Why I love Photography

Discussion in 'Photography' started by rufref, Mar 28, 2005.

  1. rufref

    BillB Guest

    Even if I was mistaken it would have seemed like many months. :)

    But I wasn't mistaken. You're so far off the mark here that I
    must concede, you probably aren't lying. In denial perhaps. You've
    been posting messages in this newsgroup longer than I have. As I
    told you recently, I don't use google to search for newsgroup
    messages. But I've saved a good number of the ones I've read here,
    and due to my newsserver's retention, had read and saved messages
    going back 3 months before I joined the newsgroup. Your messages
    appeared in those previous 3 months, so I know that you've been
    posting here for about a year, since several of them are dated from
    last April. I stand by my statement, that I've seen many months of
    your ridiculous statements, untruths, irrationality and bizarre
    behavior. Do you still wish to categorize it as "bullcrap"? If so,
    see below.

    If I searched google how far back would your messages go? Two
    years? Three? More? I don't intend to find out, but once again
    you show that when you state something it's not necessarily so. And
    the more emphatically you state it, the less reason we have to
    believe what you're saying. Interestingly, many of the messages
    posted here, uh, before you joined this newsgroup I guess, bear your
    trademark argumentativeness. And what would you be arguing about?
    Why of course, film vs. digital. And as I did once before I'll
    append some snippets from the older messages, and won't provide
    google references since I have none. But as before, the Message IDs
    from the message headers will be included in case you feel inclined
    to try to check them out. They're arranged from oldest to newest,
    ending in one of your replies to me, which you sent half a year ago.
    BillB, Mar 31, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. rufref

    BillB Guest

    Yes you have. You've stated that I've been stalking you and
    indicated that because of that you might file a complaint against
    me. That is only one of a number of outright lies you've made in
    this newsgroup. And I'll again repeat that I haven't followed you
    anywhere. I don't read many newsgroups, and in the few that I do,
    I've never noticed any of your messages, which is fine with me. And
    yes, you've said many things that can be described as irrational,
    bizarre, paranoid, to the point of seeing imaginary conspiracies
    (such as the anti-film gang that has nothing better to do than seek
    you out). But I don't recall ever calling you "insane" although I
    do admit that once or twice it did occur to me that you might be
    veering towards instability. If you can show me where I said that
    you were "insane" I'd appreciate it. I search my saved messages and
    found nothing like that, neither from me nor from anyone else. When
    that word was used (by others) it wasn't used in the sense you're
    speaking of, except of course when it was you that use the word.

    Oh, and by the way, you object to my mentioning your name . . .
    Gee, you mentioned me by name not once but four times in the quote
    at the top of this message. It's no big deal. It shouldn't be for
    you either. Yes, you do whine. When I try to engage you
    positively, it's ignored. As I already stated, it's time to grow up
    Dwight. Your skin is far too thin for your own good. You evidently
    don't know all that much about usenet. As far as newsgroups go this
    is one of the tamer, milder ones. Anyone that enters with a chip on
    their shoulder, as you so obviously do with the whole film/digital
    business, is only going to find the trouble they're looking for.
    Harry Truman never envisaged the internet, but his words (I believe
    they were his) would make you think otherwise: "If you can't stand
    the heat, stay out of the kitchen." If not, try wearing insulated
    long johns or think of holding ice cubes in a blizzard when you read
    messages. And now for something really insane:

    Here are most of the examples I found:
    BillB, Mar 31, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Okay, whatever you say, Bill. However, you might want to check over those
    earlier messages a little closer to see if some might have been perhaps
    crossposted from uk.rec.photo.misc.

    Dwight Stewart, Mar 31, 2005

  4. Really, Bill? Show me where I've described you as irrational, bizzarre,
    insane, paranoid, seeing imaginary conspiracies, and so on. I decribed you
    as trolling troublemaker, which you are. I've described you as a two-bit
    little punk using a computer to harrass people, which you are. I've
    described you as a cross-dressing homo getting a cheap thrill from arguing
    with guys, which you probably are. And I've said your child-like behavior is
    likely the result of your experiences with all those children you've
    molested, which is probably true.

    Oh, wait. I didn't actually post those last three sentences. Those were
    only the things I considered writing about you after reading some of your
    nasty comments about me. But, of course, since you insist only thin-skinned
    people are offended by nasty lies written about them, I'm sure you wouldn't
    really mind if I did throw a few nasty falsehoods around about you.

    In fact, this nasty stuff could be a heck of a lot of fun. For example,
    web sites are very easy to obtain today. Perhaps I should sign up for one in
    your name, post a few dozen child porno pictures on it (with you listed as
    the photographer), and then point a few child advocacy groups to the web
    page. Heck, if you want to continue playing nasty games, there really is no
    end to the games I could play in return.

    But you don't have to worry. Silly games like that are really not my
    style. Instead, I simply want you to leave me alone - leave me and my name
    out of your messages and stop spreading negative characterizations about me.
    However, if you don't, I may be forced to consider other options. And I'll
    conclude my participation in this discussion with that.

    Dwight Stewart, Mar 31, 2005
  5. rufref

    BillB Guest

    Sorry, but you posted the messages into alt.photography and nowhere
    else. I did no editing of the included header information, and the
    "Newsgroups:" headers show no crossposting was done. Below is an
    example of the same header information I had quoted, but this time
    from the "Re: Why I love digital" thread. It clearly shows all
    crossposted newsgroups, so it's clear from looking at the "Why I
    Love Photography" headers that none of them were crossposted in
    uk.rec.photo.misc nor in any other newsgroup. So you see, it's easy
    to make factually incorrect statements without being guilty of
    lying. What helps distinguish between innocent mistakes and lies is
    whether the "mistakes" are acknowledged, ignored, or sidestepped
    with spin (the politician's most overused tool). As I've already
    said, I don't think that you lied about this, but merely made a
    mistake. But sheesh, this one was a whopper. :)

    I'll just go on a bit because I have one more point to make.
    Looking at the OP in the "Re: Why I love digital" thread I see that
    the Subject also contains the leading "Re:", so it is not the
    complete thread, but I do have 178 of its messages, so it probably
    represents the majority of all that was posted to that thread. I
    think it's likely that I retrieved the first few messages in the
    thread and deleted them. Searching remaining messages in this
    thread, as well as those in the "Why I Love Film" thread that you
    initiated, you can I see if you care to that I haven't posted to
    either of these threads. The point is that if you were correct,
    that I live only to praise digital, denigrate film, and look for
    every opportunity to follow you "from thread to thread posting crap
    about you." and as you say, "keep trying to trash" you "in thread
    after thread" then I had ample opportunity to do so. I did post a
    couple of followups in the related "Old film guy salutes digital"
    thread, but they were only to Unspam, not to you, and didn't say
    anything that could remotely be considered to be trashing film. So
    you should consider that perhaps your oft repeated statements about
    how you've been persecuted, such as explicitly mentioning me by
    name, saying that I've engaged "in a several week long campaign of
    personal character assassination" might also be mistaken, however
    strongly you might believe it to be true. That you say things like
    this so often about me as well as a few others here is why you might
    occasionally see yourself described with terms such as "bizarre",
    "paranoid", "seeing imaginary conspiracies" and "irrational".
    You've said several times that it's alright for you to make
    similarly negative charges about others because you believe them to
    be true. Well, I also believe that you've behaved in a manner that
    could warrant the above four terms. As I've said about the
    difference between innocent mistakes and lies, a pattern of refusing
    to concede that any of your wilder charges might be mistaken only
    makes it more likely that the terms used to describe you might have
    more than a few grains of truth to them. Still awaiting
    verification of your charge that I said that you are "insane".

    P.S. I just read your latest followup, where you once again
    sidestepped one of your previous inaccurate charges. So now I feel
    justified in calling you a liar for claiming that I said that you
    are "insane". Based on what you did say, though, you're doing your
    best to make it appear that there just may be something to it.
    We only know you and your style by your own words, and in these
    few you've done a masterful job in indicting yourself. Anyone
    reading this can only come away seeing you in a negative light.
    This is yet another example of why I question your stability.
    BillB, Mar 31, 2005
  6. rufref

    BillB Guest

    Why thank you for not writing those three nasty sentences. I'll
    leave it to others to determine who is being harrassed and who is
    the harrasser. That you went to the trouble to find a way to make
    clearly inflammatory, libelous statements and then think you could
    avoid responsibility for making them by saying that you didn't post
    them, but only thought them only shows that there are two more
    adjectives that can be applied to you. Those words are "cowardly"
    and "pathetic". As I said before, you are your own worst enemy and
    you've proved me right once again.
    BillB, Mar 31, 2005
  7. rufref

    Mike Kohary Guest

    You've been here since before I've been here, about a year. Doesn't that
    count as "many months"?
    Mike Kohary, Mar 31, 2005
  8. rufref

    Mike Kohary Guest

    That reason being that all you have to say are negative things about digital
    and positive things about film? Isn't that *exactly* what you accuse
    "digital enthusiasts" of doing, even though none of them actually denigrate
    film? Still waiting for that example.
    Frankly, that's kind of sad, and perhaps it explains why you have so much
    trouble getting along in here.
    Mike Kohary, Mar 31, 2005
  9. rufref

    Scott W Guest

    The only way I can read this is that you have lost whatever love of
    photography you once had. Now photography is "just what I do"

    Dwight, some of us still are getting a kick out of photography. We are
    still having fun with it and it brings joy to us, and if we are lucky
    perhaps a bit of joy to those that we show our photos to.

    We have had a number of threads of an us them kind of attitude and then
    this thread came by, a chance to just talk about why we love
    photography. We were having a hard time getting people to open up and
    share and did you help, no you came in and started blasting away at
    those who choose to use digital cameras.

    An now you want people to just leave you alone? You want to come in
    here with you sour attitude but you done want anybody to mention your

    My advice to you is step back a bit and maybe only post on those topics
    that don't bother you. Try to get some perspective, go our and shoot
    some photos just for the fun of it, maybe you will find you still can
    do that.

    I got to tell you from here it sure looks like you are in danger of
    going over the edge, threatening people with "further action" if
    they don't leave you alone.

    I have gone back and read a number of the posts back and forth, digital
    saves money seems to be one that really bothers you, so ok, for you it
    does not save money, but you wanted everyone to accept that it did not
    save them money. Dwight, it was you not others who did the attacking
    on this subject and from what I have seen you are the one who attacks
    first, as you did in this thread.

    Scott W, Apr 1, 2005
  10. rufref

    Mike Kohary Guest

    Here you've become extremely childish, but then you really dropped a
    All I have to say is: wow. I mean, really. How low can a person go?
    However low that is, you have taken the undisputed lead in the race to get
    there. Such an activity, of course, would land you in prison, and
    rightfully so. But that you would even suggest such a thing - wow. And yet
    *you're* the one being stalked, punished, etc. rofl...any integrity you
    might have retained to this point, you just flushed right down the drain.
    This is your "kiss of death" post, no doubt about it. I'll be sure to save
    this for future reference.
    This is Usenet. If you come in with an argument, you can expect to be
    argued with. What, you think you should just be able to post away, and none
    of us can respond to it if that makes things emotionally hard on you?
    Pffff...what a pansy. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the fire, or
    else risk being labeled pathetic. Fact is, I don't think I've seen a more
    pathetic post on Usenet in a long, long time - and that's really saying
    Mike Kohary, Apr 1, 2005
  11. rufref

    rufref Guest

    Actually there are 4 from Hawaii. Sunset Cruise, Sailboat framed by the
    sun, wave crashing over seawall on Waikiki and Paradise.

    rufref, Apr 1, 2005

  12. The only reason I have any trouble here is because I made the mistake of
    defending film and challenging the claims of some digital enthusiasts. The
    only ones objecting to my comments here are those very same digital
    enthusiasts. And the only ones engaged in a campaign to attack my character
    are those digital enthusiasts.

    Dwight Stewart, Apr 1, 2005

  13. You were warned, Bill. If you want an internet flame war, you've got it.
    Hang on to your hat.

    Dwight Stewart, Apr 1, 2005

  14. I have no problem whatsoever with people arguing with the things I've
    said. However, attacking me personally, by describing me as irrational,
    bizzarre, insane, paranoid, seeing imaginary conspiracies, and much more, is
    not arguing with the things I've said. That is personal character
    assassination, and I will defend myself against it using whatever means
    available. And I will do so against anyone who engages in it. And I suspect
    anyone else here would do exactly the same.

    I've repeatedly asked Bill to stop with the insults, and gave him plenty
    of opportunities to do so. He refused to do so and instead actually
    increased the insulting characterazations. At this point, I have no choice
    whatsoever other than to attack his character in return - give him a taste
    of his own medicine. If that makes me a monster, it is a monster he created.

    Dwight Stewart, Apr 1, 2005
  15. rufref

    BillB Guest

    Oh, come on. According to Bill, I'm irrational and bizzarre. There
    is no limit to what a person like that might do.

    Given that people can use Google to read his negative comments about
    me for the rest of my life, Bill has already severely damaged my
    reputation anyway. At this point, I don't have anything to lose by
    being as nasty to him as I could possibly be. And I intend to do
    exactly that.

    And, as far as this newsgroup is concerned, I kissed it off long
    before posting that message. I have no further desire to discuss
    anything with pompous, self-righteous, asses like you and Bill.

    BillB, Apr 1, 2005
  16. rufref

    BillB Guest

    No, I've tried to get you to stop making yourself look foolish.
    I've said that some of your statements seem bizarre. You deny it,
    take offense at it, and then take the bizarre to a new, higher
    level. You say that it could be a lot of fun to post kiddy porn
    while impersonating me and then falsely identify me as the person
    who committed the crime. Then you say that I wouldn't have to worry
    about that because "Silly games like that are really not my style."
    So what's your next step? You almost immediately modify your
    newsreader to try to impersonate me in this newsgroup in a reply to
    (see Message-ID: <>)

    You can continue being as "nasty" as you "could possibly be". But
    if you continue your vendetta, trying to damage my reputation by
    going further than your first feeble attempts at it, you'll do far
    more harm to yourself than to me.

    Yes, you're upset at your reputation being damaged. But it wasn't
    damaged by any false statements from me. You've ruined your
    reputation and your credibility by being caught in numerous lies,
    the most recent being that I, or someone said that you're insane.
    There's no evidence that that ever occurred, and you've ignored
    repeated requests to show when and where it might have happened.
    But you're doing a good job making the fiction seem plausible.

    One can only wonder if you're really who you say you are, if you
    do what you say you do. For instance, the story you told when you
    started the "Why I Love Film" thread. Did you really spend several
    hours at an amusement park and at the beach shooting pictures of an
    aspiring actress. And then have an enjoyable meal with her while
    waiting for the nearby lab to process your film? Or was it a
    fabricated story meant only to illustrate once again your ever
    present theme - the superiority of film over digital? It's an
    interesting tale that may or may not have actually happened, and
    well worth seeing again. To prevent accusations that I've
    misrepresented your story, pieces of it were taken out of context
    I'll quote it in its entirety.
    BillB, Apr 1, 2005

  17. Well, hell, Bill. No wonder you didn't get that upset when I talked about
    the possibility of doing a web site in your name featuring child porno. It
    appears you are a child pornographer. While searching around the newsgroups
    for your name, trying to find info about you, I found over 500 images of
    little girls apparently posted by you this morning in the teen binaries
    newsgroups. Most of those girls look like they are no older than 10 or 12
    years old. If those are your pictures, you are one sick puppy. Perhaps it
    has something to do with all those illegal drugs, and questions about making
    drugs, you were apparently talking about this morning in the drug

    Dwight Stewart, Apr 1, 2005
  18. rufref

    Cynicor Guest

    You're in possession of 500 child porn images on your machine right now? If
    I were you I'd wipe that drive asap.
    Cynicor, Apr 1, 2005
  19. rufref

    Alan Browne Guest

    You have a persecution complex.
    Alan Browne, Apr 1, 2005
  20. rufref

    Alan Browne Guest

    This NG is about photography, not format. I bet that if usenet had
    existed around WWII you would shrilly be protesting color film enthusiasts.
    Alan Browne, Apr 1, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.