In Oxford advanced learner dictionary it is analects with one l. But, when looking further down I now do find annals.
Even the "limited" spellchecker conform it. So my spellchecker is smarter than me ;-) That makes me? Very limited, or an "ass/æs/ animal of horse family with long ears and a tuft of the end of its tail". Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Maas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 4. april 2006 14:12 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The anals of an embarrased photographer, part 128 (Was PESO: > Remake - Aristocrat in red) > > Tim, > > I think you meant annals, anals is something else entirely. > > -Adam > > > Tim Øsleby wrote: > > >Not change # in headline. > > > >This is as ugly, ass can be. > >This list _is_ the dark side ;-) > > > >Seriously. Isn't it "real English" to use anals as short for analects? > >My spellchecker says no, but it is very limited. > > > > > >Tim > >Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > > > >Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds > >(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: 4. april 2006 02:26 > >>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >>Subject: The anals of an embarrased photographer, part 127 (Was PESO: > >>Remake - Aristocrat in red) > >> > >>I had another look at the remake I submitted yesterday. > >> > >>And, now I am embarrassed by my lack of judgement. It is not total crap, > >>but > >>it sure is very muddy looking. > >>Ok, it is crappy. I did ruin it. Just consider it a sketch that left > >>office > >>by accident. > >> > >>When doing the sandwich my mind was in single track mode. I was obsessed > >>by > >>getting the puzzle bits together, so I kind of forgot to look at general > >>"picture". > >> > >>Besides being muddy, it also had a big dust spot. I saw that, but simply > >>forgot to do something about it. Not an unforgivable sin, but I'm not > >>proud > >>of that either. > >> > >>The worst thing is that I can't claim to have been drinking and > >>photoshopping. > >> > >>Go on, laugh and make jokes on my expense, but if you do, you also have > to > >>give me a warm "we all do mistakes" hug. > >>(I really don't expect any of those hugs, I know you are evil people and > >>will do whatever you can to rub it in ;-)) > >> > >>When you are done, I will have another go at the motif, waiting for the > >>right moment, trying to get it right "in camera" (if the bird is still > >>there). > >> > >> > >>Tim, the Muddy Norwegian. > >> > >> > >> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: Tim Øsleby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Sent: 3. april 2006 02:11 > >>>To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > >>>Subject: PESO: Remake - Aristocrat in red > >>> > >>>I have done a makeover on the Aristocrat in red picture. > >>>http://www.foto.no/cgi-bin/bildekritikk/vis_bilde.cgi?id=228580 > >>>This is a sandwich of three different exposures, all from the same > >>>standpoint, and from the same "session". > >>> > >>>The result is a "new" head ;-) and a improved(?) composition. > >>>This is the first time my hands have become dirty from working in PS. > >>>So I would really appreciate some comments on the result. > >>> > >>>Whatdoyuahthink? > >>>What about the photoshoping, anything I could have done better or > >>>different? > >>>Does it look "real"? > >>>And is it an improvement? Or could I have saved me the trouble? > >>>(The original is at a thumb below the picture for reference.) > >>> > >>>A lot of questions, but isn't that what life is, questions? > >>> > >>> > >>>Tim > >>>Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) > >>> > >>>Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds > >>>(Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
