'Cold' - photographs of Antarctica

"Frank Arthur" wrote in message
.. .



What Is Not Permitted:

This newsgroup explicitly prohibits the posting of advertisements of any
kind, whether personal, private or commercial, as well as all other
promotional material, whether or not it is in any way related to
photography.

Is that clear enough for your Frank or do I need to break it down further
for you?

Douglas

You must be really dense not to grasp the message from this newsgroup
readers.
They would rather see Heslenfeld's images or story about his book then
read
your reading of the rules and regulations.
In short. Is Douglas contributing more to the newsgroup or T.Heslenfeld?


Odd isn't it?
This group was created to prevent this sort of thing and you had no part in
it's inception but now you want to change it's charter. Why no go the Google
and start your own group if you can't have the civility and common decency
to respect the rules of this group?

Douglas

"Doug Freese" wrote in message
...

"Frank Arthur" wrote in message
.. .
In short. Is Douglas contributing more to the newsgroup or T.Heslenfeld?

This pictures were great thanks to Heslenfeld for sharing the pictures.

Douglas' bitching is like the Catholic Church claiming some movie should
not be watched. All that pious publicity does is make the curious want see
it more to include the Catholics - free advertisement. So all you have
done with your bitching is help the advertising. It must be fun tilting at
windmills.

DF - same first name but no where as tight in ass as him


With people like yourself Doug, there is no point in having any rules.
The purpose of a group's charter is to define behaviour in the group.
Otherwise it is likely to turn out exactly like Rec.photo.digital... More
advertisments for fake rolex and nike than informative posts.

I really don't know where you come from and couldn't care. You are clearly
not the sort of person I'd have any time for anyway. I do know that if you
have no respect for the rules of engagement (newsgroup charter) then you can
look forward to seeing the destruction of what you currently enjoy.

The whole purpose of a bill of rights or a charter is to provide a basis in
which people -- All people can equally enjoy what the group is. You can't
make exceptions to the rules just because it's a book he's peddling. I don't
advertise my goods for sale here in respect for other people's enjoyment of
the group. Why should anyone else be exempt from the same ethics?

Douglas

On Dec 10, 12:39 am, "Douglas" wrote:


You're kidding, right? How ironic that you are complaining about
"damaging the Usenet experience" considering the effect your flame wars
have had in the rec.photo groups.

Actually you need to re-assess that statement THO. It is "My defence" of
someone who thought they could somehow get an advantage over me by engaging
in criminal activity... It's not a flame war.

Eventually it will not have damaged Usenet but proven that when authorities
responsible for policing theft of copyright, Identity theft and other
on-line activates that do damage a community in general don't take action,
eventually it will reach a level where they have to.

It is terribly unfortunate that this upsets subscribers to the groups but
seriously THO... If he is allowed to do as he pleases and use pornography
pasted over a Pro's images as well as commit fraud when setting up sites to
post his attacks to, who is to say anyone is safe from such behaviour?

If you engage me in a discussion about photography and/or printing, you'll
get polite and responsible replies. If you steal my images, defame my
clients and use my identity fraudulently... You'll be treated the same way
he is.

Douglas

C'mon Douggie, learn to organize your thoughts. Let's stick to bashing
Heslenfeld in this thread. Leave me out of it.
Btw, your post was a clear violation of the charter that you hold so
dear.
Not only is it off-topic, but it is filled with personal attacks.

Having said that, I actually agree with you as regards Mr.
Heslenfeld's spamming of the newsgroup. Frozen spam is still spam.
However, I do enjoy his pics as they take us to a place where few of
us
have been. I'd rather see him post a link to his pics rather than
blatantly advertise his book.

I think your point was that the charter should either be followed for
everyone or for no one. I was surprised to see the spammer defended
here so vehemently, especially since this group was set up by a bunch
of anal retentives trying to get away from such things.

On Dec 11, 1:00 am, "Doug Freese" wrote:

Douglas' bitching is like the Catholic Church claiming some movie should
not be watched.

And your defense of what is obviosuly spam is like the Catholics
condoning child molesting since the guy that did it was the priest.


Thijs Heslenfeld has some beautiful photographs on his site.
I enjoy looking at them. But coming onto a newsgroup and saying, "Buy
my Book!" is bad form.

Geez, I can't believe I am agreeing with the idiot, D-Mac, on this
one!
I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Annika1980 wrote:
On Dec 11, 1:00 am, "Doug Freese" wrote:
Douglas' bitching is like the Catholic Church claiming some movie should
not be watched.

And your defense of what is obviosuly spam is like the Catholics
condoning child molesting since the guy that did it was the priest.


Thijs Heslenfeld has some beautiful photographs on his site.
I enjoy looking at them. But coming onto a newsgroup and saying, "Buy
my Book!" is bad form.

Geez, I can't believe I am agreeing with the idiot, D-Mac, on this
one!
I guess even a broken clock is right twice a day.

And I can't believe I am agreeing with both of them! And, consummate
politician that I'm not, I see your point of view and agree partly.

The Heslenfeld post, whilst against the Charter, is the least offensive
of such, and I wouldn't have singled it out.

--
John McWilliams

On Dec 11, 12:45 pm, John McWilliams wrote:

The Heslenfeld post, whilst against the Charter, is the least offensive
of such, and I wouldn't have singled it out.

Why not? Is it becuase he takes nice pics?
What if the pics were crappy? Would that make a difference on whether
he should come here to sell his book? Or what if he was selling
peenie pills?

Annika1980 wrote:
On Dec 11, 12:45 pm, John McWilliams wrote:
The Heslenfeld post, whilst against the Charter, is the least offensive
of such, and I wouldn't have singled it out.

Why not? Is it becuase he takes nice pics?
What if the pics were crappy? Would that make a difference on whether
he should come here to sell his book? Or what if he was selling
peenie pills?

To avoid a contentious 50 post thread?

Nah, never mind. I just commented I wouldn't have singled that one out
among the dozens that are very or completely off topic. I'm not saying
it was wrong to have done so.

And, yes, it his pics were crap, it would have made a diff.

\
--
john mcwilliams

Overall great pictures but I can't believe you took a photo of a whale (large animal)
skeleton bones with a person in a red jumpsuit in the photo!!!!



On Sun, 9 Dec 2007 23:00:51 +0100, "T.Heslenfeld" office-at-thijsheslenfeld-dot-com
wrote:

My photobook 'Cold' on a sailing trip to Antarctica is just out. Check out
www.cold-the-book.com.

Hope you enjoy the images. I certainly enjoyed shooting them ;-)

T.Heslenfeld
The Netherlands
www.cold-the-book.com


Billy Boy

To reply correct [at] and [dot]