hh & Kramer in the 'good old days'.
LarbGai
Newsgroups: alt.aviation.virtualairlines, rec.scuba
Followup-To: st...@seatraveler.com
From: " H. Huntzinger" <{NOSPAM-rm_to_reply}rec-sc...@huntzinger.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 07:13:33 -0400
Local: Sun, Jul 25 2004 12:13 am
Subject: Re: Huntzinger lies... again.
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
Steve Kramer <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote:
> >> >H. Huntzinger wrote:
> >> >On 17 July 2004 Steve Kramer <st...@seatraveler.com> wrote in
> >> reference >to URL http://www.gmorning.info/photo_vision.htm :
> >> >> By the way, please show us the URLs to the magazines that publish
> >> >> YOUR photos. :o)
> >> > Gladly, once you've provided the cite that makes it relevant.
> > I've just provided eleven of them.
That was an after-the-fact count: every cite thats been created
since
my post pointing out Steve's "silence" to my rec.scuba inquiry gets
thrown out as irrelevant for the obvious reason of basic honesty.
Check.
The fact that Steve would even propose such an approach reveals his
intellectual dishonesty and willingness to deceive/lie. I explained
all
of this to your buddy (sockpuppet?) Fred Nurk
<fredn...@optusnet.com.au>
five days ago...
Cite: http://tinyurl.com/6g5sp
For those reading this, the bottom line is that if you want to
associate
yourself with a dishonest merchant, be my guest.
Yes, there's a few honest cites, but Steve's claim was that there
were
"many, many" recent ones, and on this, he's clearly wrong. And we
all
occasionally enjoy nitpicking the claims of self-aggrandizing
Pendants.
> > So now
> > where are the URL's that show your monthly column, your photos, your
> > articles, etc.? You said that you would post them when I provided mine.
> > Put up or be laughed out! Again! LOL!
> Well, yet another day goes by without HH standing up to his word.
> Huntzinger, show us the URL that YOU said YOU would. But you can't.
The problem is that just like Reefer MaDness, you have chosen to
maliciously twist concepts of relevance to fit your agenda.
Steve's attempts to twist this into an inference that its relevant or
that I've ever made such a claim is simple intellectual dishonesty:
he's the one who has made the claims about himself.
Check.
I would gladly provide the citation once you show that its relevant,
and
the relevance here is to show where I've bragged about being
published,
claimed that I'm a superior photographer or claimed an article.
I'm still waiting for your cite here.
BTW, my apologies to the readers of <alt.aviation.virtualairlines>.
Kramer added you to the distribution list and I have no idea why your
group is even close to relevant. I will try to make sure this is the
last time I post such OT material in your group.
-hh
PS: I did get to read Steve's "Photo Advice" column (because that's
all
that I was originally looking for), and found this claim in his June
column quite interesting:
"Number 3 is the easiest; fill the frame with the subject.
There are only 2 ways you can do that; move in closer or
zoom in. The end."
The reason I find it interesting is that there's actually more than
but
two ways to do this, and ironically, Steve used a third technique in
his
July column without mentioning it.
In my 7/19/04 post to Fred, I mentioned this, and also said that if
Steve remains true to his lame form, he'll contrive some lame excuse
by
which it doesn't "count" on some bizzare technicality, even though
he
uses it.
And not only does Steve know it, but Steve knows that we know that he
knows it.
Perhaps that's why Steve invented this thread to try to flame me...as
a
distraction from being revealed as factually wrong in a piece of his
"published" work. What a hell of a nice guy! :-)
Check.
**** More to follow.....