1981 US XC Trials pics


Forum devoted to track & field items of an historical nature.

Postby jamese1045 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:55 am

malmo wrote:
jamese1045 wrote:Good photo! Credit?


What's the question?


Photo credits are s.o.p. If it's a picture you made, then well done! :D
jamese1045
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:18 pm

Postby MJD » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:40 am

That would have been quite the trick.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby malmo » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:48 am

jamese1045 wrote:
malmo wrote:
jamese1045 wrote:Good photo! Credit?


What's the question?


Photo credits are s.o.p. If it's a picture you made, then well done! :D


Why would "SOP" apply?
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jamese1045 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:38 pm

malmo wrote:
jamese1045 wrote:
malmo wrote:
jamese1045 wrote:Good photo! Credit?


What's the question?


Photo credits are s.o.p. If it's a picture you made, then well done! :D


Why would "SOP" apply?


I only asked whether you made the photo or who did to offer my compliments. I don't know you, your age, background, nothing. Standard operating procedure when displaying photos publically is to show credit for the artistic ownership.

I could have been clearer and I am sorry to have caused any confusion.
jim
jamese1045
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:18 pm

Postby malmo » Fri Nov 02, 2007 3:05 pm

jamese1045 wrote:I only asked whether you made the photo or who did to offer my compliments. I don't know you, your age, background, nothing. Standard operating procedure when displaying photos publically is to show credit for the artistic ownership.

I could have been clearer and I am sorry to have caused any confusion.
jim


"Artistic ownership" -- surely you jest? You've made a lot of presumptions there. Where I come from when someone gives you a photo, you don't ask them for their SSN and drivers license. You just say "thanks." Which I did.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:39 pm

Leave it to malmo to be rude and combative on even the most innocuous points. Nice way to once again sour another thread, your apparent raison d'être . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Fri Nov 02, 2007 4:52 pm

bad hammy wrote:Leave it to malmo to be rude and combative on even the most innocuous points. Nice way to once again sour another thread, your apparent raison d'être . .


WTF? Give up. There's nothing rude or combative about my post. I'll bet you see insult in grease stains on a pizza box?

As is the modus operandi of you and your little clique, you don't participate in the discussion at hand and only post to muddy up the place. Then step back and say "what, me?" If you look in the mirror you'll find the only poster on this thread who's being combative.

Give it a rest, already.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Fri Nov 02, 2007 5:30 pm

Pathetic . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jamese1045 » Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:29 pm

malmo wrote:
jamese1045 wrote:I only asked whether you made the photo or who did to offer my compliments. I don't know you, your age, background, nothing. Standard operating procedure when displaying photos publically is to show credit for the artistic ownership.

I could have been clearer and I am sorry to have caused any confusion.
jim


"Artistic ownership" -- surely you jest? You've made a lot of presumptions there. Where I come from when someone gives you a photo, you don't ask them for their SSN and drivers license. You just say "thanks." Which I did.


"A lot of presumptions?" Not at all. Where you "come from" is not germane; here it is common practice, legally and in courtesy to the "artistic owner" of a photo, to attribute authorship. I'm afraid your reference to "SSN and drivers license" is a fatuous attempt at humor.

I was serious in my post and meant only to pass on a compliment for the good photo.[edit: why did you not answer the simple question?]
jim
jamese1045
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:18 pm

Postby malmo » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:10 pm

jamese1045 wrote:
malmo wrote:
jamese1045 wrote:I only asked whether you made the photo or who did to offer my compliments. I don't know you, your age, background, nothing. Standard operating procedure when displaying photos publically is to show credit for the artistic ownership.

I could have been clearer and I am sorry to have caused any confusion.
jim


"Artistic ownership" -- surely you jest? You've made a lot of presumptions there. Where I come from when someone gives you a photo, you don't ask them for their SSN and drivers license. You just say "thanks." Which I did.


"A lot of presumptions?" Not at all. Where you "come from" is not germane; here it is common practice, legally and in courtesy to the "artistic owner" of a photo, to attribute authorship. I'm afraid your reference to "SSN and drivers license" is a fatuous attempt at humor.

I was serious in my post and meant only to pass on a compliment for the good photo.[edit: why did you not answer the simple question?]
jim


How about I explain it to you in plain English. There is no "artistic ownership" as you say. Just Joe Blow taking a photo then passing it on. Then [edit 26 years] later me contributing to an internet message board thread. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

But you didn't really want to hear that did you?
Last edited by malmo on Sun Nov 04, 2007 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Fri Nov 02, 2007 10:47 pm

bad hammy wrote:Pathetic . . .


You've yet to participate in the thread.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sat Nov 03, 2007 3:11 am

malmo wrote:How about I explain it to you in plain English. There is no "artistic ownership" as you say. Just Joe Blow taking a photo then passing it on. Then 28 years later me contributing to an internet message board thread. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

I, for one, have been sitting this one out too, but I must observe now that you could have spared us a lot of the unpleasantness by simply explaining that in plain English at the outset.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby bad hammy » Sat Nov 03, 2007 6:33 am

malmo wrote:
bad hammy wrote:Pathetic . . .

You've yet to participate in the thread.

Memory problems?? http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... 462#409462
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:38 am

bad hammy wrote:
malmo wrote:
bad hammy wrote:Pathetic . . .

You've yet to participate in the thread.

Memory problems?? http://mb.trackandfieldnews.com/discuss ... 462#409462


You've still yet to participate in the thread.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Sat Nov 03, 2007 8:40 am

tandfman wrote:
malmo wrote:How about I explain it to you in plain English. There is no "artistic ownership" as you say. Just Joe Blow taking a photo then passing it on. Then 28 years later me contributing to an internet message board thread. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

I, for one, have been sitting this one out too, but I must observe now that you could have spared us a lot of the unpleasantness by simply explaining that in plain English at the outset.


What is there to explain? I posted a picture of mine on a message board. Who has ever asked who has "artistic ownership" of a picture before, and why on earth would they care. It's a picture.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby tandfman » Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:37 am

malmo wrote:What is there to explain? I posted a picture of mine on a message board. Who has ever asked who has "artistic ownership" of a picture before, and why on earth would they care. It's a picture.

It really has nothing to do with "artistic ownership." As you say, it's a picture. And some people were just curious to know who took it.
tandfman
 
Posts: 15043
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby tafnut » Sat Nov 03, 2007 11:54 am

tandfman wrote:
malmo wrote:What is there to explain? I posted a picture of mine on a message board. Who has ever asked who has "artistic ownership" of a picture before, and why on earth would they care. It's a picture.

It really has nothing to do with "artistic ownership." As you say, it's a picture. And some people were just curious to know who took it.

I have been very loathe to post pictures here lately, cuz gh has made it clear that we are NOT allowed to if there's any question about 'ownership' of the image. It has become a Hot Topic here.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby DrJay » Sun Nov 04, 2007 12:49 pm

jamese1045, malmo is in the photo, in front in the New Balance singlet and the long sleeves. A photo someone gave to him, as he said. A nice photo, too. So he scanned it and posted it, not taking it from a website where it would be subject to copyright protection.
DrJay
 
Posts: 5485
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Woodland Park, CO

Postby jamese1045 » Sun Nov 04, 2007 6:09 pm

DrJay wrote:jamese1045, malmo is in the photo, in front in the New Balance singlet and the long sleeves. A photo someone gave to him, as he said. A nice photo, too. So he scanned it and posted it, not taking it from a website where it would be subject to copyright protection.


Thank you Dr. Jay. It is a good photo as I said in my every post, and I only wanted to compliment the author. The information you supply --and I may even have an idea why Mr. Malmo did not supply--does help, and I do understand.
Thanks, and sorry for the storm in the teapot thing. :oops:

jim
jamese1045
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:18 pm

Postby bad hammy » Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:49 am

jamese1045 wrote:Thanks, and sorry for the storm in the teapot thing. :oops:

The storm was not of your making - no need for you to apologize.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:15 pm

bad hammy wrote:
jamese1045 wrote:Thanks, and sorry for the storm in the teapot thing. :oops:

The storm was not of your making - no need for you to apologize.


So when are you going to apologize?
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Mon Nov 05, 2007 1:40 pm

malmo,

I'm sorry that you're rude and combative on even the most innocuous points.

bh
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby malmo » Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:13 pm

bad hammy wrote:malmo,

I'm sorry that you're rude and combative on even the most innocuous points.

bh


You're 5 for 5 and still haven't participated in the thread.
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby paulthefan » Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:57 pm

so where is malmo in the photos?
paulthefan
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Location, Location.

Postby Daisy » Mon Nov 05, 2007 2:59 pm

paulthefan wrote:so where is malmo in the photos?

Blue vest
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

1981 US x-c trials

Postby rasb » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:11 pm

:D
Yes, malmo is the guy in the blue vest in the black/white photo...
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Re: 1981 US x-c trials

Postby Daisy » Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:23 pm

rasb wrote::D
Yes, malmo is the guy in the blue vest in the black/white photo...


ha, ha, i think you'll be able to tell the likeness compared to the others :roll:
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

1981 US XC Trials

Postby rasb » Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:12 pm

:wink: malmo has a like-ness ? Is that related to loch-ness?
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Re: 1981 US XC Trials

Postby Daisy » Mon Nov 05, 2007 5:28 pm

rasb wrote::wink: malmo has a like-ness ? Is that related to loch-ness?


In more ways than you might think.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 1981 US XC Trials pics

Postby jamese1045 » Mon Nov 05, 2007 10:45 pm

[quote="DrJay"]US Men's XC Trials race, E.P. Sawyer Park, Louisville, Ky March 1981. The US men went on to finish second to Ethiopia at the International XC Meet, 81-114. Individual finish at International in parentheses below.

1. Craig Virgin 36:10...(1)
2. Nick Rose 36:10 (ran as guest)
3. George Malley 36:30...(51)
4. Dan Dillon 36:31...(63)
5. Mark Nenow 36:36...(17)
6. Muggleton 36:54...(103)
7. Thom Hunt 36:55...(8th)
8. McGuire 36:57...(80)
9. Bill Donakowski 37:09...(18th)
10. Bruce Bickford 37:12...(19)


A favorite of my Craig Virgin photos: circa 1976:

Image

A really nice lad.

JimEpic
jamese1045
 
Posts: 486
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 2:18 pm

Postby EPelle » Wed Nov 07, 2007 3:13 am

paulthefan wrote:so where is malmo in the photos?

Hard to tell the shrewd and clever one of the lot?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: 1981 US XC Trials

Postby malmo » Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:54 am

Daisy wrote:
rasb wrote::wink: malmo has a like-ness ? Is that related to loch-ness?


In more ways than you might think.


Loch Ness, isn't that the place where lunatics, drunks and exploitive locals have been telling themselves and tourists they've seen a monster swimming for so long they actually believe it?
malmo
 
Posts: 4376
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Per Andersen and 9 guests