Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Batch thumbnail JPG lossless rotation that's much faster than Irvanfiew
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/87b6d5869e6faca2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 25 2009 11:48 pm
From: Bill Wells

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 06:35:35 +0100, Poutnik wrote:

> I still think best is avoiding of so huge folders,
> as I posted before.

Hi Poutnik,

My use model is to have a folder for each time I dump the pictures and
movies off my HDSC camera card.

How many pictures that is is exactly what I've taken on the card.

I guess I could separate the folders by some other mechanism but I've been
using this method ever since digital cameras came out and it seems logical
to me.

It was working fine with Irvanview when my Nikon was putting orientation
information in the JPEG EXIF information but I broke my Nikon (I've broken
four of them in the past six years ... sigh) and now am using a Casio that
does not put EXIF information into the JPEG headers.

So the problem only recently came up because to autorotate all pictures in
IrfanView is not nearly as cumbersome as to rotate only the selected
pictures due to the way Irfanview paints the thumbnails over and over and
over again.

Again, I don't fault Irvanview; it's a great program; I was just trying to
rotate select pictures out of hundreds in a folder.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 1:17 am
From: Ron Hunter

Bill Wells wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 17:05:15 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
>
>> Or, as workaround,
>>
>> selecting images to rotate,
>> use move feature
>> close IV in case it wants to repaint the rest.
>> Run IV Thumbnails over folder with chosen images
>> Perform rotation
>> Move them back
>
> Ah, you understand the problem!
>
> Today, when I have a lot of pictures to losslessly rotate, I put Irfanview
> in thumnails and then select, one by one, a hundred or two hundred pictures
> to losslessly rotate in thumbnail view but if I misclick just once ...
> auuuuurrrrrrrgggggggghhhhh, I have to start all over again.
>
> To save me from the invariable misclick loss, I would only click on, say,
> 50 or so pictures to losslessly rotate ... but then I have the inordinate
> wait as Irfanview painfully redraws all the thumbnails in the folder, not
> just the 100 or so that were losslessly rotated.
>
> IrfanView is great but I might just not use the thumbnail view lossless
> rotation selection process and just do it manually like you said, to the
> whole folder. At least then, the SELECTION process is simple and watching
> the repaint of thumbnails can be stopped or just let run to fruition, once,
> thank God.

Just move those pictures to a work folder, rotate, then move back. Or
better yet, process them in pieces, moving only a few into the work
folder at a time for thumbnail display.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 2:08 am
From: Poutnik

In article <RMednQ1WC_wl4uDUnZ2dnUVZ_sULAAAA@giganews.com>,
rphunter@charter.net says...
>

>
> Just move those pictures to a work folder, rotate, then move back. Or
> better yet, process them in pieces, moving only a few into the work
> folder at a time for thumbnail display.

It is what I was advising dome posts before.

--
Poutnik

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Freeware to mix photos & music & video to create a DVD slide show
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/36fb5056ac2af2c5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 12:04 am
From: Bill Wells

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 01:29:06 -0500, Susan Bugher wrote:

> You can probably find out which CD and DVD formats each of your DVD
> players supports by searching here:
> http://www.videohelp.com/dvdplayers
> VideoHelp.com - DVD Player and Blu-ray Player Compatibility List

Hi Susan,

That's a good link.

Combining, we have the following references for combining JPEG pictures
with MOV movies and MP3 background audio to create a DVD-Video compatible
with most common DVD players.

* Which formats does your DVD player support?
http://www.videohelp.com/dvdplayers

* Which media is best and which is crap?
http://www.digitalfaq.com/media/dvdmedia.htm

* Which media is best (DVD+r vs DVD-r)?
http://www.cdfreaks.com/reviews/Why-DVDRW-is-superior-to-DVD-RW/

* Which program purports to combine JPG+MOV+MP3 to output DVD-Video?
http://www.nchsoftware.com/slideshow/index.html

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 2:18 am
From: John Corliss

Bill Wells wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 16:57:01 -0800, John Corliss wrote:
>
>> Maybe take the output from Photo Story 3 and run it through DVDFlick:
>> http://www.dvdflick.net/
>
> I've created 4.7GB DVD-format DVDs out of home video AVIs very many times
> so I'm aptly aware of DVD Flick.
>
> DVD Flick is a wonderful program, easy to use, and easy to create
> DVD-format VOB & IFO files, all the while mixing the audio nicely (most of
> the time) and creating automatic chapters, etc.
>
> However, DVD Flick freeware is sllllllllooooooooooowwwwwwwwww on my laptop
> and sometimes creates a video which has the sound off by a second or two
> and it sometimes just hangs forever (8 hours or more). So, if I can help
> it, I have no intention of adding an extra encoding step.

Well, I don't understand why you want to limit your options that way
(adding an extra step, be it DVDFlick or anything similar), so I'll bow
out after sending this reply.

> I don't want this to sound like an indictment of DVD Flick. DVD Flick is a
> great program (I love the ease of use). I just don't want to run an
> additional decoder.
>
> I do understand DVDs rather well, for a layman, so, I do know what I'm
> talking about when I say that the Microsoft products lie when they imply
> they create DVDs. Sure, you can put ANYTHING on a DVD and call it a DVD,
> but, it won't play in your average DVD player unless what you put on that
> DVD are DVD-format files (i.e., VIDEO_TS/{*.VOB,*.IFO}.

I never meant to imply that you were not telling the truth.

Over and out.

--
John Corliss BS206. I use nFilter to block all Google Groups posts
because of Googlespam. No ad, cd, commercial, cripple, demo, dotnet,
nag, share, spy, time-limited, trial or web wares OR warez for me, please.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Film X Digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0322663bf5744fd4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 1:12 am
From: Ron Hunter

Chris H wrote:
> In message <V%Pel.26835$1L3.7515@newsfe20.iad>, Bob Williams
> <mytbobnospam@cox.net> writes
>> Spam This wrote:
>>> "Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Fbhel.200669$2w3.91650@newsfe19.iad...
>>>> Duram wrote:
>>>>
>>> Can you prove this claim?
>>>> Film's days are numbered......In years, not decades.
>>>> Kodak doesn't even sell 35 mm film anymore.
>>>> Can Fuji be very far behind?
>>> Kodak's website lists all sorts of film, 35mm, 120 and other sizes.
>>> Fuji is also showing a good selection of film,.
>>> Eventually shareholders will question their ROI on film production,
>>> but as someone suggests it will become a small niche market for
>>> smaller European makers like Adox et al.
>>>
>> Perhaps the film for sale today is existing stock, manufactured before
>> Kodak announced their intention to get out of the 35mm consumer film
>> business.
>> I do not see it for sale at Drug stores or Supermarkets in the US.
>
> In my local UK calumet they now stock only about 10% of the 35mm film
> they used to hold. The hold a lot fewer types as well.
>
> The 1 hour photo labs have all but gone and do a 1 week turn around as
> they only do one run a week or send the film away to a central
> processor.
>
>> Here is a Quote from Wikipedia:
> Not the most reliable source. :-)
>
>> "Kodak's shift in focus to digital imaging has led to it dropping all
>> but one incarnation of what is perhaps the most famous film of all
>> time, Kodachrome, which is now only available in ISO 64 35mm slide
>> format."
>
>
Just about all the stores around here have 1 hr. photo processing. Most
of it is probably digital, but they still do film. When it comes time
to replace the current machines, though, I suspect they will opt for the
much cheaper machines that can only print digital photos. Then film
will be entirely 'special order', and virtually invisible to the average
photographer.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 1:49 am
From: Chris H

In message <RMednRJWC_wH4-DUnZ2dnUVZ_sWWnZ2d@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
<rphunter@charter.net> writes
>>e most reliable source. :-)
>>
>>> "Kodak's shift in focus to digital imaging has led to it dropping
>>>all but one incarnation of what is perhaps the most famous film of
>>>all time, Kodachrome, which is now only available in ISO 64 35mm
>>>slide format."
>>
>Just about all the stores around here

Where is "here"?

>have 1 hr. photo processing. Most of it is probably digital, but they
>still do film. When it comes time to replace the current machines,
>though, I suspect they will opt for the much cheaper machines that can
>only print digital photos.

That is what happens in the UK everywhere has the Kodak digital
printing kiosks. They still have the automatic film machines but only
run them once a week. They are starting to rationalise them and take
them out of the smaller stores and send the film to one of the larger
stores in the same area on a 1 week turn around.

> Then film will be entirely 'special order', and virtually invisible
>to the average photographer.

Quite so. If it is not used by the average P&S user and the Pro
news/media people also use digital then film is effectively as dead as
glass plates.

I note that most medium format cameras are now also digital so the
amount of film being used will mean that the fill producers , like
Kodak, will cut back their ranges and do fewer batch runs. The prices
will go up and only people with their won dark rooms will be able to
develop it.

Where to you get glass plates developed these days?

Digital is very new and there are still many who have not switched over
so til will be a few years yet before film is effectively dead. Say 5
years?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Astrophotography w/ Digital SLR Sensor Sensitivity
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/461aff8fc0e80ac8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 1:17 am
From: T.Baxter

On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:43:40 -0800 (PST), Billy <UseNewz@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jan 25, 4:55 pm, "Jeff R." <contact...@this.ng> wrote:
>> Billy wrote:
>> > I recently began taking images of stars from my Nikon D300 digial SLR
>> > and I'm amazed - when I take the picture I can many more stars in the
>> > image than I can with the naked eye. Does anyone know why this would
>> > happen, could the image sensor be stronger than my eyesight?????
>>
>> This isn't just a "digital" thing - exactly the same thing happens
>> (fortunately!) with film.
>>
>> I have only ever seen (visually - not photographically) the Coal Sack nebula
>> a couple of times - these when I've been way out bush with carefully
>> dark-adapted eyes - yet I have managed to photograph it (film) from my
>> heavily light-polluted Sydney suburban backyard.
>>
>> It takes exposures of only a couple of seconds to make naked-eye-invisible
>> stars appear on film.
>>
>> One of the reasons I enjoy astrophotography so much.
>>
>> Hint: in order to increase your astro fun, google: "barn door mounts"
>>
>> --
>> Jeff R.
>
>Yea, I'm do a one-one thousand, two one-thousand ........up to four
>one-thousand using "bulb" and the shutter depressed only 20 to 30
>miles outside of the NYC light pollution. I just never look up NE,
>which is where the lights from NYC destroy the sky. The amazing images
>I took were last night during a chilly brisk clear winter night
>pointing up to the S-SW in a dark room with the window open. I could
>see maybe 20 stars with my eye, whereas I must have about 100 or more
>in the image. I wonder if the other dots were dust on the window
>screen. :)

Most digital cameras can easily resolve stars as dim as magnitude 9 at ISO 200
or 400 at widest aperture when given a 30-60 second exposure, and when skies are
dark and clear. P&S or DSLR, most all of them can do this. Your eye can
generally only see stars as dim as magnitude 5.0 to 6.5 on a good night, the
higher the number the dimmer the star. A star that is 1 magnitude higher in
number is 2.5 times dimmer. Though on a good night of "seeing" (thin clear cold
atmosphere), from a dark-sky site I have managed to see stars as dim as
magnitude 7.6 with my naked-eye. Trying to find the constellations on a night
like that it then becomes almost impossible to pick out the main constellation
stars from so many. What a grand sight though if you are ever in a place and
time where skies are so clear, dark, and steady to get to enjoy it. I was able
to read the print on some papers by starlight alone that night. The "Milky Way"
directly above providing most of the light that time. It appearing to my
naked-eye as you often see it in long-exposure photographs. Staring into the
"Milky Way" I felt as though I was going to fall into the heart of it, the only
thing holding me back from the fall was the tenuous gravity of earth fighting
with the greater gravity of our galaxy.

To give you an idea of how many more stars are visible to your camera compared
to your eye, there are 9,096 stars visible from earth down to magnitude 6.5 and
there are 299,485 stars visible from earth down to magnitude 9.0. (~19 million
stars when you go as dim as magnitude 15.0, and ~526 million stars down to
magnitude 20.0.)

If you are in the northern hemisphere a common urbanite's dim-star eyesight and
atmosphere quality test is trying to find or count the seven main stars in "The
Little Dipper" (Ursa Minor). On a fairly decent night away from most
light-pollution (or strong moonlight) you will easily see all seven. The dimmest
of the seven stars being magnitude 4.95. The two brightest stars are near
magnitude 2.0, one of them is near magnitude 3.0, three of them near magnitude
4.3, and one near magnitude 5. This ability to see dimmer stars also depends on
how dark-adapted your eyes are and how dark your skies are. If in an urban area
the sky-glow from light-pollution will quickly overwhelm the fainter stars, to
your eyes, as well as your camera no matter how long you set the exposure. The
sky-glow being brighter than the fainter stars.

You would have been able to resolve even more faint stars if you had not pointed
your camera through an open window with that much temperature difference between
inside and outside. The large exchange of cold outside air with warm inside air
creates a lot of atmospheric turbulence between your camera and the stars (or
the converse in summer, cold dry inside air with warm humid outside air). This
destroys the "seeing" (steadiness) of those small points of light. Smearing the
dimmer stars' light into larger areas during a longer exposure, the camera
unable to resolve them. Small telescopes should never be used through an open
window unless the inside and outside air are equal in temperature and humidity
and there is no air-flow through the window.

You should have also not shot through a window-screen. This acts as a diffuser
to those points of light. Spreading out the stars' images into 4-point
diffraction spikes, just as a "Star-Filter" does on the front of your lens to
give radiating spikes to point-sources of light. This causes further loss of dim
starlight being spread into the darkness around them.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Were CCDs better on colour than CMOS?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d3d8cc17fc07e22e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 1:39 am
From: Rich

Chris L Peterson <clp@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote in
news:kmppn4p19mgn5i2hdjbgs140e8vjib6rvk@4ax.com:

Bit depth aside, photogs know from experience when something is "off." For
instance, I know one photog who kept a Nikon D200 after buying a D300
because they just could not render the same skin tone quality with the
newer model. No profile would do it. This, despite obvious improvements
in other areas (like noise) going from CCD to CMOS.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 3:08 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 26 Jan 2009 05:03:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>
>>>The ONLY "evidence" you have ever provided is known Israeli propaganda
>>>sources whilst taking cheap shots and unsupported allegations and jibes
>>>ant the UN, Red Cross, amnesty International, BBC and many other highly
>>>respected organisations
>>
>>You keep referring to your sources without actually providing proof of
>>what they say.
>
>
>UN Resolutions that Israel has defied/ ignored

This is the same UN which condemned Iraq numerous times but did
nothing about it?

The same UN with the corrupt oil for food program?

The same UN whose peacekeeping troops has been charged with raping
young girls in the areas they are "protecting?"

The UN has ALWAYS taken an anti-Israel stance, as your list shows.
Whether we agree or not with things that Israel has done in the past,
they have always been surrounded by enemies that want them dead or
gone; and what they have done has been from their sense of survival.

(For instance, the world "officially" condemned Israel for taking out
Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor several years ago, but behind closed
doors most countries were glad that they had done so.)

Now before you get on your bigoted high horse and accuse me of
approving of anything, that's not what I'm saying. But if you are
as even-minded as you claim, let's see you also list the crimes
against humanity that have been done against Israeli citizens over the
years and the UN's response to each of them.

>
>233 6 June 1967 Calls for an immediate cease-fire and cessation of all
>military activities.
>
>
>234 7 June 1967 Demands a cease-fire.
>
>
>237 14 June 1967 Calls upon the Government of Israel to ensure the
>safety, welfare and security of the inhabitants, facilitate the return
>of those inhabitants who have fled the areas since the outbreak of the
>hostilities and recommends the scrupulous respect of the humanitarian
>principles contained in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.
>
>
>242 22 Nov 1967 Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles
>requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle
>East which should include: withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from
>territories occupied in the recent conflict; and termination of all
>claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement
>of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence
>of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within
>secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
>
>
>248 24 Mar 1968 Deplores the loss of life and heavy damage to
>property. Condemns the military action launched by Israel in flagrant
>violation of the U.N. Charter and the cease-fire resolution. Calls
>upon Israel to desist from acts or activities in contravention of
>resolution 237 (1967). (This was an attack against Karameh, Jordan.)
>
>
>250 27 Apr 1968 Calls upon Israel to refrain from holding the military
>parade in Jerusalem which is contemplated for 2 May 1968.
>
>
>251 2 May 1968 Deeply deplores the holding by Israel of the military
>parade in Jerusalem on 2 May 1968 in disregard of the unanimous
>decision adopted by the Council on 27 April 1968.
>
>
>252 21 May 1968 Deplores the failure of Israel to comply with General
>Assembly resolutions 2253 (ES-V) and 2254 (ES-V) of 4 and 14 July
>1967. Considers that all legislative and administrative measures taken
>by Israel, including the expropriation of land and properties thereon,
>which tend to change the legal status of Jerusalem, are invalid and
>cannot change the status. Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind all
>such measures taken and to desist from further actions changing the
>status of Jerusalem.
>
>
>259 27 Sept 1968 Deplores the delay in implementation of resolution
>237 (1967) because of the conditions still being set by Israel for
>receiving a Special Representative of the Secretary-General. Requests
>the Secretary-General to urgently dispatch a Special Representative to
>the Arab territories under military occupation by Israel following the
>hostilities of 5 June 1967 and to report on the implementation of
>resolution 237 (1967).
>
>
>267 3 Jul 1969 Reaffirms the established principle that the
>acquisition of territory by military conquest is inadmissible.
>Deplores the failure of Israel to show any regard for the resolutions
>of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Censures in the
>strongest terms all measures taken to change the status of the city of
>Jerusalem. Urgently calls once more on Israel to rescind all measures
>taken by it to change the status of Jerusalem and in the future to
>refrain from all actions likely to have such an effect
>
>
>271 15 Sep 1969 Grieved at the extensive damage caused by arson to the
>Holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem on 21 August 1969 under the military
>occupation of Israel; calls upon Israel to scrupulously observe the
>provisions of the Geneva Conventions and international law governing
>military occupation.
>298 25 Sep 1971 Deplores the failure of Israel to respect previous
>U.N. resolutions concerning measures and actions by Israel purporting
>to affect the status of the city of Jerusalem. Confirms that all
>legislative and administrative actions taken by Israel - are
>totally invalid and cannot change that status. Urgently calls upon
>Israel to rescind all such measures.
>
>
>338 22 Oct 1973 Calls for an immediate cease-fire and termination of
>all military activity. Calls upon the parties concerned to start
>immediately after the cease-fire the implementation of Security
>Council resolution 242 (1967) in all of its parts....
>
>
>339 23 Oct 1973 Refers to resolution 338 (1973); confirms its decision
>on immediate cessation of all military actions; and requests the
>Secretary-General to take measures for immediate dispatch of U.N.
>observers to supervise observance of the cease-fire.
>
>
>381 30 Nov 1975 Expresses concern over the continued state of tension
>in the area. Decides to reconvene on 12 January 1976 to continue the
>debate on the Middle East problem including the Palestinian question,
>taking into account all relevant U.N. resolutions.
>
>
>425 19 Mar 978 Calls for the strict respect for the territorial
>integrity, sovereignty and political independence of Lebanon. Calls
>upon Israel immediately to cease its military action against Lebanese
>territorial integrity and withdraw forthwith its forces from all
>Lebanese territory. Decides to establish immediately under its
>authority a United Nations Interim Force in Southern Lebanon (UNIFIL).
>
>
>446 22 Mar 1979 Determines that the policy and practices of Israel in
>establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories
>occupied since 1967 have no legal validity and constitute a serious
>obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in
>the Middle East. Calls once more upon Israel, as the occupying power,
>to abide scrupulously by the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, to rescind
>its previous measures and to desist from taking any action which would
>result in changing the legal status and geographical nature and
>materially affecting the demographic composition of the Arab
>territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, and in
>particular, not to transfer parts of its own civilian population into
>the occupied Arab territories.
>
>
>452 20 Jul 1979 Calls upon the government and people of Israel to
>cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and
>planning of settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967,
>including Jerusalem.
>
>
>465 1 Mar 1980 Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change
>the physical character, composition, institutional structure or status
>of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967,
>including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and
>that Israel's policy and practices of settling parts of its population
>and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant
>violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention and also constitute a
>serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting
>peace in the Middle East. Strongly deplores the continuation and
>persistence of Israel in pursuing those policies and practices. Calls
>upon the government and people of Israel to rescind those measures, to
>dismantle the existing settlements and in particular to cease, on an
>urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of
>settlements in the Arab territories occupied since 1967, including
>Jerusalem. Calls upon all States not to provide Israel with any
>assistance to be used specifically in connection with settlements in
>the occupied territories; and requests the Commission to continue
>examining the situation relating to settlements, to investigate the
>reported serious depletion of natural resources, particularly water,
>with a view to ensuring protection of those important natural
>resources of the territories under occupation.
>
>
>468 8 May 1980 Recalling the Geneva Convention of 1949 and expressing
>deep concern at the expulsion by the Israeli military occupation
>authorities of the Mayors of Hebron and Halhoul and of the Sharia
>Judge of Hebron, calls upon Israel as occupying Power to rescind these
>illegal measures and to facilitate the immediate return of the
>expelled Palestinian leaders.
>
>
>469 20 May 1980 Strongly deplores the failure of Israel to implement
>resolution 468 (1968). Calls again upon the Government of Israel, as
>occupying Power, to rescind the illegal measures taken by the Israeli
>military occupation authorities in expelling the Mayors of Hebron and
>Halhoul and the Sharia Judge of Hebron.
>
>
>471 5 June 1980 Expresses deep concern that the Jewish settlers in the
>occupied Arab territories are allowed to carry arms thus enabling them
>to perpetrate crimes against the civilian population. Calls for the
>immediate apprehension and prosecution of the perpetrators of these
>crimes and condemns the assassination attempts on the lives of the
>Mayors of Nablus, Ramallah and Al-Bireh. Expresses deep concern that
>Israel, as occupying Power, has failed to provide adequate protection
>to the civilian population in the occupied territories in conformity
>with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Calls again upon
>the Government of Israel to respect and comply with the provisions of
>the Convention as well as with the resolutions of the Council, calls
>once again upon all States not to provide Israel with any assistance
>to be used specifically in connection with settlements in the occupied
>territories. Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the prolonged
>occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
>including Jerusalem.
>
>
>476 30 June 1980 Reaffirms the overriding necessity to end the
>prolonged occupation of Arab territories occupied by Israel since
>1967, including Jerusalem. Strongly deplores the continued refusal of
>Israel, the occupying Power, to comply with the relevant resolutions
>of the Security Council and the General Assembly. Reiterates that all
>measures taken by Israel which have altered the geographic,
>demographic and historical character and status of the Holy City of
>Jerusalem are null and void and must be rescinded in compliance with
>the relevant resolutions of the Security Council. Reaffirms that all
>such measures and actions constitute a flagrant violation of the
>Fourth Geneva Convention. Reaffirms its determination in the event of
>non-compliance by Israel to examine practical ways and means in
>accordance with relevant provisions of the U.N. Charter to secure full
>implementation of this resolution.
>
>
>478 20 Aug 1980 Censures in the strongest terms the enactment by
>Israel of the "basic law" on Jerusalem and the refusal to comply with
>relevant Security Council resolutions. Affirms that the enactment of
>the "basic law" by Israel constitutes a violation of international law
>and does not affect the continued application of the Fourth Geneva
>Convention of 12 August 1949 in the Palestinian and other Arab
>territories occupied since June 1967, including Jerusalem. Determines
>that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by
>Israel, the occupying Power, which have altered or purport to alter
>the character and the status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and in
>particular, the recent "basic law" on Jerusalem, are null and void and
>must be rescinded forthwith. Decides not to recognize the "basic law"
>and such other actions by Israel that, as a result of this law, seek
>to alter the character and status of Jerusalem. Calls upon all members
>of the United Nations (a) to accept this decision, (b) and upon those
>States that have established diplomatic Missions in Jerusalem to
>withdraw such Missions from the Holy City.
>
>
>484 19 Dec 1980 Expressing grave concern at the expulsion by Israel of
>the Mayor of Hebron and the Mayor of Halhoul, calls upon Israel, the
>occupying Power, to adhere to the provisions of the Fourth Geneva
>Convention. Declares it imperative that they be enabled to return to
>their homes and resume their responsibilities.
>
>
>508 5 June 1982 Calls upon the parties to the conflict to cease
>immediately and simultaneously all military activities within Lebanon
>and across the Lebanese-Israeli border. Requests all Member States
>which are in a position to do so to bring their influence to bear upon
>those concerned so that the cessation of hostilities declared by
>Security Council resolution 490 (1981) can be respected. (Beginning of
>the Israeli invasion of Lebanon.)
>
>
>509 6 June 1982 Demands that Israel withdraw all its military forces
>forthwith and unconditionally to the internationally recognized
>boundaries of Lebanon and demands that all parties observe strictly
>the terms of paragraph 1 of resolution 508 (1982).
>
>
>512 19 June 1982 Expressing deep concern at the suffering of the
>Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations, calls upon all the
>parties to the conflict to respect the rights of the civilian
>populations, to refrain from all acts of violence against those
>populations and to take all appropriate measures to alleviate the
>suffering caused by the conflict.
>
>
>513 4 Jul 1982 Expressing alarm at the continued sufferings of the
>Lebanese and Palestinian civilian populations in southern Lebanon and
>in west Beirut, calls for respect for the rights of the civilian
>populations without any discrimination and repudiates all acts of
>violence against those populations. Calls further for the restoration
>of the normal supply of vital facilities such as water, electricity,
>food and medical provisions, particularly in Beirut.
>
>
>515 29 Jul 1982 Demands that the government of Israel lift immediately
>the blockade of the city of Beirut in order to permit the dispatch of
>supplies to meet the urgent needs of the civilian population.
>
>
>516 1 Aug 1982 Confirms its previous resolutions and authorizes the
>Secretary-General to deploy immediately, on the request of the
>Government of Lebanon, U.N. observers to monitor the situation in and
>around Beirut.
>
>
>517 4 Aug 1982 Confirms once again its demand for an immediate
>cease-fire and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon. Censures
>Israel for its failure to comply with the above resolutions. Takes
>note of the decision of the Palestine Liberation Organization to move
>the Palestinian armed forces from Beirut and authorizes the
>Secretary-General to increase the number of U.N. observers in and
>around Beirut.
>
>
>518 12 Aug 1982 Demands that Israel and all parties to the conflict
>observe strictly the terms of Security Council resolutions relevant to
>the immediate cessation of all military activities within Lebanon and,
>particularly, in and around Beirut. Demands the immediate lifting of
>all restrictions on the city of Beirut
>
>
>520 17 Sep 1982 Condemns the recent Israeli incursions into Beirut in
>violation of the cease-fire agreements and of Security Council
>resolutions. Demands an immediate return to the positions occupied by
>Israel before 15 September 1982, as a first step towards the full
>implementation of Security Council resolutions.
>
>
>521 19 Sep 1982 Condemns the criminal massacre of Palestinian
>civilians in Beirut; reaffirms its resolutions 512 (1982) and 513
>(1982), which call for respect for the rights of the civilian
>populations without any discrimination, and repudiates all acts of
>violence against those populations. Requests the Secretary-General, as
>a matter of urgency, to initiate appropriate consultations and, in
>particular, consultations with the Government of Lebanon on additional
>steps which the Security Council might take, including the possible
>deployment of United Nations forces, to assist that government in
>ensuring full protection for the civilian populations in and around
>Beirut. (Massacre of Sabra and Shattilla refugee camps while eastern
>Beirut was under Israeli military occupation.)
>
>
>573 4 Oct 1985 Condemns vigorously the act of armed aggression
>perpetrated by Israel against Tunisian territory in flagrant violation
>of the U.N. Charter, international law and norms of conduct; and
>demands that Israel refrain from perpetrating such acts of aggression
>or from threatening to do so. (Israeli raid against PLO Headquarters
>in Hammam Al-Shut)
>
>
>592 8 Dec 1986 Strongly deplores the opening of fire by the Israeli
>army resulting in the death and the wounding of defenseless students
>at Bir Zeit University. Calls upon Israel to abide immediately and
>scrupulously by the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the
>Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949.
>Calls upon Israel to release any person or persons detained as a
>result of the recent events at Bir Zeit University.
>
>
>605 22 Dec 1987 Strongly deplores those policies and practices of
>Israel, the occupying Power, which violate the human rights of the
>Palestinian people in the occupied territories, particularly the
>opening of fire by the Israeli army, resulting in the killing and
>wounding of defenseless Palestinian civilians. Calls once again upon
>Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by
>the Fourth Geneva Convention.
>
>
>607 5 Jan 1988 Calls upon Israel to refrain from deporting any
>Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories; and strongly
>requests it to abide by its obligations arising from the Fourth Geneva
>Convention.
>
>
>608 14 Jan 1988 Reaffirming resolution 607 (1988) of 5 January 1988,
>deeply regrets that Israel, the occupying Power, in defiance of U.N.
>resolutions, has deported Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to
>rescind the orders and to desist from forthwith deporting any other
>Palestinian civilians from the occupied territories.
>
>
>611 25 Apr 1988 Having noted with concern that the aggression
>perpetrated on 16 April 1988 in the locality of Sidi Bou Said
>(Tunisia) has caused loss of human life, particularly the
>assassination of Mr. Khalil Al-Wazir, condemns vigorously the
>aggression perpetrated against the sovereignty and territorial
>integrity of Tunisia in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter; and
>urges Member States to take measures to prevent such acts against the
>sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States. (Al-Wazir
>(Abu-Jihad) was the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Palestine
>Liberation Organization.)
>
>
>636 6 Jul 1989 Deeply regrets the continuing deportation by Israel,
>the occupying Power, of Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to
>ensure the safe and immediate return to the occupied Palestinian
>territories of those deported and to desist forthwith from deporting
>any other Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva
>Convention is applicable to the Palestinian territories, occupied by
>Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab
>territories.
>
>
>641 30 Aug 1989 Deplores Israel's continuing deportation of
>Palestinian civilians. Calls upon Israel to ensure the safe and
>immediate return to the occupied Palestinian territories of those
>deported and to desist forthwith from deporting any other Palestinian
>civilians. Reaffirms that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable
>to the Palestinian territories, occupied by Israel since 1967,
>including Jerusalem, and to the other occupied Arab territories.
>
>
>672 12 Oct 1990 Reaffirming that a just and lasting solution to the
>Arab-Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) and
>338 (1973) through an active negotiating process which takes into
>account the right to security for all States in the region, including
>Israel, as well as the legitimate political rights of the Palestinian
>people. Expresses alarm at the violence which took place on 8 October
>at Al-Haram Al-Sharif and other Holy Places of Jerusalem, resulting in
>over twenty Palestinian deaths and the injury of more than one hundred
>and fifty people, including Palestinian civilians and innocent
>worshippers. Condemns especially the acts of violence committed by the
>Israeli security forces, resulting in injuries and loss of human life.
>Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its
>legal obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention.
>
>
>673 24 Oct 1990 Deplores the refusal of the Israeli Government to
>receive the mission of the Secretary-General to the region in
>violation of resolution 672 (1990).
>
>
>681 20 Dec 1990 Expresses its grave concern over the rejection by
>Israel of its resolutions 672 (1990) and 673 (1990). Deplores the
>decision by the Government of Israel, the occupying Power, to resume
>the deportation of Palestinian civilians in the occupied territories.
>Urges the Government of Israel to accept the de jure applicability of
>the Fourth Geneva Convention to all the territories occupied by Israel
>since 1967
>
>
>694 24 May 1991 Declares that the action of the Israeli authorities of
>deporting four Palestinians on 18 May is in violation of the Fourth
>Geneva Convention, which is applicable to all the Palestinian
>territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem.
>Deplores this action and reiterates that Israel refrain from deporting
>any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the
>safe and immediate return of all those deported.
>
>
>726 6 Jan 1992 Strongly condemns the decision of Israel, the occupying
>Power, to resume deportation of Palestinian civilians. Reaffirms the
>applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 to all the
>Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including
>Jerusalem. Requests Israel to ensure the safe and immediate return of
>all those deported.
>
>
>799 18 Dec 1992 Strongly condemns the action taken by Israel, the
>occupying Power, to deport hundreds of Palestinian civilians (on 17
>December 1992). Expresses its firm opposition to any such deportations
>by Israel. Reaffirms the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention
>to all the Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
>including Jerusalem. Demands that Israel ensure the safe and immediate
>return to the occupied territories of all those deported.
>
>
>904 18 Mar 1994 Strongly condemns the massacre in Hebron committed
>against Palestinian worshippers in Al-Ibrahimi Mosque, on 25 February
>1994, during the holy month of Ramadan, and its aftermath which took
>the lives of more than 50 Palestinian civilians and injured several
>hundred others. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to continue to
>take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of
>arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli
>settlers. Calls for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and
>protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied
>territory, including, inter alia, a temporary international or foreign
>presence, which was provided for in the Declaration of Principles,
>within the context of the ongoing peace process.
>
>
>1073 28 Sep 1996 Expresses its deep concern about the tragic events in
>Jerusalem and the areas of Nablus, Ramallah, Bethlehem and the Gaza
>Strip, which resulted in a high number of deaths and injuries among
>the Palestinian civilians. Calls for the immediate cessation and
>reversal of all acts which have resulted in the aggravation of the
>situation and which have negative implications for the Middle East
>peace process. Calls for the safety and protection of Palestinian
>civilians to be ensured. Calls for the immediate resumption of
>negotiations within the Middle East peace process on its agreed basis
>and the timely implementation of the agreements reached. (The draft
>resolution was issued officially as a presidential text, which
>normally indicates unanimity prior to the vote.)
>
>
>1322 7 Oct 2000 Reaffirms that a just and lasting solution to the Arab
>and Israeli conflict must be based on its resolutions 242 (1967) of 22
>November 1967 and 338 (1973) of 22 October 1973, through an active
>negotiating process. Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram
>Al-Sharif in Jerusalem on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent
>violence there and at other Holy Places, as well as in other areas
>throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1968, resulting in
>over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties. Condemns acts of
>violence, especially the excessive use of force against Palestinians,
>resulting in injury and loss of human life. Calls upon Israel, the
>occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal obligations and
>its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva. Calls for the immediate
>cessation of violence, and for all necessary steps to be taken to
>ensure that violence ceases, that new provocative actions are avoided,
>and that the situation returns to normality. Stresses the importance
>of establishing a mechanism for a speedy and objective inquiry into
>the tragic events of the last few days with the aim of preventing
>their repetition.
>
>

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 3:12 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 26 Jan 2009 05:01:29 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 25 Jan 2009 01:09:20 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:25:01 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 18:01:37 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 08:22:56 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Not in the slightest. Most of us in this forum would support Ray in most
>>>>>>>>>>>of his comments and posts.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Nonsense. His typical post is along the lines of, "You're an idiot,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Your typical post is to deny, to accuse people of doing what you're
>>>>>>>>>doing, to call people anti-semites, and to lie your ass off in order
>>>>>>>>>to rationalize your murderous hatred of Muslims and Arabs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Ray, you are so blind. Even in the above mini-lecture you do exactly
>>>>>>>>what I've pointed out: falsely accusing others of lying, ignorant
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The West Bank was legally won in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. It is
>>>>>>> just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>>>>>>> Stephen Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>>>>>> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>>>>>>> Stephen Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So, as is clearly seen in the above quotes, you're a liar who will
>>>>>>>falsely accuse others for pointing out that you're a liar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Addressed in another post.
>>>>>
>>>>>LOL! Dodge and weave, coward.
>>>>
>>>>Not at all.
>>>
>>>Dodge and weave, squirm and evade.
>>
>>Interesting how in your repetitive shouts of "dodge and weave" you are
>>avoiding discussion of the actual issue.
>
>The actual issue being that you are a liar.
>
>>Propaganda 101.
>
>Ad hominem. You attack me for showing that you're a liar.

Funny how you dodge and weave about dodging and weaving. Answer the
questions you clipped away and acknowlege what I said in the other
post I referred to. Why don't you? Obviously it is because for you
to do so would demonstrate that I am NOT a liar and you would lose
what you think is your bigoted moral high ground.

You aren't fooling anyone with those tactics. You just show yourself
to be an empty shell with nothing but bigoted one-sided opinions.

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 3:28 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 26 Jan 2009 05:04:29 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 25 Jan 2009 01:10:26 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But what can you expect from someone who thinks FAUX News is a reliable
>>>>>>>>news source.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>State owned or not, the BBC has admitted to its liberal bias.
>>>>>
>>>>>No they have not, liar.
>>>>
>>>>Liar liar pants on fire, Ray.
>>>
>>>That's not evidennce, coward.
>>
>>I know you have difficulty accepting evidence that doesn't support
>
>Ad hominems also are not evidence, liar.

Clipping and dodging is evidence, and that is what you are doing.

>
>>>> You just didn't believe the two references I gave you
>>>>to that effect.
>>>
>>>They both refuted your claim
>>
>>Hardly.
>
>You're lying again.

You're still clipping and dodging and then pretending what you clip
doesn't exist.

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 3:32 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 26 Jan 2009 05:04:48 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:27:48 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <ifenn4di5etucs08j1u1ae3fot4qa9g6fv@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:27:58 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But what can you expect from someone who thinks FAUX News is a reliable
>>>>>>>>news source.....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>State owned or not, the BBC has admitted to its liberal bias.
>>>>>
>>>>>No they have not, liar.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Liar liar pants on fire, Ray.
>>>>
>>>>Sure they have. You just didn't believe the two references I gave you
>>>>to that effect. And there are more.
>>>
>>>List them as long as they are credible NON Israeli sources.
>>
>>They've been listed already,
>
>The only ones you listed prove you to be lying.

You're so dishonest it's sad.

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 3:39 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 26 Jan 2009 05:09:27 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>You hit the nail on the head. The Jews have been unjustly hated by
>>large groups of ignorant people for centuries, regardless of where
>>they are what they do.
>
>Which is irrelevant since the subject is Israeli policies and not
>Jewish policies.
>
>> THAT is the underlying root for the hatred
>>toward Israel, and it always has been.
>
>Because it couldn't be the brutality, the flagrant disregard for human
>rights, the contempt for UN resolutions ...

Again you confuse the trees for the forest.

Why do the Muslims want Israel to disappear? It isn't because of
their policies. Here's a hint: Many Muslim countries who don't
recognize the existence of Israel refer to the country as the "Jewish
Entity" or the "Zionist Entity." Hmmmmm... no prejudice or bigotry
going on there at all. Nope...

And you just buy into their self-righteous bigotry when you defend
them in their one-sided approach to Israel; regardless what Israel may
or may not have done to defend itself from annihilation.

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 3:42 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 26 Jan 2009 05:10:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 25 Jan 2009 01:11:34 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:28:50 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:58:17 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <mbbjn4tpqnevs7rpvtei72pef1l994uahp@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>>>>>>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 09:52:07 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Jan 23, 12:43 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> >On Jan 23, 12:19 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >> You accuse people of being anti-semitic and nazis for daring to
>>>>>>>>>>> >> criticize Iraeli war crimes.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> >Er, only problem is that you just undercut anything else you might say
>>>>>>>>>>> >by labeling Israeli actions as "war crimes".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not the only one. Amnesty International and the United Nations
>>>>>>>>>>> are doing likewise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>When Amnesty International and the UN begin loudly calling attention
>>>>>>>>>>to the actions by Hamas that invited the Israeli retaliation,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Such as violating the cease fire? No, actually, that was Israel.
>>>>>>>>>Human rights violations? Israel again.
>>>>>>>>>Violating UN resolutions and international law? Israel again.
>>>>>>>>>Imposing an oppressive police state? Israel again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Fact is; if the Palistinians stopped shooting tomorrow morning there
>>>>>>>>>>would be peace in the middle east.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>In fact Palestinians in the West Bank have not attacked Israel in over
>>>>>>>>>a year and nothing has changed. They're still subject to Israeli
>>>>>>>>>military checkpoints, still have their land taken, still are kept
>>>>>>>>>separate from Jews.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the Israelis stopped shooting
>>>>>>>>>>back tomorrow there would be no Israel -or Israelis- in a month.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Good propaganda in that it is a complete lie that demonizs the victims.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Until something in that equation changes,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Until people like you stop excusing Israeli war crimes nothing will change
>>>>>>>>>and people will keep dying.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The above would be points of valid discussion; but when you end it
>>>>>>>>with the line "Until people 'like you' stop excusing Israeli war
>>>>>>>>crimes" you show it to nothing but bigoted propaganda and spinning of
>>>>>>>>the facts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The facts are Israel has committed war crimes and lied about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not a fact until proven in a court of law.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then by your own standards, Palestinians are innocent of any of the
>>>>>crimes you Israelis accuse them of.
>>>>
>>>>1. Trying to turn the tables doesn't work,
>>>
>>>... because you're a hypocrite and a bigot who hates Arabs.
>>
>>And the self-righteous bigoted Ray repeats his vile and evil lies
>
>No, it's still you accusing people of being anti-semites.

You forgot to clip away your own words falsely accusing me of hating
Arabs while falsely accusing me of saying you are an anti-semite.

You're slipping, Ray.

But you're still a bigot and a liar.

Maybe you can answer some questions to make the issue clear:

Are you an anti-semite?

Do you think Israel has the right to exist?

Simple yes/no answers will be fine, thank you.

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 3:46 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 26 Jan 2009 05:10:30 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:29:11 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <sienn4d97ejmc9qcplnavu2qctaeoasorr@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:28:50 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>The facts are Israel has committed war crimes and lied about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not a fact until proven in a court of law.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then by your own standards, Palestinians are innocent of any of the
>>>>>crimes you Israelis accuse them of.
>>>>
>>>>1. Trying to turn the tables doesn't work, Ray, unless you are also
>>>>willing to acknowledge that Israel has not committed war crimes.
>>>
>>>UN and Red Cross + other INDEPENDENT organisations say Israel HAS
>>>committed War crimes.
>>
>>Have all those other sources acknowledged that the other side has
>>committed war crimes?
>
>Grow up, you hypocrital bigot.

Typical Ray response: dodging a simple direct question by replying
with personal attack.

Why don't you answer the question, Ray? We all know, it's because to
do so would require you to acknowledge that the other side is far from
innocent of the same charges you level at Israel.

Grow up, indeed. You really do make yourself look stupid with these
tactics.

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 3:40 am
From: Chris H

In message <gq5rn4h0hhv01t0tc0b8snd05cuvt82fgp@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On 26 Jan 2009 05:03:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>
>>>>The ONLY "evidence" you have ever provided is known Israeli propaganda
>>>>sources whilst taking cheap shots and unsupported allegations and jibes
>>>>ant the UN, Red Cross, amnesty International, BBC and many other highly
>>>>respected organisations
>>>
>>>You keep referring to your sources without actually providing proof of
>>>what they say.
>>
>>
>>UN Resolutions that Israel has defied/ ignored
>
>This is the same UN which condemned Iraq numerous times but did
>nothing about it?

Invaded as I recall

>The UN has ALWAYS taken an anti-Israel stance, as your list shows.

You mean the world has had an anti-israli stance. The UN represents the
world at large. Perhaps itis because of the appaling behaviour of
Isreal over the last 60 years

>Whether we agree or not with things that Israel has done in the past,
>they have always been surrounded by enemies that want them dead or
>gone;

That was their choice they did not have to try and carve a state out of
some one else's country. Neither did they have to use the appalling
tactics they have used.

>(For instance, the world "officially" condemned Israel for taking out
>Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor several years ago, but behind closed
>doors most countries were glad that they had done so.)
Not they wern't

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 3:50 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 26 Jan 2009 05:13:23 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>>>>> The West Bank was legally won in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. It is
>>>>>>> just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>>>>>>> Stephen Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>>>>>> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>>>>>>> Stephen Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You think that is a "gotcha,"
>>>>>
>>>>>It is proof that you're a liar who accuses other people of lying when
>>>>>it is YOU that is lying.
>>>>
>>>>Not proof at all, Ray.
>>>
>>>Deny and evade all you can, you'll still a proven liar.
>>>
>>>> You're just too dumb to understand a simple
>>>
>>>You claimed that you never said that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>>Above is the proof that you did.
>>>
>>>You LIED about what you wrote.
>>
>>You don't understand subtle meanings, so you shout "lies!"
>
>I understand how evil sleazebags try to claim that black is white,
>freedom is death, and outright lies are really just "subtle meanings".

You have little understanding of the truth. Try harder, it won't
strain your brain too much.

If I was guilty of what you say, I would be using your tactics of
clipping away what I wrote and claiming it doesn't exist. I don't do
that, Ray. That's your gig. I happily leave what you quoted above
and openly tell you what I meant. You just igore that because all you
have is a childish "gotcha" instead of rational discussion.

Run away, coward. Come back when you can discuss things like an
adult.

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 3:58 am
From: Chris H

In message <7t7rn4pmtpc4mncllvdmqd4736di5ovs66@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On 26 Jan 2009 05:09:27 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>You hit the nail on the head. The Jews have been unjustly hated by
>>>large groups of ignorant people for centuries, regardless of where
>>>they are what they do.
>>
>>Which is irrelevant since the subject is Israeli policies and not
>>Jewish policies.
>>
>>> THAT is the underlying root for the hatred
>>>toward Israel, and it always has been.
>>
>>Because it couldn't be the brutality, the flagrant disregard for human
>>rights, the contempt for UN resolutions ...
>
>Again you confuse the trees for the forest.
>
>Why do the Muslims want Israel to disappear? It isn't because of
>their policies. Here's a hint: Many Muslim countries who don't
>recognize the existence of Israel refer to the country as the "Jewish
>Entity" or the "Zionist Entity." Hmmmmm... no prejudice or bigotry
>going on there at all. Nope...

Just ass you refuse to recognise Palestine.

Israel was forcibly carved out of other people's states. No wonder they
don't recognise it.

If the Moonies carved a state out of the part of the US they live in and
declared it independent and their spiritual home how would the US react?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 4:00 am
From: Chris H

In message <ml8rn4pmnent3mro3rv8u4nhmhoj57hnu8@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>
>You have little understanding of the truth. Try harder, it won't
>strain your brain too much.
>
>If I was guilty of what you say, I would be using your tactics of
>clipping away what I wrote and claiming it doesn't exist. I don't do
>that, Ray. That's your gig. I happily leave what you quoted above
>and openly tell you what I meant. You just igore that because all you
>have is a childish "gotcha" instead of rational discussion.
>
>Run away, coward. Come back when you can discuss things like an
>adult.

There was a fascinating program on TV last night about Mcarthy Stephen
uses exactly the same tactics and very similar language. You can spot
propaganda a mile off.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bad News For Nikon As Pros Turn Their Back To The D3x!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5193be07f153c126?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 3:17 am
From: "Larry Thong"

Robert Coe wrote:

>> It was bound to happen when Nikon releases a killer camera like this.
>> Society just isn't ready for this beast.
>>
>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Red_Back.jpg>
>
> He does look a bit irked. Did he think you were scaring away the mice?

I think it was done eating. It was keeping an eye on me while I was trying
to get closer and sneak around for better lighting and background. The real
problem was a Yuppie trouncing through the woods with an unleashed Golden
Retriever running around. Needless to say the bird had enough.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Repair or replace Canon S60?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/70166d2aa5b69f30?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 4:08 am
From: "Fred"

"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:kjamn4hul6mq3epdf8ps3spcn1vr5nqd89@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:21:15 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
> <secret@illumnati.net>
> wrote:
> :
> : "Fred" <fredapain@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> : news:49772850_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> :
> : >
> : > I had an S30 and progressed to the S60, which I'm still using (I also
> : > bought an "as new" spare one). The S60 is still working, despite the
> : > beeper having packed up a couple of years ago in a heavy downpour.
> When
> : > the S60 finally gives up the ghost, I'll either use the spare one I
> : > bought, or the S80, which I'm loathe to use in case it gets damaged,
> as
> : > it's a classic in mint condition.
> : >
> : > I wouldn't contemplate a camera without an optical viewfinder (which
> is
> : > why I bought the spare S60 and S80), which pretty much rules out all
> : > modern compacts. Plus I'm not into the pixel war, resulting in ever
> more
> : > sensor noise and aggressive processing to smooth out the noise (and
> : > detail).
> :
> : Just so. My newest compact cameras are 10 and 12 megapixels and I think
> : that's ridiculous, in a small camera. I set 'em all to 5 megapixels and
> that
> : works fine, though I think at least theoretically it should be better if
> the
> : sensor were only 5 mp to begin with -- since reducing the resolution to
> that
> : obviously means splitting some of the pixels between photosites, and
> that
> : can't be helping anything.
> :
> : I'm basically a Nikon guy but I do have a Canon S60 myself, and like it
> a
> : lot. Don't really get to use it much, but it's such a nice piece of work
> : I'll probably keep it forever.
>
> Does the S60 have that gimmicky sliding door over the lens? That door
> jamming
> is what seems to have finally done in my wife's old S50 (although what
> actually made her give up on it in favor of a DSLR was its horrific
> shutter
> lag).
>
>
Yes the S60 does have that "gimmicky sliding door", but I think the S60 body
was redesigned from the S30/40/50 one. The door on my S30 started to go a
bit wonky latterly, but my daughter's still using it ok 7 years down the
line. The door on the S60 isn't as flimsy as the earlier design, and mine's
still working fine after 5 years of intensive use. The shutter lag is
liveable with as long as you're aware of it, it just requires a bit of
predictive picture taking for moving subjects.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Your camera takes really nice pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c1f1ab7c703e40b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 4:33 am
From: "whisky-dave"

<mattclara@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f7b6414d-b021-40bc-b212-3f2346404211@p29g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 25, 7:53 pm, "Frank ess" <fr...@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
> Sheila wrote:
> > mianileng wrote:
> >> Sheila wrote:
> >>> Neil Ellwood wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:24:46 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >>>>> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> >>>>>http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
> >>>> Re: subject line.
>
> >>>> My camera does not take nice pictures, I am in control of my
> >>>> camera,
> >>>> I take nice pictures.
>
> >>> Funny, years ago I was at my nephews wedding and I took a photo
> >>> of his
> >>> brother, when my sister-inlaw saw the photo she made the
> >>> comment
> >>> that I must have a really good camera. Nope, nothing about me
> >>> taking
> >>> a good photo. I always laugh about that.
>
> >> I get that kind of comment ALL the time. Most of the time they're
> >> sincerely intended to be compliments.
>
> > I don't think it was the case in my example. She meant that it was
> > a good photo and it was all because of the camera. It depends on
> > who makes the remark and your prior experiences with that person
> > whether you take it as a compliment or not.
>
> I was photographing a well-populated and active social function a few
> weeks ago, when a lovely young woman approached me and smiled, saying,
> "You have very good equipment". I acknowledge the truth of that
> statement: "Yes".
>
> I knew it, and wonder how she knew it.
>

}The proper response to that was, "And so do you, my dear, and so do
}you," with a lingering look at her tits, or her eyes. Whatever. ;-)

Get your clothes of and let my 'equipment' do the rest ;-)

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 4:39 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Bob G" <mrbobjames@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59208244-e2db-488f-84eb-afef8f0a88c7@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 23, 11:24 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
>
> --
> Waddling Eagle
> World Famous Flight Instructor

}So, if it's not the camera, why are we constantly upgrading?

'cos' a good workman would never blame his tools, and
a good workman would never use bad[1] tools.
And the difference between a man and a boy is the size of his toy.

[1] bad = old, outdated, not as shiny etc.....

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Digital SLR recommendation please
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/230b550afc71360b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jan 26 2009 5:20 am
From: orion.osiris@virgin.net

HI all,

Can anyone make a recomendation of a decent digital SLR of around 500
quid/euros which produces high quality, sharp prints and is feature
rich but not overly complex to operate? I'm hoping to find something
in the 12 Megapixel range ideally. I've tried reading reviews, but
there's just TOO much choice out there and I need pointers for a
shortlist of the best ones.
Any suggestions?
THanks.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en