Photo of Historical Center
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Hi , Cheap sony and panasonic Hifi
Next: LI-50B
From: bugbear on 27 Apr 2010 04:40 Pete wrote: > On 2010-04-26 23:22:19 +0100, tony cooper said: > >> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:18:39 +0100, Pete >> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >> >>> On 2010-04-26 19:42:14 +0100, rwalker said: >>> >>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:02:48 -0500, "mmyvusenet" >>>> <mmyvusenet(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Vance and Paul, thank you very much for the very interesting >>>>> answers, I also >>>>> did another photo I'm showing in the group. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> MMYV >>>>> http://www.mmyv.com >>>>> >>>> >>>> I like this next one in your album: >>>> >>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4551019563/in/photostream/ >>>> >>>> The interplay between the two violinists in the foreground is an >>>> attention grabber. >>> >>> I know that MMYV does not take me seriously so I hope someone else will >>> elucidate my observation: both pairs in the forground serve to >>> highlight the laughter on the face of the girl between them. I doubt >>> I'll ever manage to take such a powerful image. Stunning. >> >> This is a case where cross-posting makes sense. I did comment on this >> in much the same vein, but in alt.photography. Readers of this group >> only will not see that, and readers of that group only will not see >> this. These separate entries in each newsgroup are >> counter-productive. > > Which part of "elucidate my observation" did you not understand Tony? I > did not request that you invalidate my observation and sincere praise by > switching the discussion to posting style. Once again, you place your > personal issues above genuine compassion. I don't know what word you were groping for, but I suggest "elucidate" was NOT the word you wanted. Check a dictionary. "elucidate" means "clarify" BugBear
From: Pete on 27 Apr 2010 05:48 On 2010-04-27 09:40:23 +0100, bugbear said: > Pete wrote: >> On 2010-04-26 23:22:19 +0100, tony cooper said: >> >>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:18:39 +0100, Pete >>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> On 2010-04-26 19:42:14 +0100, rwalker said: >>>> >>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:02:48 -0500, "mmyvusenet" >>>>> <mmyvusenet(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Vance and Paul, thank you very much for the very interesting answers, I also >>>>>> did another photo I'm showing in the group. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> MMYV >>>>>> http://www.mmyv.com >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I like this next one in your album: >>>>> >>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4551019563/in/photostream/ >>>>> >>>>> The interplay between the two violinists in the foreground is an >>>>> attention grabber. >>>> >>>> I know that MMYV does not take me seriously so I hope someone else will >>>> elucidate my observation: both pairs in the forground serve to >>>> highlight the laughter on the face of the girl between them. I doubt >>>> I'll ever manage to take such a powerful image. Stunning. >>> >>> This is a case where cross-posting makes sense. I did comment on this >>> in much the same vein, but in alt.photography. Readers of this group >>> only will not see that, and readers of that group only will not see >>> this. These separate entries in each newsgroup are >>> counter-productive. >> >> Which part of "elucidate my observation" did you not understand Tony? I >> did not request that you invalidate my observation and sincere praise >> by switching the discussion to posting style. Once again, you place >> your personal issues above genuine compassion. > > I don't know what word you were groping for, but I suggest "elucidate" > was NOT the word you wanted. Check a dictionary. "elucidate" means "clarify" Yes, clarify. I was hoping that someone would make my observation clearer by using the correct words/terminology for the effect I was trying to describe. This is for two reasons: the OP might take it seriously if it was worded correctly by someone else and I would like to understand how to correctly describe the elements of his photo that have inspired me so much. I would appreciate it greatly if someone assists me with this. -- Pete
From: tony cooper on 27 Apr 2010 07:17 On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:48:39 +0100, Pete <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >On 2010-04-27 09:40:23 +0100, bugbear said: > >> Pete wrote: >>> On 2010-04-26 23:22:19 +0100, tony cooper said: >>> >>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:18:39 +0100, Pete >>>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2010-04-26 19:42:14 +0100, rwalker said: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:02:48 -0500, "mmyvusenet" >>>>>> <mmyvusenet(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vance and Paul, thank you very much for the very interesting answers, I also >>>>>>> did another photo I'm showing in the group. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> MMYV >>>>>>> http://www.mmyv.com >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I like this next one in your album: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4551019563/in/photostream/ >>>>>> >>>>>> The interplay between the two violinists in the foreground is an >>>>>> attention grabber. >>>>> >>>>> I know that MMYV does not take me seriously so I hope someone else will >>>>> elucidate my observation: both pairs in the forground serve to >>>>> highlight the laughter on the face of the girl between them. I doubt >>>>> I'll ever manage to take such a powerful image. Stunning. >>>> >>>> This is a case where cross-posting makes sense. I did comment on this >>>> in much the same vein, but in alt.photography. Readers of this group >>>> only will not see that, and readers of that group only will not see >>>> this. These separate entries in each newsgroup are >>>> counter-productive. >>> >>> Which part of "elucidate my observation" did you not understand Tony? I >>> did not request that you invalidate my observation and sincere praise >>> by switching the discussion to posting style. Once again, you place >>> your personal issues above genuine compassion. >> >> I don't know what word you were groping for, but I suggest "elucidate" >> was NOT the word you wanted. Check a dictionary. "elucidate" means "clarify" > >Yes, clarify. I was hoping that someone would make my observation >clearer by using the correct words/terminology for the effect I was >trying to describe. This is for two reasons: the OP might take it >seriously if it was worded correctly by someone else and I would like >to understand how to correctly describe the elements of his photo that >have inspired me so much. > >I would appreciate it greatly if someone assists me with this. It seems that you wanted someone to "expand on" your statement, not to clarify it. Your statement was perfectly lucid as written but you seemed to think it did not adequately describe the strong points of the photo. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Tom Hise on 27 Apr 2010 07:44 On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:22:11 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >And that's why cross-posting, in this case, makes sense. You don't >have to subscribe to alt.photography to follow the replies of the >thread. The replies follow the thread regardless of where they are >posted. >Reading a cross-post doesn't get you involved in another group. You >are only involved in the thread that was posted to the group to which >you subscribe. No, because morons in alt.photography reply without removing the cross posting so pretty soon I'm reading alt.photography even without subscribing to it. In general, cross posted groups are very different in content and inhabitants from the groups I read. I don't want anything to do with them and resent someone who tries to change that. A post with a comma in the newsgroups header line is a sure sign of spam, a kook or a troll. -- Tom Hise
From: Pete on 27 Apr 2010 08:09
On 2010-04-27 12:17:14 +0100, tony cooper said: > On Tue, 27 Apr 2010 10:48:39 +0100, Pete > <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: > >> On 2010-04-27 09:40:23 +0100, bugbear said: >> >>> Pete wrote: >>>> On 2010-04-26 23:22:19 +0100, tony cooper said: >>>> >>>>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:18:39 +0100, Pete >>>>> <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2010-04-26 19:42:14 +0100, rwalker said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:02:48 -0500, "mmyvusenet" >>>>>>> <mmyvusenet(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vance and Paul, thank you very much for the very interesting answers, I also >>>>>>>> did another photo I'm showing in the group. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> MMYV >>>>>>>> http://www.mmyv.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I like this next one in your album: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/4551019563/in/photostream/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The interplay between the two violinists in the foreground is an >>>>>>> attention grabber. >>>>>> >>>>>> I know that MMYV does not take me seriously so I hope someone else will >>>>>> elucidate my observation: both pairs in the forground serve to >>>>>> highlight the laughter on the face of the girl between them. I doubt >>>>>> I'll ever manage to take such a powerful image. Stunning. >>>>> >>>>> This is a case where cross-posting makes sense. I did comment on this >>>>> in much the same vein, but in alt.photography. Readers of this group >>>>> only will not see that, and readers of that group only will not see >>>>> this. These separate entries in each newsgroup are >>>>> counter-productive. >>>> >>>> Which part of "elucidate my observation" did you not understand Tony? I >>>> did not request that you invalidate my observation and sincere praise >>>> by switching the discussion to posting style. Once again, you place >>>> your personal issues above genuine compassion. >>> >>> I don't know what word you were groping for, but I suggest "elucidate" >>> was NOT the word you wanted. Check a dictionary. "elucidate" means "clarify" >> >> Yes, clarify. I was hoping that someone would make my observation >> clearer by using the correct words/terminology for the effect I was >> trying to describe. This is for two reasons: the OP might take it >> seriously if it was worded correctly by someone else and I would like >> to understand how to correctly describe the elements of his photo that >> have inspired me so much. >> >> I would appreciate it greatly if someone assists me with this. > > It seems that you wanted someone to "expand on" your statement, not to > clarify it. Your statement was perfectly lucid as written but you > seemed to think it did not adequately describe the strong points of > the photo. Thanks for your explanation, Tony. I guessed my statement wasn't lucid because of the struggle I had putting my sentiments into words. Yes, I would like someone to expand on my statement. -- Pete |