Now THAT'S what I call a great post!
GOSMG
>As a top flight pro of 376 years, I find it incredible that you damned,
>simpleton amateurs aren't born with the fundamental knowledge required
>already programmed into your genome, like me, because, did I tell you.. I'm
>a pro.
>
> Exposure? Don't bother about it you small minded, poor little hobbyists
>you. As a pro... did I tell you I was a pro? As a pro, I just shoot
>obscene amounts of film - one of them is bound to be correct, right? After
>all, I'm a pro, and I can do things like that... being a pro. You don't
>need skill, you just shoot shit loads, and bracket like a bastard, then push
>or pull any of them that managed to still be wrong, despite me being a
>pro.... Oh yes, I'm a pro by the way.
>
> As a working pro, you also may not want to bother about film, or camera
>choice you damned ignorant assholes, as any pro, like me, will tell you, you
>can just point a K1000 at anything, and go click. It doesn't matter if it's
>set right, or you bothered to meter first. You see, as a pro, like me, you
>can afford massive amounts of film, as I cash the "big cheques"... because
>I'm a pro.
>
> I got where I was with my extremely
well tuned, and philanthropic people
>skills, as you may have probably guessed already. Now f**k off, I'm busy
>being a pro.
>
> Regards,
>
>A Big Assed Pro!
GOSMG:
Now THAT is what I call a post! Hiliarious! If me and my big swingin' dick
attitude helped inspire that, then I am proud. You kicked my ass on that one.
I totally apologize for everything I said to piss all of you off so bad. I
think after reading all the freaking angry responses to what I was trying to
say, I am finally starting to get how this group works. Mostly from Gene's
posts, the apparent single voice of sanity in this wacky group! But Dave, I
got to hand it to you, that post was AWESOME! Did I mention I am a pro?
HaAAA! That was great, seriously. Do you guys think you could possibly give
me another chance, if I admit that I am just another guy struggling to make a
living in photography, if I also have my cock shortened to about 11 inches, and
if I admit I am a hack and an a-hole? I have gotten some very hostile but also
some very touching and friendly emails from people in this group. I will stop
being an arrogant pro bastard. But it really did all start with me trying to
answer what seemed like rediculously silly questions. I must defend myself by
saying that I have honestly dedicated my life to photography, for 25 years,
since I was ten years old. Please don't get mad, it's just hard to have people
try to take that away, I am sorry for my attitude, OK? I still do stand by my
original idea that you learn photography looking through a camera, and then
reviewing the results; not by newsgroups, magazines or books or even
classrooms. Thanks for a great laugh David, that was awesome! Now go take
some god damn photos for gods sake! By the way, I am a pro. Ha HAAAA! If you
really want to kick me out, you can all just reply with go to hell, and I will
never post again.
Sincerely,
Scott, Pro photographer since 1994.
www.silcom.com/~scottg/
DEREKMAN
the acheivement of nivana maybe... I hope I never be a "Pro" and still manage
to bring in some cash... I still think every days' a learning experience.
Cheers,
Derek, currently a student of Zen light metering.
Obakesan
well for me a Pro is just someone that does it for a living, an amature
is one who does it for the love, perhaps even doing it better with more
care, and experience than a Pro
I wonder if Vincent Van Gough was a Pro? I don't think he made much
money though....
In article <20000801015258...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
--
See Ya
(when the bandwidth gets better ;-)
Chris Eastwood Please remove undies for reply
Photographer, Stunt Programmer WWW -> www.powerup.com.au/~cjeastwd/
Motorcyclist and dingbat
Alan Justice
-Alan "One-Ear" Justice
"Obakesan" <cjundie...@powerup.com.au> wrote in message
news:8m5qum$66...@inetbws1.citec.com.au...
Belton1
>well for me a Pro is just someone that does it for a living, an amature
>is one who does it for the love, perhaps even doing it better with more
>care, and experience than a Pro
>
>I wonder if Vincent Van Gough was a Pro? I don't think he made much
>money though....
>
>In article <20000801015258...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
>dere...@aol.com (DEREKMAN) wrote:
>>I never liked the term pro, because as a "pro" it has a sense of finality...
>>the acheivement of nivana maybe... I hope I never be a "Pro" and still
>manage
>>to bring in some cash... I still think every days' a learning experience.
>>
Kirk
cjundie...@powerup.com.au says...
> well for me a Pro is just someone that does it for a living, an amature
> is one who does it for the love, perhaps even doing it better with more
> care, and experience than a Pro
>
Now, when the subject is sex, the pro is less respected than the
amateur.
What was the subject again?
--
"Rub her feet." -RAH
greg kerr
DEREKMAN wrote:
> I never liked the term pro, because as a "pro" it has a sense of finality...
> the acheivement of nivana maybe... I hope I never be a "Pro" and still manage
> to bring in some cash... I still think every days' a learning experience.
It's an odd term in photography as one would expect a "pro" to take higher
quality photos than an amateur which often isn't the case. I guess a "pro" is
someone who makes a living with a camera and is not necessarily a good
photographer. I remember one "pro" who photographed tourists in a night club in
Cancun with a polaroid and then sold his photos for a couple of bucks each. The
guy was making a living with his camera but is this great photography?
Peter Simon
>
> well for me a Pro is just someone that does it for a living, an amature
> is one who does it for the love, perhaps even doing it better with more
> care, and experience than a Pro
>
> money though....
amature.
Peter
Ron Walton
Kirk wrote in message ...
amature
>> is one who does it for the love, perhaps even doing it better
with more
>> care, and experience than a Pro
>>
>
>
>amateur.
The ladies treat me like a sex object. I want sex, they
object.
Ron Walton
Visit the BPC http://www.bpc.photographer.org
Mike Farrell
>You kicked my ass on that one.
>if I also have my cock shortened to about 11 inches, and
>if I admit I am a hack and an a-hole?
While your earlier posts were simply arrogant and conceited, you
apparently now feel the need to resort to vulgarity and offensive
language to convey your point. People of all ages, backgrounds and
beliefs read this group, so please save this kind of language for
somewhere else.
--
Mike Farrell -- <farre...@altavista.net>
Alan Justice
anonymous doesn't mean you can act uncivilized. (And it's also advisable to
snip offensive language when including the text of a post to which you
reply, Mike.)
-Alan Justice
"Mike Farrell" <farre...@altavista.net> wrote in message
> <snip>
Mike Farrell
>(And it's also advisable to
>snip offensive language when including the text of a post to which you
>reply, Mike.)
Normally I would do so, but in this case I wanted to point out the
part of his post to which I was referring. I certainly would not quote
those words gratuitously.
Peter Simon
notwithstanding, I stand by my statement that none of van Gogh's paintings
were sold in his lifetime, although his brother, an art dealer, supported
him and represented him in Paris. Anyway, the quibbles of the previous
poster are getting away from the point of the thread.
Peter
> Peter Simon wrote:
>
> > > HiYa
> > >
> > > well for me a Pro is just someone that does it for a living, an amature
> > > is one who does it for the love, perhaps even doing it better with more
> > > care, and experience than a Pro
> > >
> > > I wonder if Vincent Van Gough was a Pro? I don't think he made much
> > > money though....
> >
> > Vincent Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. Definitely an
> > amature.
>
> Guys, it's neither Vincent Van Gough nor Vincent Gogh. His name was Vincent
> van Gogh.
> (And he did manage to sell some paintings. His brother sold some too on his
> behalf.)
>
> And what's an 'amature'? Someone who is not mature? Perhaps that applies to
> some amateurs, but not many, i believe. It certainly applies to some pros
> though...
Q.G. de Bakker
Alan Justice
your point and it was a very good one. Don't waste your time responding to
those who live to criticize.
-Alan Justice
"Peter Simon" <pas...@tam2000.tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.100080...@fox.tamu.edu...
> Please forgive the typo and poor spelling in my previous post. Pedantry
> notwithstanding, I stand by my statement that none of van Gogh's paintings
> were sold in his lifetime, although his brother, an art dealer, supported
> him and represented him in Paris. Anyway, the quibbles of the previous
> poster are getting away from the point of the thread.
>
> Peter
>
8675309
some great art. Asside from dat, I personaly ain't see no bad spellling,
meself. And evens i sees them, it ain't no outrage, it be what dis here
internet has been for years now...one itty bitty step away from komplete
chaos.
8675309
"Mike Farrell" <farre...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:igoeoss4qkl63gtvm...@4ax.com...
Chris
Peter Simon <pas...@tam2000.tamu.edu> wrote:
> Please forgive the typo and poor spelling in my previous post. Pedantry
> notwithstanding, I stand by my statement that none of van Gogh's
> paintings
> were sold in his lifetime, although his brother, an art dealer, supported
> him and represented him in Paris. Anyway, the quibbles of the previous
> poster are getting away from the point of the thread.
>
Most art experts agree that van Gogh's painting, "The Red Vineyard,"
sold while he was alive. It was shown at the 1890 Vingtistes exhibition
in Brussels, and Anna Bloch bought it there for about 400 francs. This
sale was five months before van Gogh's death. (I think that "The Red
Vineyard" is now at Moscow's Pushkin Museum.)
The artist Paul Gauguin (and a friend of van Gogh's) wrote this story of
another van Gogh sale in his book _Escritos de un salvaje_:
"Winter 1886
"A day of December, in Lepic street of Paris, pedestrians hurried more
than normal. Among them a chilly man dressed in a strange vest. He is
wrapped in a leather goat coat and a fur hat, possibly in rabbit. He had
a red bristled beard. Like a herdsman.
"...His eyes are light blue, so childish, so alive, and so intelligent.
Possibly he is a poor beggar; but he is not a herdsman, he is a painter.
His name, Vincent van Gogh.
"He entered in a shop of bargain, cheap canvas. Poor artist! You have
given a part of your soul to your painting and now you have to sell it.
"It is a little still life, some rose shrimps on a rose paper.
" 'Can you give me some money for this canvas to help me pay my rent?'
" 'Your paintings are not very cheerful, but it is said that you are
intelligent and I want to help you. Here you have five francs.'
"Vincent took the coin, said thank you and went away. Near his home, a
poor woman, just out of a hospital, smiled sadly to the painter asking
for some help. Van Gogh, who was a good reader, remembered La Fille
Elise (a novel by Edmond de Goncourt) and the five francs coin passed to
her hands. Quickly, like ashamed of his charity, he hurried away with
his empty stomach."
Gauguin wrote this episode thirteen years after van Gogh's death, and
some people wonder how true it is. Dr. Jan H. Hulsker, one of the
world's foremost van Gogh scholars, has written that he believes
Gauguin's story to be true. If so, that would make two paintings sold
during van Gogh's life.
There is evidence that a third van Gogh painting was sold during his
life. Van Gogh's brother, Theo, wrote an October 3, 1888 letter to the
London art dealership of Sully & Lori. This letter refers to the English
purchase of two paintings: a landscape by Corot and a "self-portrait by
V. van Gogh."
But you're right: We've strayed far from the original thread and far
from photography. Let's get back to the photography! :-)
Chris
Chris
<andrewp...@interlog.com> wrote:
> Vinnie "Van This!" Gogh didn't get paid, unfortunately, but did manage to
> do
> some great art. Asside from dat, I personaly ain't see no bad spellling,
> meself. And evens i sees them, it ain't no outrage, it be what dis here
> internet has been for years now...one itty bitty step away from komplete
> chaos.
>
LOL
Peter Simon
Thanks for the clarification. At least now we can say that van Gogh was,
indeed, a pro!
Peter
Peter
To think truly is to confine oneself to a single thought which one
day stands still in the world's sky.
Heidegger
Magambo
Did Van Gogh ever do any weddings? We know he did some headshots.
Only me...
"Peter Simon" <pas...@tam2000.tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.SOL.3.96.100080...@fox.tamu.edu...
> >
> > well for me a Pro is just someone that does it for a living, an amature
> > is one who does it for the love, perhaps even doing it better with more
> > care, and experience than a Pro
> >
> > I wonder if Vincent Van Gough was a Pro? I don't think he made much
> > money though....
>
> Vincent Gogh never sold a painting in his lifetime. Definitely an
> amature.
Actually, he sold one. His Brother Theo managed to sell one in Paris
for 300 francs. I think he sold two others as well.... however, there's
two definitions of Professional. The dictionary one, which is crap, and the
real one. A "pro" in my mind is someone who cares about their work, and
strives to achieve a certain level of excellence, to satisfy him/herself, as
well as the client (if any).
I was in my old home town of Blackpool today... just strolling down the
promenade (well, jostled along the promenade really), when I saw a guy with
a cheap digital point and shoot, and a 5ft Royal Python - taking snaps fro
tourists with this savage (harmless) reptile around their necks.... it
struck me, that according to eth dictionary, he's a pro.
Just a thought...
David.
Sotiris Ioannidis
..... etc.
if you dont like someones language just filter him
as long as someone does not lie about you, he or she is doing no harm to you
censorship is a bad thing, it violates all sorts of freedoms
&si - not anonymous
Alan Justice wrote:
> Ditto. And this applies to many others who post here. Just because you're
> anonymous doesn't mean you can act uncivilized. (And it's also advisable to
> snip offensive language when including the text of a post to which you
> reply, Mike.)
>
> -Alan Justice
>
> "Mike Farrell" <farre...@altavista.net> wrote in message
> > <snip>
> > While your earlier posts were simply arrogant and conceited, you
> > apparently now feel the need to resort to vulgarity and offensive
> > language to convey your point. People of all ages, backgrounds and
> > beliefs read this group, so please save this kind of language for
> > somewhere else.
> >
> > --
> > Mike Farrell -- <farre...@altavista.net>
--
Sotiris Ioannidis
Ph.D. candidate, Distributed Systems Lab, UPenn
mailto:sot...@dsl.cis.upenn.edu
Dima S.
those words never encompassed. It's silly to be offended by the fact that
some guy with a snake and a point&shoot is a pro, just because you made up a
new definition for the word "pro" and he is not good enough for it.
However, your example is a great way to cut down some
Shut-up-I-know-everything Pro!
Dima
Only me... <davebg@[nospam]globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bEGi5.3610$V_2.2...@news1.cableinet.net...
Mike Farrell
someone's language, we should filter -- in effect, censor -- that
person? But doesn't censorship violate all sorts of freedoms?
--
Mike Farrell -- <farre...@altavista.net>
John Emmons
john emmons
"Mike Farrell" <farre...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:k4hoos06ugtf29chf...@4ax.com...
> mag...@aol.com (Magambo) wrote:
> >amature
>
> For heck's sake, doesn't anyone on this newsgroup have a spell
> checker? Amature, amatuer, amture, ... AMATEUR!
John Emmons
Censorship of art by a government body is a bad thing...
Censoring your own email and newsgroups because you're tired and bored
with pedantic, infantile foul-mouthed idiots who use profanity and
insults as a crutch because they can't argue with facts is not only a
good thing, it's a smart thing.
John Emmons
"Mike Farrell" <farre...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:jpgooscjb9it13eka...@4ax.com...
> Let me get this straight ... you're suggesting that if we don't like
> someone's language, we should filter -- in effect, censor -- that
> person? But doesn't censorship violate all sorts of freedoms?
>
> --
> Mike Farrell -- <farre...@altavista.net>
>
Sotiris Ioannidis
> Let me get this straight ... you're suggesting that if we don't like
> someone's language, we should filter -- in effect, censor -- that
> person? But doesn't censorship violate all sorts of freedoms?
>
> --
> Mike Farrell -- <farre...@altavista.net>
>
> Sotiris Ioannidis <sot...@dsl.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
> >civilization has nothing to do with the use of the F word or the A word or the
> >..... etc.
> >if you dont like someones language just filter him
> >as long as someone does not lie about you, he or she is doing no harm to you
> >censorship is a bad thing, it violates all sorts of freedoms
no you DIDNT get it straight, lets see if you get it this time:
if YOU dont like something YOU should filter it for YOURself, and NOT try to shut
this person up
e.g. if you dont like posting that have the F word or any other word for that
matter, add a filter to your
mailread and dont display them
personally i like freedom of expression and speech
&si
Sotiris Ioannidis
but ppl that advertise that they want to silence other ppl, like "mike"
and "alen"
in the previous postings are dangerous to society because they are
against freedom of speech
and expression
&si
[huge snip]
Mike Farrell
>add a filter to your
>mailread and dont display them
You're in mine.
Mike Farrell
>aperature...apurture...APERTURE....
Well noted. I see "aperature" just about as often as the correct
spelling! :-)
C.L.Zeni
turning off a TV channel you don't like.
I'll defend your right to say what you please; I didn't say I'd LISTEN
to it :)
Mike Farrell wrote:
>
> Let me get this straight ... you're suggesting that if we don't like
> someone's language, we should filter -- in effect, censor -- that
> person? But doesn't censorship violate all sorts of freedoms?
>
> --
> Mike Farrell -- <farre...@altavista.net>
>
> Sotiris Ioannidis <sot...@dsl.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
> >civilization has nothing to do with the use of the F word or the A word or the
> >..... etc.
> >if you dont like someones language just filter him
> >as long as someone does not lie about you, he or she is doing no harm to you
> >censorship is a bad thing, it violates all sorts of freedoms
--
Craig Zeni - REPLY TO -->> clzeni at mindspring dot com
http://www.mindspring.com/~clzeni/index.html
http://www.trainweb.org/zeniphotos/zenihome.html
No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats,
approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
Sotiris Ioannidis
> Sotiris Ioannidis <sot...@dsl.cis.upenn.edu> wrote:
> >add a filter to your
> >mailread and dont display them
>
> You're in mine.
>
> --
> Mike Farrell -- <farre...@altavista.net>
thanx for letting me know!
Mike Farrell
>Filtering your own email/news is not censorship. It's the equivilant of
>turning off a TV channel you don't like.
Webster's New World: "censor -- v., to examine books, mail, etc. to
remove things considered unsuitable"
By that definition, if e-mail/news filtering isn't censorship, I don't
know what it is.
>I'll defend your right to say what you please; I didn't say I'd LISTEN
>to it :)
Thanks, I guess.
Randy Howard
farre...@altavista.net says...
> Let me get this straight ... you're suggesting that if we don't like
> someone's language, we should filter -- in effect, censor -- that
> person? But doesn't censorship violate all sorts of freedoms?
Oops, the Political Correctness Police (PCP) are back again.
Filtering is not censorship. Filtering is simply making a
conscious decision for yourself on what you want to read.
Taking away the poster's internet access would be a form of
censorship. Similarly, deciding not to program in the local
NBC channel on your TV is not censorship either.
--
Randy Howard
Alan Justice
someone acts maturely and not use profanity in public is hardly
"censorship". They're free to comply or not. If someone whose opinion they
respect makes that request, they might comply. Where's the harm in that?
How is a request censorship? Apparently you're just paranoid. In fact,
most of the people who poosted on this subject did it specifically to annoy
you. Yes, we know all about you. You should see what they're saying
offline about you! HaHaHa. Now grow up, kid.
-Alan Justice
"Sotiris Ioannidis" <sot...@dsl.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:398C7224...@dsl.cis.upenn.edu...
> exactly, and you can do it by filtering your mailer/newsreader/browser
> but ppl that advertise that they want to silence other ppl, like "mike"
> and "alen"
> in the previous postings are dangerous to society because they are
> against freedom of speech
> and expression
>
> &si
>
> [huge snip]
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sotiris Ioannidis
thank you randy, its nice to see there are ppl that still believe in
freedom
unlike ppl like "mike" and "alen"
&si
Bob Hickey
except one, every time I walk in there. Bob
Hickey
Sotiris Ioannidis
How is a request censorship? Apparently you're just paranoid. In fact,
most of the people who poosted on this subject did it specifically to annoy
you. Yes, we know all about you. You should see what they're saying
offline about you! HaHaHa. Now grow up, kid.
as a matter of fact i have been around long enough to know a lot of things about censorship
the internet is unfortunately the last place in the world where ppl are really free
you might call me paranoid but chances are i know more things about the net than a most ppl
in this group (and not just this group) since i have been online for quite some time now
you might be interested in checking http://www.eff.org/
then we can talk again about censorship and freedoms on the net
happy shooting
Randy Howard
says...
>
> --
> Sotiris Ioannidis
> Ph.D. candidate, Distributed Systems Lab, UPenn
> mailto:sot...@dsl.cis.upenn.edu
>
I have this theory, that goes "For every Ph.D. there is
an equal, and opposite, Ph.D." So, which one are you?
:-)
--
Randy Howard
Sotiris Ioannidis
i am the _unequal_ and opposite :)
&si
C.L.Zeni
>
> "C.L.Zeni" <Spiney...@hedge.hog> wrote:
> >Filtering your own email/news is not censorship. It's the equivilant of
> >turning off a TV channel you don't like.
>
> Webster's New World: "censor -- v., to examine books, mail, etc. to
> remove things considered unsuitable"
>
> By that definition, if e-mail/news filtering isn't censorship, I don't
> know what it is.
The full definition from www.websters.com:
cen新or
n.
1.A person authorized to examine books, films, or other
material and to remove
or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or
otherwise objectionable.
2.An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal
mail and official
dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk
to security.
3.One that condemns or censures.
4.One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking
the public census
and supervising public behavior and morals.
If your ISP filters your mail/news or your government filters your TV,
that's censoring.
If I filter my mail or TV, that's NOT censorship. That's exercising my
perogative to read what I want to read or watch what I want to watch.
Adding a person or subject to my killfile is not what most people would
consider censorship.
C.L.Zeni
He has the right to saw whatever the hell he wants to say.
I have the equal right to not listen to him. Am I censoring him? Nope.
Q.G. de Bakker
> mag...@aol.com (Magambo) wrote:
> >amature
>
> For heck's sake, doesn't anyone on this newsgroup have a spell
> checker? Amature, amatuer, amture, ... AMATEUR!
Mike, you shouldn't have said this. Correct spelling is considered pedantry
in this thread.
LEDMRVM
>i can hardly be considered a kid (unfortunately)
>as a matter of fact i have been around long enough to know a lot of things
>about censorship
>the internet is unfortunately the last place in the world where ppl are
>really
>free
>you might call me paranoid but chances are i know more things about the
>net
>than a most ppl
>in this group (and not just this group) since i have been online for quite
>some
>time now
Here we have a "Ph.D. candidate" who produces off-topic commentary lacking
punctuation, capitalization, and sentence structure.
Mike Farrell
>You totally missed the point of the original posts.
Agreed.
>If someone whose opinion they
>respect makes that request, they might comply.
I don't think there's any danger in that. I don't know many people who
respect my opinion. ;-)
cmesa
"Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@worldonline.nl> wrote in message
news:8mi955$ju6$1...@nereid.worldonline.nl...
Q.G. and Mike,
That's ok. It is an honor to be called pedantic on a newsgroup where people
seek correct and useful information.
Jerry Fusselman
ajacobs2
>
> Mike Farrell wrote:
>
> > mag...@aol.com (Magambo) wrote:
> > >amature
> >
> > For heck's sake, doesn't anyone on this newsgroup have a spell
> > checker? Amature, amatuer, amture, ... AMATEUR!
>
> Mike, you shouldn't have said this. Correct spelling is considered pedantry
> in this thread.
Thusly, tis more what you say, then how thou sayist it.......it was
never this bad back in Brooklyn. My first spell-checker was a six grade
teacher with a 3 foot wood ruler...........
David C. Ramey
Rights are protections from our government, not each other.
--
David C. Ramey
David C. Ramey Photography
ph...@alaskalife.net
http://www.alaskalife.net/dramey/home.htm
"Sotiris Ioannidis" <sot...@dsl.cis.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:398C7224...@dsl.cis.upenn.edu...
> exactly, and you can do it by filtering your mailer/newsreader/browser
> but ppl that advertise that they want to silence other ppl, like "mike"
> and "alen"
> in the previous postings are dangerous to society because they are
> against freedom of speech
> and expression
>
> &si
>
> [huge snip]
>
>
>
>
>
>
Only me...
"Dima S." <dima...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:idIi5.48$G3....@news.inreach.com...
> He is a pro if he is making money on it. Stop using words to mean things
> those words never encompassed. It's silly to be offended by the fact that
> some guy with a snake and a point&shoot is a pro
Offended? Did I mention in my post that I was offended? The only thing
that offended me was the degradation of a majestic wild animal for the
amusement of a few simple minded tourists. Certainly nothing about his
professional status was offending me. What gave you that idea?
I was merely highlighting the fact that ironically, because the
dictionary gives one definition, it doesn't make it definitive.
Dictionaries lag behind contemporary language use by decades.
however, there's more to the word "professional" than merely getting
paid to perform a task, as you well know.
>, just because you made up a
> new definition for the word "pro" and he is not good enough for it.
Me? I made it up? I think not. The word professional has meant to
signify more than earning a living for decades. This you also know too....
Nice troll, but it ain't going to work :-)
> However, your example is a great way to cut down some
> Shut-up-I-know-everything Pro!
I thought so :-)
David.
Only me...
> mag...@aol.com (Magambo) wrote:
> >amature
>
> For heck's sake, doesn't anyone on this newsgroup have a spell
> checker? Amature, amatuer, amture, ... AMATEUR!
My, aren't we angry? :-) Nurse! Prozac... stat!
David.
Only me...
"John Emmons" <JOH...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:obYi5.5928$gW5.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> aperature...apurture...APERTURE....
Canon... cannon.... lens... lense.....
People type fast on here.... I wouldn't spend too much time worrying
about it.
David.
_____________________
www.david-gregory.co.uk
ICQ 73269888
_____________________
Only me...
> Let me get this straight ... you're suggesting that if we don't like
> someone's language, we should filter -- in effect, censor -- that
> person? But doesn't censorship violate all sorts of freedoms?
LOL....
Only me...
> Censorship of ideas by a government body is a bad thing...
> Censorship of art by a government body is a bad thing...
>
> Censoring your own email and newsgroups because you're tired and bored
> with pedantic, infantile foul-mouthed idiots who use profanity and
> insults as a crutch because they can't argue with facts is not only a
> good thing, it's a smart thing.
>
> John Emmons
>
>
Yep... he's got you there.