Surely no one would suggest that if Ann lost a cat 20 years ago, and put up flyers with little Fluffy's photo on them, that she should consider herself a "published photographer" for the purposes of disqualifying herself from the contest, would they?
There are lots of other examples of "publishing" that shouldn't keep someone out of the contest: family newsletters that some put in Christmas cards, monthly church newsletters, that sort of thing. And, let's face it, there are some things that surely "go away" with the passage of time. If one (like this author) approaches the 1/2 century mark, would having a couple of photos published in their high school yearbook disqualify (shut up, I went to high school in my teens! <g>)? I would think they'd turn a blind eye to that, as well.
I'm sure that the intent of the rule is to stop "professional photographers" (whatever the hell they are) from submitting stuff.
Just my usual worthless meanderings... <vbg>
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If it's publicly visible then it's published, like a written note about a missing dog taped to a telegraph pole.
Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/features&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
