rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Nikon D90 or D300 - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/20c4fe3de09c1990?hl=en
* Bad News For Nikon As Pros Turn Their Back To The D3x!! - 4 messages, 3
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5193be07f153c126?hl=en
* Freeware to mix photos & music & video to create a DVD slide show - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/36fb5056ac2af2c5?hl=en
* Digital SLR recommendation please - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/230b550afc71360b?hl=en
* Thank You Nikon For Raising The Prices!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e0dc382bb7bbdb83?hl=en
* Palestinians Under Attack - 14 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D90 or D300
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/20c4fe3de09c1990?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 12:07 am
From: John
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:13:33 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
<mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote:
>
>"John" <john35o@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:k9msn45411s1vg4lgsofqgmbvhgmo9va09@4ax.com...
>>
>> The D300 is a very complex camera and the D90 is much simpler.
>> If you are basicly a point and shoot user you will be happier with the
>> D90.
>>
>> The D300 allowes the user to interact/control many many more features
>> of the camera. If you need or want to think long and hard befor each
>> shot, and you don't mind the additional weight, the D300 is the one
>> for you.
>>
>> I own both the D90 asnd the D300. Both shoot damn fine pictures.
>> The D300 does offer the same MPxls.
>> Don't worry too much about the back beyond what I said above. It's the
>> lense choices the make that you need to focus on.
>>
>> If I sm going to do casual camera shots i use the D90, otherwise the
>> D300.
>>
>> Happy shooting
>> John
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:11:19 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
>> <mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
>>>
>>>I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
>>>apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
>>>Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
>>>takes
>>>much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
>>>the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
>>>
>>>HELP!!!
>>>
>>>Thanks
>Another ? if I may. I am very new to this.
>I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the D90
>and what exactle do they do.
>Sorry if it seems a silly question but I am just getting into this
No Problem
Intense UV light - Bright sunlight will cause distortion as some of
the UV light will be able to impenge on the sensor or film and thus
fog the image as the UV will not focus correctly
.
I use Nikor lenses and have not exerianced the problem.
Personally I am of the opinion that anything you place between the
lense and the subject is a source of distortion.
Some use them and sware the resulting image is sharper. Perhaps some
makes of lenses pass greater portions of the UV content.
Some use them to "protect" the lense. Better a scratch on the filter
rather thrn the lense.
Same goes for "Daylight Filters"
John
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 12:19 am
From: John
On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:27:03 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
<mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote:
>
>"Samantha Booth" <mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote in message
>news:glln3t$bj9$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>
>> "John" <john35o@verizon.net> wrote in message
>> news:k9msn45411s1vg4lgsofqgmbvhgmo9va09@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> The D300 is a very complex camera and the D90 is much simpler.
>>> If you are basicly a point and shoot user you will be happier with the
>>> D90.
>>>
>>> The D300 allowes the user to interact/control many many more features
>>> of the camera. If you need or want to think long and hard befor each
>>> shot, and you don't mind the additional weight, the D300 is the one
>>> for you.
>>>
>>> I own both the D90 asnd the D300. Both shoot damn fine pictures.
>>> The D300 does offer the same MPxls.
>>> Don't worry too much about the back beyond what I said above. It's the
>>> lense choices the make that you need to focus on.
>>>
>>> If I sm going to do casual camera shots i use the D90, otherwise the
>>> D300.
>>>
>>> Happy shooting
>>> John
>>>
>>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:11:19 -0000, "Samantha Booth"
>>> <mail@cheekyNOSPAMchurres.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I mainly shoot portraits and landscapes.
>>>>
>>>>I don't know which one of the two to get as they are quite a few pounds
>>>>apart. One chap in Jessop's said there was no difference and in another
>>>>Jessop's store another chap said the differences were vast as the D300
>>>>takes
>>>>much better quality images. The D90 is £714 with lense I think 17-120 and
>>>>the D300 is £999 body only with a half decent Nikon Lenses being £289.
>>>>
>>>>HELP!!!
>>>>
>>>>Thanks
>> Another ? if I may. I am very new to this.
>> I was told I needed a UV Filter, what is one, how much are they for the
>> D90 and what exactle do they do.
>> Sorry if it seems a silly question but I am just getting into this
>Also what does it mean (full frame camera) I don't understand what a full
>frame camera is
Full Frame is a diversion from reality! All that matters is the final
image. from a users point of view it does not make a damn bit of
difference.
I will conceed that with full frame a given lense will produce a
larger field of view then the partial frame wiich produces a some what
more telescopic view.
As long as you depend on what you see in the viewfinder you will get
exactly what you see. Some will try to point out that full frame
camera will requie less light for the exact same inage. You not likly
to ever encounter a situation where this matters at all.
Some say higher density images are not going to be as sharp as full
frame. I doubt you wil ever get in your way.
John
==============================================================================
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 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 12:13 am
From: Helen
On Jan 26, 10:59 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 19:16:41 -0800 (PST), Helen
>
> <helensilverb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 26, 9:12 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 26, 12:35 pm, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>
> >> > Don't mind him: he's so used to shooting blurry pictures, he doesn't
> >> > recognize a sharp one anymore ;-)
>
> >> If you think that pic is sharp you need to change your monitor and
> >> your name.
>
> >> Here's a sharp hawk pic or two, for ya.http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/25038934/originalhttp://www.pbase.com...
>
> >> Let's ask Harry if he thinks that's a sharp pic:http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24436504
>
> >They are a couple of your best:
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24337887/original
> >http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/25038934/original
> >They are incredible. Yeah, even worthy of National Geographic. I know
> >everyone makes fun of me for such statements,
>
> I don't know why others make fun of you, but the reason that I do is
> exemplified by your comment about d-mac's "Peter the Pelican":http://www.d-mac.info/fun-pix/Peter-the-pelican.jpgwhen you said the
> sky was too bright.
>
> Bret posts an image with a sky the color of a cheap hooker's dress,
> (25038934) and, and you want to enshrine him in the Photographer's
> Hall of Fame. You find fault in everyone's images (that you comment
> on) except Bret's.
>
> Maybe the sky *was* that color the day d-mac took that photo, and it
> *was* that color the day that Bret took his shot. But you come off as
> Bret's claque.
>
> Don't get me wrong...Bret's images are very good. It's just that you
> are laughingly predictable in your critiques.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
You said I find fault in everyone's images except Bret's. Check back
in the archives. I've given positive comments on a lot of people's
work, not just Bret's. Last SI Mandate I said your image of the "evil
eye" man was a great piece of photojournalism. You acknowledged
everyone elses comment but mine. No big deal, but don't say things
that aren't true.
"Bret posts an image with a sky the color of a cheap hooker's dress,
(25038934) and, and you want to enshrine him in the Photographer's
Hall of Fame."
It's no secret that Bret is my fav. photographer, and I tend to gush
about his work, but wanting to enshrine him in the Photographer's Hall
of Fame is over-exaggerating. I'm also on record for saying a few
things that would have improved one of his shots too. If I see
something that needs to be improved, I'll say it. As for the sky in
Bret's pic, I still say the original looks better then the PS version,
which looked too phoney for me.
"you are laughingly predictable in your critiques."
I'm sure you and even Bret has a good laugh about my "critiques". I'm
the first to admit they lack the technical jargon of say Ken
Nadvornick, Alan Browne or other pros. But they were always honest in
the way the image made me feel.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 2:26 am
From: Noons
Larry Thong wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2009 9:49 AM:
>
> LOL! First you guys cry because my pics are too sharp. Now that I put the
> D3x's selector switch in "Canon Intermediate Mode" you now cry that they
> are
> blurry. I can't win.
>
They are so used to Bret's crap of over-sharpened feathers
looking like they were dipped in hair-spray, they forgot
what a truly sharp image looks like!
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 2:41 am
From: Noons
Helen wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2009 7:13 PM:
> in the archives. I've given positive comments on a lot of people's
> work, not just Bret's. Last SI Mandate I said your image of the "evil
And the lies continue. Appparently, the stupid woman can't fathom
that ONE example is not the same as "lots". But she always had
a problem discerning between singular and plural anyways.
Must be that crap monitor she claims to have replaced now...
> It's no secret that Bret is my fav. photographer, and I tend to gush
> about his work, but wanting to enshrine him in the Photographer's Hall
> of Fame is over-exaggerating.
Ya reckon?
> "you are laughingly predictable in your critiques."
>
> I'm sure you and even Bret has a good laugh about my "critiques".
Not just those two, believe you me...
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:31 am
From: "Focus"
"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7c42bd53-2c9c-421e-93d7-249735dd9c1b@v31g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 26, 12:35 pm, "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>
> Don't mind him: he's so used to shooting blurry pictures, he doesn't
> recognize a sharp one anymore ;-)
>If you think that pic is sharp you need to change your monitor and
>your name.
>Here's a sharp hawk pic or two, for ya.
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/25038934/original
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24337887/original
>Let's ask Harry if he thinks that's a sharp pic:
>http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/24436504
Those are good. But why do you show some old D60 pictures? Haven't mastered
the 5D MII yet? No shame in admitting that...
--
Focus
==============================================================================
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: Tues, Jan 27 2009 1:15 am
From: M.L.
>My next two or three attempts at creating a DVD with PhotoStage Slide Show
>Producer failed for some reason or another. The videos locked up mid
>stream. And the program hung.
>
>So, I'd say it's buggy software. It works but it's not really very stable.
>I'm using an IBM Thinkpad PC.
>
>The good news is someone suggested another program for creating DVD-Video
>out of MP3s, JPGs, and MOV files so I'll test that out too.
The alternative you're referring to, DVD slideshow GUI, only accepts
AVI video directly, but accepts other formats via Avisynth. However,
you could use Any Video Converter Free to quickly convert all your
MOV's to AVI's at once.
DVD slideshow GUI
Features: Effects/Filters
Input: AVI, AVS
Output: AVI, FLV, VOB(VIDEO_TS folder)
OS: Win 2000/XP/2003/Vista
http://download.videohelp.com/tin2tin/index.htm
Any Video Converter Free
Features: Converter, batch encoding, splitter/joiner, preview window
Complaints: Nag at end of conversion
Input: 3GP(Mobile), AVI, AVS, DV, DVR-MS, FLV, M1V, M2V, M4V, MKV,
MOV, MP4(IPOD,PSP,ZUNE), MPEG1, MPEG2, QT, RM, RMVB, VOB, WMV/ASF
Output: AVI, FLV, MP4(IPOD,PSP,ZUNE), MPEG1, MPEG2, SWF, WMV/ASF
OS: Win 98/ME/2000/XP/Vista
http://any-video-converter.com/products/for_video_free/
www.majorgeeks.com/download.php?det=5692
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 1:55 am
From: David Catterall
tony cooper wrote:
> Surely, though, you see that it's horses for courses. I make movies
> and slideshows in MovieMaker and Picture Story, burn them in Nero, and
> play them on a DVD player and send DVDs to relatives. They're family
> movies of the grandchildren. Not exactly Sundance material.
>
> It would be foolish of me to spend a lot of money on software and
> equipment to do what I do. That freeware crap works just fine for my
> intended purpose.
Tony,
I think you've hit the nail on the head; I'm in your League too!
If we were trying to make money then I'd agree with Truthsquad that
the hard-working guys at the MPEG are entitled to their slice.
Cheers,
>David
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Digital SLR recommendation please
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/230b550afc71360b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 1:53 am
From: Bob Williams
orion.osiris@virgin.net wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:09 pm, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>> orion.osi...@virgin.net wrote:
>>> 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.
>> What subjects did you have in mind?
>>
>> BugBear
>
> Absolutely nothing in particular, but decent macro and zoom functions
> would be a distinct advantage.
>
Please don't get me wrong.
I mean no disrespect and am not trying to give a smartass answer.
But if you have no special NEEDS and you particularly WANT good MACRO
and TELE capability, you should perhaps consider something other than a
DSLR. Also if you plan to print images 8x10 or less you probably don't
need or want 12 MP. Most entry level DSLRs with Kit lenses cannot focus
close enough to fill the frame with objects smaller than 1.5 inches so
macro is not their strong suit. Also, most kit lenses do not have more
than about 5x zoom, so tele is not their strong suit either. (Of course,
both of these shortcomings can be rectified with additional or
supplemental lenses, but that gets to be expensive and a hassle.)
I think that you should at least look at superzooms or ZLRs as they are
called. Most allow you to make full frame copies of slides and insects,
jewelry, and other small objects 1.5 inches or greater in length. Most
ZLRs now have 12X or greater zoom range, so they are great for birding
and shots of zoo animals. Their biggest problem is "noise" at very low
light levels.
But if you do mainly outdoor shooting or can use flash assist indoors,
this deficiency in ZLRs is more than compensated for by their
versatility and convenience.
Bob Williams
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 2:43 am
From: bugbear
orion.osiris@virgin.net wrote:
> On Jan 26, 9:34 pm, snap...@mailinator.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:20:18 -0800 (PST), orion.osi...@virgin.net wrote:
>>> 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.
>> Sony A350
>
> Thanks for the only genuine recommendation this thread has thus far
> produced. And thanks for not trying to be a third-rate, smart-arsed
> commedian.
> As for the rest of you, thanks for Fuck All.
>
I can only apologise for not curing your ignorance.
BugBear
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 2:56 am
From: orion.osiris@virgin.net
On Jan 27, 11:43 am, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
wrote:
> orion.osi...@virgin.net wrote:
> > On Jan 26, 9:34 pm, snap...@mailinator.com wrote:
> >> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 05:20:18 -0800 (PST), orion.osi...@virgin.net wrote:
> >>> 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.
> >> Sony A350
>
> > Thanks for the only genuine recommendation this thread has thus far
> > produced. And thanks for not trying to be a third-rate, smart-arsed
> > commedian.
> > As for the rest of you, thanks for Fuck All.
>
> I can only apologise for not curing your ignorance.
>
> BugBear
Yes, well I remain ignorant, I'm afraid.
I've got a nice long list of what NOT to buy and that's about all.
Thanks to those who HAVE tried to help, though. No offence intended
towards THEM.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thank You Nikon For Raising The Prices!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e0dc382bb7bbdb83?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 2:22 am
From: Noons
Larry Thong wrote,on my timestamp of 27/01/2009 9:50 AM:
> It looks like it is going to be a great time to sell some of the
> unwanted Nikkors I've been hoarding. This is better than Wall St.
>
>
LOL!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 2:41 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 27 Jan 2009 03:28:44 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>
>
>>>>>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?
>
>Keep making excuses, bigot.
Keep clipping away text and making false accusations. That's what you
do when you can't respond with coherent thought.
Which is just about everything you write.
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 2:43 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 27 Jan 2009 03:29:26 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Shifting the blame: You blame me for your own actions.
What rubbish. I don't blame you for anything except your own Nazi
tactics of quoting people out of context and then using hit-and-run
insults.
You are pathetic.
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 2:54 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 27 Jan 2009 03:30:31 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>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,
>
>... that you have no facts to justify
The fact that *you* clip and dodge is evidence of *someone else's*
lack of facts? You're losing it Ray. Time to give it up.
>your murderous bigotry.
Notice to the world: Dare to disagree with the legendary Ray and you
become a murderous bigot.
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:07 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:58:25 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>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.
There is no nation of Palestine. They refused the partition that
would have created their own nation when the Arabs chose to go to war
against Israel at the very beginning.
It would be nice to see a nation of Palestine. But first they will
have to give up their insane and fanatical beliefs that the Jews have
no right to a state in that part of the world.
>
>Israel was forcibly carved out of other people's states. No wonder they
>don't recognise it.
It was partitioned into separate homelands by the same United Nations
that you like to quote.
>
>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?
A better comparison would be to use one of the American Indian tribes
as an example, not the Moonies, since they were the "original"
inhabitants. Just as the Jews were the inhabitants of Palestine
long before any Arabs settled there.
So, when do you play to give up your home to the Celts, since your
ancestors obviously stole their land when the Brtitish Isles were
invaded? Fair is fair, isn't it? Or are you just being arbitrary
in defining the point in history when a piece of land belongs to a
particular group of people?
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:11 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 27 Jan 2009 03:31:22 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Oh look, the apoligist is AGAIN making excuses for brutality and
>killing.
Oh look, the self-righteous bigot is AGAIN ignoring facts to support
his one-sided views.
>
>>Why do the Muslims want Israel to disappear?
>They don't, bigot.
You are a fool to believe otherwise. Just read the Hamas charter or
that of the PLO before that. Look at any Muslim state in that part
of the world who pretends that Israel does not exist, but rather
refers to them as the "Jewish Entity" or "Zionist Entity."
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:12 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:30:52 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
<Poppa_de_Top@blasted.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 06:01:18 -0600, SEMI - Powered wrote:
>
>> mentioned last night that I asked a number of Jewish friends
>
>You're lying again, Jer.
>
>You have /no/ friends, Jewish or otherwise.
>
>You may /know/ some people, but it's doubtful if many speak to you at all,
>and none would ever qualify as friends.
>
>Hell, even your own family doesn't speak to you more than is absolutely
>necessary.
>
>Have you /ever/ in your life been honest about anything at all?
>
>I very much doubt it.
I'm curious, what would Gaston do with himself if not for having
someone like Hemi to harrass at every turn?
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:20 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 27 Jan 2009 03:32:30 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>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:
>
>Typical bishop evasion. EVERYBODY who criticizes Israel MUST be
>biased and unfair.
I've never said you are biased and unfair "because you criticize
Israel." You are biased and unfair because you refuse to recognize
the evil that has been done on both sides. Instead, in your
murderous bigotry you justify what they have done because you don't
agree with Israel's methods of defending itself and rooting out the
source of those constant rocket attacks.
You still haven't answered the question. Have all those other
sources acknowledged that the other side has committed war crimes?
You've also ignored the simple direct questions I asked you a couple
of posts up.
But that is indeed typical Ray response. Dodge, evade, and attack.
Why are you so threatened by such a simple question like whether or
not you believe Israel has the right to exist?
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:22 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 12:00:31 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>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.
But what else would you say, since you use what the TV feeds you as
your main source of information about the world?
Propaganda, indeed.
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:22 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 27 Jan 2009 03:33:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
>I understand that you're a shameless liar. Proof is provided above.
Not proof at all, Ray. You still have no understanding, especially
when you read and clip things out of context.
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:27 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 27 Jan 2009 03:34:06 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:16:14 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 25 Jan 2009 03:33:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:32:00 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 18:04:17 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 08:29:28 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:03:46 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>National socialism is NOT THE SAME as socialism, you stupid asshole.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sheesh, take a introductory course in political science. Learn something.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I've taken several courses in political science and aced all of them,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Now we know, without a doubt, that you're a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>How so?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> German Nationalsozialismus , also called Nazism or Naziism
>>>>>>>>>>>>> totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Encyclopedia Brittanica
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Yes, and your point is?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That you're a liar. Pay attention.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>It's interesting that the cult of Obama-ism and his rise from nowhere
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>And there is more of that political bigotry that has corrupted the
>>>>>>>>>>>right wing. You extremists have nothing but hatred to offer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Ray, every time you write such nonsense to try to stereotype those who
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stereotypes like "cult of Obama-ism", hypocrite?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>There is very much a cult of "Obama-ism."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Every time you write such nonsense it only shows everybody what a
>>>>>>>stupid and hypocritical bigot you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What you say has little meaning when you erase the rest of what I said
>>>>>
>>>>>Less crap is better than more crap.
>>>>
>>>>Except that you use that technique to lie when you selectively erase
>>>
>>>You keep making that claim but have you to find a single example,
>>>asshole.
>>
>>But I did,
>
>Obviously not.
You are such a liar, even lying in the same post where you claim you
are not lying. You clipped out a lot of text from the post you just
replied to.
Maybe your really are insane.
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:30 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 27 Jan 2009 03:35:45 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:16:58 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:
>>>
>>>>>>> The West Bank [...] 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Cutting and pasting single phrases out of context is not proof
>>>>>
>>>>>It's proof that you're a liar.
>>>>
>>>>Repeating that does not make it true.
>>>
>>>It's true because you're a liar.
>>
>>Hmmmm.... says the liar.
>
>You whine but I provide proof.
You clip away evidence of your lies again. And you lie about clipping
away evidence.
You lied about the Likud party. Clipping away the evidence doesn't
make it go away.
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:32 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 27 Jan 2009 03:36:17 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:18:19 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 25 Jan 2009 03:35:49 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:34:43 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 18:06:10 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Your own words are still present above.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What words exactly, and what do you think they say to condemn me in
>>>>>>>>your mind?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What I said was, "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."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That's a statement of fact.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because we all know that the Israelis are brutal thugs who will
>>>>>>>indeed resort to genocide if they don't get their way?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your opinions,
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a question which, as usual, you are trying your hardest to avoid
>>>>>answering.
>>>>
>>>>It's not a question, Ray.
>>>
>>>LOL! So now questions that you find uncomfortable are not really
>>>questions? Here it is again:
>>>
>>> Because we all know that the Israelis are brutal thugs who will
>>> indeed resort to genocide if they don't get their way?
>>
>>It doesn't cause me any discomfort at all.
>
>And yet you keep dodging and refusing to answer.
And yet you keep dodging and clipping text.
So, Ray, are you still molesting young boys? Go ahead and answer,
it's just as valid a question as the one you asked.
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:34 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 27 Jan 2009 03:36:59 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:20:40 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:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>They were offered a nation in 1947 and they REFUSED it because of
>>>>>>>>>>their bigoted beliefs that the Jews had no right to their own nation
>>>>>>>>>>alongside them.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Not "along side them" but ON their land.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It wasn't "their" land.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just because their homes and farms and businesses were their and they
>>>>>>>were living their doesn't make it _their_ land. Oh no, when the
>>>>>>>zionists and the anti-Arab bigots want the land it can be stolen with
>>>>>>>impunity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Since you know so much, tell us exactly how you think Israel stole
>>>>>>that land from them.
>>>>>
>>>>>Terrorism. Violence.
>>>>>
>>>>>And don't try to deny that the land was stolen. It was occupied by
>>>>>Palestinians and now it is occupied by Israelis. A transfer occurred,
>>>>>and not even an irrational lunatic like you can deny that.
>>>>
>>>>Just as I thought. All you have is rhetoric and one-sided opinion,
>>>
>>>Dodge and weave. The bigot will do ANYTHING to avoid the truth.
>>>And when the truth is uncomfortable then the bigot will attack the
>>>truthteller.
>>
>>Amazing how you describe yourself so well in that statement.
>
>The 4th grade retort: "I know you are but what am I?"
>
>Grow up, murderous bigot.
Again you describe yourself perfectly.
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 27 2009 3:36 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 27 Jan 2009 03:37:54 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>No, they keep shooting YOU down. You have rejected EVERY source
>>>except for Fox news. Your premise that the entire world is pushing
>>>anti-Israeli propaganda is patently absurd. It establishes you as
>>>being an irrational bigot.
>>
>>Funny you should say that, when I never quoted FOX news for anything.
>
>I didn't say that you did, bigot.
>
>>But it just illustrates your complete ignorance.
>>
>>You are just plain stupid.
>
>Because you reject any fact that doesn't justify your murderous
>hatred?
I don't know, Ray. Perhaps the answer is in the text you just clipped
away. You know, the text that proved that you are simply and clearly
ignorant about the part of the world you think you are an expert in?
Run away, little boy.
==============================================================================
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
0 comments:
Post a Comment