got incensed every time Mark lied about me. Every time he
> ripped off one of my images and when he (caught on security camera) waited
> until Margie's canvas print exhibition was vacant and photographed the
> pictures in it.

And there's another lie. Tell me, Doug, if you actually got access to
Cleveland Market's security videos (yes, of *course* you did), can you
tell me how you identified me? Care to give a description of me? If
you can't, then you have just proved you are lying *again*.

For the record, when I visited your stall I had *no* camera, just a
lovely lady friend.

Do you honestly think *anyone* believes this fantasy world you live
in, where you talk to the FBI, have lots of PI's running around, send
money to Arkansas lawyers, etc? It's not even funny, just sad.

> I couldn't care less what he says now

Wonder why he responds every time? But he always avoids the bits that
prove him a liar, of course.


mark.t...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 1, 2007, 9:44:34 PM3/1/07
to
On Mar 1, 10:19 pm, "Noons" <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Mar 1, 10:32 pm, mark.thoma...@gmail.com wrote:
...

> I didn't say I didn't know the history.
> Notice that I said, very clearly and in simple English:
> "I dont know enough about Douglas to comment".

Semantics 101? (O:


...


> > Yes. If they do so to deceive/taunt/troll.
>
> Dude, you're in for a lot of frustration...
> Bread and butter in the Usenet.

I only hang around in a few groups. How many folks do this in the
rec.photo related groups, apart from the obvious (ignored) trolls?
Maybe two or three at most. If you think it's more, why not name
them? So, very occasionally 'outing' Doug' and maybe one or two
others is hardly a source of a 'lot of frustration' to me.

> Oh, and it was not an insult. Just a statement
> and an apology.

I quote:

> Fairness? Oh, I'm sorry: you're not familiar with
> the concept. My apologies.

So that's not an insult and is a genuine apology....?
...
...

Well, *I* apologise profusely - how could I have got it so
wrong..??!! (O:

> Insult would be if I had told you
> to f*** off, or similar. That was not the case
> here, was it?

*I* thought that would be classed as an instruction and an obscenity,
and that it contains no insult whatsoever. But clearly you have a
mastery of English much more advanced than my own, so I defer and
apologise again!

(O;

> As for me offering opinions: I'll do that any time I
> want and feel like, in the Usenet.

When exactly did I ask you to not offer opinions? Re-read it - you
will find that I was comparing your 'fairness' comment with the
'fairness' of offering opinions without knowing the history - I did
not say to stop doing so.

> May I suggest
> you use a forum or your own group if you don't
> agree with that state of affairs?
> Because otherwise
> you're in for a lot of frustration.

Thank you for the helpful advice, but I don't feel frustrated at all.
And I enjoy the banter, so I'm not sure what 'state of affiars' I am
supposed to not agree with..


(O:

D-Mac

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 12:13:23 AM3/2/07
to

<mark.t...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1172801979.7...@30g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
: On Mar 2, 7:52 am, "ANNIKA1980.com" <annispics-4b...@yahoo.com.au>

: wrote:
: > Mark has a formidable history of lies and false accusations on
: > Usenet.
:
: > It started many years ago when he got his nose out of joint about my

: > "plain English warranty" for computer parts.
:
: Again, I have NEVER, not once, engaged with Douglas about his former
: computer business. He's been told this several times, but it just
: doesn't sink in. Prove otherwise, Douglas, or simply admit you made
: this up.
----------------------------
So who are you?
Mark Thomas or Charles Stevens? And you have the hide to can me for changing
names with every computer I build? Mongrel Mark ought to be your signature.

Not you with the ACCC threat?
Not you with the ASIC threat?
Not you with the : "I'm really a nie guy, I'll come and see you when I get
the Queensland"? after defaming me from a SA Government computer?

You are a sick puppy, whoever you are. One day I'll find out you'll discover
something about me you won't like one little bit.

Ho Hum...
QUESTION: How many computers does it take to make a network?

ANSWER: More than one!
Standard gear in nearly every business that allows it's staff Internet
access is... A ROUTER!

QUESTION: What does a ROUTER DO?
ANSWER: Well you'll have to look it up for yourself but for Christ sake...
Don't use the Yellow Pages!

Give it up Moron... You are starting to look as stupid as you'd make out I
am.

Douglas


D-Mac

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 12:50:12 AM3/2/07
to

"Fred" <fr...@ner.com> wrote in message news:45e77cc4$1...@x-privat.org...

: ANNIKA1980.com wrote:
: > "Fred" <fr...@ner.com> wrote in message news:45e63...@x-privat.org...
: > :
: > :
: > : Regardless of the toing and froing you are still a shitful wedding
: > : photographer
: > ---------------------
: >
: > Fred, you have never seen any of my photographs,
:
: > Yes I have you had them on your website before you were shamed to
: take them down.
:
They were not Photographs Fred, they were computer images. If as you
insunuate, you are a working Photographer, you'd pretty soon discover how
far departed one is from the other.

One of the really fantastic things about the Internet is that when you own a
domain name and get to own your very own web server in your very own studio,
you can do what you bloody well please with what is on it. Amazingly simple,
isn't it?

Why don't you get technical in this issue and do some research for a change?
Start here:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Nathan_Moroney/photo-quality/photo-quality.html

When you are finished that, read what one of America's highly acclaimed and
very successful fine art (Medium and Large Format) Photographers had to say
about my photographs and my Enlargement routine. Keep in mind it was written
in 2004 when a Canadian photographer called on me to put or shut up.

I spent nearly $1000 sending my work to (only those with qualifications)
people all over the world. None of you microbes who fancy yourselves as
Photographers but won't stand and be counted as one... Had any
qualifications to pass judgment and never got any of the original prints. I
wonder why that Famous-in-his-own-mind Mark-Charles Thomas-Stevens never got
any? Oh, that's right, he wants to stay anonymous and still post his slander
and bullshit.

I wasn't going to name Avery after his savage reaction at me using his
Christian name here. I respect his privacy even more now after the carry on
by Stevens-Thomas.

Clearly he has a business in either the Photographic or a near industry and
qualifies as someone to believe if he chooses to comment. He incidentally
got a more recent poster of a different subject than Gordon Moat did. Shot
with a plastic "Kit" lens in case anyone thought the lens had something to
do with the enlargement ability.

Since Gordon wrote his article, visualisation and perceived clarity have
improved. Don't expect Professionals to be bug eyed over anyone's work,
expect them to tell it how it is. If they have nothing negative to say
about it, then it's successful. I note Avery did that earlier.

Read about Gordon Moat here: http://www.photoartsgroup.org/bio_moat_g.html
His article is here: http://www.allgstudio.com/technology.html under
printing technology. His opinion is highly valued by major photographic
suppliers.

When you've finished that... I might engage you in a meaningful discussion
about what motivates people to buy photographs and why my -so called "shit
photos" sell like the proverbial hot cakes.

Fred, if you really did have a handle on Professional Photography, you'd
know as much about the psychology of a client as I do. You'd know too that
image quality has almost nothing to do with the popularity photographs...
But then if you knew that, you stop making an idiot out of yourself, trying
to convince me I'm not doing what I do, wouldn't you?

Douglas


Pete D

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 3:21:32 AM3/2/07
to

You are starting to look as stupid as I
> am.
>
> Douglas
>
>

I am not sure that that is possible Doug.


Pete D

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 3:24:24 AM3/2/07
to

"D-Mac" <annispi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:oWOFh.5804$8U4...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...

LOL, awesome Doug. Who is your proof reader?


D-Mac

unread,
Mar 2, 2007, 3:49:18 AM3/2/07
to

"Pete D" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:45e7ded0$0$31055$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
:
: "D-Mac" <annispi...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
:
What's this Pete?
March of the one liners?