Got told, "No photos!" today

In article , Mort
wrote:

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
"shiva wrote in message
...
In article
,
wrote:

Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...iew-mall-vehic
le-c
rash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome

Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to not
allow photography in their stores.

Hi,

I'm not an attorney, so can't quote cases. However, I remember reading a
few years ago that malls are considered public venues in the USA.

Mort Linder

"whose" corporate policy



Whoever may consider shopping malls in the USA public property might
wonder why they employ private security firms instead of the local
police force to enforce trespassing rules.

Or, for that matter, why trespassing laws are even needed or apply if
they aren't private property. There may be shopping malls here and there
which are owned by municipalities, and are therefore public property.
I've never heard of one.

A shopping mall is a collection of privately-owned stores renting space
from the real estate consortium that owns it -- owns the buildings,
property, parking lot, and all other improvements.

While you have the right to be in a public square, you have no right to
be in a privately owned commercial establishment. You may have heard of
Rockefeller Center. The entire complex, including skating rink and shops
and restaurants in the concourse and elsewhere, is privately owned by
Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. GE has a somewhat more byzantine
agreement with Tishman Speyer in that the floors occupied by NBC in "30
Rock" -- the GE Building -- were purchased from Tishman Speyer
Properties, L.P. in a condominum arrangement.

There are even bronze plaques in the sidewalks on 5th and 6th Avenues
denoting the Rockefeller Center private property lines.

If you know of a municipally-owned shopping mall I'd be interested in
hearing about it.

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:26:04 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

Pounding their head, legs, backside or shoulders I can understand, but
what part of a malefactor is their 'therewithall'?

If anyone asks you about "wherewithall", you just point and say
"therewithall".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:26:04 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:
: On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:02:19 -0800, Savageduck
: wrote:
:
: On 2010-12-18 15:12:48 -0800, Robert Coe said:
:
: On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:11:20 -0800, "Frank ess" wrote:
: :
: :
: : "shiva das" wrote in message
: : ...
: : In article ,
: : "Gary Eickmeier" wrote:
: :
: : "shiva das" wrote in message
: : ...
: : In article
: : ,
: : Rich wrote:
: :
: : Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
: : when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
: : permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
: : it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
: : have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
: : shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
: : to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
: : guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
: : telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
: : were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
: : same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
: : and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
: : DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.
: :
: : http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc.../bayview-mall-
: : vehicle-crash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome
: :
: : Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
: : entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to
: : not allow photography in their stores.
: :
: : "whose" corporate policy
: :
: : I don't know, whose corporate policy?
: :
: : Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi
: : in this day of no usenet postings of any value?"
: :
: : or "Who's still complaining when we feed the fun trolls in this same
: : age of no usenet postings of any value?"
: :
: : I'm.
:
: Let us take up the grammarial cudgel and pound all perceived malefactors
: therewithal!
:
: Bob
:
: Umm... it seems this usage of "therewithal" might be inappropriate and
: superfluous.

Not at all. It means "by use of the thing previously mentioned" (i.e., the
cudgel).

: Pounding their head, legs, backside or shoulders I can understand, but
: what part of a malefactor is their 'therewithall'?

Look again. You'll see that I used no apostrophe in "malefactors". It's a
plural noun, not a possessive.

Bob

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 21:15:47 -0500, shiva das
wrote:


1. A person who uses proper grammar at all times, esp. online in
emails,
chatrooms, instant messages and webboard posts; a proponent of
grammatical correctness. Often one who spells correctly as well.

And this is a bad thing?
Did I say that?


2. a * A person who believes proper grammar (and spelling) should be
used by everyone whenever possible.

And this is a bad thing?
Did I say that?

b * One who attempts to persuade or
force others to use proper grammar and spelling. c * One who uses
proper
grammar and spelling to subtly mock or deride those who do not; an
exhibitor of grammatical superiority.

d * One who advocates linguistic clarity;

And this is a bad thing?
Did I say that?

an opponent of 1337-speak. e * One who corrects others'
grammar; the spelling police.

proper noun
3. A nickname, pseudonym or handle for a well-known grammar nazi (defs.
1 and 2) within a particular social circle, used to show either great
respect or great contempt for his or her abilities.

verb (transitive)
4. To correct the grammar of (a person's speech, a piece of writing,
etc.); to edit for grammar and spelling; to proofread.

1. A grammar nazi knows the difference between "there," "their" and
"they're."

And this is a bad thing?
Did I say that?

snip

You missed an two important definitions, Tony, #1(b)

Noting an error is, in no way, forcing or persuading anyone else to
use proper grammar or to spell correctly. If I tell you that your fly
is unzipped I am not forcing you, or even persuading you, to zip up.
What you do after being notified is your choice.

and 1(c).

If the glove fits...


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Fantastic. I guess this illustrates how a usage error can distract from the
message. If you hear these coming from someone making a speech, you can't
very well do anything but wince, but in usenet it is sometimes hard to
resist speaking up. For me anyway.

On the point at hand, as I understand it, the stores don't want to be
photographed because they think someone is doing industrial espionage,
trying to copy their beautiful displays or marketing techniques.

Gary Eickmeier
Grammar Nazi

In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

Fantastic. I guess this illustrates how a usage error can distract from the
message. If you hear these coming from someone making a speech, you can't
very well do anything but wince, but in usenet it is sometimes hard to
resist speaking up. For me anyway.

Only if you choose to.

At no point in Tony and my bantering did either of us misunderstand the
meaning of what was being "said".

Now if, as a self-appointed grammar nazi (spelled in lower case on
purpose), you think it more important to hurl the kind of
passive-aggressive remarks typical of your calling, then _you_ have
chosen to highjack the thread.

Most people of normal intelligence and having English as their first or
second language don't give a rat's ass about "correct" grammar (the
existence of which several tons of linguistics textbooks have sought to
disprove) and fully understand the content without melting down into an
elementary-school spelling teacher's hissy fit.

But by all means, carry on. Just remember that 99.99% of your audience
doesn't care. Perhaps you ought to look into
microsoft.word.spelling.grammar, alt.flame.spelling, or
alt.language.spelling.reform for like-minded people.

"If you hear these coming from someone making a speech"
Indeed. Please elucidate how you differentiate between "its" and "it's"
just by hearing it? Or perhaps "there", "their", or "they're"? Or the
one that was apparently my crime against humanity, "who's", or "whose"?

Language is about sound. Writing is a shorthand convention, a woefully
inadequate attempt to graphically convey sound and meaning.

"shiva das" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gary Eickmeier" wrote:

Fantastic. I guess this illustrates how a usage error can distract from
the
message. If you hear these coming from someone making a speech, you can't
very well do anything but wince, but in usenet it is sometimes hard to
resist speaking up. For me anyway.

Only if you choose to.

At no point in Tony and my bantering did either of us misunderstand the
meaning of what was being "said".

Now if, as a self-appointed grammar nazi (spelled in lower case on
purpose), you think it more important to hurl the kind of
passive-aggressive remarks typical of your calling, then _you_ have
chosen to highjack the thread.

Most people of normal intelligence and having English as their first or
second language don't give a rat's ass about "correct" grammar (the
existence of which several tons of linguistics textbooks have sought to
disprove) and fully understand the content without melting down into an
elementary-school spelling teacher's hissy fit.

But by all means, carry on. Just remember that 99.99% of your audience
doesn't care. Perhaps you ought to look into
microsoft.word.spelling.grammar, alt.flame.spelling, or
alt.language.spelling.reform for like-minded people.

"If you hear these coming from someone making a speech"
Indeed. Please elucidate how you differentiate between "its" and "it's"
just by hearing it? Or perhaps "there", "their", or "they're"? Or the
one that was apparently my crime against humanity, "who's", or "whose"?

Language is about sound. Writing is a shorthand convention, a woefully
inadequate attempt to graphically convey sound and meaning.

You're dismissed.

On 12/18/10 PDT 8:41 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:26:04 +1300, Eric
wrote:
: On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:02:19 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
:
:On 2010-12-18 15:12:48 -0800, Robert said:
:
: On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:11:20 -0800, "Frank wrote:
: :
: :
: : "shiva wrote in message
: : ...
: : In om,
: : "Gary wrote:
: :
: : "shiva wrote in message
: : ...
: : In article
: : ,
: : wrote:
: :
: : Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local shopping mall but
: : when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
: : permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the street but
: : it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me. I could
: : have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard, ignored him and
: : shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have likely told me
: : to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't want to get the
: : guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled manner when
: : telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years ago, they
: : were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got told the
: : same thing, no photos, even though people had their camera phones out
: : and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the big, black
: : DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.
: :
: : http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc.../bayview-mall-
: : vehicle-crash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome
: :
: : Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
: : entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to
: : not allow photography in their stores.
: :
: : "whose" corporate policy
: :
: : I don't know, whose corporate policy?
: :
: : Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi
: : in this day of no usenet postings of any value?"
: :
: : or "Who's still complaining when we feed the fun trolls in this same
: : age of no usenet postings of any value?"
: :
: : I'm.
:
: Let us take up the grammarial cudgel and pound all perceived malefactors
: therewithal!
:
: Bob
:
:Umm... it seems this usage of "therewithal" might be inappropriate and
:superfluous.

Not at all. It means "by use of the thing previously mentioned" (i.e., the
cudgel).

: Pounding their head, legs, backside or shoulders I can understand, but
: what part of a malefactor is their 'therewithall'?

Look again. You'll see that I used no apostrophe in "malefactors". It's a
plural noun, not a possessive.

Excellent, lest we end up where we started. Although....."grammarial"?!
A most excellent term.

If you learned to speak perfect English, whom would you speak it to?

No smilies tonight.

On 12/18/10 PDT 4:40 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-12-18 16:25:31 -0800, tony cooper


Oh, c'mon, if you know when "sic" is used, then you should be able to
figure out why I ended a comment about an error with "sic".


Damn! It seems I am constantly replacing burned out irony meters.

Well, just remember that tony is good with puns.

And the trimming Gods have eschewed just about everyone in this thread.

--
john mcwilliams

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When we first practice to decieve.

On 12/18/10 PDT 9:30 PM, shiva das wrote:

Language is about sound. Writing is a shorthand convention, a woefully
inadequate attempt to graphically convey sound and meaning.

That's true for many, but I cannot agree that the written word is
inadequate—much less woefully so—to convey meaning.

Besides, in an earlier post you wrote:

4. He totally grammar nazied my article, replacing pronouns and
rewriting clauses.

Their should be a high phen between "grammer" and "nazeed".

YMMV.

On 2010-12-18 22:48:08 -0800, John McWilliams said:

On 12/18/10 PDT 8:41 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 19 Dec 2010 16:26:04 +1300, Eric
wrote:
: On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 16:02:19 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:
:
:On 2010-12-18 15:12:48 -0800, Robert said:
:
: On Sat, 18 Dec 2010 14:11:20 -0800, "Frank wrote:
: :
: :
: : "shiva wrote in message
: : ...
: : In om,
: : "Gary wrote:
: :
: : "shiva wrote in message
: : ...
: : In article
: :
,
: : wrote:
: :
: : Someone drove their SUV through a window at a local
shopping mall but
: : when I went to shoot, I was told by security that no photos were
: : permitted on the property. I was going to shoot from the
street but
: : it was over 300ft away and I only had a wide angle on me.
I could
: : have simply stepped back about 10ft from the guard,
ignored him and
: : shot or hid behind a nearby parked car. He would have
likely told me
: : to leave the place, which is no big deal, but I didn't
want to get the
: : guy in trouble as he behaved in a civilized, controlled
manner when
: : telling me no photos. At the same mall, about five years
ago, they
: : were having a fashion show and I had my E-1 with me. Got
told the
: : same thing, no photos, even though people had their
camera phones out
: : and were taking shots. That is the Achilles heel of the
big, black
: : DSLR, it is a target for every security zealot.
: :
: :
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc.../bayview-mall-
: : vehicle-crash-101217/20101217/?hub=TorontoNewHome
: :
: : Malls are private property. The owners' policy on photography is
: : entirely up to them. So is Starbucks, who's corporate policy is to
: : not allow photography in their stores.
: :
: : "whose" corporate policy
: :
: : I don't know, whose corporate policy?
: :
: : Perhaps a better question is "Who's still a grammar and spelling nazi
: : in this day of no usenet postings of any value?"
: :
: : or "Who's still complaining when we feed the fun trolls in this same
: : age of no usenet postings of any value?"
: :
: : I'm.
:
: Let us take up the grammarial cudgel and pound all perceived malefactors
: therewithal!
:
: Bob
:
:Umm... it seems this usage of "therewithal" might be inappropriate and
:superfluous.

Not at all. It means "by use of the thing previously mentioned" (i.e., the
cudgel).

: Pounding their head, legs, backside or shoulders I can understand, but
: what part of a malefactor is their 'therewithall'?

Look again. You'll see that I used no apostrophe in "malefactors". It's a
plural noun, not a possessive.

Excellent, lest we end up where we started. Although....."grammarial"?!
A most excellent term.

If you learned to speak perfect English, whom would you speak it to?

No smilies tonight.

"grammarial"? That sounds very much like a Warren Harding, or
Palinesque non-word, somewhat like "normalcy" and "refudiate".

--
Regards,

Savageduck