On Nov 26, 7:16*am, Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:

Oh, Donnie, glad you stepped in.

Did *you* find anything negative or derogatory I've said about Harry's
wife? Or your mother, for that matter?

My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you
three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself.

Perhaps you should stop talking about the relatives of others, else they
start talking about your relatives.

Harry, I've told you, I'll show you where you've said derogatory nasty
things about my wife and my kids if you promise to go away and never
come back if I'm successful. Deal?

On Nov 26, 7:33*am, "Eisboch" wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:7dcqi41fbvf1tefhv6s1fv96nrg6o1i6fb@4ax .com...





On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest
photos
of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead
giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop
to
see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in
daylight.

You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? *Apparently only you.
Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture.
You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in
nature.

Fine. *Works for you.

As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see
photography
as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it
would appear in nature. * In other words, I can appreciate a modified
image
that has been enhanced for effect and mood. *It doesn't always have to be
accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as
influenced by the originator in photoshop.

So, what's the big deal? * Different strokes for different folks, that's
all.

Your right. *I forgot I was dealing with an idiot.

My apologies.

Why? *Comments weren't directed at you. *They were directed to the person
who thinks only his
POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone
who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a
narrow thought process.

Eisboch- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Amen, brother!

BAR wrote:
Boater wrote:
JohnH wrote:

Harry, you are so friggin' perfect that you're a joke.

Well, I was smart enough not to get drafted. You weren't. And aren't.

Puts your right up their with Bush and Cheney, huh?


You really, truly are dense.

If I were "right up there with Bush and Cheney," I'd still be supporting
their abortion of a war against Iraq. D'oh.

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:16:11 -0500, Boater wrote:

JohnH wrote:
Oh, Donnie, glad you stepped in.

Did *you* find anything negative or derogatory I've said about Harry's
wife? Or your mother, for that matter?

My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you
three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself.
Perhaps you should stop talking about the relatives of others, else they
start talking about your relatives.


Well, it's for sure I'll never compliment your wife again!

Why don't you just not discuss the relatives of posters here, unless
they ask you to, schitt for brains?

Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
message ...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest
photos
of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead
giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop
to
see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in
daylight.
You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? Apparently only you.
Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture.
You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in
nature.

Fine. Works for you.

As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see
photography
as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it
would appear in nature. In other words, I can appreciate a modified
image
that has been enhanced for effect and mood. It doesn't always have to be
accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as
influenced by the originator in photoshop.

So, what's the big deal? Different strokes for different folks, that's
all.
Your right. I forgot I was dealing with an idiot.

My apologies.


Why? Comments weren't directed at you. They were directed to the person
who thinks only his
POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone
who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a
narrow thought process.

Eisboch




When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that
I didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like
them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt.

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest
photos of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a
dead giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in
photoshop to see it overused; you just have to have spent some time
outdoors in daylight.
You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? Apparently only
you.
Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture.
You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be
in nature.

Fine. Works for you.

As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see
photography as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and
image as it would appear in nature. In other words, I can appreciate a
modified image that has been enhanced for effect and mood. It doesn't
always have to be accurate to nature in order to appreciate the
expression of the picture as influenced by the originator in photoshop.

So, what's the big deal? Different strokes for different folks, that's
all.
Your right. I forgot I was dealing with an idiot.

My apologies.

Some of us prefer the subtle and the refined, and others of us are circus
clowns, and prefer the art and culture of circus clowns. You like older
Corvettes, I prefer lighter, smaller older European sports cars.


LOL. Sure. You demonstrate your "subtle and refined" preferences here on
a daily basis.

Eisboch




You mean I'm not that successful in emulating the right-wing pigs who
live here?

I'll try harder. :)

JohnH wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 07:18:57 -0500, Boater wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers III, Esq. wrote:

Harry, except for the Owl photo you stole from a web site, and presented
as your own, all of the photos you have posted a

I'll be sure to give this post of yours the same consideration I've
given the rest of your posts...which is to say, none at all.

A D700! Wow, Harry. And, why, Harry.

Do you really think you've got the abilities to warrant the purchase of a
D700? Was the D200 holding you back because of its limitations?

What a joke!


What are you raving about now, schitt-for-brains?

Eisboch wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...

My wife is over sixty, and I'm for damn sure not ashamed of her. If you
three want to take pot shots at her, that's fine. Help yourself.
--


Uncomplimentary comments about wives, kids, dogs, etc. should be
out-of-bounds in discussions here.

There are only three or four people that engage in doing this and their
reputation precedes them.

Eisboch



Indeed, I only mentioned Herring's wife because he, like several others
here, seem obsessed by mine. The ones who mention wives constantly
include Herring, Reggie, and your boy FloridaJim. Check it out.

On Nov 26, 8:02*am, Boater wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"Tom Francis - SWSports" wrote in
messagenews:7dcqi41fbvf1tefhv6s1fv96nrg6o1i6fb@4ax .com...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 01:00:54 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Ha. It's not difficult to see the photoshopping in reggie's latest
photos
of his trip. In some of the photos, the "natural lighting" is a dead
giveaway of photoshopping. You don't have to be an expert in photoshop
to
see it overused; you just have to have spent some time outdoors in
daylight.
You know, who cares if they are photoshopped or not? *Apparently only you.
Your complaint is that you don't believe in photoshopping a picture.
You have stated several times that you prefer "natural" as it would be in
nature.

Fine. *Works for you.

As probably the least qualified person here with a camera, I see
photography
as an artform as well as a means of accurately capturing and image as it
would appear in nature. * In other words, I can appreciate a modified
image
that has been enhanced for effect and mood. *It doesn't always have to be
accurate to nature in order to appreciate the expression of the picture as
influenced by the originator in photoshop.

So, what's the big deal? * Different strokes for different folks, that's
all.
Your right. *I forgot I was dealing with an idiot.

My apologies.

Why? *Comments weren't directed at you. *They were directed to the person
who thinks only his
POV is the acceptable POV in all subjects and in all endeavors and anyone
who thinks otherwise is an idiot.
I find it ironic that someone with such a liberal philosophy has such a
narrow thought process.

Eisboch

When did I say my POV was the only acceptable POV? What I said was that
I didn't much like Reggie's overphotoshopped photos. You're free to like
them, not like them or whatever. I don't give a schitt.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You mean like your photo of the painted hoochie with 27 seperate
photoshop modifications? You are what the old folks used to call a
moron.

"Boater" wrote in message
...

Eisboch wrote:


LOL. Sure. You demonstrate your "subtle and refined" preferences here
on a daily basis.

Eisboch




You mean I'm not that successful in emulating the right-wing pigs who live
here?

I'll try harder. :)


An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, eh? Sounds more like a Bush
philosophy, rather than one of Obama's.

Eisboch