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 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.
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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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 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.
[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)
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 has a like-ness ? Is that related to loch-ness?
