Re: Douglas' definition of honesty?

Alienjones wrote:
> Gordon is the only person with any printing or photographic 
> qualification. This makes his *****sment the only one with any substance

> to it.

And here's what Gordon said about Douglas, to correct his falsehoods - 
even gentle, tactful Gordon has outed Douglas..

Gordon Moat:
"I should point out that the original requests for me to view image 
samples did NOT come directly from Douglas."
(Douglas claimed he had made the request.  He LIED.)
"I should also point out that the original claim that Douglas had was 
that his algorithm did not LOSE any detail information. I am not sure 
how or when that changed in the last year to a claim of adding or 
increasing detail information; it is simply not possible regardless of 
technology."
(Douglas claimed he could add "real detail", which of course Gordon 
flatly and correctly refuted.)

Gordon then repeated:
"..I did NOT write the article for Douglas.."
and to clarify his point about Douglas not being able to do what he 
said, he reinforced the salient point:
"Q: Did Douglas's images contain more detail information than the
original?"
"A: NO, ONLY MORE PIXELS."

The emphasis is mine, but those are direct quotes, and the whole thread 
may be found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.equipment.35mm/browse_frm/thread/f0bc2af22e84217b/
...so you can decide for yourself about Douglas and his lies.

> .. not bothering to notify the police of his whereabouts or obtain 
> a Queensland driver's license and comes on here as some sort of ****nning

> angel... A nice example of a mongrel swine indeed.

Just curious, why would such stuff, even if true, somehow invalidate the 
links and references and blatant lies that Douglas has been caught out
with?

That sort of comment will come back to bite you very soon, Doug.  It 
also shows what an incompetent 'investigator' you are.  Anyone else who 
wants to find me just emails me - and I'll happily give out my address - 
so why doesn't your solicitor/legal rep just do that? My web domain has 
a perfectly valid postal address too, and I can easily prove that, so 
why don't you post me something - registered mail, please.

But you just go very quiet when asked to put up or shut up, don't you, 
Douglas.  We ALL know why.  Pity your sockpuppets get noticed and busted 
within seconds nowadays..

Anyway, why not just start up a new enlarging thread, with proof of what 
you have claimed.. or maybe some tips on perspective, or using 
spot-metering..  perhaps a linear panorama?  By showing your true 
measure as a photographer, surely you can drive off any criticism.. and 
maybe get forgiven for your past lies.

(O: