Another 'Found' Waterfall
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: vegetable
Next: Snowing in Early August
From: -hh on 4 Aug 2010 10:44 Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....(a)la.poste.net> wrote: > -hh wrote: > > > > It also seems like you "Never" leave them online for more than 48 > > hours, in consideration of normal people who don't spend every waking > > hour on the Internet. > > You aren't missing anything... Oh, I know that I'm not missing any *good photography* I'm also not missing the opportunity to poke big holes in his claims: 1) Anything that is online for figuratively more than 10 seconds is vulnerable to being stolen. As such, there's no real material difference between making them available for 24 hours versus 24 days for the "theft fear" that he claims to speak of. 2) Despite the fact that he claims to never post "good" shots and that he's supposedly been so successful in punishing others who 'steal' his works, then why not leave some bait up to let them steal and thus, be able to go punish them again? And so on. As per Occam's Razor, the simpler explanation is that he's a loser who has stolen images from others, who also happens to know that services such as FLIKR can't respond immediately to copyright theft complaints, so the action of preemptive removal of an image prevents him from being hassled with cancelled user accounts. Plus, it mostly denies an evidence trail by which his claims get more critically examined later. The simple bottom line is that if his claims were true & honest, then their supporting evidence would clearly withstand the test of time...not be contrived and then promptly put through the virtual shredder. -hh
From: LOL! on 4 Aug 2010 10:54 On Wed, 4 Aug 2010 07:44:40 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: >Ofnuts <o.f.n.u....(a)la.poste.net> wrote: >> -hh wrote: >> > >> > It also seems like you "Never" leave them online for more than 48 >> > hours, in consideration of normal people who don't spend every waking >> > hour on the Internet. >> >> You aren't missing anything... > >Oh, I know that I'm not missing any *good photography* > >I'm also not missing the opportunity to poke big holes in his claims: > >1) Anything that is online for figuratively more than 10 seconds is >vulnerable to being stolen. As such, there's no real material >difference between making them available for 24 hours versus 24 days >for the "theft fear" that he claims to speak of. > >2) Despite the fact that he claims to never post "good" shots and >that he's supposedly been so successful in punishing others who >'steal' his works, then why not leave some bait up to let them steal >and thus, be able to go punish them again? Because I don't need the money. And the hassle is just not worth it unless they have enough assets to experience devastation when it is all taken from them. > >And so on. > > >As per Occam's Razor, the simpler explanation is that he's a loser who >has stolen images from others, who also happens to know that services >such as FLIKR can't respond immediately to copyright theft complaints, >so the action of preemptive removal of an image prevents him from >being hassled with cancelled user accounts. Plus, it mostly denies an >evidence trail by which his claims get more critically examined later. > > >The simple bottom line is that if his claims were true & honest, then >their supporting evidence would clearly withstand the test of >time...not be contrived and then promptly put through the virtual >shredder. > > > >-hh You could have saved lots of effort by just typing "WAAAH-WAAAH! MOMMY!" I bet you whined real good and got lots of cookies and candy from your mommy when you wanted, didn't you. Probably still doing just that, based on how much of your manipulative childish trolling and whining is done online too. LOL!
From: -hh on 4 Aug 2010 15:44
On Aug 4, 10:54 am, LOL! <l...(a)lolololol.org> wrote: > hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > > [...] > >2) Despite the fact that he claims to never post "good" shots and > >that he's supposedly been so successful in punishing others who > >'steal' his works, then why not leave some bait up to let them steal > >and thus, be able to go punish them again? > > Because I don't need the money. When its a matter of principle, money is not the object. Nor are some minor "hassles" really an obstruction either. > And the hassle is just not worth it unless they have enough assets > to experience devastation when it is all taken from them. But gosh: now you're saying you're in it for the money, you self- licking ice cream cone you. Despite the flapping of your jaws, the truth is quite transparently evident: you're simply failing to put your money where your mouth is. Classically, this is the second easiest way to spot a fake... > You could have saved lots of effort by just typing "WAAAH-WAAAH! MOMMY!" > > I bet you whined real good and got lots of cookies and candy from your > mommy when you wanted, didn't you. Probably still doing just that, based on > how much of your manipulative childish trolling and whining is done online > too. .....because the easiest way to spot an utter fake is the classical "Shoot The Messenger" ad hominem attack. Enjoy your useless screaming that you're not a luzer 'Nobody'. Frankly, the world doesn't give a damn. -hh |