$500 AUD Cash reward for information

Derek Fountain wrote:
Basically D-mac appears to be a Usenet stalker and/or troll or whatever.


He's the idiot who's claiming, but not proving, all sorts of wonderful
advances in image manipulation. He occasionally pops up in the Photoshop
newsgroup where he makes a lot of noise until he gets challenged to an
independent assessment of his so-called technologies by experts. At that
point he pulls down his websites that make these claims, and disappears.

Here's a link to one of his rants from earlier this year:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....ff1d6c6425889/


Note how quiet he goes when Mike Russell, a well respected member of the
newsgroup, challenges him to a direct test of his claims. The tecphoto
website disappeared shortly after he chickened out of the debate he
started.

He's safe to ignore.

The curious part of this message is the missing NNTP Posting host
identity. Not the man himself making a post trying to discredit me, by
any chance?

Why you use a matter as old as that one which now does not exist between
Mike and me, is even more curious. The real issue here is tracking down
a thief who steals other peoples photographs and applies them to his own
use.

I have a problem with someone stealing my photographs and applying them
to their own use without my permission.

I have a problem with someone claiming I'm a liar and don't have any
Government permits for photography in restricted areas and a commercial
activities permit for National Parks, when I do and I've previously
posted the evidence.

I have a problem with someone coming to my exhibition of images enlarged
with the routine you and Mike Russell got no response from me over and
waiting for the lady running the stand to take a break and then
photographing ever one of the pictures. Caught on security camera.

I have a problem with someone claiming I don't have a storefront and
when I post pictures of one of my print centers, change their identity
and lay low until the next opportunity.

I have a problem with someone claiming I committed fraud when I sold a
patent of my algorithm to a cell phone manufacture because someone on my
network posted a message about the sale of one of my print shops at
about the same time.

Are you saying now, you condone such activities? If you do, you are no
better than he is.

I use an application I and my daughter developed to enlarge digital
images. OK so Mike Russell had a problem with someone being able to do
this when he can't. Instead of ask for enlarged prints as evidence like
Gordon Moat did, (which I frequently send out to skeptics) Russell
wanted to see my code and I wouldn't let him. For this you brand me a kook?

Pete D wrote:
"D-Mac" wrote in message
...

C J Southern wrote:

I would have thought the police would have little trouble extracting the
relevant IP + account details from Microsoft & ISPs & Telcos




My lawyer charges $250 an hour.
He estimates $2 ~ 3k to get a court order of discovery served on Optus
(his ISP) which is a Singapore company.

I figured if someone know who he is and would like some cash, it's be
cheaper to pay them. If no one responds, I'll pay the lawyer whatever it
cost to track the mongrel down.


What price peace?


Maybe as high as $20,000?
A more correct question would be: What price your principals?
Bush sent America to war against Saddam and a whole country of innocent
people because Saddam once tried to have his father assassinated. What
price revenge?

D-Mac writes:
A more correct question would be: What price your principals?
Bush sent America to war against Saddam and a whole country of
innocent people because Saddam once tried to have his father
assassinated. What price revenge?

So you want to be like Bush and bankrupt yourself over a Usenet
squabble? You ARE a kook.

Derek Fountain writes:

Basically D-mac appears to be a Usenet stalker and/or troll or
whatever.

He's the idiot who's claiming, but not proving, all sorts of
wonderful advances in image manipulation. He occasionally pops up in
the Photoshop newsgroup where he makes a lot of noise until he gets
challenged to an independent assessment of his so-called
technologies by experts. At that point he pulls down his websites
that make these claims, and disappears.

Here's a link to one of his rants from earlier this year:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....ff1d6c6425889/

Hey, I missed that one first time around!

Quote:

"Some Norwegian mathematician seems to think I'm in the charity
industry with his challenges ..."

I am not a mathematician, (I teach webdesign at the University of
Oslo), and I don't understand the "charity industry" reference, but
I still think this is a reference me. In that case the challenge
he refers to can be found at the bottom of my interpolation webpage:

http://hannemyr.com/photo/interpolation.html

"... and then admits he is not qualified to judge me when offered
the chance."

To put the record straight on this: Douglas originally asked me to be
part of a team of photographic "judges" that were to receive a print
made by him, and then:

"make an honest comment on its sharpness, clarity and overall
quality as compared to what they would expect to see from a 6cm
x 7cm negative scanned with a Nikon (4000 dpi) film scanner."

I first declined this offer from him on the grounds that to compare a
real print to a hyphotetical one did not strike me as a valid way of
comparing, or verifying, image quality.

Anyway, Douglas kept harping on this, and even repeated his offer to
look at his prints. This time I accepted. My acceptence is on record
in Google, and Douglas (using his Ryadia handle) is on record that he
would send me the images to examine after 30th of June 2005. I am
still waiting for them. (Here is a reference to the relevant
article in Google:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...98437e0091129c )

In case Douglas/D-mac/Rydaia is reading this: I would very much look
at your interpolated enlargements. I think that I am emniently
qualified to pass judgement on them. I've already sent you my postal
address, but in case you've mislaid it - here it is again:
+-------------------------------+
| Gisle Hannemyr |
| University of Oslo |
| Department of Informatics |
| P.O.Box 1080, Blindern |
| NO-0316 Oslo |
| Norway |
+-------------------------------+
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Offtopic, like this entire posting. Just defending my name. I shall
not respond beyond this, except to Mr MacDonald's solicitors.(grin))

Firstly, it seems that Douglas is not quite getting the response he
wished. He is now recognised for the type of person he is.

A CASH REWARD IS OFFERED for information leading to the identity of an
Internet image thief, proven liar and stalker.
And good luck getting your money. Anyone who bites will have as much
hope as people like Avery, Annika, Rusty and others had, of ever
getting Douglas' free samples. And of course he has performed this
stunt before - a quick search will reveal very similar postings in the
past.

A person posting with the credentials of: and
Is engaged in theft of my photographs off my web site
'Theft' is stealing. I haven't stolen anything. Let me explain this
in words of less than two syl-lab-les.

1. Douglas posted images and text on the In-ter-net.
2. Douglas drew at-ten-tion to them in these groups.
3. People cri-tic-ised his images and in-fer-en-ces.
4. He (cow-ard-ly) withdrew the images and text.
5. People like me reposted the images and text so Douglas can't get
away with it.

That's not stealing. In fact, just about anyone with even a smattering
of legal training will look at that and laugh. 'Fair use', they will
chuckle.

and defamation of me and my family.
Nope. I've called him a liar, because he does lie. I've called him a
fraud, because he has used fraudulent means to try to promote his
business (although it seems his business is almost completely
non-existent - he certainly has no 'Techno Aussie Digital Print Centre'
franchise that he claimed in the laughable 'Graham Hunt' episode). The
difference here is that anyone can look up all those incidents. But
can Douglas post a nice clear simple link to where *I* have lied?
Defamation only applies if one utters untruths.

And of course I've called him a sockpuppet, because he has used many
identities (over 40 at last count) to pretend to be different people of
the same view, and to support his own posts.

I am now committed to pursuing and silencing him through the court
system, regardless of the cost.
So why doesn't he get off his arse and do it? What was this post
supposed to achieve? Make me tremble in my boots? Not gonna happen.

My name is Douglas MacDonald.
I run a number of web sites the most significant is photosbydouglas.com
Isn't that the one he pulled down and said he had completely abandoned
- along with digital photography - only a few months back? (refer to
"Digicams With MF Film Quality" in rec.photo.digital, which contains
more examples of his pulled webpages and ridiculous claims), and also
"Return to film... True!" in rec.photo.equipment.35mm

I offer now a NO-QUESTIONS-ASKED $500 AUD cash reward for information of
the real identity and residential address of the person using these
identities.
'No questions asked'? Let's read on...

The money will be paid by my lawyers at Eagle Street Brisbane on
successful service of summonses on this person.
Oh. So there are in fact quite a few 'questions' and conditions.
Here's a simple solution - if Douglas will post the name of his
lawyer/s, I will happily identify myself to them, and forward to them
every post I've ever made about him in full context. If he has a
problem with that (and he will!), I think we can say his bluff has now
officially been called.

The payment will be cash and you do not need to identify yourself
Hence my request. I'll give my details to an *unbiased* observer, but
I don't wish to be identified by Douglas because he is a *obsessed
borderline psychotic*. If you doubt that, from another post on this
topic, Douglas said, and I quote:

I'll find you soon enough...
Scum like you are the reason shopkeepers keep shotguns under
the counter.

Any questions, folks? That will be one of the first things I show his
lawyer...

just wait until your information is verified and the court papers served, to be paid.
But what if Douglas decides he won't proceed? (Gee, not that it would
be likely, I'm sure that any lawyer would *jump* at the chance to
represent someone like him..) But of course by then he would have my
address... Anyone else feel like giving him their address, after that
shotgun remark??

Anyway, these silly threats might work on someone with little
intelligence, and maybe Douglas thinks everyone thinks just like him.
But they ain't working on me. If he continues to post rubbish and then
withdraw it, I will continue to *repost* it for posterity, and to
ensure he doesn't get away with his ridiculous claims.

To prove that he won't stop me keeping him honest, here's another of
the Douglas classic posts, which deserves another showing:

http://www.geocities.com/chrlzs/flinders-20D

Herein Douglas tried to show how badly a Canon performs with shadow
detail. But take a careful look at the EXIF data which shows the
exposure mode he used (partial, which is similar to spot), and then
look at the histogram. Remembering, this is a sunlit beach scene, and
he effectively used spot metering off the guy's sunlit white pants,
shirt and beach sand, with no compensation...!!! Does anyone here
think the problem is the camera, or is it the photographer? I can post
more - is Douglas going to summons the Wayback Machine too? There are
many other ways to get cached data, so no-one can escape their history.
I'm happy for any of *my* work to be reposted, by the way - I'll be
flattered! And my old stuff is actually not that hard to find...

(O:

So remember - these are his *publicly posted webpages*, complete with
all copyright messages, reposted for educational purposes.


Contact me through my web sites.
Any takers yet? I hope no-one beats me to my $500.

(O:

I'm waiting for your lawyer's name, Douglas.

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:
my interpolation webpage:

http://hannemyr.com/photo/interpolation.html

At least something useful has come out of yet another stupid "Douglas"
thread - that page has gone into my bookmarks. )

My acceptence is on record in Google, and Douglas (using his Ryadia
handle) is on record that he would send me the images to examine after
30th of June 2005. I am still waiting for them.

Thanks Gisle, for putting that part of the record straight. And your
interpolation information is indeed excellent (it was one of the first
pages I stumbled upon some years back when I first got into digital
enlargement). You have been very courteous (and patient), in your
response to Mr MacDonald.

Please let us know if:

1. You actually ever do get samples.

2. Those samples actually prove anything, other than the ownership of a
big printer with a good RIP..

(O:

Russell wanted to see my code and I wouldn't let him.

Douglas, please *post* the bit where Mike Russell wanted to see your
code. He didn't request any such thing. Here's the link again, for
anyone to check:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....ff1d6c6425889/

So you are a liar. Spelt L I A R. It's not defamation, it's simply
stating facts. And that one about 'wanting to see your code' is the
same old line you bring out all the time. And *nobody* is fooled.

Just give it up, Douglas. It's way past embarrassing.

D-Mac writes:
Russell wanted to see my code and I wouldn't let him.

So your code is a secret, then?

Doug, earlier on you claimed that your "algorythm" (sic!) was patented.
Your claim is on file in Google Groups:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...147e2bf4ad4747

For an algorithm to be patented, the patent document must described in
detail how the algorithm works, to the extent that after reading the
document, "someone skilled in the art" is able to reproduce the way it
works. Patent documents are public records. If your algorithm is
patented, ANYONE, including Russell and myself, can request a copy of
it from the appropriate patent office. This is how patents work.

I don't know whether you fantasise about your code being secret,
or you fantasise about your algorithm being patented. But it can't
be both.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD10, Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrote in message
oups.com...
1. Douglas posted images and text on the In-ter-net.
2. Douglas drew at-ten-tion to them in these groups.
3. People cri-tic-ised his images and in-fer-en-ces.
4. He (cow-ard-ly) withdrew the images and text.

Whatever may be the rightness or wrongness of any of this, the claims and
counterclaims in which leave me rigid with boredom, I was just wondering why
all the hyphenation?
Have we accidentally strayed into English as a Foreign Language? Or is there
some oth-er rea-son?
Helen.