Re: OT: More Photographer's Rights
Oh, a member of the State Senate, for a minute I thought Blumenthal and Lieberman weren't both complete wastes of space... On 4/27/2012 9:41 AM, John Sessoms wrote: A friend sent me this and I thought I'd pass it along. A Connecticut Senator proposes a bill to make law enforcement accountable for interfering with photographers: http://www.steves-digicams.com/news/connecticut_senator_proposes_bill_to_make_police_accountable_for_interfering_with_photographers.html -- Don't lose heart! They might want to cut it out, and they'll want to avoid a lengthily search. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
OT: More Photographer's Rights
A friend sent me this and I thought I'd pass it along. A Connecticut Senator proposes a bill to make law enforcement accountable for interfering with photographers: http://www.steves-digicams.com/news/connecticut_senator_proposes_bill_to_make_police_accountable_for_interfering_with_photographers.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
Eauh, but Eau.. mike wilson wrote: A smelly trainer fetish would do it. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2008/04/17 Thu PM 06:12:53 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Photographer's rights - UK You'd have to have a personal relationship with the subject to find that particularly erotic. David Savage wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm I think those officials are trying to stop us grubby, pervert snappers from taking shots like this: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2118/2413550358_efaeb83ee2_o.jpg :-) Cheers, Dave -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
A smelly trainer fetish would do it. From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2008/04/17 Thu PM 06:12:53 GMT To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net Subject: Re: Photographer's rights - UK You'd have to have a personal relationship with the subject to find that particularly erotic. David Savage wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm I think those officials are trying to stop us grubby, pervert snappers from taking shots like this: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2118/2413550358_efaeb83ee2_o.jpg :-) Cheers, Dave -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. - Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know. They all seemed so nice at the time. So do baby aligators at the time.;-) I escorted 7 wind tower pieces over the winter, and only on the last trip, did i notice a signe saying no photography equipment beyond the fence, in side the property. My driver had taken outa small PS film camera a few days earlier to shoot the big grane in action. Some one say that and took the film. He even asked if there were any personal photos on the film and if so, he would get them back. He did not. I know they were in the right as he was on private property, but i took oddles of shots from Jan-April, and no one said a thing. Or i was never seen. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling I hate to say this, but you elected them... Bob W wrote: I'm slightly alarmed to see that someone has started a petition on the No 10. website about this. If we draw it to the attention of the sleazeballs in Parliament the chances are they will clarify the law - by making it illegal to take photos anywhere (for security reasons). Bob Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
Actually they weren't in the right. Owners, or their agents, can ask you not to photograph, but unless it's a defense installation, (even in Canada, not just the US), they can't legally confiscate your film. They can only tell you to stop and ask you to leave, or have you ejected if you refuse. Now defense installations are a different story. David J Brooks wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I know. They all seemed so nice at the time. So do baby aligators at the time.;-) I escorted 7 wind tower pieces over the winter, and only on the last trip, did i notice a signe saying no photography equipment beyond the fence, in side the property. My driver had taken outa small PS film camera a few days earlier to shoot the big grane in action. Some one say that and took the film. He even asked if there were any personal photos on the film and if so, he would get them back. He did not. I know they were in the right as he was on private property, but i took oddles of shots from Jan-April, and no one said a thing. Or i was never seen. Dave -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling I hate to say this, but you elected them... Bob W wrote: I'm slightly alarmed to see that someone has started a petition on the No 10. website about this. If we draw it to the attention of the sleazeballs in Parliament the chances are they will clarify the law - by making it illegal to take photos anywhere (for security reasons). Bob Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
Cotty As a professional who has to deal with this on a regular basis you have much more experience than most of us in dealing with this problem. It may sound a bit OTT to describe the issue as one of principle, but while there is no doubt that one can manage jobsworth officials by a variety of techniques such as you describe why should we have to? From the video the zealous officials appear to be Police community support officers. It is unfair to them to describe them as poorly trained. That is their rationale. If they cost as much to produce as real policemen, they would not exist. They are not held in terribly high esteem by many regular police officers! Hobby bobbies would be one of the more polite descriptions I have heard. In the meantime I shall be attending the Under 10's football final with my discrete Panasonic Lumix superzoom compact camera. I failed to take a single decent pic last year with it! Perhaps this time next year after the legislation is clarified we will be able to compare probation officers and custody sergeants Regards Peter On 18/04/2008, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 17/4/08, Peter Fairweather, discombobulated, unleashed: I was prohibited from taking pictures of my grandson's under 10 football team by a league official I'm ambivalent about this - but not for the reasons you are thinking. If I was a punter (just an everyday bloke who likes taking pictures) then I'd probably react like you did. I get bored with confrontation very quickly so I do everything I can to avoid it, but get the job done (whether professionally for TV or unpaid kicks for stills) as easily as possible. With stills, if I've been told I can't take pictures etc, I nod politely and say things like 'oh, right', then reposition myself and carry on, perhaps less obviously. A school musical was one example. Out of sight, out of mind. I know I should kick up a stink and uphold our rights etc, but I'm just not into all that stuff now. I get a bigger kick out of stepping sideways and doing it more covertly. Better thrill :) With a TV camera, I get told all the time by anyone from Joe Public (whoever he is) through to police royal minders that I can't film this or can't film that. A wink and a smile, sure, no problem. There are ways of filming things without people knowing what's going on. Even when they're stood next to of you. Always cracks me up. BTW, humour interlude - standard wise-ass comments with my standard retorts: Comment: Hey did you get any good shots? Retort: I only ever get good shots. Comment: we're going to have to shoot quickly in this area... Retort: oh, that's a shame because I only ever work at one speed: excellent Comment: hey make sure you get my best side!! Retort: that'll be your backside then? [Reporter: Excuse me sir, we're from ITV and we're just asking people if - ] Comment: get that camera out of my face I don't want to be filmed! Retort: (loudly) Another one who doesn't want the free ten-thousand pounds! Comment: The sun is right in my eyes! Retort: Well, if you keep them closed, you won't see the three million people watching you... Comment: hey can I be on TV? Retort: I believe there's a camera in every cell these days. Comment: you can't park here, move it now Retort: excellent - by the time I've re-parked, I'll have made another 50 quid! Comment: You can't film here! Retort: Hey, you're right - you're stood in the way! *** Actually my attitude is more the 'join-em' rather then 'fight'em' so I prevent confrontation by flagging things up first. I photographed my son playing footy years ago - called the manager and mentioned I was going to take some pics of my lad, and would he like to email on the URL so the other families could see the results? He was happy of my approach - people in positions of responsibility love to feel in control, so Hell, let 'em. A head teacher [principal] told an audience of parents about to watch their 10 yr olds perform a school play that video and photos would not be permitted. A dozen fathers and grandfathers looked crestfallen and laid down their weapons. My weapon stayed down and popped up to rattle off a few snaps during noisy interludes like laughs or applause. Nobody saw me, and I got pics of a bit of the history of my son. Interestingly, the next year, after an onslaught of complaints, the head-teacher changed the policy. I can understand the authorities (in any country) being nervous about sensitive architecture being photographed or filmed. Even today I was filming outside an air base - one where even out on the public highway, the military police will be on you within 2 minutes or so to stop and search, question and harumph there way through a 20 minute ordeal in needless parading of power. Yet, one quick courtesy call to the base PR dept to say we'd be outside doing a piece to camera at 1pm for 15 minutes, and the grateful lady on the other end
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Actually they weren't in the right. Owners, or their agents, can ask you not to photograph, but unless it's a defense installation, (even in Canada, not just the US), they can't legally confiscate your film. They can only tell you to stop and ask you to leave, or have you ejected if you refuse. Now defense installations are a different story. You're absolutely right. Sort of. If they say hand over the camera and you hand it over, then you've consented to them taking it. With your implied consent, they have every right to take your camera. If they try to take it from you without your consent, they've assaulted you. -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
On 18/4/08, Peter Fairweather, discombobulated, unleashed: As a professional who has to deal with this on a regular basis you have much more experience than most of us in dealing with this problem. It may sound a bit OTT to describe the issue as one of principle, but while there is no doubt that one can manage jobsworth officials by a variety of techniques such as you describe why should we have to? That, my dear sir, is a very good question. My answer would be that you don't have to :-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
I was prohibited from taking pictures of my grandson's under 10 football team by a league official I looked up the Football Association guidelines which were eminently sensible and pointed out the legal rughts we have to take pictures in public places. I did make one unpardonable error which nearly caused me to be escorted away. I called the official a moron. This is very offensive to those of limited intelligence through no fault of their own, unlike the official who had made a positive lifestyle choice!! Cotty is also right about the stupidity of this becoming an issue at a time where the UK has more surveillance cameras than anywhere else and news organisations routinely publish photos and videos taken on telephones by members of the public. I'll conclude O tempora o mores. Not quite sure what it means as I failed Latin at school. Perhaps I'll still be able get a job harrassing photographers Peter -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
I remember getting some suspicious looks from security guards when I was shooting the Gherkin. NYC cops aren't any better though. Amita -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm I think those officials are trying to stop us grubby, pervert snappers from taking shots like this: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2118/2413550358_efaeb83ee2_o.jpg :-) Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
You'd have to have a personal relationship with the subject to find that particularly erotic. David Savage wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm I think those officials are trying to stop us grubby, pervert snappers from taking shots like this: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2118/2413550358_efaeb83ee2_o.jpg :-) Cheers, Dave -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
:-) Cheers DS On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:12 AM, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You'd have to have a personal relationship with the subject to find that particularly erotic. David Savage wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm I think those officials are trying to stop us grubby, pervert snappers from taking shots like this: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2118/2413550358_efaeb83ee2_o.jpg :-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
David Savage wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm I think those officials are trying to stop us grubby, pervert snappers from taking shots like this: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2118/2413550358_efaeb83ee2_o.jpg What? A law against blown-out highlights? I'm in favor of that, actually. ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: David Savage wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm I think those officials are trying to stop us grubby, pervert snappers from taking shots like this: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2118/2413550358_efaeb83ee2_o.jpg What? A law against blown-out highlights? I'm in favor of that, actually. ;-) If they made that a law it'd just be another one I routinely break. :-) Cheers, Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
I hate to say this, but you elected them... Bob W wrote: I'm slightly alarmed to see that someone has started a petition on the No 10. website about this. If we draw it to the attention of the sleazeballs in Parliament the chances are they will clarify the law - by making it illegal to take photos anywhere (for security reasons). Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cotty Sent: 17 April 2008 15:33 To: pentax list Subject: Photographer's rights - UK Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- Vote for Cthulhu. Why settle for a lesser evil... -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Photographer's rights - UK
I'm slightly alarmed to see that someone has started a petition on the No 10. website about this. If we draw it to the attention of the sleazeballs in Parliament the chances are they will clarify the law - by making it illegal to take photos anywhere (for security reasons). Bob -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Cotty Sent: 17 April 2008 15:33 To: pentax list Subject: Photographer's rights - UK Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
RE: Photographer's rights - UK
I know. They all seemed so nice at the time. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of P. J. Alling I hate to say this, but you elected them... Bob W wrote: I'm slightly alarmed to see that someone has started a petition on the No 10. website about this. If we draw it to the attention of the sleazeballs in Parliament the chances are they will clarify the law - by making it illegal to take photos anywhere (for security reasons). Bob Interesting read: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351252.stm -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
On 17/4/08, Peter Fairweather, discombobulated, unleashed: I was prohibited from taking pictures of my grandson's under 10 football team by a league official I'm ambivalent about this - but not for the reasons you are thinking. If I was a punter (just an everyday bloke who likes taking pictures) then I'd probably react like you did. I get bored with confrontation very quickly so I do everything I can to avoid it, but get the job done (whether professionally for TV or unpaid kicks for stills) as easily as possible. With stills, if I've been told I can't take pictures etc, I nod politely and say things like 'oh, right', then reposition myself and carry on, perhaps less obviously. A school musical was one example. Out of sight, out of mind. I know I should kick up a stink and uphold our rights etc, but I'm just not into all that stuff now. I get a bigger kick out of stepping sideways and doing it more covertly. Better thrill :) With a TV camera, I get told all the time by anyone from Joe Public (whoever he is) through to police royal minders that I can't film this or can't film that. A wink and a smile, sure, no problem. There are ways of filming things without people knowing what's going on. Even when they're stood next to of you. Always cracks me up. BTW, humour interlude - standard wise-ass comments with my standard retorts: Comment: Hey did you get any good shots? Retort: I only ever get good shots. Comment: we're going to have to shoot quickly in this area... Retort: oh, that's a shame because I only ever work at one speed: excellent Comment: hey make sure you get my best side!! Retort: that'll be your backside then? [Reporter: Excuse me sir, we're from ITV and we're just asking people if - ] Comment: get that camera out of my face I don't want to be filmed! Retort: (loudly) Another one who doesn't want the free ten-thousand pounds! Comment: The sun is right in my eyes! Retort: Well, if you keep them closed, you won't see the three million people watching you... Comment: hey can I be on TV? Retort: I believe there's a camera in every cell these days. Comment: you can't park here, move it now Retort: excellent - by the time I've re-parked, I'll have made another 50 quid! Comment: You can't film here! Retort: Hey, you're right - you're stood in the way! *** Actually my attitude is more the 'join-em' rather then 'fight'em' so I prevent confrontation by flagging things up first. I photographed my son playing footy years ago - called the manager and mentioned I was going to take some pics of my lad, and would he like to email on the URL so the other families could see the results? He was happy of my approach - people in positions of responsibility love to feel in control, so Hell, let 'em. A head teacher [principal] told an audience of parents about to watch their 10 yr olds perform a school play that video and photos would not be permitted. A dozen fathers and grandfathers looked crestfallen and laid down their weapons. My weapon stayed down and popped up to rattle off a few snaps during noisy interludes like laughs or applause. Nobody saw me, and I got pics of a bit of the history of my son. Interestingly, the next year, after an onslaught of complaints, the head-teacher changed the policy. I can understand the authorities (in any country) being nervous about sensitive architecture being photographed or filmed. Even today I was filming outside an air base - one where even out on the public highway, the military police will be on you within 2 minutes or so to stop and search, question and harumph there way through a 20 minute ordeal in needless parading of power. Yet, one quick courtesy call to the base PR dept to say we'd be outside doing a piece to camera at 1pm for 15 minutes, and the grateful lady on the other end expressed her thanks and said she's get onto the cops and no problem at all. Net result = cops think they're in control, PR lady thinks she's in control, camera crew out front *know* who's in control ;-) Just a few thoughts. I looked up the Football Association guidelines which were eminently sensible and pointed out the legal rughts we have to take pictures in public places. Define public places. I did make one unpardonable error which nearly caused me to be escorted away. I called the official a moron. This is very offensive to those of limited intelligence through no fault of their own, unlike the official who had made a positive lifestyle choice!! Tsk - control yourself boy! The aim is to get the pic, not to shorten life :) Cotty is also right about the stupidity of this becoming an issue at a time where the UK has more surveillance cameras than anywhere else and news organisations routinely publish photos and videos taken on telephones by members of the public. Hang on, Cotty was the messenger, not the author. But I knew what you meant ;-) -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
On 18/4/08, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed: BTW, humour interlude - standard wise-ass comments with my standard retorts: Comment: Hey did you get any good shots? Retort: I only ever get good shots. Comment: we're going to have to shoot quickly in this area... Retort: oh, that's a shame because I only ever work at one speed: excellent Comment: hey make sure you get my best side!! Retort: that'll be your backside then? [Reporter: Excuse me sir, we're from ITV and we're just asking people if - ] Comment: get that camera out of my face I don't want to be filmed! Retort: (loudly) Another one who doesn't want the free ten-thousand pounds! Comment: The sun is right in my eyes! Retort: Well, if you keep them closed, you won't see the three million people watching you... Comment: hey can I be on TV? Retort: I believe there's a camera in every cell these days. Comment: you can't park here, move it now Retort: excellent - by the time I've re-parked, I'll have made another 50 quid! Comment: You can't film here! Retort: Hey, you're right - you're stood in the way! Forgot one! Comment: [from ugly juvenile youth wearing hoody] Hey! Film me!!! Retort: Probably will, outside the magistrate's court next week. That kills me. -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: Photographer's rights - UK
Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Comment: You can't film here! Retort: Hey, you're right - you're stood in the way! Photographing in Germany isn't much fun either. There's always some self-appointed warden around who'll tell you you can't photograph here or pass there. Walk into a derelict and obviously abandoned factory building and you can bet some old bugger who spends his days behind his curtains on the other side of the street will be calling the cops. So, I usually go to Belgium on weekends. Their heavy industry is a lot more photogenic and the people are friendlier. The Belgian police are notoriously underpaid and overworked and they'll gladly leave you alone if you don't really ask for it. Problems over there are very few and far between. Once I had the manager of an Arab culture club - the usual kind of shady coffeeshop in one of the more errr... picturesque parts of Liège - make one hell of a stink because I had dared to photograph his house when all I had been shooting was the factory opposite. All attemps to shrug him off failed and he wouldn't stop. He even followed me down the street. Sometimes you just have to bluff. Listen, mate. I'm here in private, enjoying my sunday. I couldn't care less about your business. But if you'll insist on convincing me that you have something to hide in your hut, you'll be twisting my arm and I'll have no choice but to inform our Belgian colleagues so they'll come and have a closer look at what it is. Your call... He's been going out of my way ever since. :-) Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
Re: I nice photographer's rights story for a change
Nice read. Great that he got a written apology for the harassment. Jostein On 12/19/06, Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The right to bear SLR's: http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,72315-0.html -- 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
I nice photographer's rights story for a change
The right to bear SLR's: http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,72315-0.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: Photographer's rights in Australia (was RE: My Home Town)
Thanks for that Paul - I have on occasion (as reported here last year) stood my ground when challenged taking photos in public. I am well aware of the legal situation, but the fact is that the current hysteria about paedophiles, digital cameras and camera-phones is of such intensity that merely carrying a camera seems to inspire some people to look at one suspiciously! And I'm not about to risk having my camera or my nose busted by some thug who thinks he has a right to enforce some non-existent law about taking pictures in public places. Overall though, I will continue to take pictures of every subject except other people's kids, and let he who dares tell me I can't... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Paul Ewins [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 8:28 PM Subject: Photographer's rights in Australia (was RE: My Home Town) John, In Australia there is basically no restriction at all on who or what you can take photos of if you are on public property. If you are on private property (which includes shopping centres and council owned land) then the property owner has the right to set the rules. A lot of the time the restrictions are a mixture of bluff and ignorance. Remember, we have no bill of rights so we have no inalienable rights, and specifically no right of privacy. Putting it another way, our rights as photographers stem from other people's lack of rights to prevent us taking photos. This link ( http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml ) explains it in more detail and includes copyright too. From reading it, there is no bar to street photography and no model release is required for non-commercial work, including selling prints regardless of how much you are charging. Using someone's image for advertising and the like is different and does require a release. A couple of weeks ago one of the members of the Geelong Camera Club was hassled by the local Police for taking photos of a local chemical refinery at sunset. He stood his ground and the next night the Police Minister was on TV explaining that in fact he was perfectly legal to take photos in public, regardless of the subject. The TV footage then cut to a bunch of camera club members all lined up at the refinery taking photos! One of them had a Pentax 6x7. Having said all of that, there's no point being in the right if it gets you a broken nose from an irate parent. Regards, Paul Ewins Melbourne, Australia -Original Message- From: John Coyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 6:47 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: My Home Town Some really nice shots there Jens, it looks a nice place to live. Good job you don't live in Brisbane, our local paper reported today that all sorts of people are coming down heavily on photography of children in public places, with even parents having to seek permission to take photos of their own kids if there might be others in shot! The gauleiters are at it again... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: Jens Bladt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 12:24 PM Subject: GESO: My Home Town For those who might be interested; here's a slide show of photographs from my home town. Please allow some time for the photographs to load. Warning: A fast internet connection is necessary. Windows (IE) users may press F11 for a full screen. The time for each slide can be adjusted at the right hand side, below the image. All images are shot with a Pentax *ist D, most of them utilizing a SMC Pentax lens. Enjoy: http://www.jensbladt.dk/Nykoege/newfile.html Sorry for the inconvenience of my using the three extra Scandinavian letters Regards Jens Jens Bladt http://www.jensbladt.dk
Re: Photographer's rights in Australia (was RE: My Home Town)
This one time, at band camp, Paul Ewins [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: we have no bill of rights so we have no inalienable rights, and specifically no right of privacy. Putting it another way, our rights as photographers stem from other people's lack of rights to prevent us taking photos. My understanding was that persons could be photographed anywhere/anyhow except where there was a reasonable expectation of privacy. This arose from the guy snapping topless women on the beach. She complained and the guy was arrested. It was dismissed in court due because a person (semi)naked on a public beach could not claim any expectation of privacy. IANAL Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
Heh! Gautam -Original Message- From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:33 AM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave) You ain't been here long enough to know what bubbin' over is son... Gautam Sarup wrote: Aw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Brewing nicely? This pot bubbleth over. Obviously it hasn't been watched very intently. Gautam -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: The Photographer's Rights
Bob Blakely wrote: The notion of requiring some sort of moral ground for one nation or one person to object to the brutal actions of another is absurd. Surprisingly some people don't care for hypocricy. (Though hypocracy is not reason enough to necessarily having to restrain oneself from an action like entering a war.) Yup, your kin brutalized, but thank God that felonious neighbor didn't intervene and attempt to assert some moral ground that you, judge of such things, has determined he doesn't have. False example. A better one would be of a man pinching wallets in the street objecting to a mugger. We were not speaking of someone who had been a felon in the past but was one in the moment. Man: Officer, I was mugged. Policeman: What were you doing when you were mugged? Man: I was trying to pinch a wallet. That won't go over very well. that you, judge of such things, has determined he doesn't have. That's right, I _do_ judge such things. I do my best though I haven't reached the status of being the VOICE OF REASON. 'Nuff said. Regards, Gautam End of topic for me -Original Message- From: Bob Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 8:57 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights The notion of requiring some sort of moral ground for one nation or one person to object to the brutal actions of another is absurd. Should you be burglarized, your kin be brutalized and your neighbor witness it, perhaps he should not intervene in as much he's only been out 5 years after a 7 year stint for assault himself. Yup, your kin brutalized, but thank God that felonious neighbor didn't intervene and attempt to assert some moral ground that you, judge of such things, has determined he doesn't have. Regards, Bob... -- -- By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: Gautam Sarup [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Bob Blakely wrote: The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions Those actions as you called them were Imperialism and brutality on a grand scale. On what possible moral ground could the United Kingdom in the 1940's object to Imperialism and brutality on a grand scale? Today's world is of course different.
RE: The Photographer's Rights
Gautam Sarup wrote: That's right, I _do_ judge such things. I do my best though I haven't reached the status of being the VOICE OF REASON. Well SOMEBODY has to be it. :) I don't agree with Bob on everything and I suspect that he does not *expect* everyone, or anyone in particular, to agree with him on any given issue. Tom C.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Bob Blakely wrote: I think it important to let folks talk as they wish. Otherwise, how would we know the fools among us. Hell, if they kept their mouths shut, we might think them wise. Occasional lapses of judgment aside (we all have them) we learn who is worth listening to and who is worth dismissing. So, you will dismiss my photography comments because you dislike my political orientation. Great idea! I think I will offer Bill Gates a job now that our house-cleaner is unfortunately for her off sick. This is now an extremely OT thread. Can the lot of you still feeding/reading it take it elsewhere. Kostas
Re: The Photographer's Rights
In a message dated 8/22/2005 4:02:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No one has launched a war because they wanted to. To state such nonsense is to assume that the one launching the war has dictatorial power. To assume that the President of the US, Prime Minister of Briton, Prime Minister of Australia have such powers. To assert that they have dictatorial power would betray great ignorance. = Spin doctors. Later, Marnie aka Doe
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
You ain't been here long enough to know what bubbin' over is son... Gautam Sarup wrote: Aw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Brewing nicely? This pot bubbleth over. Obviously it hasn't been watched very intently. Gautam -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: The Photographer's Rights
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 8/22/2005 4:02:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No one has launched a war because they wanted to. To state such nonsense is to assume that the one launching the war has dictatorial power. To assume that the President of the US, Prime Minister of Briton, Prime Minister of Australia have such powers. To assert that they have dictatorial power would betray great ignorance. = Spin doctors. Later, Marnie aka Doe Spin Doctors meaning which - Bob's statement, or the assuming of dictatorial powers? Lewis _ Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee® Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Now how did you leap to that! Most reasonable folks would know that the statement applies to whatever the subject matter is. We all have different areas of expertise wherein we are competent. Of course there are those who just love to think the worst of people and are eager to jump on anything someone says just because they hope to show themselves wise by comparison. Some will even resort to logical fallacies (like the hasty generalization below) hoping no one will notice. I'm going to assume that you are a smart fellow and that this was just one of those occasional lapses of judgment that we all have from time to time. Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: Kostas Kavoussanakis [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Bob Blakely wrote: I think it important to let folks talk as they wish. Otherwise, how would we know the fools among us. Hell, if they kept their mouths shut, we might think them wise. Occasional lapses of judgment aside (we all have them) we learn who is worth listening to and who is worth dismissing. So, you will dismiss my photography comments because you dislike my political orientation. Great idea! I think I will offer Bill Gates a job now that our house-cleaner is unfortunately for her off sick. This is now an extremely OT thread. Can the lot of you still feeding/reading it take it elsewhere.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
At 04:48 PM 8/22/2005, keithw wrote: Please, the both of you, will you either find something more appropriate to discuss, or at least take this conversation off the list? Please? I subscribed to the Pentax Camera list, not the Pentagon Critique list. ;-) Oddly enough, you get what is out there. like it or not. Strangely, the PDML is made up of a wide variety of people, from all over the world. How can you _possibly_ expect us to forever stay on the straight and narrow path of never offending anyone, and always and forever following the party line ~ Don't nobody make waves!? Gee Keith, You're no help at all. ;-) A little off-topic debate among friends is one thing, but this thread has taken on a mutant life of its own. I wouldn't mind the subject so much, if it weren't for the fact that it shows no signs of ever winding down. If people feel a real need to argue, then at least argue over photography. ;-) take care, Glen
Re: The Photographer's Rights
William Robb wrote: We in the US had a President some years back by the name of Richard Nixon. He uttered a line that became somewhat famous: I am not a crook. My reply was meant to be a play on that old phrase. Didn't he turn out to be a crook? They (politicians) are all crooks. Tom Reese
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Bill, A little different in Chicago... I dropped my wife and daughter for an early AM flight at Midway Airport here. It is the old airport in Chicago and surrounded by homes and neighborhood. I took along the 400mm hoping to get an interesting shot or two. I pulled into a bit of paved roadway across the street from the airport, where there was some space because of construction of a parking garage. I saw the perimeter security guard go by in an SUV. On his second pass, he spotted me and turned around to find an exit. I just packed up and headed to work before he could get thru the fences. Regards, Bob S. On 8/22/05, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Glen Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights I wonder if this thread will ever get back to protecting the rights of photographers to use their Pentax cameras for whatever peaceful law-abiding purpose they see fit? ;-) So last night, I decided I wanted to take some pictures with my long telephoto lens. I have already spotted the Re/Max balloon low and heading west, so with my wife's permission, I give chase, ending up just to the northwest of the #1 runway at the airport. Set up the big wooden tripod, and put the lens with camera attached onto the gimball. For quite a while, I observed the airport, took pictures of the balloon, and a few of various other things. I probably hung out for a half hour, perhaps more. A few vehicles went past, one guy asked if it was OK to keep going, he was worried about getting in my way No hassles, no visits with the local constabulary, no officious persons telling me to move on. A very pleasant experience, even if the pictures werem't the greatest. William Robb
Re: The Photographer's Rights
This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Launching a war simply because you want to (maybe just for political reasons) I think all wars are fought for political reasons. and convincing others it is a good thing, is certainly different from responding to an outright attack (Pearl Harbor). Or even rushing to the defense of one's allies. But I shouldn't have said that much. And I'll stop here. T late :) Pearl Harbour was the result of failed US foreign policy. The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions in China by imposing a scrap metal boycott followed by an oil boycott, a freeze of assets and the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. The only choice for Japan was to seek oil in South East Asia and with the the Americans firmly entrenched in Pearl Harbour they had to neutralize the American fleet or cave into their demands to get out of China. It was anything but an un-provoked or outright attack, it was a response to American policy. Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
All true, except that the Japanese were waging an aggressive war of imperial expansion on the Chinese mainland, (where the Japanese army used rape and plague as weapons), and had previously fought a short undeclared war with the Soviet Union, (in which Marshal Zhukov handed them their heads), which helped them decide to fight the United States and Britain, taking the Southern Strategy because they thought we would be easier to knock out of a war. It was probably impossible to avoid conflict with the Japanese without ceding them hegemony over Asia and the Western Pacific. Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Launching a war simply because you want to (maybe just for political reasons) I think all wars are fought for political reasons. and convincing others it is a good thing, is certainly different from responding to an outright attack (Pearl Harbor). Or even rushing to the defense of one's allies. But I shouldn't have said that much. And I'll stop here. T late :) Pearl Harbour was the result of failed US foreign policy. The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions in China by imposing a scrap metal boycott followed by an oil boycott, a freeze of assets and the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. The only choice for Japan was to seek oil in South East Asia and with the the Americans firmly entrenched in Pearl Harbour they had to neutralize the American fleet or cave into their demands to get out of China. It was anything but an un-provoked or outright attack, it was a response to American policy. Kind regards Kevin -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: The Photographer's Rights
So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? Interesting perspective. Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Launching a war simply because you want to (maybe just for political reasons) I think all wars are fought for political reasons. and convincing others it is a good thing, is certainly different from responding to an outright attack (Pearl Harbor). Or even rushing to the defense of one's allies. But I shouldn't have said that much. And I'll stop here. T late :) Pearl Harbour was the result of failed US foreign policy. The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions in China by imposing a scrap metal boycott followed by an oil boycott, a freeze of assets and the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. The only choice for Japan was to seek oil in South East Asia and with the the Americans firmly entrenched in Pearl Harbour they had to neutralize the American fleet or cave into their demands to get out of China. It was anything but an un-provoked or outright attack, it was a response to American policy. Kind regards Kevin
Re: The Photographer's Rights
This one time, at band camp, Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? No, those are your words. I made no point about justification and we have all seen how Americans use sexual misconduct during war in Iraq. Please do not try to take sort of non-existent moral high ground here. Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
This one time, at band camp, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was probably impossible to avoid conflict with the Japanese without ceding them hegemony over Asia and the Western Pacific. I think you may be right here, the whole mess was believed to have started with the San Francisco School incident. Again this is taxing my limits on American history. They believed United States' racist policies on Japanese immigrants as they were being segregated into Asian schools. The Japanese agreed not to issue passports for Japanese citizens wishing to work in the United States, thus eliminating immigration. In return, schools in San Francisco, California agreed not to discriminate against students of Japanese descent. I guess it would be hard to pin point and exact point that led to war, I can only say that if it comes to that point, then both sides should take a serious look at there own policies and motives. The odds of that happening are pathetically slim however. Thanks for response Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
I attempted to take no high ground, moral or otherwise. I just responded to your preposterous statement that Pearl Harbour was the result of failed US foreign policy. The attack was the direct result of the attempt by the Japanese govenment of that time to gain miltary control over the mainland of Asia and most of the Pacific. I suggest that you read flyboys by James Bradley, especially those parts that deal with the manner in which the military of Japan dominated the government and distorted the samurai code of bushido into a a military cult that convinced itself it could never be defeated, even by a vastly superior force. A Munich-style concession to the Japanese might have averted war in the short term, but Japan's military goals made war with the US and Britain inevitable.
RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
I have been reading some posts from this thread, shaking my head. This is going far to far, IMO. Children(addressing all of you). This is not a Pentax or photo related subject, can you please stop behaving like . And if you insist on picking up the large cannons, go outside, and finish (no please here). I'm not adding a smilie. Simply because I'm serious. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Daniel J. Matyola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22. august 2005 15:30 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? Interesting perspective. Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Launching a war simply because you want to (maybe just for political reasons) I think all wars are fought for political reasons. and convincing others it is a good thing, is certainly different from responding to an outright attack (Pearl Harbor). Or even rushing to the defense of one's allies. But I shouldn't have said that much. And I'll stop here. T late :) Pearl Harbour was the result of failed US foreign policy. The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions in China by imposing a scrap metal boycott followed by an oil boycott, a freeze of assets and the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. The only choice for Japan was to seek oil in South East Asia and with the the Americans firmly entrenched in Pearl Harbour they had to neutralize the American fleet or cave into their demands to get out of China. It was anything but an un-provoked or outright attack, it was a response to American policy. Kind regards Kevin
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
On 22/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: Children(addressing all of you). This is not a Pentax or photo related subject, can you please stop behaving like . Aw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Don't be such a killjoy. Just needs a few more days and a couple more ingredients and it'll be ready to blossom. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
On Aug 22, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Cotty wrote: Children(addressing all of you). This is not a Pentax or photo related subject, can you please stop behaving like . Aw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Don't be such a killjoy. Just needs a few more days and a couple more ingredients and it'll be ready to blossom. ...like a good festering boil, eh? Godfrey
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
On 22/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: ...like a good festering boil, eh? Yup - just needs a nice white-hot lance to pierce it at just the right moment LOL Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
Everybody behaved, except unleashed Cotty: CAw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Don't be such a killjoy Behave Cotty, or go outside ;-) One alternative is; me spanking you with one of your huge Cannon lenses, wearing my red rubber knickers. An extremely ugly sight ;-) I might do something even worse, ignore you. That's what I do, when the mislead kids I work with, misbehave. I know you that well, you'll not take that. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22. august 2005 18:29 To: pentax list Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave) On 22/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: Children(addressing all of you). This is not a Pentax or photo related subject, can you please stop behaving like . Aw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Don't be such a killjoy. Just needs a few more days and a couple more ingredients and it'll be ready to blossom. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Kevin, Shut the hell up before you alienate any more people. Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? No, those are your words. I made no point about justification and we have all seen how Americans use sexual misconduct during war in Iraq. Please do not try to take sort of non-existent moral high ground here. Kevin -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: The Photographer's Rights
At 09:34 AM 8/22/2005, Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? No, those are your words. I made no point about justification and we have all seen how Americans use sexual misconduct during war in Iraq. Please do not try to take sort of non-existent moral high ground here. Please, the both of you, will you either find something more appropriate to discuss, or at least take this conversation off the list? Please? I subscribed to the Pentax Camera list, not the Pentagon Critique list. ;-) take care, Glen
Re: The Photographer's Rights
I agree. I didn't start this detour, and I avoided it as long as I could, but some things just seem to demand answer. I apologize for taking the bait and engaging in political debate here, where I agree it does not belong. I know better. Glen wrote: At 09:34 AM 8/22/2005, Kevin Waterson wrote: I subscribed to the Pentax Camera list, not the Pentagon Critique list. ;-)
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Launching a war simply because you want to (maybe just for political reasons) I think all wars are fought for political reasons. and convincing others it is a good thing, is certainly different from responding to an outright attack (Pearl Harbor). Or even rushing to the defense of one's allies. But I shouldn't have said that much. And I'll stop here. T late :) Pearl Harbour was the result of failed US foreign policy. The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions in China by imposing a scrap metal boycott followed by an oil boycott, a freeze of assets and the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. The only choice for Japan was to seek oil in South East Asia and with the the Americans firmly entrenched in Pearl Harbour they had to neutralize the American fleet or cave into their demands to get out of China. Heh, heh...cave in? Rght. It was anything but an un-provoked or outright attack, it was a response to American policy. Which would NOT have been required, had it not been for Japan's actions in China! Does that mean nothing to you? Japan either ignored the boycotts or misinterpreted them, and made the wrong choices of subsequent actions. It was obviously the wrong response, wasn't it? Too bad it took a world war and a loss of national face to finally get the picture! It seems China might be heading a similar direction with Taiwan... I sincerely hope not. keith Kind regards Kevin
Re: The Photographer's Rights
P. J. Alling wrote: All true, except that the Japanese were waging an aggressive war of imperial expansion on the Chinese mainland, (where the Japanese army used rape and plague as weapons), and had previously fought a short undeclared war with the Soviet Union, (in which Marshal Zhukov handed them their heads), which helped them decide to fight the United States and Britain, taking the Southern Strategy because they thought we would be easier to knock out of a war. It was probably impossible to avoid conflict with the Japanese without ceding them hegemony over Asia and the Western Pacific. Ahhh. Hegemony. I love that word, but seldom get to use it. You'd think that as an American, I'd get to use it a lot, wouldn't you? But, I'm only a citizen, not an outsider critical of everything the U.S. does. Yes, no doubt in my mind, the word was created for the U.S. and it's foreign policies... sighhh. keith [...]
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Daniel J. Matyola wrote: So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? Interesting perspective. Oh, did he say that? Interesting interpretation of what he said. keith whaley Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Glen wrote: At 09:34 AM 8/22/2005, Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? No, those are your words. I made no point about justification and we have all seen how Americans use sexual misconduct during war in Iraq. Please do not try to take sort of non-existent moral high ground here. Please, the both of you, will you either find something more appropriate to discuss, or at least take this conversation off the list? Please? I subscribed to the Pentax Camera list, not the Pentagon Critique list. ;-) Oddly enough, you get what is out there. like it or not. Strangely, the PDML is made up of a wide variety of people, from all over the world. How can you _possibly_ expect us to forever stay on the straight and narrow path of never offending anyone, and always and forever following the party line ~ Don't nobody make waves!? keith whaley take care, Glen
Re: The Photographer's Rights
This one time, at band camp, Daniel J. Matyola [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suggest that you read flyboys by James Bradley, especially those parts that deal with the manner in which the military of Japan dominated the government and distorted the samurai code of bushido into a a military cult that convinced itself it could never be defeated, even by a vastly superior force. A Munich-style concession to the Japanese might have averted war in the short term, but Japan's military goals made war with the US and Britain inevitable. I found The Fly Boys is a very American centric view of events. I really does succeed in fleshing out its characters though. The old adage 'history is written by the victor' really does reign supreme. To this end, this will be my last post on the matter as I see no further way forward for educational purposes, however, I do thank you for your contribution. Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
This one time, at band camp, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, Shut the hell up before you alienate any more people. I love it when you order me about. Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
This one time, at band camp, keithw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It seems China might be heading a similar direction with Taiwan... I sincerely hope not. I hope not also, I would not know what side to back. But this would be another whole discussion on its own. Sino-Thaiwanese relationships are newsworthy in Australia as the Govt try's to choose which side to back ;) But, I have averred not to carry on this discussion, however interesting, and will sign off at that. Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
This one time, at band camp, Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yup - just needs a nice white-hot lance to pierce it at just the right moment LOL Sorry to dissappoint you, I bowwed out :) Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
On 22/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: I might do something even worse, ignore you. sorry, who are you again? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
On 23/8/05, Kevin Waterson, discombobulated, unleashed: Sorry to dissappoint you, I bowwed out :) That's it? What's this list coming too. Years gone by, you coulda guaranteed a good thrashing for a while. Now it's apologies and bowing out. Frankly I'm disgusted. I suppose you'll want to bring the thread back on topic, or even worse, go straight over to another thread that's totally on topic, prolly about flash compatibility with a ZX-5 or something?!?! I'm going to drink myself into a stupor. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
Cotty wrote: On 23/8/05, Kevin Waterson, discombobulated, unleashed: Sorry to dissappoint you, I bowwed out :) That's it? What's this list coming too. Years gone by, you coulda guaranteed a good thrashing for a while. Now it's apologies and bowing out. Frankly I'm disgusted. I suppose you'll want to bring the thread back on topic, or even worse, go straight over to another thread that's totally on topic, prolly about flash compatibility with a ZX-5 or something?!?! I'm going to drink myself into a stupor. I agree with you Cotty. All this making nicey nicey is pretty sickening. I think we should roast the living hell out of somebody. I hereby open nominations for appointment to Official PDML Whipping Person (we can't limit our options here). Frank has unofficially served in that capacity for a number of years so he should probably be exempt. We should choose someone who sometimes uses Canon or Nikon equipment, writes to the list prolifically and has been around a long time. Do you have any suggestions? Tom Reese
RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
sorry, who are you again? ROTFL 1-0 to Cotty ;-) Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 22. august 2005 23:34 To: pentax list Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave) On 22/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: I might do something even worse, ignore you. sorry, who are you again? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
On 22/8/05, Tom Reese, discombobulated, unleashed: We should choose someone who sometimes uses Canon or Nikon equipment, writes to the list prolifically and has been around a long time. Do you have any suggestions? H. H. Nope. Can't think of a single soul. exuent stage left Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:16:30PM +0100, Cotty wrote: On 22/8/05, Tom Reese, discombobulated, unleashed: We should choose someone who sometimes uses Canon or Nikon equipment, writes to the list prolifically and has been around a long time. Do you have any suggestions? H. H. Nope. Can't think of a single soul. How about a married one?
Re: The Photographer's Rights
From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] I see no further way forward for educational purposes, How does this represent any change from your earlier interpretations? Lewis _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Regarding Eactivist's post: No one has launched a war because they wanted to. To state such nonsense is to assume that the one launching the war has dictatorial power. To assume that the President of the US, Prime Minister of Briton, Prime Minister of Australia have such powers. To assert that they have dictatorial power would betray great ignorance. We came to the defense of an ally, Kuwait - one of the few ME states that were reasonably friendly with the western world. In the prosecution of the war we prevailed, but listening to coalition forces, we backed off and left Saddam with his country. In the negotiation to end the hostilities, Saddam accepted 14 or so articles as a condition to end hostilities and to keep his position as leader of Iraq. He then proceeded to violate every single one of those articles required to end the war maintain his (and his government's and his party's) position. Many times over. He did this continually over a period of 12 years! These were acts of war and the war resumed because of these violations. While there were two campaigns, it's an error to think that there were two Gulf wars. From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pearl Harbour was the result of failed US foreign policy. Really! The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions Those actions as you called them were Imperialism and brutality on a grand scale. in China And Indonesia, and the Philippines, and Burma and pretty much everything in between. by imposing a scrap metal boycott followed by an oil boycott, a freeze of assets and the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. It was our scrap metal, our oil and our Panama Canal. A country can do what it wishes with it's own assets. Japanese assets in this country were frozen after the war started. The only choice for Japan was to seek oil in South East Asia Only choice? Really? How about canceling their imperialist actions in China! Are you saying this was not an option? As to seeking oil in SEA, exactly how did this seek[ing of] oil proceed? Did they approach Indonesia saying, We would like to enter into a mutually beneficial trading agreement for oil? and with the the Americans firmly entrenched in Pearl Harbour That's Pearl Harbor. We don't change the spelling of your territories/provinces etc. to suit how we think it should be spelled. Pearl Harbor was a US territory and now a state by their choice. We are firmly entrenched in Puerto Rico too, did you know that. It's a US Territory. What the hell did you intend to connote by using the words firmly entrenched? they had to neutralize the American fleet or cave into their demands to get out of China. Yes. What, exactly gave Japan the right to China? It was anything but an un-provoked or outright attack, it was a response to American policy. Damned right. It was a response to someone saying, We don't like your takeover and devastation of China, and we are no longer going to aid you in doing it. Their response was one THEY CHOSE from among several. Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Launching a war simply because you want to (maybe just for political reasons) I think all wars are fought for political reasons. and convincing others it is a good thing, is certainly different from responding to an outright attack (Pearl Harbor). Or even rushing to the defense of one's allies. But I shouldn't have said that much. And I'll stop here. T late :) Pearl Harbour was the result of failed US foreign policy. The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions in China by imposing a scrap metal boycott followed by an oil boycott, a freeze of assets and the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. The only choice for Japan was to seek oil in South East Asia and with the the Americans firmly entrenched in Pearl Harbour they had to neutralize the American fleet or cave into their demands to get out of China. It was anything but an un-provoked or outright attack, it was a response to American policy.
RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
All this making nicey nicey is pretty sickening. I think we should roast the living hell out of somebody. I hereby open nominations for appointment to Official PDML Whipping Person (we can't limit our options here). Frank has unofficially served in that capacity for a number of years so he should probably be exempt. We should choose someone who sometimes uses Canon or Nikon equipment, writes to the list prolifically and has been around a long time. Do you have any suggestions? You could try narrowing it down a bit so that it excludes some people... Bob
RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
BWYou could try narrowing it down a bit so that it excludes some people... This is constructive! We need a big guy, who enjoys a fight, and can take a lot of whipping. I'm new here, and my second camera is an Oly, so I'm out of the question. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -Original Message- From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 23. august 2005 01:16 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave) All this making nicey nicey is pretty sickening. I think we should roast the living hell out of somebody. I hereby open nominations for appointment to Official PDML Whipping Person (we can't limit our options here). Frank has unofficially served in that capacity for a number of years so he should probably be exempt. We should choose someone who sometimes uses Canon or Nikon equipment, writes to the list prolifically and has been around a long time. Do you have any suggestions? You could try narrowing it down a bit so that it excludes some people... Bob
Re: The Photographer's Rights
I think it important to let folks talk as they wish. Otherwise, how would we know the fools among us. Hell, if they kept their mouths shut, we might think them wise. Occasional lapses of judgment aside (we all have them) we learn who is worth listening to and who is worth dismissing. Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kevin, Shut the hell up before you alienate any more people. Kevin Waterson wrote: No, those are your words. I made no point about justification and we have all seen how Americans use sexual misconduct during war in Iraq. Please do not try to take sort of non-existent moral high ground here.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
I'll slap you around too, if you like... Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, P. J. Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kevin, Shut the hell up before you alienate any more people. I love it when you order me about. Kevin -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Bob Blakely wrote: Regarding Eactivist's post: No one has launched a war because they wanted to. To state such nonsense is to assume that the one launching the war has dictatorial power. To assume that the President of the US, Prime Minister of Briton, Prime Minister of Australia have such powers. To assert that they have dictatorial power would betray great ignorance. We came to the defense of an ally, Kuwait - one of the few ME states that were reasonably friendly with the western world. In the prosecution of the war we prevailed, but listening to coalition forces, we backed off and left Saddam with his country. In the negotiation to end the hostilities, Saddam accepted 14 or so articles as a condition to end hostilities and to keep his position as leader of Iraq. He then proceeded to violate every single one of those articles required to end the war maintain his (and his government's and his party's) position. Many times over. He did this continually over a period of 12 years! These were acts of war and the war resumed because of these violations. [...] Well said, Bob. We have so many with memories that are so convenient. I separated out the above paragraph. Read it by itself! He had his chances, he accepted all the conditions thereto, and proceeded to break all his promises over YEARS! He's damned lucky he wasn't dead! Does anyone remember the Iraqis who said they were aghast at how we treated him! We asked what they were talking about. And they said, conquerors alway kill the enemy leaders. It's the way of warefare in the Eastern world! Doesn't anyone remember that? While there were two campaigns, it's an error to think that there were two Gulf wars. Absolutely so! Doesn't _anyone_ remember Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld saying, this war is going to last a long, long time. Yeers and years. That's the nature of our enemy. And even he failed to consider all the consequences of a prolonged war in Iraq. See: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030407fa_fact1 keith whaley and convincing others it is a good thing, is certainly different from responding to an outright attack (Pearl Harbor). Or even rushing to the defense of one's allies. But I shouldn't have said that much. And I'll stop here. T late :) Pearl Harbour was the result of failed US foreign policy. The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions in China by imposing a scrap metal boycott followed by an oil boycott, a freeze of assets and the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping. The only choice for Japan was to seek oil in South East Asia and with the the Americans firmly entrenched in Pearl Harbour they had to neutralize the American fleet or cave into their demands to get out of China. It was anything but an un-provoked or outright attack, it was a response to American policy.
RE: The Photographer's Rights
From: Bob Blakely wrote: The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions Those actions as you called them were Imperialism and brutality on a grand scale. On what possible moral ground could the United Kingdom in the 1940's object to Imperialism and brutality on a grand scale? Today's world is of course different. Regards, Gautam
RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
Aw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Brewing nicely? This pot bubbleth over. Obviously it hasn't been watched very intently. Gautam
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
- Original Message - From: Tim Øsleby Subject: RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave) BWYou could try narrowing it down a bit so that it excludes some people... This is constructive! We need a big guy, who enjoys a fight, and can take a lot of whipping. Get Cakalic a can of Dream Whip and a French Maid's outfit and I expect he'd be up to it. WW
Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)
In response to We need a big guy, who enjoys a fight, and can take a lot of whipping. William Robb wrote: Get Cakalic a can of Dream Whip and a French Maid's outfit and I expect he'd be up to it. WW Hey don't mention my name in the same sentence as French Maid's outfit! Tom C.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
The notion of requiring some sort of moral ground for one nation or one person to object to the brutal actions of another is absurd. Should you be burglarized, your kin be brutalized and your neighbor witness it, perhaps he should not intervene in as much he's only been out 5 years after a 7 year stint for assault himself. Yup, your kin brutalized, but thank God that felonious neighbor didn't intervene and attempt to assert some moral ground that you, judge of such things, has determined he doesn't have. Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: Gautam Sarup [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Bob Blakely wrote: The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military actions Those actions as you called them were Imperialism and brutality on a grand scale. On what possible moral ground could the United Kingdom in the 1940's object to Imperialism and brutality on a grand scale? Today's world is of course different.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
This one time, at band camp, E.R.N. Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And by the way, I remember that there were conflicts in Afghanistan, Angola, Mozambique and Central America in that time frame, but for the life of me I can't remember any sort of wars in the Caribbean during the Carter administration. ERNR Nicaragua is the first to come to mind, although this maybe what you call Central America, others see its eastern aspect is on the Carribean Sea. Others that come readily to mind are Grenada, and the on-going problems in Cuba. However, you are taxing the limits of my American history, although I seem to do better than Australian history. So, I thank you for your response as it is an interesting topic but a little to one side for this list. In fact, the whole J Carter story interests me in odd ways. Nice to see a little political debat not ending in a slanging match :) Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
To add to Peter's list, the President of the Committee of Safety (those were the guys who started the whole affair) was David Rittenhouse. That is about as far back as you can go and claim that it had anything to do with the United States. No, he was not an ancestor of mine, although family legend claims his grandfather, who supposedly changed the name to English form from the Dutch, was. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- P. J. Alling wrote: Articles of Confederation -- John Hanson New Federal Constitution -- George Washington But just in case you were referring to the Continental Congress -- Peyton Randolph (I had to look that one up). Shel Belinkoff wrote: Yes - it was in this country's infancy. Speaking of which, who was the first president of the US? Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W you had a month-old president!? -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 8/19/2005
Re: The Photographer's Rights
In a message dated 8/20/2005 11:49:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: didn't bring up Clinton because, what with Haiti and Somalia, I thought there might be room for argument. = Well, sort of. But as I recall, Clinton didn't START anything. And our involvement was sort of minimal compared to the Gulf War and Iraq. It's sort of relative, like you said, do we clarify between a president starting something or getting sucked into an ongoing conflict? Even those dividing lines aren't always clear. Does it depend on how many American dead? How *successful* it was, etc? What is success? Personally I see a difference between Iraq and some other wars. Between Vietnam and some other wars. Whatever. As someone said, Nixon got us out of Vietnam. But my memory is, that at the time, no one saw that as any kind of victory. Just a matter of tapering off and finally giving up. So these things aren't always clear. But I see a difference between the U.S. having heavy involvement and light involvement and a president starting it or not. Marnie aka Doe
Re: The Photographer's Rights
The reactionary press at the time... The War Starts on March 24, 1999! At approximately 1830 UTC the first bombs were dropped on Kosovo. Mr. Clinton really has no idea of what he is going to accomplish with this action. All we know is that US lives will probably be lost in this military action. Sorry to say fokes, but I believe that this is going to be a long war, could this be the start of WW III??? Lets Hope Not... First it was the US, then NATO, now the UN. Still there 6+ years later. http://www.bob.blakely.com/Kosovo_music_video.wmv Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Well, sort of. But as I recall, Clinton didn't START anything. And our involvement was sort of minimal compared to the Gulf War and Iraq.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I see a difference between the U.S. having heavy involvement and light involvement and a president starting it or not. I wonder if the families of those killed see the difference. Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
At 04:52 PM 8/21/2005, Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But I see a difference between the U.S. having heavy involvement and light involvement and a president starting it or not. I wonder if the families of those killed see the difference. I wonder if this thread will ever get back to protecting the rights of photographers to use their Pentax cameras for whatever peaceful law-abiding purpose they see fit? ;-) take care, Glen
RE: The Photographer's Rights
I wonder if this thread will ever get back to protecting the rights of photographers to use their Pentax cameras for whatever peaceful law-abiding purpose they see fit? ;-) The rights of photographers to use all kinds of cameras without regard to media, colour or national origin. :) Cheers, Gautam
Re: The Photographer's Rights
- Original Message - From: Glen Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights I wonder if this thread will ever get back to protecting the rights of photographers to use their Pentax cameras for whatever peaceful law-abiding purpose they see fit? ;-) So last night, I decided I wanted to take some pictures with my long telephoto lens. I have already spotted the Re/Max balloon low and heading west, so with my wife's permission, I give chase, ending up just to the northwest of the #1 runway at the airport. Set up the big wooden tripod, and put the lens with camera attached onto the gimball. For quite a while, I observed the airport, took pictures of the balloon, and a few of various other things. I probably hung out for a half hour, perhaps more. A few vehicles went past, one guy asked if it was OK to keep going, he was worried about getting in my way No hassles, no visits with the local constabulary, no officious persons telling me to move on. A very pleasant experience, even if the pictures werem't the greatest. William Robb
Re: The Photographer's Rights
- Original Message - From: Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Funny thing is he probably did more good than any president in US history, but the only thing he is remembered for is Watergate. === Personally, I can think of quite a few presidents who did more for this country. But that is not to say Nixon didn't have his accomplishments. But did they do more good? Nixon got you out of Vietnam and Southeast Asia, signed treaties with Russia to limit WMD proliferation in both the USA and the USSR, began a dialogue with the Chinese and helped negotiate military disengagement between Israil, Syria and Egypt. Most of the recent US presidents have been hell bent on starting wars, Nixon seems to have been commited to ending them. William Robb
Re: The Photographer's Rights
This one time, at band camp, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the recent US presidents have been hell bent on starting wars, Nixon seems to have been commited to ending them. I dont know a great deal about American history but, who was the last president _NOT_ involved in a military conflict? Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
In a message dated 8/20/2005 7:14:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dont know a great deal about American history but, who was the last president _NOT_ involved in a military conflict? Kind regards Kevin == Uh. Taft? Marnie aka Doe :-)
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Gerald Ford, (maybe, at least no major conflicts durring his administration). Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the recent US presidents have been hell bent on starting wars, Nixon seems to have been commited to ending them. I dont know a great deal about American history but, who was the last president _NOT_ involved in a military conflict? Kind regards Kevin -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: The Photographer's Rights
The Moro Wars. (Aftermath of the Philippine Insurrection). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/20/2005 7:14:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dont know a great deal about American history but, who was the last president _NOT_ involved in a military conflict? Kind regards Kevin == Uh. Taft? Marnie aka Doe :-) -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the recent US presidents have been hell bent on starting wars, Nixon seems to have been commited to ending them. I dont know a great deal about American history but, who was the last president _NOT_ involved in a military conflict? Besides, being involved in a military conflict isn't the same as being hell bent on starting them. Would anyone seriously suggest, for instance, that Wilson and FDR started, respectively, WWI and WWII? But they were involved (eventually.) (I know, not recent. Just the first examples that come to mind for illustrating the difference between starting and being involved.)
Re: The Photographer's Rights
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/20/2005 7:14:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dont know a great deal about American history but, who was the last president _NOT_ involved in a military conflict? Kind regards Kevin == Uh. Taft? Marnie aka Doe :-) What about the one who caught cold at his inauguration and only lived a month? William Henry Harrison. Anybody since him? As to recent presidents hell-bent on starting wars, I don't recall which wars Ford and Carter started.
RE: The Photographer's Rights
What about the one who caught cold at his inauguration and only lived a month? you had a month-old president!? -- Cheers, Bob
RE: The Photographer's Rights
Yes - it was in this country's infancy. Speaking of which, who was the first president of the US? Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W you had a month-old president!?
Re: The Photographer's Rights
GDubya, with a cherry tree instead of a bush, AFAIK. Dario - Original Message - From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 7:15 PM Subject: RE: The Photographer's Rights Yes - it was in this country's infancy. Speaking of which, who was the first president of the US? Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W you had a month-old president!?
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Starting with: Wilson- WWI Coolidge - (none) Hoover - (none) Roosevelt- WWII Truman - WWII Eisenhower - Korea Kennedy - Viet Nam Johnson - Viet Nam Nixon - Viet Nam Ford - (none) Carter - (none) Reagan - Libya, Nicaragua Bush - Iraq Clinton- Kosovo, etc. Bush - Afghanistan, Iraq Not all inclusive... Regards, Bob... By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you'll become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. - Socrates - Original Message - From: Kevin Waterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 7:12 AM Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights This one time, at band camp, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the recent US presidents have been hell bent on starting wars, Nixon seems to have been commited to ending them. I dont know a great deal about American history but, who was the last president _NOT_ involved in a military conflict? Kind regards Kevin -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
In a message dated 8/20/2005 8:02:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Moro Wars. (Aftermath of the Philippine Insurrection). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/20/2005 7:14:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dont know a great deal about American history but, who was the last president _NOT_ involved in a military conflict? Kind regards Kevin == Uh. Taft? Marnie aka Doe :-) == Okay, I didn't want to say it, but here it is... Clinton. Other than not keeping his you-know-what in his pants, he was a pretty good president. 8 years of peace and prosperity. And that's the way it goes... Marnie aka Doe
RE: The Photographer's Rights
Well, this sounds like some sort of trick question, but I'll go for it. The White House website tells me it was George Washington, as I suspected. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 August 2005 18:15 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: The Photographer's Rights Yes - it was in this country's infancy. Speaking of which, who was the first president of the US? Shel [Original Message] From: Bob W you had a month-old president!?
Re: The Photographer's Rights
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/20/2005 8:02:35 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The Moro Wars. (Aftermath of the Philippine Insurrection). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 8/20/2005 7:14:28 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I dont know a great deal about American history but, who was the last president _NOT_ involved in a military conflict? Kind regards Kevin == Uh. Taft? Marnie aka Doe :-) == Okay, I didn't want to say it, but here it is... Clinton. Other than not keeping his you-know-what in his pants, he was a pretty good president. 8 years of peace and prosperity. And that's the way it goes... Marnie aka Doe I didn't bring up Clinton because, what with Haiti and Somalia, I thought there might be room for argument.
Re: The Photographer's Rights
Bob W wrote: Well, this sounds like some sort of trick question, but I'll go for it. The White House website tells me it was George Washington, as I suspected. -- Cheers, Bob Unless, of course, it might have been Samuel Huntington. -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 20 August 2005 18:15 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: RE: The Photographer's Rights Yes - it was in this country's infancy. Speaking of which, who was the first president of the US? Shel
