> I think a columnist in the Mercury News expressed it better last week; > "while a photograph doesn't lie, it can be selective as to which truth > is shown"
Sounds like some lawyers I know (not referring to Knarf) Kenneth Waller ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: John Dvorak (via Mike J's blog) > On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 07:12:31PM -0400, Christian wrote: >> Paul Stenquist wrote: >> > I guess it's just that Dvorak is stating the obvious. A photograph >> > isn't reality. It's just a photograph, subject to the whims of the >> > person who takes it and the person who processes it. We already knew >> > that. >> >> >> Well, duh. But how is that "shallow"? And why is Bob so angry about a >> stupid PC magazine column? It would seem that Bob does not agree with >> the content possibly even though you and I see it as "stating the >> obvious." >> >> I guess I'm just trying to understand the slew of negativity towards a >> column that, while obvious, I do agree with. > > > I think a columnist in the Mercury News expressed it better last week; > "while a photograph doesn't lie, it can be selective as to which truth > is shown" > > Dvorak's columns aren't philosophical tracts - they range from stating > the obvious (as in the one quoted) to totally missing the point, with > an occasional side trip into devil's advocacy to stir up controversy. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
