Prev: NASA shuns Canon again
Next: Fueling your car with natural gas from home
From: Vance on 16 Jun 2010 04:22
On Jun 15, 4:59 pm, ROFLMAO! <rofl...(a)roflmao.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 16:05:31 -0700 (PDT), Vance <vance.l...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Bokeh is a quality descriptive of the out of focus portions of an
> >image.
>
> Correct. That is why the usage of "... when everything in the
> corners is blurred from bokeh ... " is more than a correct application of
> the term. Had the situation been explaining the blurred areas from
> camera-shake, or from a real-time visual image due to improperly focused
> eyes, etc. THEN and ONLY THEN would your picayune trolling have had any
> credibility. You do you have your lawyers all lined up, don't you? I'd tell
> you what's in store for you, but that would only be ruining the surprise.
> Especially after you have publicly admitted to stealing the photos of
> others and presenting them as you own. Do it again!
>
> ROFLMAO!

Can't defend your lies about your photography and skill? That's the
problem with lies, so little fact to back them up.

How about linking to, or referencing links in a way that anyone can
find any image that I have posted that is the work of someone else and
that I have claimed was mine? Can't do it? Some sort of admission
that I have claimed someone elses work as mine? Having problems?
That's the third or fourth time you've, as they say, asserted facts
not in evidence. Personally, I don't really care about your
accusations. They are only interesting because they may have a future
utility. Given your credibility, most people will want to see your
evidence and, of course, what they will get is any one of several
excuses why you aren't supplying it. With your personality structure,
the most likely one will be something along the lines of 'I'm not
going to do the work for you. I found it, you can too.' This would
satisfy your narcissisist personality characteristic of feeling
special and superior in some way and, in your mind, get you out of
proving your statements - which you can't do, anyway.

You remind me of the character that I think was played by Don Adams in
the old TV series 'Get Smart'. Maxwell Smart, a totally inept secret
agent, would get caught in a lie and his famous line of the time was
'Would you believe?' As for your law suit? You're boring me. No, I
haven't mentioned your threat to sue me to my attorney. Why would I?
There won't be anything for her to do until I hear from your
'lawyers' (snicker). Your puffing up a threat that doesn't concern me
with the promise of a surprise is like multiplying 0 (my concern) by
any number - you still end up with 0.

By the way, I'm right about bokeh and your wrong. Confusing bokeh
with blurring or being out of focus itself is a very noob thing and
your making that mistake is understandable.

Vance
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: NASA shuns Canon again
Next: Fueling your car with natural gas from home