Re: I think I Need a Break
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Frank said and i majorly snipped: > > > So, I feel that I just don't have much to contribute > > to the list these days. Maybe a break is what I need, > > just to get my head back on straight. > > > > Besides, Caveman is back now, so he can provide comic > > relief. > > > > See ya later! > > > > cheers, > > frank > I'm off the last week in August Frank,and hope to do some serious > "me"photography(meaning > no > horses lol)if you want a walk around partner for a few hours let me know. > > Dave Dave -- I'll be in Toronto starting August 25th - staying with Frank at some point for a couple of days - hope to meet ya! annsan
Re: I think I Need a Break
Wait Frank, we're just about to start a discussion about Rick James dying. Norm (check ya offlist) frank theriault wrote: Well, boys and girls, I think it's time for a break. As you may have noticed, I haven't been posting much lately. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that I've quite frankly become bored and disinterested with equipment.
Re: I think I Need a Break
Sorry to see you go Frank but I know you'll be back. Nothing like a break to get you refreshed. Good luck buddy. Vic
Re: I think I Need a Break
No... Tom C wrote: Can the rest of you believe this guy? Tom C. From: Antonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: I think I Need a Break Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 23:20:54 +0200 Hi Frank, I know you and I have had our disagreements in the past but will be sorry to see you go. I understand entirely what you are saying and sympathise. This list seems a very intolerant place at times. Hope you have a good break. Antonio On 9/8/04 8:29 pm, "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, boys and girls, I think it's time for a break. > As you may have noticed, I haven't been posting much > lately. There are many reasons for this, but one of > them is that I've quite frankly become bored and > disinterested with equipment. I have all I need or > want or can afford, so reading about the resolutions > of various lenses, or histograms or RAW vs. Jpeg or > whatever just won't grab my attention anymore. > > So, I've been considering perhaps spending some time a > away anyway. > > I have to admit, though, that coming back from the > weekend and seeing the lengthy discussion about HCB > devolve into attacking photojournalism and street > photography (a term I don't like), seeing those > photographing styles compared to pornography, well, it > just left a bad taste in my mouth. > > Fine. Not everyone is into one of the types of > photography that that I enjoy. I appreciate that. > The funny thing is, though, that I can still > appreciate those other types of photography that maybe > I'm not so good at. In fact, maybe I appreciate them > more, because I can't do them. I don't go around > trashing people because they take photos that I can't. > > > I suppose the last straw is the suggestion that I and > another who recently left the list are somehow > "untouchable", and that there's something of an > editorial chill regarding making negative comments > about our photos. > > I hope that isn't true - I hadn't (until now) > perceived that it is, but the mere suggestion is > hurtful. It kind of makes me not want to post PAWs > anymore, and quite frankly, that's pretty much what I > do here these days: post and comment on PAWs. > > Let's face it, guys, I've never bought a new Pentax in > my life. Half my lenses are third party lenses. My > newest piece of Pentax equipment is over 20 years old. > It's pretty much an accident that I ended up a > Pentaxian anyway - had it been a Minolta or Konica or > whatever that was purchased in that yard sale (that > re-introduced me to photography) I'd be on another > list right now (if at all). The camera that I use the > most these days is my Leica, and I'm on a few of Leica > lists, where the style of photography that I now enjoy > participating in is received somewhat more > sympathetically than it is here. I can get my jollies > elsewhere. > > So, I feel that I just don't have much to contribute > to the list these days. Maybe a break is what I need, > just to get my head back on straight. > > Besides, Caveman is back now, so he can provide comic > relief. > > See ya later! > > cheers, > frank > > > > > > = > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist > fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > __ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca >
Re: I think I Need a Break
I like to think of myself as a non-raving lunatic thank you very much. It keeps them guessing... Norm Baugher wrote: Well, at GFM, we found out that most of us are raving lunatics. Norm Don Sanderson wrote: I wonder what it'd be like to compare "e-mail personalities" to the real person?
Re: I think I Need a Break
Aww, you'll be back. frank theriault wrote: Well, boys and girls, I think it's time for a break. As you may have noticed, I haven't been posting much lately. There are many reasons for this, but one of them is that I've quite frankly become bored and disinterested with equipment. I have all I need or want or can afford, so reading about the resolutions of various lenses, or histograms or RAW vs. Jpeg or whatever just won't grab my attention anymore. So, I've been considering perhaps spending some time a away anyway. I have to admit, though, that coming back from the weekend and seeing the lengthy discussion about HCB devolve into attacking photojournalism and street photography (a term I don't like), seeing those photographing styles compared to pornography, well, it just left a bad taste in my mouth. Fine. Not everyone is into one of the types of photography that that I enjoy. I appreciate that. The funny thing is, though, that I can still appreciate those other types of photography that maybe I'm not so good at. In fact, maybe I appreciate them more, because I can't do them. I don't go around trashing people because they take photos that I can't. I suppose the last straw is the suggestion that I and another who recently left the list are somehow "untouchable", and that there's something of an editorial chill regarding making negative comments about our photos. I hope that isn't true - I hadn't (until now) perceived that it is, but the mere suggestion is hurtful. It kind of makes me not want to post PAWs anymore, and quite frankly, that's pretty much what I do here these days: post and comment on PAWs. Let's face it, guys, I've never bought a new Pentax in my life. Half my lenses are third party lenses. My newest piece of Pentax equipment is over 20 years old. It's pretty much an accident that I ended up a Pentaxian anyway - had it been a Minolta or Konica or whatever that was purchased in that yard sale (that re-introduced me to photography) I'd be on another list right now (if at all). The camera that I use the most these days is my Leica, and I'm on a few of Leica lists, where the style of photography that I now enjoy participating in is received somewhat more sympathetically than it is here. I can get my jollies elsewhere. So, I feel that I just don't have much to contribute to the list these days. Maybe a break is what I need, just to get my head back on straight. Besides, Caveman is back now, so he can provide comic relief. See ya later! cheers, frank = "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
RE: I think I Need a Break
Now Ann, many of us guys were born at night, but Don > -Original Message- > From: Ann Sanfedele [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 6:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I think I Need a Break > > > Norm Baugher wrote: > > > > Well, at GFM, we found out that most of us are raving lunatics. > > Norm > > > > Don Sanderson wrote: > > > > >I wonder what it'd be like to compare "e-mail personalities" > to the real > > >person? > > > > > The guys, you mean . All us girls are perfectly > sane :) > > annsan >
Re: I think I Need a Break
Norm Baugher wrote: > > Well, at GFM, we found out that most of us are raving lunatics. > Norm > > Don Sanderson wrote: > > >I wonder what it'd be like to compare "e-mail personalities" to the real > >person? > > The guys, you mean . All us girls are perfectly sane :) annsan
Re: I think I Need a Break
Cheer up dude. It'll be OK. Hope you come back refreshed. Robert - Original Message - From: "frank theriault" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "pdml" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 2:29 PM Subject: I think I Need a Break > Well, boys and girls, I think it's time for a break. > As you may have noticed, I haven't been posting much > lately. There are many reasons for this, but one of > them is that I've quite frankly become bored and > disinterested with equipment. I have all I need or > want or can afford, so reading about the resolutions > of various lenses, or histograms or RAW vs. Jpeg or > whatever just won't grab my attention anymore. > > So, I've been considering perhaps spending some time a > away anyway. > > I have to admit, though, that coming back from the > weekend and seeing the lengthy discussion about HCB > devolve into attacking photojournalism and street > photography (a term I don't like), seeing those > photographing styles compared to pornography, well, it > just left a bad taste in my mouth. > > Fine. Not everyone is into one of the types of > photography that that I enjoy. I appreciate that. > The funny thing is, though, that I can still > appreciate those other types of photography that maybe > I'm not so good at. In fact, maybe I appreciate them > more, because I can't do them. I don't go around > trashing people because they take photos that I can't. > > > I suppose the last straw is the suggestion that I and > another who recently left the list are somehow > "untouchable", and that there's something of an > editorial chill regarding making negative comments > about our photos. > > I hope that isn't true - I hadn't (until now) > perceived that it is, but the mere suggestion is > hurtful. It kind of makes me not want to post PAWs > anymore, and quite frankly, that's pretty much what I > do here these days: post and comment on PAWs. > > Let's face it, guys, I've never bought a new Pentax in > my life. Half my lenses are third party lenses. My > newest piece of Pentax equipment is over 20 years old. > It's pretty much an accident that I ended up a > Pentaxian anyway - had it been a Minolta or Konica or > whatever that was purchased in that yard sale (that > re-introduced me to photography) I'd be on another > list right now (if at all). The camera that I use the > most these days is my Leica, and I'm on a few of Leica > lists, where the style of photography that I now enjoy > participating in is received somewhat more > sympathetically than it is here. I can get my jollies > elsewhere. > > So, I feel that I just don't have much to contribute > to the list these days. Maybe a break is what I need, > just to get my head back on straight. > > Besides, Caveman is back now, so he can provide comic > relief. > > See ya later! > > cheers, > frank > > > > > > = > "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer > > __ > Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca > >
RE: I think I Need a Break
Jeez, I sent that and it never appeared in my email! Thought it got lost and I was relieved. Oh well, everyone at work today (except me) was screaming at each other. I hate to see the equivalent of that here on the list, it's way too fun here when the fires are out. ;-) Don (aspiring to be a raving lunatic) > -Original Message- > From: Norm Baugher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 6:24 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I think I Need a Break > > > Well, at GFM, we found out that most of us are raving lunatics. > Norm > > Don Sanderson wrote: > > >I wonder what it'd be like to compare "e-mail personalities" to the real > >person? > > > > >
Re: I think I Need a Break
BTW, you seem to to be able to speak to others in the most insulting of ways and consider it normal. Others simply express and opinion and you call it a flame. I don't think there was a flame war over HCB at all. Tom C. From: Antonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: I think I Need a Break Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:35:00 +0200 Whiping up another lynch Mob I see Tom. Given that you were one of the most iintolerant in the recent HCB threads perhaps you should reflect on what Frank has said rather than initiating yet another flame war. A. On 10/8/04 12:19 am, "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can the rest of you believe this guy? > > > > Tom C.
Re: I think I Need a Break
I'm acting like you... only FAR LESS SO. Tom C. From: Antonio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: I think I Need a Break Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 00:35:00 +0200 Whiping up another lynch Mob I see Tom. Given that you were one of the most iintolerant in the recent HCB threads perhaps you should reflect on what Frank has said rather than initiating yet another flame war. A. On 10/8/04 12:19 am, "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can the rest of you believe this guy? > > > > Tom C.
Re: I think I Need a Break
Well, at GFM, we found out that most of us are raving lunatics. Norm Don Sanderson wrote: I wonder what it'd be like to compare "e-mail personalities" to the real person?
Re: I think I Need a Break
Norm Baugher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Don Sanderson wrote: > >>I wonder what it'd be like to compare "e-mail personalities" to the real >>person? >> >Well, at GFM, we found out that most of us are raving lunatics. ...and the rest are quiet, peaceful lunatics! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: I think I Need a Break
> > I think it is utterly shameful and a disgrace that somebody chose to > personalise things by picking on Frank and Shel's photographs . . . But that's not what happened. Frank & Shel first got mentioned by name as examples of photographers whose work is generally met with acclaim (apart from Frank getting teased about out-of-focus or blurry shots). It takes a pretty twisted interpretation to regard that as an attack. Furthermore, their names were picked at least partly because this all started out as a discussion of HCB and his style of photography, and Shel & Frank are probably the closest the list has to practitioners in that style. There have been some fairly intemperate remarks made about the whole "street photography" school in general, but I don't think those were directed specifically at list members.
Re: I think I Need a Break
Well, at GFM, we found out that most of us are raving lunatics. Norm Don Sanderson wrote: I wonder what it'd be like to compare "e-mail personalities" to the real person?
Re: I think I Need a Break
This list is like a bar, don't forget. Frank's gone out for some air. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: I think I Need a Break
Hi Bob and everyone, Some how "I think it is utterly shameful and a disgrace" and "Cheers, Bob", don't seem to go together too well.Except on this list. I have been amazed at the variety of opinion and viewpoint that this list encompasses. Even though it only consists of e-mails there are some people here I've taken a very strong liking to, and some I feel a dislike for! I wonder what it'd be like to compare "e-mail personalities" to the real person? Some of you have had that opportunity, I have not. I would guess that many of the people here would not be at all what I expected, if I use their e-mails as an indicator of their true personalities. I have recieved several responses to my posts that could be taken as very nasty, if *I* chose to take them that way. With the exception of one person who is rude by choice (who I now pretty much ignore), I have chosen to let other comments roll off my back. I prefer to think of them as simply mis-understandings or "communication gaps" due to culture, age or personal opinion. You all know what they say about opinions,I have one of *those* too. Personally I get the feeling that Shel and Frank might get singled out because they ARE respected and liked, not the other way around. Frank: How can people NOT poke fun at someone who allows himself to be seen in pink bunny ears? ;-) PLEASE don't leave the list because a "few of many" show disrespect. If that was my criteria for leaving somewhere there would be no where left on this planet for me. I like SOME of your photos, others I don't much care for, that's just *my opinion*, doesn't really count for sh*t. I do try to have the good grace not to "condemn" anyone for their work, but I will comment or "criticize", ...if they *ask* for comments and criticism. I do very much agree with Bobs statement: "But there's absolutely no need to personalise your dislike..". This list is one example of how many VERY different people can get along. For me that means swallowing some things I don't like, or agree with, but in the long run it seems well worth it. My apologies for all the wind. "Don the Verbose" > -Original Message----- > From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 3:01 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I think I Need a Break > > > Hi, > > [...] > > > Fine. Not everyone is into one of the types of > > photography that that I enjoy. I appreciate that. > > The funny thing is, though, that I can still > > appreciate those other types of photography that maybe > > I'm not so good at. In fact, maybe I appreciate them > > more, because I can't do them. I don't go around > > trashing people because they take photos that I can't. > > I think it is utterly shameful and a disgrace that somebody chose to > personalise things by picking on Frank and Shel's photographs. Frank > and Shel have been major factors in stimulating a very broad range of > different discussions on this list over the last few years. > > There are other people on the list who also receive unstinting praise, > and never a word of criticism, for work in a different style than Frank > and Shel's. These other people's work is stuff that I personally think is > pedestrian at best, and boring at worst. But since it is not > really my type > of photography there is nothing at all for anyone to gain by me > saying anything > about it. > > This does not mean that there is some kind of peer group pressure not > to criticise that stuff, it's just that people may choose not to. If > somebody receives endless praise for their photos of furtwangling, but > I think they're indistinguishable from the rather dismal amateur section > of 'Furtwangler Monthly', and anyway all pictures of furtwangling are the > same, this doesn't mean I'm too peer-pressured or scared to speak > out against > the pretentiousness of furtwangler photos, it just means I can't be > bothered, or I realise that other people find furtwangling a subject of > infinite fascination, so I let them be. > > If you don't like photojournalism, fine. > If you don't like 'street photography', fine. > If you don't like pictures of birds on twigs with catchlights, fine. > If you don't like pictures of motor racing, fine. > If you don't like pictures of caterpillars, fine. > If you don't like pictures of Mono Lake, fine. > If you don't like pictures of kittens, fine. > If you don't like pictures of children, fine. > If you don't like pictures of flowers, fine. > If you don't like landscapes, fine. > If you don'
Re: I think I Need a Break
>> I wouldn't like furtwanglography, if I knew what it was. ;) >If you have to ask what it is, you wouldn't understand. > >tv I tried it once but my furt got caught during a particularly vicious wangle... Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|www.macads.co.uk/snaps _
RE: I think I Need a Break
If you have to ask what it is, you wouldn't understand. tv > -Original Message- > From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 09, 2004 4:16 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I think I Need a Break > > I wouldn't like furtwanglography, if I knew what it was. ;) > > > Tom C. > > > > > > >From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: I think I Need a Break > >Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:01:14 +0100 > > > >Hi, > > > >[...] > > > > > Fine. Not everyone is into one of the types of photography that > > > that I enjoy. I appreciate that. > > > The funny thing is, though, that I can still appreciate > those other > > > types of photography that maybe I'm not so good at. In > fact, maybe > > > I appreciate them more, because I can't do them. I don't > go around > > > trashing people because they take photos that I can't. > > > >I think it is utterly shameful and a disgrace that somebody chose to > >personalise things by picking on Frank and Shel's photographs. Frank > >and Shel have been major factors in stimulating a very broad > range of > >different discussions on this list over the last few years. > > > >There are other people on the list who also receive > unstinting praise, > >and never a word of criticism, for work in a different style > than Frank > >and Shel's. These other people's work is stuff that I > personally think > >is pedestrian at best, and boring at worst. But since it is > not really > >my type of photography there is nothing at all for anyone to > gain by me > >saying anything about it. > > > >This does not mean that there is some kind of peer group > pressure not > >to criticise that stuff, it's just that people may choose not to. If > >somebody receives endless praise for their photos of > furtwangling, but > >I think they're indistinguishable from the rather dismal amateur > >section of 'Furtwangler Monthly', and anyway all pictures of > >furtwangling are the same, this doesn't mean I'm too > peer-pressured or > >scared to speak out against the pretentiousness of > furtwangler photos, > >it just means I can't be bothered, or I realise that other > people find > >furtwangling a subject of infinite fascination, so I let them be. > > > >If you don't like photojournalism, fine. > >If you don't like 'street photography', fine. > >If you don't like pictures of birds on twigs with catchlights, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of motor racing, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of caterpillars, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of Mono Lake, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of kittens, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of children, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of flowers, fine. > >If you don't like landscapes, fine. > >If you don't like pictures of ducks, fine. > >If you don't like furtwanglography, fine. > > > >But there's absolutely no need to personalise your dislike > in the way > >that it's been personalised towards Shel and Frank. If you > don't like > >their style of photography, fine. There are plenty of people > here who > >don't like your style of photography either, but we live with it > >because it's a pluralistic world and we are here - or at least I > >thought we were - to share and enjoy the whole subject. > > > >-- > >Cheers, > > Bob > > > I > > >
Re: I think I Need a Break
I wouldn't like furtwanglography, if I knew what it was. ;) Tom C. From: Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: I think I Need a Break Date: Mon, 9 Aug 2004 21:01:14 +0100 Hi, [...] > Fine. Not everyone is into one of the types of > photography that that I enjoy. I appreciate that. > The funny thing is, though, that I can still > appreciate those other types of photography that maybe > I'm not so good at. In fact, maybe I appreciate them > more, because I can't do them. I don't go around > trashing people because they take photos that I can't. I think it is utterly shameful and a disgrace that somebody chose to personalise things by picking on Frank and Shel's photographs. Frank and Shel have been major factors in stimulating a very broad range of different discussions on this list over the last few years. There are other people on the list who also receive unstinting praise, and never a word of criticism, for work in a different style than Frank and Shel's. These other people's work is stuff that I personally think is pedestrian at best, and boring at worst. But since it is not really my type of photography there is nothing at all for anyone to gain by me saying anything about it. This does not mean that there is some kind of peer group pressure not to criticise that stuff, it's just that people may choose not to. If somebody receives endless praise for their photos of furtwangling, but I think they're indistinguishable from the rather dismal amateur section of 'Furtwangler Monthly', and anyway all pictures of furtwangling are the same, this doesn't mean I'm too peer-pressured or scared to speak out against the pretentiousness of furtwangler photos, it just means I can't be bothered, or I realise that other people find furtwangling a subject of infinite fascination, so I let them be. If you don't like photojournalism, fine. If you don't like 'street photography', fine. If you don't like pictures of birds on twigs with catchlights, fine. If you don't like pictures of motor racing, fine. If you don't like pictures of caterpillars, fine. If you don't like pictures of Mono Lake, fine. If you don't like pictures of kittens, fine. If you don't like pictures of children, fine. If you don't like pictures of flowers, fine. If you don't like landscapes, fine. If you don't like pictures of ducks, fine. If you don't like furtwanglography, fine. But there's absolutely no need to personalise your dislike in the way that it's been personalised towards Shel and Frank. If you don't like their style of photography, fine. There are plenty of people here who don't like your style of photography either, but we live with it because it's a pluralistic world and we are here - or at least I thought we were - to share and enjoy the whole subject. -- Cheers, Bob I
Re: I think I Need a Break
Hi, [...] > Fine. Not everyone is into one of the types of > photography that that I enjoy. I appreciate that. > The funny thing is, though, that I can still > appreciate those other types of photography that maybe > I'm not so good at. In fact, maybe I appreciate them > more, because I can't do them. I don't go around > trashing people because they take photos that I can't. I think it is utterly shameful and a disgrace that somebody chose to personalise things by picking on Frank and Shel's photographs. Frank and Shel have been major factors in stimulating a very broad range of different discussions on this list over the last few years. There are other people on the list who also receive unstinting praise, and never a word of criticism, for work in a different style than Frank and Shel's. These other people's work is stuff that I personally think is pedestrian at best, and boring at worst. But since it is not really my type of photography there is nothing at all for anyone to gain by me saying anything about it. This does not mean that there is some kind of peer group pressure not to criticise that stuff, it's just that people may choose not to. If somebody receives endless praise for their photos of furtwangling, but I think they're indistinguishable from the rather dismal amateur section of 'Furtwangler Monthly', and anyway all pictures of furtwangling are the same, this doesn't mean I'm too peer-pressured or scared to speak out against the pretentiousness of furtwangler photos, it just means I can't be bothered, or I realise that other people find furtwangling a subject of infinite fascination, so I let them be. If you don't like photojournalism, fine. If you don't like 'street photography', fine. If you don't like pictures of birds on twigs with catchlights, fine. If you don't like pictures of motor racing, fine. If you don't like pictures of caterpillars, fine. If you don't like pictures of Mono Lake, fine. If you don't like pictures of kittens, fine. If you don't like pictures of children, fine. If you don't like pictures of flowers, fine. If you don't like landscapes, fine. If you don't like pictures of ducks, fine. If you don't like furtwanglography, fine. But there's absolutely no need to personalise your dislike in the way that it's been personalised towards Shel and Frank. If you don't like their style of photography, fine. There are plenty of people here who don't like your style of photography either, but we live with it because it's a pluralistic world and we are here - or at least I thought we were - to share and enjoy the whole subject. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: I think I Need a Break
Frank said and i majorly snipped: > So, I feel that I just don't have much to contribute > to the list these days. Maybe a break is what I need, > just to get my head back on straight. > > Besides, Caveman is back now, so he can provide comic > relief. > > See ya later! > > cheers, > frank I'm off the last week in August Frank,and hope to do some serious "me"photography(meaning no horses lol)if you want a walk around partner for a few hours let me know. Dave
Re: I think I Need a Break
- Original Message - From: "frank theriault" Subject: I think I Need a Break > > I suppose the last straw is the suggestion that I and > another who recently left the list are somehow > "untouchable", and that there's something of an > editorial chill regarding making negative comments > about our photos. > > I hope that isn't true - I hadn't (until now) > perceived that it is, but the mere suggestion is > hurtful. It kind of makes me not want to post PAWs > anymore, and quite frankly, that's pretty much what I > do here these days: post and comment on PAWs. Stick around Frank. Your photos are out of focus crap, and the only way you will get better is to keep reading. There, feel better now? William Robb
