Graffitti
newyorkc...@bigfoot.com
walls, the ones that several feet taller than any person.
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-Paint-with-a-Fire-Extinguisher/?ALLSTEPS
So if you see some scruffy looking punk walking around with a fire
extingusher. Call the cops or go find a baseball bat.
Steve Caple
So, uh, you dip the end of the baseball bat in paint and use it like a big
marker?
--
Steve
fl@liner
steve...@commoncast.net says...
Or you could volunteer the punk to be a pinata...
fl@liner
Big Rich Soprano
>extingusher. Call the cops or go find a baseball bat.
This aint art - this sucks! Art is painting one side of a NYCTA car to
look like a pepperoni pizza! I have a pic of a cylindrical hopper that
has this mythical creature being ridden by another one! It's Xtremely
well done! As soon as i find the link again i'll post it...
P. Roehling
"Big Rich Soprano" <BucSo...@gmail.com> wrote
> This aint art - this sucks! Art is painting one side of a NYCTA car to
> look like a pepperoni pizza! I have a pic of a cylindrical hopper that
> has this mythical creature being ridden by another one! It's Xtremely
> well done! As soon as i find the link again i'll post it...
Sometimes graffiti is art, often it's garbage, and occasionally it's just
strange...
About ten years ago, while trainwatching the S.P. line up Beaumont hill, I
saw a passing tank car with the words "SORRY HARRY!" spelled out in
six-foot-high white letters that stretched all the way from one end of the
car to the other.
To this day I have no idea of who Harry was or what the graffiti painter was
sorry about, but it didn't keep me from rushing home and duplicating the
message on the side of an unsuspecting tank car.
When I run it in a train at the San Diego Railroad Museum, bemused
spectators always ask about it.
Pete
Klaus D. Mikkelsen
>
> This aint art - this sucks! Art is painting one side of a NYCTA car to
> look like a pepperoni pizza! I have a pic of a cylindrical hopper that
> has this mythical creature being ridden by another one! It's Xtremely
> well done! As soon as i find the link again i'll post it...
Grafitti taken to the extreme:
<http://drehscheibe-online.ist-im-web.de/forum/read.php?4,3508226,3509002#msg-3509002>
Yes the page is in german, but I'll try to explaine.
The steering car in front of the train with it's gray, beige and blue
colours has - along with all the rest og the steering cars - been
paintet in the normal german railway color scheme (red and gray) for
more than a decade ogo. And then suddenly one day one steering cars
appaears in their prevoius livery (pre 1997).
But it is not painted in the old colors by the german railways, but by
"grafitti artists".
Klaus
--
Modelbane Europas hjemmeside: http://www.modelbaneeuropa.hadsten.dk
Modeltog, internet, gratis spambekæmpelse, elektronik og andet:
http://home6.inet.tele.dk/moppe
P. Roehling
"Klaus D. Mikkelsen" <er.du.s...@du.kan.finde.den> wrote
> The steering car in front of the train with it's gray, beige and blue
> colours has - along with all the rest og the steering cars - been
> paintet in the normal german railway color scheme (red and gray) for
> more than a decade ogo. And then suddenly one day one steering cars
> appaears in their prevoius livery (pre 1997).
>
> But it is not painted in the old colors by the german railways, but by
> "grafitti artists".
Damn but those Germans are clever. They've figured out how to steer trains!
Which brings a whole new meaning to the old line about the woman who was so
ugly she could make a freight train take a dirt road.
Pete
David Nebenzahl
> "Klaus D. Mikkelsen" <er.du.s...@du.kan.finde.den> wrote
>
>> The steering car in front of the train with it's gray, beige and blue
>> colours has - along with all the rest og the steering cars - been
>> paintet in the normal german railway color scheme (red and gray) for
>> more than a decade ogo. And then suddenly one day one steering cars
>> appaears in their prevoius livery (pre 1997).
>>
>> But it is not painted in the old colors by the german railways, but by
>> "grafitti artists".
>
> Damn but those Germans are clever. They've figured out how to steer trains!
Yes; I too want to know just what a "steering car" does. Does the train
go off the tracks without it?
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
>
>Sometimes graffiti is art, ...
Yea, when it is done with the permission of the owner of what it is on.
--
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
"I really think Canada should get over to Iraq as quickly as possible"
- Paul Martin - April 30, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: if replying by email, remove "remove." and ".invalid"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
P. Roehling
"Calvin Henry-Cotnam" <cal...@remove.daxack.ca.invalid> wrote
>>Sometimes graffiti is art, ...
>
> Yea, when it is done with the permission of the owner of what it is on.
The question of whether a certain piece of graffiti has artistic value -or
not- is completely separate from the question of whether or not it's
creation was permissible under the rules. (For all we know, the guys who did
the famous Lascaux cave paintings were chewed out afterwards by the boss
caveman who didn't care for impressionist art on his walls.)
As another example, the nose art done on US WW2 fighting aircraft was in
fact against the rules -it was "defacing government property". But the fact
that it was technically illegal didn't stop the aircrews from committing
this crime en masse, nor did it mean that all of that illegal art was
worthless from an artistic standpoint.
There are now coffee-table books and websites devoted strictly to aircraft
nose art, as there will no doubt be others dedicated to freight car graffiti
at some point in the future.
Pete
P. Roehling
"David Nebenzahl" <nob...@but.us.chickens> wrote
>> Damn but those Germans are clever. They've figured out how to steer
>> trains!
>
> Yes; I too want to know just what a "steering car" does. Does the train go
> off the tracks without it?
Just a suggestion, mind you, but I suspect a slight problem in translation
here... ;-P
Pete
Jon Miller
fact against the rules -it was "defacing government property". <
other government workers (with athority general???) was it technically
illegal. Who knows there may have been orders written.
P. Roehling
"Jon Miller" <at...@inow.com> wrote
Unlike the Bush theory of government, in the real world a crime remains a
crime even when it's committed by a Federal employee.
Pete
Franz T
Nah.. Remember, Richard Nixon told David Frost many years ago: "If the
President of the United States does it, it is NOT a crime".......
I really miss the honesty and openness of the Nixon Administration.
(I miss all the investigations, too. Where is Sam Ervin now that we
need him??)
P. Roehling
"Franz T" <f...@fht.com> wrote
>>> Well as it was done by government workers, probably given orders from
>>> other government workers (with athority general???) was it technically
>>> illegal. Who knows there may have been orders written.
>>
>>Unlike the Bush theory of government, in the real world a crime remains a
>>crime even when it's committed by a Federal employee.
>>
>>Pete
>>
> Nah.. Remember, Richard Nixon told David Frost many years ago: "If the
> President of the United States does it, it is NOT a crime".......
And what ever *did* become of Richard Nixon, class?
Oh.
> I really miss the honesty and openness of the Nixon Administration.
> (I miss all the investigations, too. Where is Sam Ervin now that we
> need him??)
Died in 1985. The Constitution followed him not too long ago.
Pete
Dan
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Franz T
<nowa...@uh-uh.edu> wrote:
>
>"Franz T" <f...@fht.com> wrote
>
>>>> Well as it was done by government workers, probably given orders from
>>>> other government workers (with athority general???) was it technically
>>>> illegal. Who knows there may have been orders written.
>>>
>>>Unlike the Bush theory of government, in the real world a crime remains a
>>>crime even when it's committed by a Federal employee.
>>>
>>>Pete
>>>
>> Nah.. Remember, Richard Nixon told David Frost many years ago: "If the
>> President of the United States does it, it is NOT a crime".......
>
>And what ever *did* become of Richard Nixon, class?
He became the role model and guru of the current bunch of neo-fascists
in the White House????? (anyone remember who Karl Rove originally
worked for?? )
David Nebenzahl
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:09:17 -0700, "P. Roehling"
> <nowa...@uh-uh.edu> wrote:
>
>>"Franz T" <f...@fht.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> Well as it was done by government workers, probably given orders from
>>>>> other government workers (with athority general???) was it technically
>>>>> illegal. Who knows there may have been orders written.
>>>>
>>>>Unlike the Bush theory of government, in the real world a crime remains a
>>>>crime even when it's committed by a Federal employee.
>>>>
>>> Nah.. Remember, Richard Nixon told David Frost many years ago: "If the
>>> President of the United States does it, it is NOT a crime".......
>>
>>And what ever *did* become of Richard Nixon, class?
>
> He became the role model and guru of the current bunch of neo-fascists
> in the White House????? (anyone remember who Karl Rove originally
> worked for?? )
You got that 200% right, good buddy.
P. Roehling
"Dan" <B2...@aol.com> wrote
> Must we bring politics into this?
Look around you closely.
See anyone with a gun forcing you to read this?
No?
Then move on to the next post and forget it.
Pete
William R. Mattil
>
> There are now coffee-table books and websites devoted strictly to aircraft
> nose art, as there will no doubt be others dedicated to freight car graffiti
> at some point in the future.
>
>
So you are equating airman who fought to preserve freedom in a World War
to gang bangers ?
Priceless.
Stick around long enough and you'll see everything on Usenet.
Bill
PS: Your original information regarding "nose art" being illegal is also
wrong.
Dan
to make that error again.
P. Roehling
"William R. Mattil" <wrma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
>> There are now coffee-table books and websites devoted strictly to
>> aircraft nose art, as there will no doubt be others dedicated to freight
>> car graffiti at some point in the future.
>
> So you are equating airman who fought to preserve freedom in a World War
> to gang bangers ?
No, *you* did that. Nobody but you has said anything about gang bangers.
(And art is still art no matter how it gets created. Or, for that matter,
who created it or why they did so.)
But go look up "straw man argument" at the first opportunity. You need to
know what it means and how to avoid it in the future.
> Priceless.
> Stick around long enough and you'll see everything on Usenet.
Yeah, including a lot of guys putting their own meanings on things and them
blaming somebody else because they got the wrong message.
> Bill
>
> PS: Your original information regarding "nose art" being illegal is also
> wrong.
Uh-huh. Bill, my dad fought in Europe during WW2 and that's where I got my
information. He was there for the whole thing from D-Day on.
Were he still around he'd be happy to tell you about some of the asshole
officers he'd known who threatened to have enlisted men court-marshaled for
personalizing their Government-issued equipment. He'd also tell you about
getting the last laugh when the powers that be in Washington finally decided
that morale was more important than adhering to the last letter of the
regulations, and issued orders that painting names on tank hulls, aircraft
and suchlike was to be tolerated henceforth.
P. Roehling
"Dan" <B2...@aol.com> wrote
> It seems I made a mistake. I thought you were an adult. I'll try not to
> make that error again.
Dan,
You may be certain that your opinion is being given exactly the amount of
respect that it deserves.
BTW: exactly when was it that you were appointed to play net-nanny and began
attempting to censor other people's posts? Was it perchance back while you
were still in the Air Force supposedly protecting things such as freedom of
speech?
How ironic.
Dan
freedom of speech, was I? I only asked if this thread had to be
subjected to politics. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference.
Before you mock my service I suggest you actually try serving yourself.
marknewton
Note the double standard becoming apparent. I'd lay odds that if the
post in question had been *favourable* towards Nixon, then Dan wouldn't
have complained about the thread becoming "political"...
Dan
Then you would lose that bet. I have said nothing that would indicate
my political leanings, if any, have I? I suggest you read what I
actually wrote and see if you can find a "double standard" on my part.
P. Roehling
"marknewton" <markn...@dodo.com.au> wrote
> Note the double standard becoming apparent. I'd lay odds that if the post
> in question had been *favourable* towards Nixon, then Dan wouldn't have
> complained about the thread becoming "political"...
I care not about his politics one way or another. I figure a man's entitled
to cast his vote for Wily Coyote if he feels so inclined. But he's *not*
entitled to try policing a public forum and attempting to tell people what,
where, or when they should be allowed to post to it.
Pete
P. Roehling
"Dan" <B2...@aol.com> wrote
>> You may be certain that your opinion is being given exactly the amount of
>> respect that it deserves.
>>
>> BTW: exactly when was it that you were appointed to play net-nanny and
>> began attempting to censor other people's posts? Was it perchance back
>> while you were still in the Air Force supposedly protecting things such
>> as freedom of speech?
>>
>> How ironic.
> I wasn't attempting to censor anything nor was I infringing on your
> freedom of speech, was I? I only asked if this thread had to be subjected
> to politics. I'm sorry you don't understand the difference.
Understand the difference, you arrogant little twerp? I instructed at the
University of California for 12 years, and have been a successful free-lance
writer for around 20, so I'd say I understand English pretty well.
Fact is, you were trying to tell me what you thought I should -and
shouldn't- post. If you hadn't wanted to control the direction of the thread
in that way, you wouldn't have posted at all. QED. Now you're trying to
duck your obvious intent with mealy-mouthed claims of innocence that aren't
fooling anybody.
> Before you mock my service I suggest you actually try serving yourself.
Army infantry. Class of '66. But somehow I've never found it needful to
include that info in a sig line.
In short: if your tender little feelings can't cope with the idea that I
might say something you don't like, I suggest you plonk me right now and
save yourself the agony, because I'm not about to self-censor my posts for
you or anybody else.
Dan
Well, if you feel I am attempting to "try policing" or telling you
"what, where or when" you may post anything you obviously didn't read
what I actually wrote. I am not responsible for your insecurities so I
am going to drop this. I believe I have made my point whether you
understand it or not.
P. Roehling
"Dan" <B2...@aol.com> wrote
> Well, if you feel I am attempting to "try policing" or telling you
> "what, where or when" you may post anything you obviously didn't read what
> I actually wrote. I am not responsible for your insecurities so I am going
> to drop this. I believe I have made my point whether you understand it or
> not.
Last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet tests was clear back in
high school, but I scored 168 then, and I've yet to encounter senile
dementia.
Now: isn't it getting a bit crowded in there with your foot in your mouth
and your head up your ass at the same time?
Dan
> P. Roehling (nowa...@uh-uh.edu) said...
>> Sometimes graffiti is art, ...
>
> Yea, when it is done with the permission of the owner of what it is on.
>
>
of the property owner. Pity the vandals who do it can't be forced to do
the clean up at their own expense.
Big Rich Soprano
>Look around you closely.
>See anyone with a gun forcing you to read this?
But it's not a political Usenet group!
Big Rich Soprano
>of the property owner. Pity the vandals who do it can't be forced to do
>the clean up at their own expense.
Railroaders love to see it - it breaks up their 12 hour day...
newyorkc...@bigfoot.com
P. Roehling
"Big Rich Soprano" <BucSo...@gmail.com> wrote
>>Look around you closely.
>
>>See anyone with a gun forcing you to read this?
>
> But it's not a political Usenet group!
Shrug. Conversations wander where they will, and Usenet groups are akin to a
large party with several different conversations taking place all at once.
Even if the party were exclusively for doctors, it would be terribly
impolite for someone to interrupt your non-medical conversation with the
admonition that he didn't care for your subject matter at this time or in
this place.
In short: if you wouldn't say something in a face-to-face conversation
because it's insulting, it's not polite to say it on Usenet either
Pete
Big Rich Soprano
>Anytime you've got more than one person it's political.
Gee, last time i looked at the title it said railroad - please don't
ruin it...
Steve Caple
buried under a crossroads with an alder stake through the dark and pinched
lump of tissue that passed for his heart.
--
Steve