Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Opinions: Can I use my old Nikon lenses on a new Nikon digital camera?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/46cacbbe3be835c7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:49 am
From: Chris Malcolm

Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 7:43?pm, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> if they're *very* old (non-ai) then they need to be modified before
>> mounting them on any recent nikon camera except for a d40/d60 which
>> does not need them to be modified.

> Bingo. *That's* the information I needed.

> Much grass.

>> they want you to buy new lenses. ?find a new camera shop, one which
>> gives you honest advice.

> So far I've heard variations on the same song and dance at three
> different places. (It's a plot, I tell you!)

But if they paid their assistants enough to be knowledgeable
photographic experts who would buy anything from them at the prices
they'd have to charge? The public has clearly told shops via the
market that they want to be served by the cheapest idiots employable.

--
Chris Malcolm

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

== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:51 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 23 Jan 2009 08:30:23 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:04:57 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer <rfischer@sonic.net> writes
>>>>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>>>>>Ray Fischer added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>>
>>>>>>>>The Nazis were not Christians.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance
>>>>>>> with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard
>>>>>>> against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
>>>>>>> Adolf Hitler
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since YOU are a first class racist, bigot and anti-Semite, and one
>>>>>
>>>>>And there goes the rightard spewing the usual vitriol and hatred.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Adolph Hitler was
>>>>>>NOT a Christian.
>>>>>
>>>>>Hitler said otherwise, bigot.
>>>>Did he? Do you have a reference for that?
>>>
>>>The quote above is from Mein Kampf.
>>
>> Which you obviously know very well.
>
>I'm educated. You're not.

I beg to differ.

What's your education, left-wing activism and SS propaganda methods?

You certainly demonstrate that you are well versed in those techniques
when you constantly divert discussion of a subject to personal attack
when you can't respond to a point.

>> Sieg Hiel, Ray.
>
>Take your salutes somewhere else, nazi.

Just trying to make you feel at home.

== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:54 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 23 Jan 2009 08:33:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:07:32 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 21 Jan 2009 05:19:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 20 Jan 2009 18:15:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 20 Jan 2009 08:03:18 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 18 Jan 2009 22:59:42 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 18 Jan 2009 00:15:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:23:42 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>In message <0em1n4tm1lc8s0cfvgslm44sr2q4v7h5mm@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>What "atrocities", asshole?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Just count them, self-righteous bigot: blowing up busses filled with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>innocent people;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As started by Israeli terrorists in 1947
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blowing up restaurants filled with innocent people;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As started by Israeli terrorists in 1947
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>blowing up crowded intersections filled with innocent people;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As started by Israeli terrorists in 1947
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Check your history. Both sides are guilty, but the Arabs started it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PRIOR to 1947.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Start what, asshole?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Check your history, self-righteous bigot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>You don't even know, murderous bigot. You just spew lie after lie and
>>>>>>>>>>>expect people to accept your murderous hatred because of it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Again, you just don't know history.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Again, you provide no facts to back up your claims.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The facts are a matter of world history.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Again, you provide no facts to back up your claims.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>World history, Ray.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not a fact, idiot. That just a chickenshit evasion from a
>>>>>dishonest coward.
>>>>
>>>>Except in the narrow worldview of a self-righteous bigot, name-calling
>>>
>>>Run along, coward. You just spew the usual hatred and vitriol at
>>>anybody who dares to critize your deep hatred of Islam and you care
>>>nothing for the facts.
>>
>>As everyone has come to know, every time Ray uses the words "run
>>along" or "run away," they are followed by a baseless vile insult.
>
>It's not baseless.
>
>You hate Arabs and Muslims.

You say it's not baseless and then you follow that with a baseless,
ignorant and vile false accusation to prove the point that you are
nothing but a hateful, spiteful self-righteous bigot.

That's why you are deserving of the Nazi salute, Ray.

== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:58 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 23 Jan 2009 08:35:30 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:
>>>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>
>>>>>>>Bull doze it and re-develop
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It may come to that if the Palestinians don't come to their senses and
>>>>>>recognize Israel's right to exist and truly seek peace.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ethnic cleansing, in other words.
>>>>
>>>>Convenient that you can substitute words and pretend that those are
>>>>the original words that were spoken.
>>>
>>>What YOU proposed/threatened is ethnic cleansing, and it because ever
>>>more obvious that you like to accuse other people of holding views
>>>that are really your own.
>>
>>I didn't propose or threaten anything.
>
>Your words are still above. If the Palestinians don't grovel before
>Israeli domination then they get erased.

What a line of propaganda. "Grovel" and "domination..." No, you
aren't bigoted, no not a bit.... NOT

>
>> If you are referrring to
>>"bull doze and redevelop," those weren't my words.
>
>I was referring to your agreement with them.

Once again, you dishonestly and childishly erased what I wrote that
proves otherwise.

That's why you deserve the Nazi salute, Ray.

>
>> You really should
>>work on your reading comprehension skills, Ray.
>
>Back at you, bigot.

Erasing what I wrote so you can spin my words is no substitute for
reading comprehension.

== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:02 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 23 Jan 2009 08:36:00 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:10:32 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 21 Jan 2009 05:36:56 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:
>>>>>>>>On 20 Jan 2009 08:05:37 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because Likud believes in a Greater Israel and the Palestinians are in
>>>>>>>>>the way. Because Israelis consider Arabs to be subhumans in the same
>>>>>>>>>way that the nazis considered Jews to be subhumans and the S. Africans
>>>>>>>>>considered blacks to be subhumans.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You've just swallowed the propaganda.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the
>>>>>>> realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear
>>>>>>> expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the
>>>>>>> Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense
>>>>>>> of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will
>>>>>>> continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will
>>>>>>> prevent their uprooting.
>>>>>>> http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The West Bank was legally won in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967.
>>>>>
>>>>>That's a lie. It is NOT part of Israel. It is OCCUPIED territory.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is
>>>>>>just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>>Israel has never annexed the West Bank.
>>>>
>>>>So, Ray, I suppose you would agree that California, Arizona, New
>>>
>>>Quit whining, asshole. You are wrong yet again.
>>
>>In typical self-rightous bigoted style, you once again clip away all
>
>You lied.
>
>Quit making excuses.

Pointing out that you erased what I wrote and then saying I lied is
not making an excuse. It just shows your lack of morals and
inability to admit that you are wrong.

But that's a typical tactic of a self-righteous bigot. Remove the
evidence and hope nobody notices.

== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:10 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 23 Jan 2009 08:37:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:15:08 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>>>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>>>
>>>>>>Then you need to get a life and learn to do independent research
>>>>>
>>>>> I have. Including going to the ME. My parents have travelled in
>>>>> Israel and Palestine. Your experience is?
>>>>
>>>>Sounds like you were more on a sight seeing tour than a fact
>>>>finding mission as your thesis is ludicrous at best.
>>>>
>>>>My "experience" is precisely this: I think that ALL/ANY sovereign
>>>>nations have the RIGHT to defend themselves against unwarranted
>>>>attacks without resorting to bullshit arbitration by the
>>>>international community,
>>>
>>>No you don't. You totally reject the Palestinian's right to do
>>>anything of the sort.
>>
>>The Palestinians are NOT a sovereign nation.
>
>How convenient doe you to make such an excuse.

Excuse? That's simply a fact that cannot be disputed.

>Well then, according to you I supposed that the Palestinians have no
>rights at all and the Israelis may do anything tht they please.

No, not at all. Those are words that YOU are putting in my mouth. The
Palestinians have a right to their own nation and self-determination,
in peaceful co-existence with Israel as a neighbor recognized by them
and other Arab nations.

But those rights stop when their goal is to remove Israel from the map
in the pursuit of that nation.

>>The Palestinians are unfortunate pawns in the overall game of the Arab
>>nations' desire to remove Israel from the map.
>
>Pushing lies about Arabs doesn't help your credibility, bigot.

Those aren't lies. Why haven't Arab nations, with all their oil
wealth, not taken these people in or helped them in a substantial way?
You are really naive if you think the Arabs truly want peaceful
coexistence with a Jewish nation in the land of Palestine.

Put your cards on the table, Ray. Does Israel have the right to
exist or not?

== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:09 am
From: Chris H

In message <rk5jn4d4l35vm534blvepq2og1t5omofif@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:06:27 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>On the other hand you seem to be a self righteous bigot spewing
>>>>propaganda and lies
>>>
>>>Only propaganda and lies according to your bigoted anti-Israel
>>>worldview.
>>
>>Actually there was a documentary on last night about the Israeli
>>behaviour over Gaza
>
>On the BBC?
Not the BBC. I note there was an Israeli smear campaign against the BBC
just as they managed to get an independent news team into Gaza

>Or some other network which admits to its biased
>reporting?

Nope. This is a production team known for it's impartiality and good
handling of this sort of reporting. If they are wrong it will be the
first time in 30 years

>>It bears out all ray and I have been saying about Israeli war crimes and
>>propaganda. They are trying to completely control the world press in
>>reporting the facts.
>
>Ah, yes, the Jews wanting to control everything .... the world has
>heard that before.

No it was a factual point about the Israeli official media
control/support office. They simple factually reported what they were
doing. Continual texts and calls to all registered journalists.
Continual checks on them by the police and military, staged press
briefings. Large abouts of background propaganda heaped on them.
Complete restrictions on seeing anything near Gaza and control of their
movements.

They asked all the international reporters and they said that they had
had less oppressive control in China! They all felt that the Israelis
were using propaganda, much that had already shown to be false.

The Israelis did finally admit ion camera some of it might be
"misleading" and even "false". They also refused to comment on much of
it where there was not room to duck and dive.

>>They have distorted and lied repeatedly so that now 90% of the worlds
>>press would not trust the Israelis if they said it was daylight and had
>>video of it.
>>
>>The Utube videos of Hamas using UN schools to launch missiles are FAKE
>>It is video of a different school taken in 2005!
>>
>>The IDF claiming the Washington Post and NY Times supported their cliams
>>was repudiated by the editors of both newspapers who are furious that
>>they have been misrepresented. In fact they said their stories disproved
>>the Israeli versions. Even the official Israeli spokesman has been
>>caught lying more than once
>>
>>The Press core have been saying the amount of Israeli propaganda has
>>been enormous.
>
>Propaganda to some is factual reporting to others.

That is not correct.

> You choose which
>side's propaganda you wish to believe.

Neither you dismantle BOTH sets of propaganda to get at the truth. The
problem is as Israel has tried to shut down ANY reporting inside Gaza
the only propaganda there is to dismantle is the Israeli propaganda.
There is little Hamas stuff to disect and check

The problem is the Israeli stuff has been shown to be false. No one has
been able to check much of the Hamas stuff.

>>The net result is that Israel is seen as having committed war crimes and
>>tried to lie about it and smear the UN and Red cross (and others) as
>>well.
>>
>>It has completely destroyed any trust any one had in Israel. The
>>Israeli actions have backfired completely and the backlash will be
>>enormous.
>>
>>The Press have now started to get into Gaza and found it is worse that
>>it they thought for civilian casualties and other war crimes.
>>
>>Israel is little different to Pol Pot's killing fields. Iseal is lilely
>>to face sanctions and war crimes trials just at the point where the US
>>will stop supporting them. The Sanctions could be the end of Israel
>
>
>If you weren't so biased,

I want factual reporting from Gaza not just Israeli propaganda and what
are now clearly lies.

> you'd see that what you wrote just reflects
>your passionate belief that Israel has no right to exist regardless of
>what spin either side puts on the events.

I made no comment on that about the reporting. It is YOU and Israeli
supporter who is, as usual trying to spin things and put words in my
mouth,

>>There is no way Israel will be seen as a European country by Europe.
>
>Why would Israel want to be seen as a European country?

Survival.

> They are a
>democracy,

They have committed many war crimes and have no support from any
neighbour on a 1000 mile radius due to their own actions

> and I doubt they would want to adopt the socialist-leaning
>characteristics of many European nations.

Much of Israel is socialist... what is a Kibbutz if not a socialist
concept?

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

== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:17 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 23 Jan 2009 08:46:20 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>>You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>
>>You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>
> 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>
>
>So clearly you DID say that and you are just lying your ass off.

Yes, I did say that. But you didn't note the qualifying part of that
statement. I was comparing one piece of world history with another
one.

Use your brain instead of your bigoted hatred, Ray. The West Bank is
not a part of Israel in the sense that it has been fully annexed as
part of the nation proper. But it *is* a part of Israel in the sense
of it being a territory legally won in a war, just as California was
once a territory won in a war.

Your inability to understand such nuances does not make others a liar.

== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:20 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 23 Jan 2009 08:40:15 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:16:38 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 21 Jan 2009 05:42:05 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:39:35 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <b0abn4dntdmo59ivl9rm99alj31k0g03ak@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>>>>>>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>>>>>>When will you learn that baseless accusations and mindless
>>>>>>>>name-calling merely reveal you to be a self-righteous bigot?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen your posting is doing Israel and Jews a huge disservice. By
>>>>>>>completely ranting against reality and simply repeating propaganda you
>>>>>>>devalue any good points you might make.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Calm down and come back with a more balanced view and you might get some
>>>>>>>where and not damage the reputation of those you are trying to promote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have already said that the Jews are subhuman.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a bald faced and evil lie.
>>>>
>>>>It's not a lie at all.
>>>
>>>Stop lying, you evil assole.
>>
>>Clipping away evidence
>
>That's another lie, you evil bigot.

You are lying while accusing others of the same. You regularly erase
what I've written in your attempts to say I'm lying about something.

And you call me evil? You're morally bankrupt.

== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:25 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 23 Jan 2009 08:41:19 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:
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The trouble is, you are the one making up the fictions,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Prove it, asshole.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Sorry Ray, you were the first to say I was making things up without
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So AGAIN you lie your sleazy ass off and then run away
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What lie,
>>>>>
>>>>>You made a claim: "you are the one making up the fictions"
>>>>
>>>>What a fool you are.
>>>
>>>Run away, coward.
>>>
>>>>>I demanded proof.
>>>>>You ran away.
>>>>
>>>>I'm still here waiting for
>>>
>>>You're just a lying little coward.
>>
>>Excellent! You are in good form, clipping away the evidence of your
>
>Where's YOUR evidence for YOUR claim? I say that you ae a liar.
>Rather than prove me wrong you make excuses, run away, evade, and
>shift the blame.

Erasing what I've written then claiming I've lied or made excuses is
not shifting the blame. YOU are evading and running away when you do
that. What is so pathetic is that you can't see that.

You make a blanket statement that I an a liar but you don't prove or
even say what you think I'm lying about. Why is that, Ray?

The reason why, of course, is that every time you've pointed out a
supposed "lie" of mine I've shown it to be something that you've
either spun out of context or didn't read thoroughly.

So typical. Go ahead, erase more of what I've written and use that
as an exuse for more accusations.

Or in Rayspeak, "Run away, coward."

== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:29 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 23 Jan 2009 08:41:52 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:18:04 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>On 21 Jan 2009 05:47:00 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 11:40:21 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>In message <d6abn4ludj4oc5u95h4k3snu8vvp7u8vq0@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>>>>>>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>>>>>>On 20 Jan 2009 08:12:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Fact: This conflict was started by Hamas firing hundreds of rockets
>>>>>>>>from Gaza into Israeli civilian areas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That is wrong. Hamas started firing rockets at Israel in self defence
>>>>>>>due to IDF war crimes and Israeli genocide. Hamas was a product of
>>>>>>>Israeli actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>1. There is no genocide. Period. If there was, all Palestinians
>>>>>>would be dead LONG ago.
>>>>>
>>>>>So either you're a holocaust denier or there are no Jews left in the
>>>>>world.
>>>>>
>>>>>Which?
>>>>>
>>>>>>2. Firing rockets at civilians is NOT self-defense.
>>>>>
>>>>>Except when Israel does it.
>>>>
>>>>All you are doing is justifying war crimes
>>>
>>>No, nazi turd: YOU are the one defending war crimes. I'm the one
>>>condemning them. YOU are the one excusing Israel firing rockets that
>>>kill civilians.
>>
>>I don't think anyone can expect a lying self-righteous bigot like
>
>And so the murderous bigot again changes the subject.

What subject? You've erased so much text that the subject has been
lost.

Maybe someday you'll come to understand that accusing others of being
"murderous" and other vile things when they disagree with you only
makes you look like an ignorant thug who can't make a point without
shouting down the other side.

Run away, bigot, and come back when you can discuss something like a
rational hunan being.

== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:30 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 23 Jan 2009 08:42:27 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:18:47 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:
>>>>>>On 20 Jan 2009 18:30:57 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Fact: This conflict was started by Hamas firing hundreds of rockets
>>>>>>>>from Gaza into Israeli civilian areas.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>You're lying outright. This conflict was started when Israel AGAIN
>>>>>>>assassinated people in Gaza during a supposed cease-fire. The
>>>>>>>cease-fire was violated when Israel waged war against the people of
>>>>>>>Gaza by imposing a near total blockade, imposing near starvation upon
>>>>>>>a million people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Firing rockets randomly at civilians is not a proper response to
>>>>>>military operations
>>>>>
>>>>>As YOU stated, in war there are sometimes casualities.
>>>>
>>>>That has nothing whatsoever with deliberately targeting residential
>>>>areas
>>>
>>>Like the Israelis have done and which you excuse because you're a
>>>bigot who always blames Muslims.
>>
>>Funny how again you clip away the relevent conversation
>
>Do you always run away by lying and blaming others?

Do you always justify your dishonest actions by asking such stupid
questions?

== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:46 am
From: Stephen Bishop

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.

== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 4:24 am
From: "HEMI - Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>You come across as a far-right-wing extremist.
>
> Ray, your history is that everyone who doesn't agree with you on
> any subject is a neocon, a right-wing extremist, or a murderous
> a**hole.
>
Stephen, independent polling consistently says that mainstream
America is right of center yet many people do not associate
themselves with conservatives and certainly the "liberal bias of
the press" is real and can lead the uninformed to believe that all
conservatives are somehow evil.

That said, in my experience that are BOTH Far Left Loons AND Far
Right Loons. Both of these extremes in thinking are characterized
by ideology which overrides reason and facts. I think that if Mr.
and Mrs. America are honest with themselves and others, they will
admit that they likely align themselves with one or the other major
party but definitely do NOT swallow the entire company line.

So, when entering the Loon stage from the Left, we refer to this
brand of liberals as socialists/Socialists/Marxists whilee entering
Loon status from the Right results in being a neocon or a
reactionary.

It has been my experience that GOOD ideas come from BOTH parties
and both liberal and conservative agendas. At various times in our
history it has been absolutely essential that a particular ideology
reign for awhile. In last November's election, it was abundantly
clear that the Bush White House had abandoned it's roots as small
government fiscal conservatives and so deserved to be soundly
defeated. And, as in so many elections in the past, American voters
yearned for fresh new ideas coming from a younger president who
wasn't a Washington insider. The last time this happened was during
the JFK days.

It has been said that Democrats don't want a strong military but
want to send the military they have on all sorts of ill-conceived
missions abroad while Republicans want a strong military but their
conservative thinking makes them view war as a very last resort. I
think this is basically true in the case of Truman and Korea and
LBJ and Viet Nam. George H.W. Bush needed to break out of his
conservative thinking to promote Desert Storm successfully, but his
son drove the train right off the tracks going WAY overboard with
yet another unpopular war, secrecy and lack of transparancy,
apparent sell outs to special interests and the most Socialist
Republican record in history. And, it was a disaster.

This NG most likely has a large contingent of normal thinking
conservatives just as our states and the entire country has but
like many conservatives, I believe that they are generally loathe
to make it known because Liberals universally attack what they do
not understand.

I will end this rant with an observation: In the last year for
which IRS figures are known and projections for 2008, the top 1% of
wage earners pay some 40% of IRS taxes while the bottom 38% pay NO
taxes at all. Assuming President Obama succeeds with his revised
tax stimulus plan, the number paying NO taxes at all will rise to
some 52%. Think about it, Stephen, with HALF of all Americans
paying NO taxes whatsoever yet getting brand new "free"
entitlements that THEY don't have to pay for, it is easier to
understand how this revolution in thinking occurred. Too bad that
the Keynesian Model for economics didn't really work all that well
for FDR, JFK, or LBJ why should we believe that under new
management, the tired old ideas will succeed this time.

But, as to the subject of this here thread, I was heartened - NOT!
- at yesterday's announcements of special envoys to
Afghanistan/Pakistan and Isreal/Iran/Middle East to help Sec. of
State Hillary Clinton. We'll have to wait and see what happens in
Gaza. It seems that this round of attack-retaliation is winding
down but what about NEXT time?

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 4:58 am
From: Chris H

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

== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 5:12 am
From: "HEMI - Powered"

Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...

> The facts are Israel has committed war crimes and lied about it.

When are you going to back up these absurd accusations with FACTS,
Chris? And, before you continue to throw stones out of your glass
house, best determine that YOUR country has not now, nor ever has in
it's storied past, committed war crimes or crimes against humans.
Think hard to the days when The Sun Never Sets on The British Empire,
then think to WWI and WWII, and especially delve into actions of the
British Army specifically against the Jews attempting to establish a
Homeland in the New State of Israel, circa 1947.

I know of NO country or group that is completely free of these
unsavory activities. Even our new President, Barack Obama, wrote in
some key loopholes to his Executive Order outlawing agressive
interrogations/torture that sound ominously similar to the same
rationalization that former President Bush used.

And, please think about how YOU would feel is some terrrorist
militant group had killed or maimed for life YOUR friends and
relatives and YOU captured a suspected perpetrator. How would YOU
conduct yourself, would you be humane or would you do WHATEVER is
necessary to obtain intelligence to STOP the violence against those
you love.

In this entire discussion, you sound like the typical hypocrit that
finds it all too easy to hate the Israelis yet strangly silent about
your own countries inhumane past.

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 5:52 am
From: Chris H

In message <Xns9B9C5319FF98ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI - Powered
<none@none.supernews> writes
>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> The facts are Israel has committed war crimes and lied about it.
>
>When are you going to back up these absurd accusations with FACTS,
>Chris?

The UN, Red Cross and BBC all have evidence and the Israelis have
admitted it.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: End of an era
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d3123b0af4291a9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:09 am
From: Chris Malcolm

David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:
>>> How much film did you have them process in the last year? I'd guess none.
>>> I've shot maybe 2 or 3 rolls (of 6x7) since the 5D arrived here 3 years
>>> ago.
>>
>>> I'm surprised it took this long. One thing I noticed over here was that
>>> the
>>> quality of snapshots ordinary people around me were getting went way up
>>> when
>>> they started using the 2 and 3MP consumer dcams. I assume that the
>>> ability
>>> to check the images immediately meant that most people figured out how to
>>> take decently exposed and focused shots.
>>
>> By the time the good 3MP consumer cams arrived the autofocus and
>> autoexposure systems were good enough to be a lot better than most
>> people could do manually, if the camera even allowed them to use
>> manual.

> Actually, the AF was a disaster. Slow as molasses on a winter's morn and
> prone to finding something in the background to focus on. That latter
> problem is what the "face recognition" function is about.

>> In fact there are some DSLR users around today determinedly
>> using manual mode because that's what the top guys use for top
>> quality, none of this wimping out with P&S auto mode, but who aren't
>> producing as good basic technical quality as the camera could if left
>> to do it all on auto.

> That's not been my experience. Doing landscapey things with wildly different
> lighting in every shot, AE is rather hopeless. Take a shot, see how far off
> it is, dial in the EV compensation, and shoot again desperately trying not
> to change the composition so that the stupid meter won't do me a different
> favor. Repeat for next shot. I would have been better off using an external
> spotmeter, manual mode, and a bit of thought before shooting, but the cold
> froze the battery in the spotmeter. (It's not that matrix metering is bad,
> it's that there are a lot of situations where in-camera metering can't
> possibly get the right answer; sort of like AWB not being able to tell the
> difference between a white shirt in pink light and a pink shirt in white
> light.)

But you're a sophisticated photographer being fussy and trying to make
a success of technically difficult photographs. For the average
holiday and family event snapshooter the auto facilities of P&S
cameras have greatly improved the general quality of their shots and
the range of circumstances in which they can get images worth sticking
in the family album.

Because I often wander around with a big camera in places where lots
of tourists are taking photographs I sometimes get into conversations
with them about photography. Some of them ask my advice about the
difficulty they're having getting properly exposed images in their
DSLR. I suggest trying the fully auto mode. Some of them don't like
that suggestion because they've been told you get the best images in
the manual mode. My impression is that there's enough of them about
that if you were teaching a photography class you'd be quite likely to
encounter one.

--
Chris Malcolm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lcd screen - when?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ca3e7488cff7a0a5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:17 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <es3dl.98735$3_4.27369@newsfe10.iad>,
"YDOD" <walker7729@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I think that eventually you will be able to buy a single lens digital camera
> with an LCD screen which is truly usable in bright sunlight, has enough
> resolution and reacts fast enough to be suitable for manual focusing and
> will brighten the view when the depth of field preview control is activated
> so that you can readily check the depth of field. How much longer do you
> think it will be before something like that is on the market?

No one has a crystal ball. When such devices are available, they will be
available and not a minute sooner.

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

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:19 am
From: Bob Williams

Duram wrote:
>
> Now I think officially film is death, look
> http://www.robertphotoblog.com/2009/official-portrait-president-obama/
> and download the 14mb Obama's portrait see EXIF data.
> http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg
>
> Why use film if digital works very fine and can be copied all over the
> world in seconds without loss.
>
>
IMHO, the official portrait is technically not very good.
The DOF is so shallow that the poor guy's right ear is a blur.
So are the lapels and shoulders of his coat.
The left side of Obama's face is way too dark.
That type of lighting may be fine for Caucasian skin but it darkens
brown skin too much.
I know that these things are subjective, but that is my take on it.
Bob Williams
Also why use a 21MP camera and then post a 5MP image?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 5:08 am
From: bugbear

Film will never die, it will simply become
more and more "niche", in the same way
that full frame cameras, half plate etc
have.

BugBear

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why No Bulb or Cable Release Socket?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5a88867cb78e6f36?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:19 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <cl05n45jbadik4si8r70qmld34vc33s715@4ax.com>,
jim evans <jimsTAKEOUTnews2@comcast.net> wrote:

> Why do most digital cameras have no Bulb ability? Why no provision
> for using a cable release?
>
> I have a DSLR-like digital camera (Panasonic FZ50). It has a focusing
> ring and a zoom ring on the lens. In essentially all ways except the
> pentaprism it has the functions of a DSLR, but it's absent these
> useful features. I've owned 5 digital cameras, none had these
> features.
>
> Simple film cameras had them. Why do most digital cameras not have
> them?

My Canon Digital Rebel XSi has those features. I use the bulb feature
fairly often. It has an option for a wireless cable release, but I
haven't purchased it yet.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: background
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c5aad211e6b58077?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 5:03 am
From: "Peter"

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:290fn4183tgk0pgsprgmv5evo3gmpoh17m@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 10:39:38 -0800 (PST), Pat
> <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
>
>>First off, don't be afraid to grab someone and move them. Sometimes
>>the easiest was to get rid of the background is to change locations.
>>You might grab the guy with the necklace and say, "hey look, the
>>background here s**ks. Can you step outside and let me get a better
>>picture?" That also works for bad lighting.
>>
>>If you can't move the subject, try moving yourself. If you had gotten
>>down lower, the background would have been okay.
>>
>>Mobility is cheap and easy.
>>
>>In the situation you were in, a diffused flash would be your next best
>>bet. It would have kept the subject lit and darkened the background.
>>
>>There is always using a really fast lens. However, that runs the risk
>>of getting your subject out of focus, too.
>>
>>Then there's digital editing. That's a completely different story.
>>My favorite method is to select the background and de-saturate it a
>>bit. That does a lot to make it go away because you eye concentrates
>>on the stronger colors of the foreground.
>
> The subjects that I shoot where I have this problem are objects
> sitting on tables in shows or in shops. The distracting background
> might be other objects on the table and people viewing the tables or
> on other rows or other people in the store.
>
> I can so far in repositioning objects, but you really can't ask an
> exhibitor or a store owner to rearrange a sufficient area for me to
> photograph an object that I'm buying.

There are some store owners who are happy to let you do that provided the
store is not busy at the time. Offering a print of the object is a good
incentive. Better yet, give him/her a print first. I've walked into antique
stores, admired the <fill in the blank> and requested permission to
photograph it in isolation, while offering a print. I've rarely been refused
when the store is not full of customers. The right approach can work
wonders.

Yes, you did not intend to make a picture of Pete, but your approach brought
out his personality.

--
Peter

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Etymology of "Sinister
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/228738f2652129f2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 5:06 am
From: "HEMI - Powered"

Take a gander at these for the root of the word "sinister".

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/moon.html
http://www.yourdictionary.com/sinister

Quite a number of countries, regions, religions, races, and ethnic
groups have some varient of "sinister" from it's probably Latin
origins. These groups/countries view being left handed as somehow
evil, which goes right along with similar views by the same
groups/countries that one should never eat with the left hand, as
it is "unclean". This latter particularly goes back to Biblical
Times in what is now the Middle East and Palestine because of the
fundamental problem that there was no toilet paper nor any eating
utensils.

It is also curious that for as long as Anthropologists have kept
statistics, the percentage of left handed people has remained close
to 11%. Myths abound, including the out-moded notion that
attempting to change a child's handedness results in stunted or
retarded development. And, as the final insult to those whose
dominant hand is their "sinister" or "unclean" one, nearly ALL
orgainizations and apparatuses are designed around being right-
handed. Even the military which once forced soldiers to fire their
rifles right-handed still prefers that method, even though they no
longer require it.

So, you can imagine my surprise when I saw that President Obama not
only signs things like Executive Orders with his left hand, but
even uses the over-the-top writing style that traces it's origins
to the pen-and-ink days where penmanship students needed to keep
their hand from smearing the ink as then moved across the paper.

Draw your own conclusions from this, of course. And, Happy TGIF!

--
HP, aka Jerry

"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 6:13 am
From: tony cooper

On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:06:26 -0600, "HEMI - Powered"
<none@none.supernews> wrote:

>So, you can imagine my surprise when I saw that President Obama not
>only signs things like Executive Orders with his left hand, but
>even uses the over-the-top writing style that traces it's origins
>to the pen-and-ink days where penmanship students needed to keep
>their hand from smearing the ink as then moved across the paper.
>
>Draw your own conclusions from this, of course. And, Happy TGIF!

Wrong again, Jerry. The over-the-top writing position of the
left-hander caused *more* smearing, not less. That's the natural way
we left-handers start writing. I know, because I'm left-handed, I
started writing that way, and I learned to write with a stick pen at a
school desks with built-in inkwells.

The over-the-top style drags the hand or the cuff or the arm over the
fresh, wet ink of the previous lines. Not so much the line being
written, but the lines above it.

The other problem of the over-the-top style is that the pen nibs
punctured and tore the paper and caused ink to splatter because the
nibs were held too vertical.

I don't write that way anymore. I print everything except my
signature, and that's illegible.

What is odd about Obama is that he wears his wrist-watch on his left
hand. Most left-handers wear their wrist-watch on their right hand.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

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

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, January 23, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, January 23, 2009

rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

0 comments:

Search

Live Traffic