From: Robert Coe on
On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:20:57 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:52:51 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote:
: > : Pete wrote:
:
: > : > "A couple of flower macros for you to enjoy (and/or critisize)."
: > : >
: > : > I enjoyed them (thanks Robert S).
: > : >
: > : > This is a photography newsgroup not an English lesson.
: > :
: > :
: > : There should be an apostrophe after the word "newsgroup"....! :-)
: >
: > Actually, the word you were groping for there is "comma".
:
: No groping at all: Just seeing if anyone knew the difference and was
: paying attention; I wasn't! .... :-)
:
: Besides, you left out the more interesting target:
:
: > Not to criticalicate anything, though....

Well, I think I'd have said "criticalicize", but ...

Bob
From: Robert Coe on
On Mon, 31 May 2010 23:32:55 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca>
wrote:
:
: "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message
: news:2010053123493461221-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid...
: > On 2010-05-31 23:31:54 +0100, Dudley Hanks said:
: >
: >> "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message
: >> news:80d806leqf30v8ep1q2aqjgq3d3lr84asu(a)4ax.com...
: >>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:26:08 GMT, "MC" <any(a)any.any> wrote:
: >>> : Richard wrote:
: >>> :
: >>> : > "MC" <any(a)any.any> wrote in message
: >>> : > news:xn0gur32t1mhtg000(a)news.virginmedia.com...
: >>> : > > Robert Spanjaard wrote:
: >>> : > >
: >>> : > > > A couple of flower macros for you to enjoy (and/or critisize).
: >>> : > > >
: >>> : > > > They might do well in the Wallpaper Shootin too, especially 4
: >>> and
: >>> : > > > 5. But I already submitted a different shot.
: >>> : > > >
: >>> : > > > http://www.arumes.com/temp/macro/
: >>> : > >
: >>> : > > You should first ask yourself, as should every photographer who
: >>> : > > wishes to put their photos on public dispaly (let alone
: >>> unashemedly
: >>> : > > publicise the websites containing said pictures), are they really
: >>> : > > worthy of public scrutiny? You must, firstly, be your own
: >>> harshest
: >>> : > > critic and then (and only then) allow others to critcise.
: >>> : > >
: >>> : > > May I ask why you think these are worthy?
: >>> : > >
: >>> : > > MC
: >>> : >
: >>> : > No. If you have to ask permission to ask a question, you are not
: >>> : > worthy of asking the question.
: >>> : >
: >>> : > Richard
: >>> :
: >>> : Hmm... I was not asking permission in the context of asking permission
: >>> : but merely as vehicle of politeness.
: >>>
: >>> Politeness? You were sneering at the man's photos. Where's the
: >>> politeness in
: >>> that?
: >>>
: >>> Bob
: >>
: >> Perhaps, before posting a criticism to a public group for scrutiny, the
: >> critic should ask himself whether or not the grammar, spelling, syntax,
: >> tone, etc of his message is worthy of public attention...
: >>
: >> He really should be his own harshest critic...
: >>
: >> Take Care,
: >> Dudley
: >
: > The OP wrote:
: > "A couple of flower macros for you to enjoy (and/or critisize)."
: >
: > I enjoyed them (thanks Robert S).
: >
: > This is a photography newsgroup not an English lesson.
: >
: > --
: > Pete
: >
:
: True, but it's a RECREATIONAL photo group...
:
: The idea behind usenet, as far as I understand, is for people to exchange
: ideas, techniques, etc, so each can learn from the experience / talents of
: others. The critic seemed to suggest that some arbitrary standard of
: proficiency needs to be attained prior to exhibiting ones work, yet
: displayed a woeful disregard for certain accepted linguistic standards.
:
: If others need meet his idea of graphic excellence in order to be welcomed,
: then perhaps he needs to live up to the standards others like for ease of
: understanding.
:
: "What's good for the goose, ..."

I believe it's "What's SAUCE for the goose ...". ;^)

Bob
From: Pete on
On 2010-06-01 01:20:57 +0100, John McWilliams said:

> Robert Coe wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:52:51 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>> : Pete wrote:
>
>> : > "A couple of flower macros for you to enjoy (and/or critisize)."
>> : > : > I enjoyed them (thanks Robert S).
>> : > : > This is a photography newsgroup not an English lesson.
>> : : : There should be an apostrophe after the word "newsgroup"....! :-)
>>
>> Actually, the word you were groping for there is "comma".
>
> No groping at all: Just seeing if anyone knew the difference and was
> paying attention; I wasn't! .... :-)

I should've groped for that comma. I get in a muddle, I thought comma
groping was something I ought to stop doing.

You could've written: there should be a catastrophe after the word
"newsgroup" :-)

> Besides, you left out the more interesting target:
>
> > Not to criticalicate anything, though....

An excellent word. No results from Google, which must be a first.

--
Pete

From: Pete on
On 2010-06-01 00:32:55 +0100, Dudley Hanks said:

> "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message
> news:2010053123493461221-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid...
>> On 2010-05-31 23:31:54 +0100, Dudley Hanks said:
>>
>>> "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message
>>> news:80d806leqf30v8ep1q2aqjgq3d3lr84asu(a)4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:26:08 GMT, "MC" <any(a)any.any> wrote:
>>>> : Richard wrote:
>>>> :
>>>> : > "MC" <any(a)any.any> wrote in message
>>>> : > news:xn0gur32t1mhtg000(a)news.virginmedia.com...
>>>> : > > Robert Spanjaard wrote:
>>>> : > >
>>>> : > > > A couple of flower macros for you to enjoy (and/or critisize).
>>>> : > > >
>>>> : > > > They might do well in the Wallpaper Shootin too, especially 4 and
>>>> : > > > 5. But I already submitted a different shot.
>>>> : > > >
>>>> : > > > http://www.arumes.com/temp/macro/
>>>> : > >
>>>> : > > You should first ask yourself, as should every photographer who
>>>> : > > wishes to put their photos on public dispaly (let alone unashemedly
>>>> : > > publicise the websites containing said pictures), are they really
>>>> : > > worthy of public scrutiny? You must, firstly, be your own harshest
>>>> : > > critic and then (and only then) allow others to critcise.
>>>> : > >
>>>> : > > May I ask why you think these are worthy?
>>>> : > >
>>>> : > > MC
>>>> : >
>>>> : > No. If you have to ask permission to ask a question, you are not
>>>> : > worthy of asking the question.
>>>> : >
>>>> : > Richard
>>>> :
>>>> : Hmm... I was not asking permission in the context of asking permission
>>>> : but merely as vehicle of politeness.
>>>>
>>>> Politeness? You were sneering at the man's photos. Where's the politeness in
>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> Perhaps, before posting a criticism to a public group for scrutiny, the
>>> critic should ask himself whether or not the grammar, spelling, syntax,
>>> tone, etc of his message is worthy of public attention...
>>>
>>> He really should be his own harshest critic...
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>>
>> The OP wrote:
>> "A couple of flower macros for you to enjoy (and/or critisize)."
>>
>> I enjoyed them (thanks Robert S).
>>
>> This is a photography newsgroup not an English lesson.
>>
>> --
>> Pete
>>
>
> True, but it's a RECREATIONAL photo group...
>
> The idea behind usenet, as far as I understand, is for people to
> exchange ideas, techniques, etc, so each can learn from the experience
> / talents of others. The critic seemed to suggest that some arbitrary
> standard of proficiency needs to be attained prior to exhibiting ones
> work, yet displayed a woeful disregard for certain accepted linguistic
> standards.
>
> If others need meet his idea of graphic excellence in order to be
> welcomed, then perhaps he needs to live up to the standards others like
> for ease of understanding.
>
> "What's good for the goose, ..."

Point taken. I didn't read the post that way because it gave me
something to think about for my own work.

--
Pete

From: tony cooper on
On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:52:51 -0700, John McWilliams
<jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote:

>Pete wrote:
>> On 2010-05-31 23:31:54 +0100, Dudley Hanks said:
>>
>>> "Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message
>>> news:80d806leqf30v8ep1q2aqjgq3d3lr84asu(a)4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 17:26:08 GMT, "MC" <any(a)any.any> wrote:
>>>> : Richard wrote:
>>>> :
>>>> : > "MC" <any(a)any.any> wrote in message
>>>> : > news:xn0gur32t1mhtg000(a)news.virginmedia.com...
>>>> : > > Robert Spanjaard wrote:
>>>> : > >
>>>> : > > > A couple of flower macros for you to enjoy (and/or critisize).
>>>> : > > >
>>>> : > > > They might do well in the Wallpaper Shootin too, especially 4
>>>> and
>>>> : > > > 5. But I already submitted a different shot.
>>>> : > > >
>>>> : > > > http://www.arumes.com/temp/macro/
>>>> : > >
>>>> : > > You should first ask yourself, as should every photographer who
>>>> : > > wishes to put their photos on public dispaly (let alone
>>>> unashemedly
>>>> : > > publicise the websites containing said pictures), are they really
>>>> : > > worthy of public scrutiny? You must, firstly, be your own
>>>> harshest
>>>> : > > critic and then (and only then) allow others to critcise.
>>>> : > >
>>>> : > > May I ask why you think these are worthy?
>>>> : > >
>>>> : > > MC
>>>> : >
>>>> : > No. If you have to ask permission to ask a question, you are not
>>>> : > worthy of asking the question.
>>>> : >
>>>> : > Richard
>>>> :
>>>> : Hmm... I was not asking permission in the context of asking permission
>>>> : but merely as vehicle of politeness.
>>>>
>>>> Politeness? You were sneering at the man's photos. Where's the
>>>> politeness in
>>>> that?
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>
>>> Perhaps, before posting a criticism to a public group for scrutiny,
>>> the critic should ask himself whether or not the grammar, spelling,
>>> syntax, tone, etc of his message is worthy of public attention...
>>>
>>> He really should be his own harshest critic...
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>>
>> The OP wrote:
>> "A couple of flower macros for you to enjoy (and/or critisize)."
>>
>> I enjoyed them (thanks Robert S).
>>
>> This is a photography newsgroup not an English lesson.
>
>
>There should be an apostrophe after the word "newsgroup"....! :-)

An example of Skitt's Law: Spelling or grammar flames always contain
spelling or grammar errors

You impropergatedly typed an ellipsis...one too many periods/full
stops.

>Not to criticalicate

That could be considered to be a nonce word.

>anything, though....


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida