"Chris H" <chris@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:HBDXmJMgEg+HFAmx@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In message <SxmKj.28814$dT.24123@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, jim
> <jim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes
>>
>>"Neil Barker" <neil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:MPG.22632a1b22b30553989b5b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> In article <T0ZJj.28118$dT.12586@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, jim@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> "Neil Barker" <neil@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.225fda68daea7fa989b56@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>> > And you never offered to pay, either.
>>>>
>>>> PAY FOR WHAT!? YOU STILL HAVEN'T PRODUCED A DAMNED THING!
>>>
>>> You have a bad attitude problem Jim, you really do.
>>>
>>> You didn't explain yourself at all well in your initial post and
>>> everyone here took it as meaning you were expecting them free. Perhaps
>>> that should tell you something.
>>
>>Actually it does. it tells me that that is the behavior that you have
>>come
>>to expect from people - even when that is not what is said.
>
> Yes it is normal English comprehension. I suggest you learn it. Note
the
> same thing was assumed from people BOTH sides of the Atlantic. SO we can
> assume what you wrote seemed clear to the majority of English
> speakers/readers. That you were looking for Free photos. You were
> certainly asking for links to photos.
As for people on both sides of the Atlantic making the same error...I do
not
discount the fact that there are deficiencies of logic that know no
geographical boundaries.
>
>>That tells me that most people that have sought photos through you in
the
>>past were looking for free photos.
>
> Not at all... It's just those who phrased it they way you did were
looking
> for Free photos. Many people ask for photos, both paid for and free.
And, when they do not specify (because either will do - as long as the
photos support the subject matter) you assume (keep in mind that I was
never
asked - I was simply attacked based on childish assumptions) whatever you
wish instead of asking simple, logical questions to verify your
assumptions
before acting foolish and attacking somebody for something that was only
in
your head.
>
>>That tells me that people (in general) do not value good photography.
>
> Then you have absolutely no comprehension of this NG at all! Clearly you
> have not read, or at least understood the replies to you.
>
> It seems your comprehension of English is again at fault. Are you a
native
> English speaker?
You are a bloody nutjob. You insist on supporting assumptions (you are
aware of what assumptions are, aren't you?) that are not supported by my
plainly written posts.
You cannot be reasoned with when you continue to insist that something was
"meant" when nothing in the original post supports your argument.
The argument that "A" is meant because "anti-A" was not said is both
illogical and unsupportable.
Using your reasoning, I can assume you are a terrorist and a child
molestor.
You never said you were, but I am assuming it based on your logic of
assuming facts not in evidence.
>
>>What it does not tell me is why I was lumped in with those assholes base
>>purely on assumptions by posters in these ngs.
>
> AFAICS You were lumped in with them for several reasons
>
> 1 Your initial post implied you were looking for free pictures. That was
> how it was read by native English speakers/readers from both sides of
the
> Atlantic You certainly asked for links to photos and asked to see
photos
> but there was no suggestion you were looking to buy any.
There was nothing posted either way in my post. The spin that some of the
people here placed on my original post was entirely in their heads.
(Bouncing around lonely in all likelihood...)
>
> 2 Your attitude (of being an arse hole) in your replies to some
> constructive criticism designed to help. May people who offered
> constrictive criticism would have helped and probably found the pictures
> you wanted (or gone and taken them).
I give what I get.
> 3 Your continual arguing that you are the only one who is right and all
> those who offered constructive criticism and would have offered pictures
> (had you not behaved as such an arse hole) are all wrong.
I will agree with you as soon as I am shown where I requested ANYTING for
free.
> Net result is that in the photography NG's you have cross posted to you
> are seen as an arrogant arse hole that no one is likely to help.
Oh.....really? So, there'll be no change then?
> Had you taken the advice you were given earlier in this thread and
behaved
> politely by now I am sure you would have had all the photos you needed.
> You appear to be the looser in all this any yet you continue to dig the
> hole deeper.
I, like most people, am not likely to respond well to false accusations.
You should get used to that. You will see it frequently throughout your
life. When people are pissed on, they get testy.
jim
|
