Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 23 new messages in 9 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Mandate: Punography
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e22297df98c46fc4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 10:41 am
From: Alan Browne

frank wrote:

> Couldn't use them for a contest though.

Pussy Galore? Sure could...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 5:43 pm
From: Leon@here.com

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 00:33:34 -0700 (PDT), frank <dhssresearcher@netscape.net>
wrote:

>On Apr 16, 8:18 pm, j...@sprat.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 23:35:48 +0100, "Focus" <d...@mail.me> wrote:
>> >Silly me.
>> >I thought these groups were finally getting interesting, but I was reading
>> >"pornography"... :-(
>>
>> Think of all the puns available in porn!
>>
>> with a Cockney accent - "H'ap-py-ness is a warm gun"
>
>You know how much fun in school watching Goldfinger????
>
>Not to mention all the rest of the Bond girls. Names were priceless.
>
>Couldn't use them for a contest though.

I think that "pussy galore" was so outrageous in 1963 no one believed it wasn't
just a funny name... Those were the days you couldn't even say "hell".

Now we have Carlotta Fagina...

BUT you can use cats in various puns, I once had a photo of a naked girl with a
pussy cat between her legs... a photo pun for sure...

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D40/80/90 MM Exposure Problems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2cf34097ab39052c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 11:35 am
From: nospam

In article <5d6dncb8VZWNmnfUnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@novis.pt>, Focus
<dont@mail.me> wrote:

there have been accidents where a driver plowed into a crowd of people
or a storefront, sometimes injuring several people. they usually claim
the brakes didn't work or the car 'suddenly accelerated,' but it often
turns out they had pressed the accelerator pedal by mistake. so yes,
it does happen.

> I also always get blamed in restaurants when I'm not enjoying my food. The
> waiter explains it's a consumer error...

that's just stupid.

> With the camera pointed, the horizon exactly in the middle, with CW I get
> excellent results. No blown sky, yet enough detail in the shadows. Change to
> MM: up to 2 stops lighter. Change to spot: like CW.

either your camera is grossly miscalibrated or you are doing something
wrong. there are an awful lot of d90 users who don't seem to have this
problem.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 12:18 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 17:59:57 +0100, Focus wrote:

>>> Excellent info. I was already ticked off by the MM of my D90: blows out
>>> every sky. To compensate you have to dial 2 stops down.
>>
>> user error.
>
> Sure and when the brakes on the car don't work, I guess it's a user error
> too?
>
> I also always get blamed in restaurants when I'm not enjoying my food. The
> waiter explains it's a consumer error...

Sure thing, my fine ferschlugginer Focii. The mechanic and the
waiter know you quite well by now. The waiter appreciates your
varied orders, but the mechanic thinks otherwise, cringing every
time that you wheel into the garage in a new make/model. Couldn't
you pick one and stick with it, such as with the fabled 2CV?

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/004015.html

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 2:04 pm
From: "Focus"

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:180420091135590989%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <5d6dncb8VZWNmnfUnZ2dnUVZ8qWdnZ2d@novis.pt>, Focus
> <dont@mail.me> wrote:
>
>> >> Excellent info. I was already ticked off by the MM of my D90: blows
>> >> out
>> >> every sky. To compensate you have to dial 2 stops down.
>> >
>> > user error.
>>
>> Sure and when the brakes on the car don't work, I guess it's a user error
>> too?
>
> there have been accidents where a driver plowed into a crowd of people
> or a storefront, sometimes injuring several people. they usually claim
> the brakes didn't work or the car 'suddenly accelerated,' but it often
> turns out they had pressed the accelerator pedal by mistake. so yes,
> it does happen.

Many years ago I had a new Chrysler Voyager when it needed the usual
service. Oil change and all that stuff. I picked it up and later I came to
an intersection with a highway ( I was on a secondary road) and I started to
brake. Guess what? I had no brakes at all! I pumped and pumped but the pedal
went all the way to the floor. I looked quick and very lucky for me and my
(then) 4 year old son, there was no traffic. Finally about 300 yards past
the intersection, the car came to a full stop in a cloud of smoke. Not
knowing what happened I took my son out quickly and stepped away from the
car. I called AAA (it was in Holland, there called WW) and the guy took a
look at the car. He asked me if it had been serviced lately and I confirmed.
He told me they probably put on new brake pads and forgot to tell me to
easily "brake them in".
He explained what happened was, the brake pads were against the discs all
the time and got hot. As a result the oil started cooking and turned to gas
and this is why I had no pressure.
Nobody from the garage said anything, not even that they had replaced the
brakes.
I was lucky, but I can understand how this might have gone very, very wrong.
The bad part of an accident like this is, that after the brakes and oil
cooled down, there is practically no evidence left. So the police (not that
technical in general!) could have easy drawn the conclusion it was a drivers
mistake...

Don't judge to quick what you don't know...

>> I also always get blamed in restaurants when I'm not enjoying my food.
>> The
>> waiter explains it's a consumer error...
>
> that's just stupid.

I agree. I'll never eat there again ;-)

>> With the camera pointed, the horizon exactly in the middle, with CW I get
>> excellent results. No blown sky, yet enough detail in the shadows. Change
>> to
>> MM: up to 2 stops lighter. Change to spot: like CW.
>
> either your camera is grossly miscalibrated or you are doing something
> wrong. there are an awful lot of d90 users who don't seem to have this
> problem.

But on DPreview,in the D40-D90 forum, there also were 34 people reporting
the same problem. Most people just don't seem to care enough to call
support. But I paid full price and expect a full product.

--
---
Focus

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 4:38 pm
From: nospam

In article <8PidnWPm3LHB3XfUnZ2dnUVZ8hudnZ2d@novis.pt>, Focus
<dont@mail.me> wrote:

> Many years ago I had a new Chrysler Voyager when it needed the usual
> service. Oil change and all that stuff. I picked it up and later I came to
> an intersection with a highway ( I was on a secondary road) and I started to
> brake. Guess what? I had no brakes at all! I pumped and pumped but the pedal
> went all the way to the floor. I looked quick and very lucky for me and my
> (then) 4 year old son, there was no traffic. Finally about 300 yards past
> the intersection, the car came to a full stop in a cloud of smoke. Not
> knowing what happened I took my son out quickly and stepped away from the
> car. I called AAA (it was in Holland, there called WW) and the guy took a
> look at the car. He asked me if it had been serviced lately and I confirmed.
> He told me they probably put on new brake pads and forgot to tell me to
> easily "brake them in".
> He explained what happened was, the brake pads were against the discs all
> the time and got hot. As a result the oil started cooking and turned to gas
> and this is why I had no pressure.

if the pads were against the discs all the time, then the mechanic did
a shitty job. user error, but this time the user was the mechanic, not
the driver.

> >> With the camera pointed, the horizon exactly in the middle, with CW I get
> >> excellent results. No blown sky, yet enough detail in the shadows. Change
> >> to
> >> MM: up to 2 stops lighter. Change to spot: like CW.
> >
> > either your camera is grossly miscalibrated or you are doing something
> > wrong. there are an awful lot of d90 users who don't seem to have this
> > problem.
>
> But on DPreview,in the D40-D90 forum, there also were 34 people reporting
> the same problem. Most people just don't seem to care enough to call
> support. But I paid full price and expect a full product.

wow, 34. how many d40-90s has nikon sold? millions?

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 6:57 pm
From: Me

Focus wrote:
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:180420090636411801%nospam@nospam.invalid...
>> In article <HOWdnQCDKtZXSHTUnZ2dnUVZ8uGdnZ2d@novis.pt>, Focus
>> <dont@mail.me> wrote:
>>
>>> Excellent info. I was already ticked off by the MM of my D90: blows out
>>> every sky. To compensate you have to dial 2 stops down.
>> user error.
>
> Sure and when the brakes on the car don't work, I guess it's a user error
> too?
>
> I also always get blamed in restaurants when I'm not enjoying my food. The
> waiter explains it's a consumer error...
>
> With the camera pointed, the horizon exactly in the middle, with CW I get
> excellent results. No blown sky, yet enough detail in the shadows. Change to
> MM: up to 2 stops lighter. Change to spot: like CW.
>
> It's now rainy and I've tuned the MM to -1 stop. Close to CW. Now I'll have
> to see what it does in bright sunlight...

I haven't used a D90, but I've used a D300, D200, D80, D70, Canon 5d,
and over the past week or so a Canon 5dII.

For preservation from blown highlights in scenes as you describe, then
IMO the D80 and Canon 5d (I and II) are about the same. Nikon dslrs
with the 1004 (IIRC) sensor ttl module seem to have better a Matrix
metering system than Canon or Nikon's 420 sensor system. I don't know
about metering in Canon's 1d/s range - haven't tried. But I don't read
a lot of complaints in forums from 5d I/II users, and as you've been
told before, on all these dslrs you've got histograms and flashing blown
highlight previews that should allow any half competent photographer to
nail exposures. If those features weren't needed or useful, then they
wouldn't be there.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Black silicon" skeptics abound...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/906dd55a28649215?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 12:37 pm
From: "Pete D"

"Bruce" <no@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:rikju4hhi9eg1pqopdjlui0uh51801er46@4ax.com...
> "Matt Clara" <none@myexpense.com> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <no@nospam.net> wrote in message
>>news:11uhu4tsh8e2gu41o6jhjc46fp6hdrb0pk@4ax.com...
>>> RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>See Photonics-Spectra magazine letters section for Apr. Seems that
>>>>the Harvard team is "reluctant" to publish any solid figures on the
>>>>product's sensitivity and that the articles about it have all be "puff
>>>>pieces," perhaps fit for business magazines hawking stocks but not
>>>>scientific journals.
>>>
>>>
>>> Cold fusion will be next. Until Focus finds a "bug" in it. ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Bit of a bully, Bruce? Just because he's an annoying little man doesn't
>>mean it's ok to incessantly pick at him. Why not exercise your kill
>>filter
>>instead? It's not because you're having too much fun picking on him, is
>>it,
>>Bruce?
>
>
> That offers quite a useful insight into why *you* pick on people, Matt.
>
> ;-)
>

I can hear the music......................
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit's the
Matt and Bruce Shoooooooooooooooooooooooooow!!!!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Endless stream of "me too" P&S crap released
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7437e6aec8662b70?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 1:14 pm
From: "JohnD"

Rich wrote:
> Latest ones:
>

Endless stream of "boo hoo" P&S (Pigheaded & Stupid) crap released -- by an
idiot with a giant chip on his shoulder.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 10:34 pm
From: Rich

"JohnD" <JD@thisis.invalid> wrote in
news:gsdcad$ad3$1@news.motzarella.org:

> Rich wrote:
>> Latest ones:
>>
>
> Endless stream of "boo hoo" P&S (Pigheaded & Stupid) crap released --
> by an idiot with a giant chip on his shoulder.
>
>
>

That implies P&S's have cost me something, they haven't. P&S's: Choosing
cameras by their exterior colours, not their image quality.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Diff Nikon and Canon Lens System
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5f02839e1bcce9a3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 2:35 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

"Timmo" <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
>news:87ocux92v1.fld@apaflo.com...
>
>>>>> With Canon there is usually a lens to suit your needs
>>>>> in their range. With
>>>>> Nikon, this isn't always the case.
>
>>>> nonsense.
>
>>>Care to elaborate?
>
>> *You* need to elaborate, troll. What you said is indeed
>> nonsense, and you cannot provide detail to support it.
>
>Chill out, it's only camera equipment. ;-) I must admit, it was a bit of a
>troll post,

Still trolling are we!

It's a waste of bandwidth when you write a bunch of
nonsense to see what others will say.

>I am not going to nit-pick ...

That's all you did though. It's just about the same as
complaining that you have to have a red dot on the left
side, and one company uses yellow dots or only puts them
on the left side. It's nonsense.

Get used to it, Canon makes good equipment, and so does
Nikon. A lot of people won't buy the same brand that
you did, and often it will be for good reasons.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 4:52 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 15:08:38 +0100, Timmo wrote:

>>> I could possibly be tempted by a 400 f4 or even a 400 f5.6 instead,
>>>but Nikon don't make these either.
>> . . .
>> Then you have completely missed the absolutely stellar AF-S VR Zoom-NIKKOR
>> 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED, which holds up quite well in front of a 2x TC by my
>> experience, http://edwardgruf.com/bluebird.html
> . . .
>
> No, I haven't missed it. There is nothing wrong with the lens, it's just a
> bit big and heavy for a mobile photographer. On a Gimball head, maybe
> it's not such a problem.

It's lighter with a gimbal head? :) The 200-400mm is a good lens
but I also find it heavier than what I'm looking for. As for the
TCs, some of the better pros in DPR's forums that use the 200-400mm
VR have frequently reported that it gives good results (not superb)
with the 1.4x TC, less good with the 1.7x TC, and is noticably worse
with the 2.0x TC. They also say the the 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8
VR lenses are in a class above the 200-400VR, and that they both
produce superior results with all of the TCs, from 1.4x to 2.0x.

Since you could be tempted by a 400mm f/4 Nikkor or 500mm f/5.6,
why not consider the 300mm f/2.8 VR? With the 1.4x TC or 1.7x TC
it's an excellent 420mm f/4 VR or 510mm f/5.6 VR lens. At 6.3 lb.
it's actually almost a pound lighter than the 7.2 lb. 200-400 VR,
and substantially ligher than the 10.2 lb. 400mm f/2.8 VR lens. The
image quality with any of those lens/TC combos is probably better
than anything seen by most photographers. I was thinking of some
other photographers, but see that Thom Hogan's opinion is the same.
Since I read what he said about the lenses (some time last year?),
perhaps his opinion had the strongest foothold in my memory :

> The 200-400mm f/4G AF-S VR is usually the first thing people look at.
> The focal range fits in nicely atop the Let's-Go-Pro kits, but the price
> makes this a "brainer" (as opposed to a no-brainer). The size and weight
> is a decent compromise compared to some of the exotics. But as I'll be
> reporting (Real Soon Now), the 200-400mm is a mixed bag. I love it at
> close to moderate focus distances. I hate it at long focus distances and
> with converters. Okay, those words are too strong. Let's put it this way:
> it does very well for certain uses, but less well for others. You pay some
> real penalties for going with a zoom in this range, and as good as the lens
> is, it doesn't equal some of your other choices (as we'll eventually get to).
. . .

> The 300mm f/2.8 has grown on me, especially with the latest VR version.
> It's perhaps the sharpest of the exotics, and it tolerates TCs pretty well.
> That makes it more versatile than it at first seems. You've got a sharp
> and hand-holdable 300mm f/2.8, 420mm f/4 (TC-14E), and maybe even
> 510mm f/4.8 (TC-17E). On a DX body, you've got plenty of reach for
> anything but the most extreme needs. On an FX body, well, you're
> probably going to feel a bit short.
. . .

> That's not to say the 500mm is the best optically. It isn't. The 400mm f/2.8
> AF-S and 600mm f/4 AF-S are slightly better wide open and some say (I
> don't agree at the moment, though I'm going to be shooting some further
> tests this summer) the 400mm is better with converters. The 600mm is
> simply a stellar lens all around, with or without converters. None of these
> lenses are slouches. I'd be happy shooting with any of them. I'm just trying
> to point out that some are slightly better choices than others, and not just
> because of image quality. Indeed, in terms of optical quality, I think I'd
> rank them this way (places number 4 and 5 are very close):
>
> 1. 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
> 2. 200mm f/2G AF-S VR
> 3. 400mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
> 4. 600mm f/4G AF-S VR
> 5. 500mm f/4G AF-S VR
> 6. 200-400mm f/4G AF-S VR
>
> Yet, in terms of which make the most sense overall, I'd rank them this way:
>
> 1. 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
> 2. 500mm f/4G AF-S VR
> 3. 200-400mm f/4G AF-S VR
> 4. 400mm f/2.8G AF-S VR

Here are some of his comments on the best lenses at specific focal
lengths :

> 300mm – The 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR, hands down. Again, nothing else is
> close. The latest 300mm f/2.8 is arguably the best exotic telephoto Nikon
> has made. Still, both the 300mm f/4D and the 70-200mm f/2.8G VR with a
> TC-14E do a respectable job here, almost equaling the bigger lens at
> anything beyond f/5.6. But as you move up in telephoto range, depth of field
> control becomes an important consideration, and the 300mm f/2.8G AF-S VR
> is the choice because of that, even if it weren't such a stellar performer.
>
> 400mm – The 400mm f/2.8G AF-S VR, hands down. Again no contest;
> nothing else comes close. The 300mm f/2.8D with a TC-14E falls into a
> slightly distant second place that's quite usable. The 80-400mm f/4-5.6D
> VR isn't in the same league, though it will produce acceptable results
> on the APS-sized sensor bodies with careful shot discipline. Corners on
> a full-frame body are problematic at 400mm with the 80-400mm. The
> best budget choice is the 400mm f/5.6 AI-S, purchased used.

http://bythom.com/rationallenses.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Just for Jerry...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7ba5f2892276f349?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 4:35 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn> wrote in message
news:Xns9BF161FF532A1ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131...
> Robert Coe added these comments in the current discussion du jour
> ...
>
>>
>> Jerry doesn't have the wit to fuck us up. It took Richard
>> Cheney, George Bush, and the rest of that crowd of evil but
>> incompetent shitheads to do that. Jerry was merely one of their
>> clueless enablers.
>>
> Jerry has the wit to Fuck your feeble brain anytime I please, but I
> choose not to try to reason with fools like you. So, be a nice
> misanthrope, Shut the Fuck Up and Go The Fuck Away, boi, you bore me.
>
> --
> HP, aka Jerry
>
> "The government is best which governs least" - Thomas Jefferson
> "Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
> problem!" - Ronald Reagan

Remember that saying: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing..."

Well, Jerry is EXTREMELY dangerous...

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I hate environmentalists
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/32b4ab5866516ef6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 4:51 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:74ti5rF15228oU1@mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 06:44:30 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:qssiu454158m2nu31r560vl4d7nil294rk@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 05:45:53 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>>"John A." <john@nowhere.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1ckfu49hsv0m64smb1d55u6e9kv63sdimq@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 16 Apr 2009 20:10:42 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>>>>> <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> BTW, DRS, I am not referring to any unorthodox Divine Dictation
>>>>>>>> theory, not that the end result differs from the infusing Spirit
>>>>>>>> school of thought by much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course it does. Or do you think that the movie "Cleopatra"
>>>>>>>starring
>>>>>>>Elizabeth Taylor, inspired by the life of the last Ptolemaic ruler of
>>>>>>>Egypt,
>>>>>>>was in fact an inerrant portrayal of that life?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So... the bible is loosely based on characters created by god?
>>>>>
>>>>>You need to distinguish between Divine Inspiration and it's inevitable
>>>>>implications, as opposed to the more mundane mortal version...
>>>>
>>>> Inspiration is inspiration.
>>>
>>>Not when you are dealing with the Almighty...
>
>> So he's not so powerful he can create a word that retains its meaning
>> in his presence?
>
> Of course He could. But He wouldn't. Seems your theological education
> omitted the central fundamental topic of free will.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm
>
>
>

That's one of the problems with trying to say that the Bible is "the Word of
God," or the "Words of God," or any other way you want to create a
connection between a man-made organization (the Church) or written document
and the infallibility of an all-powerful authority...

But, hey, that hasn't stopped the zealots from trying for as long as
history's been recorded.

But, as I've noted in other posts, this is getting way to off topic. So, if
you'd like to discuss it further, either e-mail me, or go to:

http://www.discussion.dudley-hanks.com/opinion

Or, find another, more appropriate group and point me towards it.

Let's try to at least keep the posts to something with a remote connection
to recreational photography here...

Take Care,
Dudley

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 4:51 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009041800084431729-savageduck@savagenet...
> On 2009-04-17 23:43:30 -0700, John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> said:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:16:19 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-04-17 06:26:13 -0700, "whisky-dave"
>>> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
>>>> news:ysOFl.23805$PH1.12017@edtnps82...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm, divine flaws. However will the zealots dismiss them...
>>>>>
>>>> Even when I was young and 'learnt' that jesus died for our sins,
>>>> I couldn;t work out why God let King Herrod go around killing all those
>>>> babies
>>>> while looking for the baby Jesus, why didn't God just say he's over
>>>> there
>>>> in the stables don't kill all these innocent babies, which I assuemd
>>>> they
>>>> were
>>>> all innocent, Jeus coudl have still have said to have died for ours
>>>> sins.
>>>> And then there's Brutus surely he's a hero, without him Jesus wouldn't
>>>> have
>>>> been
>>>> caught and executed in the way he was.
>>>
>>> "Brutus?" Could you mean that other plot villain Judas?
>>
>> Or maybe Bluto.
>
> I like that. "The Popeye Bible," or perhaps "The Spinach Papers."
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
>

SD, haven't you heard about Shakespeare's religious folios?

Take Care,
Dudley

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 5:58 pm
From: Savageduck

On 2009-04-18 16:51:07 -0700, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> said:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
> news:2009041800084431729-savageduck@savagenet...
>> On 2009-04-17 23:43:30 -0700, John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> said:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:16:19 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2009-04-17 06:26:13 -0700, "whisky-dave"
>>>> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ysOFl.23805$PH1.12017@edtnps82...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm, divine flaws. However will the zealots dismiss them...
>>>>>>
>>>>> Even when I was young and 'learnt' that jesus died for our sins,
>>>>> I couldn;t work out why God let King Herrod go around killing all those
>>>>> babies
>>>>> while looking for the baby Jesus, why didn't God just say he's over
>>>>> there
>>>>> in the stables don't kill all these innocent babies, which I assuemd
>>>>> they
>>>>> were
>>>>> all innocent, Jeus coudl have still have said to have died for ours
>>>>> sins.
>>>>> And then there's Brutus surely he's a hero, without him Jesus wouldn't
>>>>> have
>>>>> been
>>>>> caught and executed in the way he was.
>>>>
>>>> "Brutus?" Could you mean that other plot villain Judas?
>>>
>>> Or maybe Bluto.
>>
>> I like that. "The Popeye Bible," or perhaps "The Spinach Papers."
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Savageduck
>>
>
> SD, haven't you heard about Shakespeare's religious folios?
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley

How could I have forgotten, "Comedy of Errors."
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 6:38 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
news:2009041817581177633-savageduck@savagenet...
> On 2009-04-18 16:51:07 -0700, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca>
> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message
>> news:2009041800084431729-savageduck@savagenet...
>>> On 2009-04-17 23:43:30 -0700, John A. <john@nowhere.invalid> said:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 09:16:19 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@savage.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2009-04-17 06:26:13 -0700, "whisky-dave"
>>>>> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:ysOFl.23805$PH1.12017@edtnps82...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hmmm, divine flaws. However will the zealots dismiss them...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even when I was young and 'learnt' that jesus died for our sins,
>>>>>> I couldn;t work out why God let King Herrod go around killing all
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> babies
>>>>>> while looking for the baby Jesus, why didn't God just say he's over
>>>>>> there
>>>>>> in the stables don't kill all these innocent babies, which I assuemd
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> were
>>>>>> all innocent, Jeus coudl have still have said to have died for ours
>>>>>> sins.
>>>>>> And then there's Brutus surely he's a hero, without him Jesus
>>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> been
>>>>>> caught and executed in the way he was.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Brutus?" Could you mean that other plot villain Judas?
>>>>
>>>> Or maybe Bluto.
>>>
>>> I like that. "The Popeye Bible," or perhaps "The Spinach Papers."
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Savageduck
>>>
>>
>> SD, haven't you heard about Shakespeare's religious folios?
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>
> How could I have forgotten, "Comedy of Errors."
> --
> Regards,
> Savageduck
>

And, don't forget Billy's most sacred text of all: Much Ado About
Nothing...

Take Care,
Dudley

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Testing Forum
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1271e50f62d744e9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 6:47 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

I'm trying to set up a board where you won't have to register in order to
post messages and use polls. I've set up a couple of catagories, and added
a poll.

For those who are looking for something to do, logging on and giving it a
quick test would be greatfully appreciated.

The forum is located at:
http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad

And, a direct link to the poll is:
http://www.blind-apertures.ca/scratchpad/index.php?PHPSESSID=c4686f23383ac7d69de3a88957b2dc3c&topic=2.msg2#new

--
Take Care,
Dudley

Take Care,
Dudley

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 8:07 pm
From: Nicko

On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
> I'm trying to set up a board where you won't have to register in order to
> post messages and use polls. I've set up a couple of catagories, and added
> a poll.

Why?

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 8:28 pm
From: "Dudley Hanks"

"Nicko" <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eeb9a0e5-97b0-4e47-95a1-f522fe3b636e@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 18, 8:47 pm, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
> I'm trying to set up a board where you won't have to register in order to
> post messages and use polls. I've set up a couple of catagories, and added
> a poll.

Why?

Because I wanted to annoy you, Nicko...

Take Care,
Dudley

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 9:31 pm
From: ASAAR

On Sat, 18 Apr 2009 20:07:56 -0700 (PDT), Nicko wrote:

>> I'm trying to set up a board where you won't have to register in order to
>> post messages and use polls. I've set up a couple of catagories, and added
>> a poll.
>
> Why?

"Why not!" -- Dayton Allen

http://jjohnnydollar.blogspot.com/2007/11/dayton-allen-why-not-1960.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Interdisciplinary studies
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4eee34b265df1a9c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 9:21 pm
From: rupkatha

We are starting a journal on interdisciplinary studies and it includes
photography in the digital arts category. If interested, you can write
on the aesthetic features of photography.
Looking forward to your contributions...

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Apr 18 2009 10:06 pm
From: Me

rupkatha wrote:
> We are starting a journal on interdisciplinary studies and it includes
> photography in the digital arts category. If interested, you can write
> on the aesthetic features of photography.
> Looking forward to your contributions...
Who is "we"?
Where is the "journal" published?
Why would photography (digital or film) be categorized as "digital arts"
- when the ultimate form in which it would be displayed is analogue,
and "digital" intermediate processing can be used in any art form these
days, from music to sculpture to poetry etc?
Do "we" intend to make money out of the free contributions that you're
soliciting?

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

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