Big cat really quite small

Re: Big cat really quite small

On May 14, 12:36 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:

>Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh?
Excellent stuff.

>Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like=

I do


You mean the flyers you give away for free on your site featuring your
crappy Bridezilla pics? yeah, that compares favorably with selling
photos to magazines.

Idiot.

Re: Big cat really quite small


"Annika1980" <annika1980@aol . com > wrote in message
news:4fbd3cd6-0077-4baf-b6b1-548900f3c194@34g2000hsf.googlegroups . com ...
On May 14, 12:36 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:

>Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh?
Excellent stuff.

>Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like
I do


You mean the flyers you give away for free on your site featuring your
crappy Bridezilla pics? yeah, that compares favorably with selling
photos to magazines.

Idiot.


---------------------------------------


He only hands out the Bridezilla pics at holloween. Let's face it, nobody is
going to pay for those pics !

Re: Big cat really quite small

Annika1980 wrote:
> On May 14, 12:36 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
>
>> Congratulation about selling some photos. Three of em Huh?
> Excellent stuff.
>
>> Not quite up there with publishing your own wedding industry magazines like
> I do
>
>
> You mean the flyers you give away for free on your site featuring your
> crappy Bridezilla pics? yeah, that compares favorably with selling
> photos to magazines.
>
> Idiot.

For a backwood jackass, you sure are an insult to the (in) breed.

When someone distributes a 48 page magazine City wide, it actually
qualify the owner of the magazine to be called a MAGAZINE PUBLISHER.

maybe 2 years ago it was a flyer. A year ago it was still a multi page
brochure. Today it's a full fledged magazine with a client base that
reads like a who's who of the restaurant and wedding industry.

While you were busy making an idiot out of yourself, I was quietly
chiseling away at a publishing business than now produces 3 magazines
and 10 regional calendars with some serious plans and prospects for when
my grand children eventually take it over.

Sort of makes your miserable life and disgusting efforts to gain a few
scored points look like the childish stupidity you've never grown out of.

In the words of Gordon Moat:

"I originally did not want to believe that Douglas MacDonald could get
anything other than a mess with his large prints. While I agree with him
that his lenses were a limit, his samples show the potential of digital
prints, though only in controlled post processing and printing
conditions. His results are not easy for just anyone to repeat. Skill,
experience, and very good equipment allow higher limits."

This from a world recognized printing and photography specialist. Who do
we believe? Him or the bunch of idiot rabble you managed to fool with
the suggestion bullshit beats brains - well it does in your neck of the
woods, that's for sure.

You bunch of losers couldn't organize a chook raffle in a hen house,
much less a coherent argument.

* w w w .annika1980 . com describes the criminal acts of Bret Douglas.

Re: Big cat really quite small

Alienjones wrote:
> In the words of Gordon Moat:
(snipped)

In the LATER words of Gordon Moat, as posted above, and in direct
reference to our Douglas:
"I should point out that the original requests for me to view image
samples did NOT come directly from Douglas."
(Douglas claimed he had made the request. He LIED.)
"I should also point out that the original claim that Douglas had was
that his algorithm did not LOSE any detail information. I am not sure
how or when that changed in the last year to a claim of adding or
increasing detail information; it is simply not possible regardless of
technology."
(Douglas claimed he could add "real detail", which of course Gordon
flatly and correctly refuted.)

Gordon then repeated:
"..I did NOT write the article for Douglas.."
and to clarify his point about Douglas not being able to do what he
said, he reinforced the salient point:
"Q: Did Douglas's images contain more detail information than the original?"
"A: NO, ONLY MORE PIXELS."

The emphasis is mine, but those are direct quotes, and the whole thread
may be found here:
* groups.google . com /group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse frm/th...
..so you can decide for yourself about Douglas and his lies.


Yes,
> This from a world recognized printing and photography specialist. Who do
> we believe?

Who indeed, Dougie. I'll go with Gordon. Which makes you a liar.

(O:

Re: Big cat really quite small

Mark Thomas wrote:
> Alienjones wrote:
>> In the words of Gordon Moat:
> (snipped)
>
> In the LATER words of Gordon Moat, as posted above, and in direct
> reference to our Douglas:
> "I should point out that the original requests for me to view image
> samples did NOT come directly from Douglas."
> (Douglas claimed he had made the request. He LIED.)
> "I should also point out that the original claim that Douglas had was
> that his algorithm did not LOSE any detail information. I am not sure
> how or when that changed in the last year to a claim of adding or
> increasing detail information; it is simply not possible regardless of
> technology."
> (Douglas claimed he could add "real detail", which of course Gordon
> flatly and correctly refuted.)
>
> Gordon then repeated:
> "..I did NOT write the article for Douglas.."
> and to clarify his point about Douglas not being able to do what he
> said, he reinforced the salient point:
> "Q: Did Douglas's images contain more detail information than the
> original?"
> "A: NO, ONLY MORE PIXELS."
>
> The emphasis is mine, but those are direct quotes, and the whole thread
> may be found here:
> * groups.google . com /group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse frm/th...
> ..so you can decide for yourself about Douglas and his lies.
>
>
> Yes,
>> This from a world recognized printing and photography specialist. Who
>> do we believe?
>
> Who indeed, Dougie. I'll go with Gordon. Which makes you a liar.
>
> (O:

There is a moot point about a file containing more information or detail
when it's larger. He and you are confusing image elements with data.
Silicon Graphics (the pioneers of digital imaging) describe more data in
an image file as more detail in a graphic.

If there were no more detail, it would be impossible to make a print any
larger than it's original size. The bit you fail (as usual) to
comprehend is the descriptions I use are not mine but those of the
inventors of digital images.

Who do we believe? A runaway hiding under an assumed name or the
inventors (Silicon Graphics) of digital images?

Very clearly you and a bunch of no hopers with no qualifications to make
the calls you do, have embarked on a terribly wrongful campaign to
discredit me when highly qualified people who have been given the
information about my enlargements with no requirement to do anything but
tell it like it is... Have all agreed it (was in 2005) a revolution in
digital imagery.

You can continue to clutch at straws and try to make out I lied by
saying the process "adds detail". To someone with no education in the
field of Science (you) I suppose the fact the people were stoned in the
dark ages for suggesting the world was round is lost on you.

Fact one.
a 10 pixel x 10 pixel image will yield only 100 dots of detail.

Fact two.
A 100 pixel x 100 pixel image will yield 1000 dots of detail.

If I add 90 pixels to a 100 pixel image, I am increasing the detail of
the image by 90%.

Many time in the past you have gotten far too many things wrong and told
far too many lies about me to let you get away with it here.

You have stalked me since 2004. Using classic on-line bullying tactics
you obviously learned in the school ground. Stop it. You are wrong in
what you say, do and how you behave. If you don't stop it now, I'll take
the second step with your ISP and get a court order to restrain you. How
will that go down with your new job?

You've been warned. Ignore it at your peril.

Re: Big cat really quite small

On May 15, 6:50 pm, Alienjones <Alienjo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Very clearly you and a bunch of no hopers with no qualifications to make
> the calls you do, have embarked on a terribly wrongful campaign to
> discredit me when highly qualified people who have been given the
> information about my enlargements with no requirement to do anything but
> tell it like it is... Have all agreed it (was in 2005) a revolution in
> digital imagery.

What revolution? There were much better enlarging programs available
back then then what you were doing. And it turns out that your Super-
Secret algorithm was no algorithm at all. In a rare display of
honesty, you once admitted that you had to go in and manually change
each pixel to get the desired effect.

See D-Mac, you can't even keep up with your own lies, they come so
fast and furious. Fortunately, we have some diligent folks here who
can.

You're a fraud.

Re: Big cat really quite small

Annika1980 wrote:
> On May 15, 6:50 pm, Alienjones <Alienjo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Very clearly you and a bunch of no hopers with no qualifications to make
>> the calls you do, have embarked on a terribly wrongful campaign to
>> discredit me when highly qualified people who have been given the
>> information about my enlargements with no requirement to do anything but
>> tell it like it is... Have all agreed it (was in 2005) a revolution in
>> digital imagery.
>
> What revolution? There were much better enlarging programs available
> back then then what you were doing. And it turns out that your Super-
> Secret algorithm was no algorithm at all. In a rare display of
> honesty, you once admitted that you had to go in and manually change
> each pixel to get the desired effect.
>
> See D-Mac, you can't even keep up with your own lies, they come so
> fast and furious. Fortunately, we have some diligent folks here who
> can.
>
> You're a fraud.
>

Stop rattling the keys Bret... We know your keyboard works, it's you who
doesn't!

Me a fraud? Not likely. More likely your criminal activities detailed
on * w w w .annika1980 . com mean you've been a fraud all your life.

Re: Big cat really quite small

On May 15, 11:36 pm, Alienjones <Alienjo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> Me a fraud?  Not likely.

Oh we've proven that on many occasions. Not only on these newsgroups,
but a fraud in your business dealings as well.
Remember your EBAY auction where you sold some stuff to print
calendars and claimed that you would no longer be producing them?

Hmmmm, what happened to that?

Re: Big cat really quite small

Annika1980 wrote:
> On May 15, 11:36 pm, Alienjones <Alienjo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Me a fraud? Not likely.
>
> Oh we've proven that on many occasions. Not only on these newsgroups,
> but a fraud in your business dealings as well.
> Remember your EBAY auction where you sold some stuff to print
> calendars and claimed that you would no longer be producing them?
>
> Hmmmm, what happened to that?
>

The person who bought the package, bought it for the equipment and
software it contained - a few hundred bucks for $3 grand's worth of
office equipment. He had no intention of making more calendars with it.

His letter is framed and hanging in my office, right beside my 10 ethics
of business. Do you know what an ethic is Bret?

Ethic 1.
Fairness for both parties in a business dealing.

You don't get 100% feedback on Ebay - gained over many years of selling
photographic wall art and camera gear with behavior like you
demonstrate. You get it by being honest and trustworthy.

You seem to be floundering a bit here Bret. Like a fool drowning in his
own shit and clutching at straws... Give it up mate.

The US authorities may think your case is a civil matter and your drug
dealing Sheriff might have refused to serve a restraining order on you
but my New York lawyers have no such restraints. They are instructed to
go for the throat and DO NOT NEGOTIATE.

I just sold some paintings they are trustee of the funds from. I'm sure
when you demonstrate your stupidity again, the little lady assigned to
protecting my publishing and copyright interests in the USA - who
incidentally is watching your behavior very closely, won't hesitate to
see a violation and do what she's paid for... Sue the swine without
regard for their financial position or any ability to recover costs.

This is your big chance at international recognition Bret... You can
take on an International magazine publisher (me) and get all the
publicity in the world for it... Smile for the birdie.

Re: Big cat really quite small


"Alienjones" <Alienjones@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g0kv2t$8r0$1@registered.motzarella.org...

>>> Me a fraud? Not likely.
> Ethic 1.
> Fairness for both parties in a business dealing.

<verbiage snipped>

Speaking of which, Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing
address yet?

A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing to do.
I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will if
necessary.

TIA

--
Jeff R.
PO Box 255
West Pennant Hills NSW 2125

Re: Big cat really quite small

Jeff R. wrote:
>
> "Alienjones" <Alienjones@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:g0kv2t$8r0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
>>>> Me a fraud? Not likely.
>> Ethic 1.
>> Fairness for both parties in a business dealing.
>
> <verbiage snipped>
>
> Speaking of which, Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing
> address yet?
>
> A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing to
> do.
> I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will if
> necessary.
>
> TIA
>
> --
> Jeff R.
> PO Box 255
> West Pennant Hills NSW 2125
>

Yeah right...
Here's a news flash for you fool.

Process servers won't serve a summons on a post box.

Don't worry mate. I'll get the NSW Police to accompany the server
delivering it as a community service to prevent violence.

That'll work.

Re: Big cat really quite small

Alienjones wrote:
> Jeff R. wrote:
>>
>> "Alienjones" <Alienjones@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:g0kv2t$8r0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>
>>>>> Me a fraud? Not likely.
>>> Ethic 1.
>>> Fairness for both parties in a business dealing.
>>
>> <verbiage snipped>
>>
>> Speaking of which, Doug, have you received (via these fora) my mailing
>> address yet?
>>
>> A simple acknowledgement - yes or no - would be the gentlemanly thing
>> to do.
>> I don't *want* to keep reposting it until you acknowledge, but I will if
>> necessary.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>> --
>> Jeff R.
>> PO Box 255
>> West Pennant Hills NSW 2125
>>
>
> Yeah right...
> Here's a news flash for you fool.
>
> Process servers won't serve a summons on a post box.
>
> Don't worry mate. I'll get the NSW Police to accompany the server
> delivering it as a community service to prevent violence.
>


I am guessing you know nothing about the NSW police service, they don't
have the resources to send a full team to a murder let alone accompany a
legal document.

> That'll work.

Re: Big cat really quite small

On May 16, 5:44 pm, Alienjones <Alienjo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> The person who bought the package, bought it for the equipment and
> software it contained - a few hundred bucks for $3 grand's worth of
> office equipment. He had no intention of making more calendars with it.

Bullshit. The main part of the package was the detailed instructions
on how to produce calendars. You made it very clear that you would
not be in competition with the guy and claimed you were getting out of
the calendar business completely. That sir, is FRAUD.


> You don't get 100% feedback on Ebay - gained over many years of selling
> photographic wall art and camera gear with behavior like you
> demonstrate. You get it by being honest and trustworthy.

And it helps when you bid on your own items with your own sockpuppets
just to leave positive feedback. The salty old fisherman knows how to
bait the hook when he's fishing for suckers.

>
> The US authorities may think your case is a civil matter and your drug
> dealing Sheriff might have refused to serve a restraining order on you
> but my New York lawyers have no such restraints. They are instructed to
> go for the throat and DO NOT NEGOTIATE.

Have them contact me. I believe my contact info has been posted here
many times. I'm not hard to find. So far, I haven't heard a peep.
And neither has Mark Thomas, Paul Furman or any of the other folks
you've threatened.

>
> This is your big chance at international recognition Bret... You can
> take on an International magazine publisher (me) and get all the
> publicity in the world for it...  Smile for the birdie.


Dude, if I thought you had anything worth owning I'd have already sued
your drunken old ass for your lies and cyber bullying. What would I
get but an old Crapasonic and a computer with 5 Meg of memory.

Re: Big cat really quite small

Annika1980 wrote:
> On May 16, 5:44 pm, Alienjones <Alienjo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> The person who bought the package, bought it for the equipment and
>> software it contained - a few hundred bucks for $3 grand's worth of
>> office equipment. He had no intention of making more calendars with it.
>
> Bullshit. The main part of the package was the detailed instructions
> on how to produce calendars. You made it very clear that you would
> not be in competition with the guy and claimed you were getting out of
> the calendar business completely. That sir, is FRAUD.
>
>
>> You don't get 100% feedback on Ebay - gained over many years of selling
>> photographic wall art and camera gear with behavior like you
>> demonstrate. You get it by being honest and trustworthy.
>
> And it helps when you bid on your own items with your own sockpuppets
> just to leave positive feedback. The salty old fisherman knows how to
> bait the hook when he's fishing for suckers.
>
>> The US authorities may think your case is a civil matter and your drug
>> dealing Sheriff might have refused to serve a restraining order on you
>> but my New York lawyers have no such restraints. They are instructed to
>> go for the throat and DO NOT NEGOTIATE.
>
> Have them contact me. I believe my contact info has been posted here
> many times. I'm not hard to find. So far, I haven't heard a peep.
> And neither has Mark Thomas, Paul Furman or any of the other folks
> you've threatened.
>
>> This is your big chance at international recognition Bret... You can
>> take on an International magazine publisher (me) and get all the
>> publicity in the world for it... Smile for the birdie.
>
>
> Dude, if I thought you had anything worth owning I'd have already sued
> your drunken old ass for your lies and cyber bullying. What would I
> get but an old Crapasonic and a computer with 5 Meg of memory.
>
Have you been hacking Margie's PC again?
You slime bag.

Re: Big cat really quite small

On May 16, 11:53 pm, Alienjones <Alienjo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Dude, if I thought you had anything worth owning I'd have already sued
> > your drunken old ass for your lies and cyber bullying.  What would I
> > get but an old Crapasonic and a computer with 5 Meg of memory.
>
> Have you been hacking Margie's PC again?
> You slime bag.

Another lie. Go check Jeff's page, which is a copy of the page you
posted where it says (and I'm quoting here):

"My dual CPU PC with 5 Meg of RAM labors under the strain of the
computations needed as the image grows.."

So, either Margie wrote that or you're full of shit as usual.