LOOK AT MY PHOTOS! was do we really need "look at my pictures" updates here

I think the Most prolific of the people posting links to their pictures who
Matt is refering to with his objection of blatant ego tripping by posting
his "LOOK AT MY PICTURES" links without any discussion of photography in the
message, is none other than Annika1980/Bret Hogan/Bret Douglas or whoever he
claimes to be this year. Were his behaviour no so sinister, it would be
hilarious.

This is the creep who stole a Australian Pro Photographer's identity to post
his (the Pro's) clients pictures on Pbase with what could only be described
as really poor taste captions and then went on a criminal spree, trying to
hack said Pro's accounts with Fuji, Visa and eBay.

I rather enjoyed the Pro's response in setting up a web site:
http://www.annika1980.com to expose the creep for the childish idiot he is.
What did said Pro do to upset this guy? Critisized his out of focus eagle
picture
and his "example" of a wide angle shot with blown highlights. Herein lies
one of the issues Matt has highlighted in his question.

When someone is so jealously obsessed with the need for peer approval for
his often mundane, sometimes good snapshots and he doesn't get it, the
lengths this Chattanooga Tennessee Ameture photographer went to should serve
as a warning to all people with no social skills about the dangers of
becoming obsessed with your past time and deciding to use your computer as a
tool of retaliation when you can't get the results you want.

Hogan/Douglas is now under investigation by the FBI and has had his
Internet account revoked by Bell south. That didn't matter too much to him.
There's always another ISP on every street corner but it does highlight that
despite all the avenues of complaint for being unfairly defamed and
illegally
attacked on the Internet, the simplest response is often the most effective
one.

Everyone who has an aggressive thought while on Usenet ought to read this
post and look at http://www.annika1980.com before ever contemplating putting
those thoughts into published words.

 

I thought you were dead?

 

Who is it you mean? Or, if the OP has the balls to say who he is up
front, that'd be refreshing.

And I am jealous of Bret having a hate site dedicated to him.

 

Really, I would say this guy has a bit of an obsession going on here
and, apparently, not much of a life. That would normally be funny but
in this day and age it's pretty scary.

 

This is Duggie of course, has been quiet for a week or two but now looks
like he is set to explode again, should be fun/sad.

 

An interesting issue with you PD, is you amazing ability to read a
line or two of text and presume it relates to your point of view.
That is really sad.

 

Very presumptious of you to think that. So its not you Duggie?

 

'fraid not Pete. I'm just minding the store while he takes a long overdue
holiday. Feel free to tango with me if you feel like it. I suffer fools and
idiots far less that he does.

Julian

 

LOL, how do you live with yourself???

 

I don't. I live with friends and family.

 

What does your family think of your carryings-on here?

 

Ah. A troll surfaced. BOOM!
All gone now

 

Long-time contributer, and a guy who has learned to easily spot Douglas.
You never kill-file me for more than a day, or until your next
obviously-faked identity.
Folks, you're looking at insanity here. There can be little question now
that Douglas is...literally...insane.

 

Gosh Mark, ya think??? What will the neighbours think??

Oh Doggy you are such a pratt, funny but still a pratt.

 

Really, Mark, if even half what doug claims on his site is true, Bret is
trully a criminal figure, not to be respected. You're the devout Christian,
why can't you see that?

 

Ok, Mr. It's So Obvious. Please offer up a single shred of proof.

 

My apologies for posting this here: it has no place.

 

This has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with
insanity.
But since you posed that "if..."
-That's a big "if..." since nowhere NEAR half of ANYTHING Doug says is true.
He is a seriously disturbed person that I believe is in need of help, but it
doesn't appear he's going to get it. If you don't see Doug's insanity, then
you haven't been paying attention. Doug's accusations are odd, too, since
Doug has slandered Bret FAR more than the what he accuses Bret of doing. I
believe Doug is literally insane...so I guess you have to excuse it to a
certain degree. What's obvious, here, is that...-were Doug to ever REALLY
bring a case against Bret...it wouldn't take a jury 5 minutes to dismiss
Doug as AT LEAST equally guilty, with his constant attacks, slander,
threats, and general lack of restraint.

 

Proof, in this case, is visible only to those who have observed Doug over a
long period of time, and who have a shred of basic insight into this kind of
behavior. If you can't see it by now, there's nothing I could say that
would convince you. It isn't important that you agree, so feel free to see
it differently.

 

I've got Mark blocked in this group but I see his ranting replied to
you,
Matt. I have no idea where Mr Morgan got the idea someone defending
themself
against a criminal running rampant and uncontrolled, is insane.

Doug set that site up after the FBI said it might take up to 6 months
before
they got around to investigating his complaint. It certainly hit a
nerve
when I made a post about the thousands of hits a month the site is
getting.
It's about to take a leap again as the TV stations all over Tennessee
take
up the story.

The possibility of Doug actually paying for US National advertisements
is
getting more likely with every post containing personal vilification
continue. Bret Douglas has to be stopped. Next time it could be you he
takes
a dislike to and does all those illegal acts to. How would you feel to
see
your clients referred to with derogatory, personally vilifying
descriptions?

Everything one the site http://www.annika1980.com is true. It was
submitted
to the University of Queensland's faculty of law for an opinion before
he
put it up. I know this because that's where I study. The images he put
up
were sent to him by someone Bret had tackled in the past.

The headers Doug posted of the messages are unaltered. Bret Douglas
admitted
to stealing his identity and to setting up the pbase account in Doug's
name.
The messages from Pbase are genuine and unaltered. If the whole thing
was a
beat up on Bret, why would Pbase go to so much trouble to remove the
stolen
images, effectively disabling the site? He populated it with Doug's
clients
images which he stole from Doug's wedding photography site. Your's are
just
as vulnerable, Matt.

Why Mr Morgan thinks Doug's insane is probably because he can't
comprehend
that someone else in the world objects to criminals doing as they
please
because Doug said their photos were crap. If Mr Morgan could tell
the
difference between a dark skinned Polynesian student sponsored by
Doug's
family trust (me), and The white, Anglo Saxon Douglas J. MacDonald
(my
benefactor) he might begin to wonder if he himself is the insane one.

When I called on him publicly in rec.photo.equipment.35mm, to declare
his
approval or condemnation of IMAGE THEFT, DEFAMATION, IDENTITY THEFT
and
FRAUD carried out by BRET DOUGLAS (annika1980), against the
MacDonalds, he
refused to take a stand. Instead he begins a series of attacks on me,
accusing me of being Doug. and (which one of us?) being insane. That
is
vilification and defamation. Quite enough to get his Internet access
cancelled.

Black and white and he can't tell the difference. I would have thought
my
(previously posted) knowledge of Polynesian culture and my sister and
her
husband joining the MacDonalds on their sailing holiday in the South
Pacific
might have given him a clue but he is very clearly, clueless in this
area.

Maybe his absurd carry on about dynamic range of LCD screens might
give a
clue to his mindset. It would seem to me that he is like Bret Douglas,
if
you don't butter him up with accolades for his happy snaps or, cant
see the
extremes of his images, he gets upset and starts to attack the people
who
call him for what he is. I did and the replies to you the result.

Form your own opinion Matt. You've been around long enough to be able
to
sort the chaff from the hay. It seems to me that he and Annika1980
think it
OK to say and do whatever they like about, and to, anyone they target
but
when the target retaliates, that's different thing altogether.

They cry foul and in Bret's case, turn to criminal acts when they
can't get
the effect they want with insults. Nice people NOT. I have never come
out
and attacked anyone who didn't attack me first.

Having taken the defensive stand and finding it doesn't work, I then
turn to
affirmative action. Doug taught me that if you don't stand up for
your
rights, pretty soon you won't have any left. Simple but blindingly
obvious
to someone from my background.

Mr Morgan is attempting to interfere with my right to post truthful
information in support of my benefactor. He can't do that and get away
with
it. His comments about my and Doug's sanity are vilification. This is
against his ISP's policy and like what happened to Bret Douglas, will
have
his account suspended without notice if I put in a complaint. He only
has to
make one more post vilifying me or Mr MacDonald and I will. Three
strikes
and he'll get it!

Julian