Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Big cat really quite small
Re: Douglas' definition of honesty?
On May 14, 7:40 am, Mark Thomas <markt@ don't spam marktphoto . com >
wrote:
>
> Yes, folks, that is the typical modus operandi of Douglas MacDonald - a
> fraudster, a liar and cheat of the highest order.
>
> Link here: * groups.google . com .au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/brows=
e frm...
>
I loved it where he contradicted himself in the very same post.
First he wrote this:
"Particularly seeing as I sent him a RAW file of the original image as
well."
Then he wrote this:
"Sending a camera original file as proof would have been a little
stupid, don't you think? "
On May 14, 7:40 am, Mark Thomas <markt@ don't spam marktphoto . com >
wrote:
>
> Yes, folks, that is the typical modus operandi of Douglas MacDonald - a
> fraudster, a liar and cheat of the highest order.
>
> Link here: * groups.google . com .au/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/brows=
e frm...
>
I loved it where he contradicted himself in the very same post.
First he wrote this:
"Particularly seeing as I sent him a RAW file of the original image as
well."
Then he wrote this:
"Sending a camera original file as proof would have been a little
stupid, don't you think? "
Re: Douglas' definition of honesty?
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Alienjones wrote:
>> To keep him honest in his appraisal of the enlargement...
>
>
> And not that I would ever rub it in, but seeing Douglas is referring to
> 'honesty', here's *more* (refer to my other post on this thread) of what
> Colin D said when Douglas attempted to pass off a stitched composite as
> a 'genuine' enlargement.
>
It seems the Stalker, the wanna be, the neverwillbe and the fossil from
Arlington all have one thing in common. The ability to invent a story
regardless of the facts or the truth of the matter.
For one thing... Gordon Moat (in 2005) was the second person in these
groups to see one of my enlargements first hand. The only other person
to see one was Alan Browne.
Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic
qualification. This makes his assessment the only one with any substance
to it.
Everything said by the stalker from Australia and the jackass from
Chattanooga is just sour grapes. The fosil from Arlington? To be pitied
for being fooled by the jackass but none toe less spreading lies.
Gordon Moat's review of my enlargement and his comments about the
printing industry (as it was in 2005) are here, unedited and unaltered.
* w w w .annika1980 . com /evidence/moats-comments.htm
As for the honesty of the stalker from AU, no one should ever forget he
high tailed it out of South Australia under an assumed name to hide out
in Queensland. Never bothering to keep his Electoral enrollment address
updated, not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain
a Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of shinning
angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed.
There's some really nice (NOT) people inhabiting Usenet and he is one of
the un-nicest I've ever come across. Right next to the jackass from
Chattanooga and his puppet in Arlington.
Mark Thomas wrote:
> Alienjones wrote:
>> To keep him honest in his appraisal of the enlargement...
>
>
> And not that I would ever rub it in, but seeing Douglas is referring to
> 'honesty', here's *more* (refer to my other post on this thread) of what
> Colin D said when Douglas attempted to pass off a stitched composite as
> a 'genuine' enlargement.
>
It seems the Stalker, the wanna be, the neverwillbe and the fossil from
Arlington all have one thing in common. The ability to invent a story
regardless of the facts or the truth of the matter.
For one thing... Gordon Moat (in 2005) was the second person in these
groups to see one of my enlargements first hand. The only other person
to see one was Alan Browne.
Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic
qualification. This makes his assessment the only one with any substance
to it.
Everything said by the stalker from Australia and the jackass from
Chattanooga is just sour grapes. The fosil from Arlington? To be pitied
for being fooled by the jackass but none toe less spreading lies.
Gordon Moat's review of my enlargement and his comments about the
printing industry (as it was in 2005) are here, unedited and unaltered.
* w w w .annika1980 . com /evidence/moats-comments.htm
As for the honesty of the stalker from AU, no one should ever forget he
high tailed it out of South Australia under an assumed name to hide out
in Queensland. Never bothering to keep his Electoral enrollment address
updated, not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain
a Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of shinning
angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed.
There's some really nice (NOT) people inhabiting Usenet and he is one of
the un-nicest I've ever come across. Right next to the jackass from
Chattanooga and his puppet in Arlington.
Re: Douglas' definition of honesty?
Alienjones wrote:
> Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic
> qualification. This makes his assessment the only one with any substance
> to it.
And here's what Gordon said about Douglas, to correct his falsehoods -
even gentle, tactful Gordon has outed Douglas..
Gordon Moat:
"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/thread/f0bc2af22e84217b/
..so you can decide for yourself about Douglas and his lies.
> .. not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain
> a Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of shinning
> angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed.
Just curious, why would such stuff, even if true, somehow invalidate the
links and references and blatant lies that Douglas has been caught out with?
That sort of comment will come back to bite you very soon, Doug. It
also shows what an incompetent 'investigator' you are. Anyone else who
wants to find me just emails me - and I'll happily give out my address -
so why doesn't your solicitor/legal rep just do that? My web domain has
a perfectly valid postal address too, and I can easily prove that, so
why don't you post me something - registered mail, please.
But you just go very quiet when asked to put up or shut up, don't you,
Douglas. We ALL know why. Pity your sockpuppets get noticed and busted
within seconds nowadays..
Anyway, why not just start up a new enlarging thread, with proof of what
you have claimed.. or maybe some tips on perspective, or using
spot-metering.. perhaps a linear panorama? By showing your true
measure as a photographer, surely you can drive off any criticism.. and
maybe get forgiven for your past lies.
(O:
Alienjones wrote:
> Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic
> qualification. This makes his assessment the only one with any substance
> to it.
And here's what Gordon said about Douglas, to correct his falsehoods -
even gentle, tactful Gordon has outed Douglas..
Gordon Moat:
"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/thread/f0bc2af22e84217b/
..so you can decide for yourself about Douglas and his lies.
> .. not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain
> a Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of shinning
> angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed.
Just curious, why would such stuff, even if true, somehow invalidate the
links and references and blatant lies that Douglas has been caught out with?
That sort of comment will come back to bite you very soon, Doug. It
also shows what an incompetent 'investigator' you are. Anyone else who
wants to find me just emails me - and I'll happily give out my address -
so why doesn't your solicitor/legal rep just do that? My web domain has
a perfectly valid postal address too, and I can easily prove that, so
why don't you post me something - registered mail, please.
But you just go very quiet when asked to put up or shut up, don't you,
Douglas. We ALL know why. Pity your sockpuppets get noticed and busted
within seconds nowadays..
Anyway, why not just start up a new enlarging thread, with proof of what
you have claimed.. or maybe some tips on perspective, or using
spot-metering.. perhaps a linear panorama? By showing your true
measure as a photographer, surely you can drive off any criticism.. and
maybe get forgiven for your past lies.
(O:
Re: Douglas' definition of honesty?
"Alienjones" <Alienjones@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g0ghgr$2hc$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Alienjones wrote:
>>> To keep him honest in his appraisal of the enlargement...
>>
>>
>> And not that I would ever rub it in, but seeing Douglas is referring to
>> 'honesty', here's *more* (refer to my other post on this thread) of what
>> Colin D said when Douglas attempted to pass off a stitched composite as a
>> 'genuine' enlargement.
>>
>
> It seems the Stalker, the wanna be, the neverwillbe and the fossil from
> Arlington all have one thing in common. The ability to invent a story
> regardless of the facts or the truth of the matter.
They have plenty of experience from reading your posts. You are the master
when it comes to fabrication and twisting the truth.
>
> For one thing... Gordon Moat (in 2005) was the second person in these groups
> to see one of my enlargements first hand. The only other person to see one
> was Alan Browne.
>
> Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic qualification.
> This makes his assessment the only one with any substance to it.
And we can read what he wrote right here:
"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."
And even Gordon called you a liar ! Amazing !
And here:
* w w w .photokb . com /Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples
Douglas has NEVER proven what he claims (namely that he can "add real
detail" and that he can enlarge a 6x4 print up to 36x24 and actually
INCREASE the detail level to 720 ppi (yes, his words!) in the process..
He has been caught out lying on numerous occasions, using falsified
images. Here's just one example:
* w w w .photokb . com /Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples
And here:
"Colin D:
I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the
smoothness and foreground definition with my setup here, and
attributed that to your magic algorithm. Little did I realize
that it was stitched, and I guess you could say that you stitched
me up as well.
To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I
am sorely pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm'
with a misrepresented print.
If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.
In utter disgust,
Colin D."
" Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo
From: Colin D <nos...@nowhere . com >
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300
Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use)
Declaration to all readers of this thread:
At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the
print he sent me.
By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty
stitched images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he
sent me, the
right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames
used in the other half?
Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to
be trusted.
Colin D. "
>
> Everything said by the stalker from Australia and the jackass from
> Chattanooga is just sour grapes.
Only in your mind.
> The fosil from Arlington? To be pitied for being fooled by the jackass but
> none toe less spreading lies.
>
> Gordon Moat's review of my enlargement and his comments about the printing
> industry (as it was in 2005) are here, unedited and unaltered.
>
> * w w w .annika1980 . com /evidence/moats-comments.htm
> As for the honesty of the stalker from AU, no one should ever forget he high
> tailed it out of South Australia under an assumed name to hide out in
> Queensland. Never bothering to keep his Electoral enrollment address
> updated, not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain a
> Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of shinning
> angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed.
Stalking again Douglas ? Why is it ok for you to stalk people but you get
all upset when you think it is happening to you ?
>
> There's some really nice (NOT) people inhabiting Usenet and he is one of the
> un-nicest I've ever come across. Right next to the jackass from Chattanooga
> and his puppet in Arlington.
"Alienjones" <Alienjones@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g0ghgr$2hc$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Alienjones wrote:
>>> To keep him honest in his appraisal of the enlargement...
>>
>>
>> And not that I would ever rub it in, but seeing Douglas is referring to
>> 'honesty', here's *more* (refer to my other post on this thread) of what
>> Colin D said when Douglas attempted to pass off a stitched composite as a
>> 'genuine' enlargement.
>>
>
> It seems the Stalker, the wanna be, the neverwillbe and the fossil from
> Arlington all have one thing in common. The ability to invent a story
> regardless of the facts or the truth of the matter.
They have plenty of experience from reading your posts. You are the master
when it comes to fabrication and twisting the truth.
>
> For one thing... Gordon Moat (in 2005) was the second person in these groups
> to see one of my enlargements first hand. The only other person to see one
> was Alan Browne.
>
> Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic qualification.
> This makes his assessment the only one with any substance to it.
And we can read what he wrote right here:
"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."
And even Gordon called you a liar ! Amazing !
And here:
* w w w .photokb . com /Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples
Douglas has NEVER proven what he claims (namely that he can "add real
detail" and that he can enlarge a 6x4 print up to 36x24 and actually
INCREASE the detail level to 720 ppi (yes, his words!) in the process..
He has been caught out lying on numerous occasions, using falsified
images. Here's just one example:
* w w w .photokb . com /Uwe/Forum.aspx/photo-au/5503/Enlarging-digital-images-examples
And here:
"Colin D:
I remember commenting at the time that I could not match the
smoothness and foreground definition with my setup here, and
attributed that to your magic algorithm. Little did I realize
that it was stitched, and I guess you could say that you stitched
me up as well.
To keep it more or less seemly here, all I will say is that I
am sorely pissed off at being used to support your 'algorithm'
with a misrepresented print.
If there had been money involved I would have you for fraud.
In utter disgust,
Colin D."
" Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm, aus.photo
From: Colin D <nos...@nowhere . com >
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 23:21:29 +1300
Subject: Re: Panorama software (Which do you use)
Declaration to all readers of this thread:
At no time did Douglas send, nor did I receive, a RAW file of the
print he sent me.
By his own statement, he made a 24x72 inch panorama from twenty
stitched images. He now wants us to believe that the 24x36 print he
sent me, the
right-hand half of the pano, was from a single frame? Like, 19 frames
used in the other half?
Douglas appears to have serious reality problems. His word is not to
be trusted.
Colin D. "
>
> Everything said by the stalker from Australia and the jackass from
> Chattanooga is just sour grapes.
Only in your mind.
> The fosil from Arlington? To be pitied for being fooled by the jackass but
> none toe less spreading lies.
>
> Gordon Moat's review of my enlargement and his comments about the printing
> industry (as it was in 2005) are here, unedited and unaltered.
>
> * w w w .annika1980 . com /evidence/moats-comments.htm
> As for the honesty of the stalker from AU, no one should ever forget he high
> tailed it out of South Australia under an assumed name to hide out in
> Queensland. Never bothering to keep his Electoral enrollment address
> updated, not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain a
> Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of shinning
> angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed.
Stalking again Douglas ? Why is it ok for you to stalk people but you get
all upset when you think it is happening to you ?
>
> There's some really nice (NOT) people inhabiting Usenet and he is one of the
> un-nicest I've ever come across. Right next to the jackass from Chattanooga
> and his puppet in Arlington.
Re: Big cat really quite small
On May 12, 6:27 pm, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
>
> Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
>
> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>
> Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
> Douglas' images.
>
> Oh well, I tried to be nice.
>
> Draco
> ---------------
> This is where one bad apple ruins the whole box Draco.
>
> Your thieving mate: anniika1980 and Paul Furman are the ones to blame for
> it.
Excuse me? The photo was visible yesterday and not visible today.
What the hell do Paul Furman or myself have to do with that?
You are a delusional psychopath.
> After Bell South got my court papers and gave him the flick ...he moved to=
EPB Telecom,
Another bald-faced lie, Clouseau. I'm still on BellSouth (now AT&T)
here at home. They surely didn't give me "the flick" although I'm sure
that's what they did with your complaints.
On May 12, 6:27 pm, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
>
> Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
>
> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>
> Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
> Douglas' images.
>
> Oh well, I tried to be nice.
>
> Draco
> ---------------
> This is where one bad apple ruins the whole box Draco.
>
> Your thieving mate: anniika1980 and Paul Furman are the ones to blame for
> it.
Excuse me? The photo was visible yesterday and not visible today.
What the hell do Paul Furman or myself have to do with that?
You are a delusional psychopath.
> After Bell South got my court papers and gave him the flick ...he moved to=
EPB Telecom,
Another bald-faced lie, Clouseau. I'm still on BellSouth (now AT&T)
here at home. They surely didn't give me "the flick" although I'm sure
that's what they did with your complaints.
Re: Big cat really quite small
On May 12, 1:35 pm, Draco <JPD...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 12, 1:30 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
>
> > It's odd how you can stand beside the hull of a big cat in dry dock and =
it
> > towers over you ...yet when it's in the water surrounded by the really '=
big
> > boys' toys... It can look so small... * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/prev=
iews/the cat.htm
>
> > Interesting exercise in digital imagery. Shot with a 40D Canon and 17 - =
85
> > kit lens. DxO optix pro software removed the generous CA this lens produ=
ces
> > and corrected the other image anomolies you'd expect for a cheap lens (c=
heap
> > as in $600???). What it couldn't do is take away the distint blue colour=
> > cast in the shadows when the shot is otherwise correctly white balanced.=
> > Nikon's don't do that incidentally. I had to use Photoshop to do it and =
even
> > then, it's not a quick exercise.
>
> > As far back as the 10D I can remember this happening. Canon might have
> > changed their models but they havent altered their stripes !
>
> Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
>
> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>
> Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
> Douglas' images.
>
> Oh well, I tried to be nice.
>
> Draco
I think Douggie's whole site crashed. Maybe he forgot to pay his
bill?
Oh, I know ..... his ISP flicked him after I complained. Yeah, that's
the ticket!
LOL!
On May 12, 1:35 pm, Draco <JPD...@hotmail . com > wrote:
> On May 12, 1:30 am, "Alienjones" <alienjo...@y7mail . com > wrote:
>
> > It's odd how you can stand beside the hull of a big cat in dry dock and =
it
> > towers over you ...yet when it's in the water surrounded by the really '=
big
> > boys' toys... It can look so small... * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/prev=
iews/the cat.htm
>
> > Interesting exercise in digital imagery. Shot with a 40D Canon and 17 - =
85
> > kit lens. DxO optix pro software removed the generous CA this lens produ=
ces
> > and corrected the other image anomolies you'd expect for a cheap lens (c=
heap
> > as in $600???). What it couldn't do is take away the distint blue colour=
> > cast in the shadows when the shot is otherwise correctly white balanced.=
> > Nikon's don't do that incidentally. I had to use Photoshop to do it and =
even
> > then, it's not a quick exercise.
>
> > As far back as the 10D I can remember this happening. Canon might have
> > changed their models but they havent altered their stripes !
>
> Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
>
> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>
> Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
> Douglas' images.
>
> Oh well, I tried to be nice.
>
> Draco
I think Douggie's whole site crashed. Maybe he forgot to pay his
bill?
Oh, I know ..... his ISP flicked him after I complained. Yeah, that's
the ticket!
LOL!
Re: Big cat really quite small
Annika1980 wrote:
> I think Douggie's whole site crashed. Maybe he forgot to pay his
> bill?
>
> Oh, I know ..... his ISP flicked him after I complained. Yeah, that's
> the ticket!
>
> LOL!
>
Steal any more pictures today? People of low moral character, such as
yourself, can't stop.
Annika1980 wrote:
> I think Douggie's whole site crashed. Maybe he forgot to pay his
> bill?
>
> Oh, I know ..... his ISP flicked him after I complained. Yeah, that's
> the ticket!
>
> LOL!
>
Steal any more pictures today? People of low moral character, such as
yourself, can't stop.
Re: Big cat really quite small
"m II" <c@in.the.hat> wrote in message news:urkWj.2404$KB3.672@edtnps91...
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>> I think Douggie's whole site crashed. Maybe he forgot to pay his
>> bill?
>>
>> Oh, I know ..... his ISP flicked him after I complained. Yeah, that's
>> the ticket!
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>
> Steal any more pictures today? People of low moral character, such as
> yourself, can't stop.
We've seen your photos, there's nothing worth stealing.
"m II" <c@in.the.hat> wrote in message news:urkWj.2404$KB3.672@edtnps91...
> Annika1980 wrote:
>
>> I think Douggie's whole site crashed. Maybe he forgot to pay his
>> bill?
>>
>> Oh, I know ..... his ISP flicked him after I complained. Yeah, that's
>> the ticket!
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>
> Steal any more pictures today? People of low moral character, such as
> yourself, can't stop.
We've seen your photos, there's nothing worth stealing.
Re: Big cat really quite small
Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
* w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
Douglas' images.
Oh well, I tried to be nice.
Draco
----------------------------------------------------
You didn't miss anything. It's just another crap phot from Douglas. Looks
like it was taken with a cheap point and shoot camera.
Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
* w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
Douglas' images.
Oh well, I tried to be nice.
Draco
----------------------------------------------------
You didn't miss anything. It's just another crap phot from Douglas. Looks
like it was taken with a cheap point and shoot camera.
Re: Big cat really quite small
XxYyZz wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
>
> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>
> Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
> Douglas' images.
>
> Oh well, I tried to be nice.
>
> Draco
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> You didn't miss anything. It's just another crap phot from Douglas.
> Looks like it was taken with a cheap point and shoot camera.
>
Yeah... it was. A Canon 40D.
Just about as cheap and shitty as they come.
XxYyZz wrote:
>
>
>
> Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
>
> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>
> Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
> Douglas' images.
>
> Oh well, I tried to be nice.
>
> Draco
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
> You didn't miss anything. It's just another crap phot from Douglas.
> Looks like it was taken with a cheap point and shoot camera.
>
Yeah... it was. A Canon 40D.
Just about as cheap and shitty as they come.
Re: Big cat really quite small
"Alienjones" <Alienjones@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g0ghjl$2hc$2@registered.motzarella.org...
> XxYyZz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
>>
>> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>>
>> Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
>> Douglas' images.
>>
>> Oh well, I tried to be nice.
>>
>> Draco
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> You didn't miss anything. It's just another crap phot from Douglas. Looks
>> like it was taken with a cheap point and shoot camera.
>>
>
> Yeah... it was. A Canon 40D.
> Just about as cheap and shitty as they come.
"Alienjones" <Alienjones@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g0ghjl$2hc$2@registered.motzarella.org...
> XxYyZz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
>>
>> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>>
>> Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
>> Douglas' images.
>>
>> Oh well, I tried to be nice.
>>
>> Draco
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> You didn't miss anything. It's just another crap phot from Douglas. Looks
>> like it was taken with a cheap point and shoot camera.
>>
>
> Yeah... it was. A Canon 40D.
> Just about as cheap and shitty as they come.
Re: Big cat really quite small
"Alienjones" <Alienjones@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g0ghjl$2hc$2@registered.motzarella.org...
> XxYyZz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
>>
>> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>>
>> Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
>> Douglas' images.
>>
>> Oh well, I tried to be nice.
>>
>> Draco
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> You didn't miss anything. It's just another crap phot from Douglas. Looks
>> like it was taken with a cheap point and shoot camera.
>>
>
> Yeah... it was. A Canon 40D.
> Just about as cheap and shitty as they come.
I thought you switched to Nikon and got rid of all the Canon gear ?
"Alienjones" <Alienjones@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:g0ghjl$2hc$2@registered.motzarella.org...
> XxYyZz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Well, how in the heck can I look at the image when I run into this:
>>
>> * w w w .douglasjames . com .au/previews/the cat.htm
>>
>> Forbidden to enter and see. Sheesh, guess I'm banned from ever seeing
>> Douglas' images.
>>
>> Oh well, I tried to be nice.
>>
>> Draco
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> You didn't miss anything. It's just another crap phot from Douglas. Looks
>> like it was taken with a cheap point and shoot camera.
>>
>
> Yeah... it was. A Canon 40D.
> Just about as cheap and shitty as they come.
I thought you switched to Nikon and got rid of all the Canon gear ?
Next: Rado Integral Superjubile Diamond Black and Gold Ladies Mini Watch R2033915...
Previous: The D3 Settles Into An Elliptical Orbit Tilted Over 17° From The Ecliptic!!
