Prev: Back-illumination doesn't seem very effective
Next: Park of the Wall
From: LOL! on 6 Aug 2010 23:18
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 19:35:55 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
wrote:

>"Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message
>news:jm4p565fvqhmvilna4648o22pav88o4m87(a)4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 17:09:03 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net>
>> wrote:
>> : "Scotius" <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> wrote in message
>> : news:9sto56d3um6a055ijt34a7as5k89lu98mh(a)4ax.com...
>> : > On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:38:16 -0500, Cynicor
>> : > <j..tru.p.i.n...(a)speakeasy.net> wrote:
>> : >
>> : >>NYC has rules now that you can't photograph from a bridge. However,
>> : >>there are no rules saying you can't photograph the bridge itself. I
>> took
>> : >>this just off the Belt Parkway tonight, and fought off a rat between
>> my
>> : >>tripod and my car door on the way back!
>> : >>
>> : >>http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44216856
>> : >>http://trupin.smugmug.com/gallery/954699/1/44220725
>> : >
>> : > Anyone trained to place explosives in even the most basic way
>> : > could take one look at a bridge and know exactly where to put them,
>> : > I'm sure.
>> : > Therefore, the rules regarding not being able to take pictures
>> : > from bridges are not for the reasons they claim they are.
>> :
>> :
>> : NYC has no rule prohibiting photos from or of bridges. The MTA has such
>> a
>> : rule as to their bridges, but it is rarely enforced. Also their is no
>> MTA
>> : bridge that has a walkway..
>>
>> How do you account for the prohibition of photography on the George
>> Washington
>> Bridge?
>>
>> My wife is afraid to drive on the bridge, so we have an understood
>> division of
>> labor: I drive, and she takes the obligatory pictures of the "no
>> photography"
>> signs. ;^)
>
>
>
>It is not a NYC bridge. It comes under the jurisdiction of the Port
>Authority. Although they have lots of no photography signs, the rule is not
>usually enforced. Also taking pictures of the bridge itself is not
>prohibited., but may be restricted. the non-stated reason is revenue
>generation.
>
>http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/media-access.html
>
>Correction:
>In my prior message I typed referred to "MTA." I should have stated that
>Photography is not addressed directly in the regulations, however signs are
>posted that prohibit photography. (You figure that one out.)
>
>Any inconvenience that may have been caused by this error is deeply
>regretted.

Hey! Here's a NOVEL idea. How about if you crapshooting fucks obey those
"no photography allowed" signs and go shoot something else? Then maybe you
won't have 20,000 photos of the very same images that ever other
crapshooting tourist has in their collections too.

Just an idea.

<eye-roll>

LOL!

From: SneakyP on 6 Aug 2010 23:28
Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in
news:md4p5695ank5ip2gl4edt4fhku5bn6ukro(a)4ax.com:

> On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:59:33 -0400, Scotius <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> wrote:

>: Therefore, the rules regarding not being able to take pictures
>: from bridges are not for the reasons they claim they are.
>
> Of course they're not. Undoubtedly they're so that the photographer
> can't show the public how poorly the bridges are maintained.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/04/nyregion/the-city-engineers-sued-over-bridge-death.html
--
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

From: LOL! on 6 Aug 2010 23:33
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 22:15:48 -0500, SneakyP
<48umofa02(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> wrote:

>
>--
>SneakyP
>To email me, you know what to do.

I've always thought this hilarious. Now who on earth would *EVER* want to
email you. Too fuckin' funny. What signs of desperation you show.

LOL!


From: Peter on 7 Aug 2010 05:57
"SneakyP" <48umofa02(a)WHITELISTONLYsneakemail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DCCE22ECDC348umofa02sneakemailc(a)127.0.0.1...
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in
> news:4c5c9c73$0$5492$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com:
>
>
>>
>> Correction:
>> In my prior message I typed referred to "MTA." I should have stated
>> that Photography is not addressed directly in the regulations, however
>> signs are posted that prohibit photography. (You figure that one out.)
>>
>> Any inconvenience that may have been caused by this error is deeply
>> regretted.
>>
>
> Another possibility is that maybe picture takers would have slowed or
> stopped
> traffic?
>


Not when walking underneath the bridge on public property.

--
Peter

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Back-illumination doesn't seem very effective
Next: Park of the Wall