I've Fuc*in had it all

[Bill White]

In Eudora you open the message and click the Blah, Blah, Blah button to view the header. As mentioned, the problem may be that it was spoofed.

Its sad that Paul would have to deal with this. I hope Paul does not leave the forum.

Hi Paul,
It depends on what you use for a mail reader.
If you use outlook just open the message, then click on the view
option pull down menu, then click on "options". A screen will pop
up called message options and at the bottom will be a box called
Internet headers. Highlight all the text in this box and copy and
paste into a post here on this forum.
Thanks
Jack

http://www.pbase.com/joneill

--
Bill

 

[Larry H. Smith]

It won't matter when this thread is deleted. The language mispelled is not appropriate. No debate there! eL

Not allowed?, ...maybe so.

Inappropriate?...depends on how you think such fruitcakes deserve to be talked about.

I realize that passionate expression ( we're talkin' NON-SEXUAL "passion" here ;-) such as Paul's is a no-no to many , but as-many others think it PERFECTLY appropriate to an expression of rage such as his.

Give 'em hell, Paul. There is such a thing as "asking-for-it".

The creep has it coming.

(Is "creep" too-strong?

Larry

 

[SoHo Ron]

It's pretty clear that Paul Pope would like to slur all Christians in the same breath, despite it being a few that caused whatever problems he feels he's having (and has to broadcast so confusingly).

I won't make the same mistake and assume that all pornographers are idiots like PP. I'll judge them one at a time.

 

[DavidP #28649]

But, you don't understand.

It's "OK" to judge Christians.

You just can't judge anybody else. THAT's not "PC"

Can you imagine the media circus if the DC sniper had been a white Christian male instead of a Black Muslim?

Of course, Chief Moose didn't want to release a composite sketch of the guy, because he "didn't want to paint with a broad brush" or something like that. ROFLMAO.

Of course, given that so many "witnesses" saw a white van that was apparently never even related, maybe we shouldn't release any descriptions at all.

It's pretty clear that Paul Pope would like to slur all Christians
in the same breath, despite it being a few that caused whatever
problems he feels he's having (and has to broadcast so confusingly).

I won't make the same mistake and assume that all pornographers are
idiots like PP. I'll judge them one at a time.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Danny Cardenas]

DUOOOH!

(Homer Simpson- not the Iliad guy...)

thanks again-

-dc

I KNOW! .... I can't tell you how upset I got.

Thanks for the criticism.

Want more? "Censure" is not quite the same thing as "censoring" ;-)

Larry

 

[Troponin]

In here ........................
use your D60's for whatever you like I'm not employed as a
educational consultant ....... if you still can't figure out why
your 550 is underexposing the only hint I will give you is its YOU.
I'm not nice ....F*ck off
I tried to give alll o you BUSINESS experience but the 23000 emails
from Christian extemists who figured out who I am are not worth it
I assure you Hustler willl continue without you regardless ......
To alll those who understand..................
Its been 2 years and I've recently lost alll my patience ...follow
Biggles he actualy gives a F*ck about good photos
I am obviously relegated to porn.... and I will not abide that.

--

 

[Larry H. Smith]

I think it was more a matter of a poster who DIDN'T say it WASN'T!
(reading them all will turn it up, I believe.

Not saying "that's terrible" should never be equated with saying
that "it's OK to do so".

I don't disagree with you here. Note that I was telling you what I thought HAD provoked the "So you think that's OK?" comment, not that I thought it SHOULD HAVE provoked it ;-)

I would disagree with your asterisked use of the word "appears"
here. I would accept that it "COULD HAVE " been such an attempt.,

Whether intentional, a Freudian slip, or just an oversight, the
appearance is still there.

Will you accept my adding "in the eye/mind of the beholder"?

Just as you imply (above) that a lack of saying "Paul, that's
terrible" gives

GAVE, ...to SOMEONE,

the apperance of "what the guy did was OK by me", I
could argue that the lack of an apology (or explanation) by Paul
about his statement could mean that he actually intended it.

Now, I'm not asking for an apology or explanation from Paul.
However, what he originally said IS very easily construed as slap
on Christianity (intentional or not), given that it was only ONE
person who sent all 23,000 emails.

I'll tell you how I interpreted what he said. I assumed that he
had received a few dozen (maybe a few hundred) emails from a bunch
of folks. Most of which who don't normally hang out here, but were
shown the thread by a few individuals from here who wanted to "send
Paul a message". Then, Paul got PO'd (rightfully so), and came
here and vented (not-so-rightfully) and exaggerated these hundred
or so messages into 23,000 messages. And in doing so, was
slamming them as "Christian extremists".

Obviously, that was wrong. But that's how it appeared.

OK, We have each reported how the post came across to us. Neither of us can speak for all readers, I'm sure you'll agree.

How much less controversial would it have been for him to simply
say "some guy email bombed me with over 23,000 emails" ? That's
REALLY the heart of the matter, isn't it?

Yes.

BUT, we all have our biases (the difference between bias and prejudice is worth noting), and Paul was understandably very angry. He has had "confontations with extreme "believers" before, and his dislike of their judgemental-attitudes is quite likely always simmering, needing only to be fanned into a blaze. I can easily identify with his feelings.

Agreed, certainly, that the Christian and the non-Christian camps
each have their nut-cases. It is what I percieve as the
institutionalized-nuttiness of (almost every) religion that IMO
does harm to humankind.

I think you'll find that a very large percentage of the world
affiliates themselves with a relgion. Therefore, it's not
unexpected at all that a very large percentage of whacko's are also
affiliated with religions.

Good observation.

Does religion CAUSE the whacko, or just give him his "reason" for
justifying whatever he does? I vote for the latter.

I vote for the former(in literally millions of cases)) but would definitely choose "both of the above".

It doesn't take a bloodhound to "sniff-out" that we are of different views on many issues related to 'religion', ...but it is nice to keep-in-mind that we share common tastes in many other areas of experience.

I have made my case against religion (as commonly-understood), at the request of friends, face-to-face with their pastors/priests, in private audience, ...the "authorities" accepting the meeting with great confidence in their ability to deal-with/brush-aside the questions of an "ordinary" lay-person.

You may not choose to believe it, but when the dust settled, their feelings were very-much different. The friends in question are no-longer church-members.

Am I brighter/more articulate than a given believer? Not necessarily, ...but I probably have more intellectual courage. I will ask the hard questions, and will not-accept non-answers, nor will I feign great respect for the charlatan, titled-or-not.

(Ran over word-limit, ...cont'd as ? for thinkers.)

 

[Larry H. Smith]

lhsmith wrote:
(continued from above)

To anyone willing to actually think about it (most "faithful" are not), ...consider this:

If someone requires you to accept "answers" which wouldn't make sense to you in any other context, and openly or implicitely discourages the questions being asked at all,...

If your believing in their non-answers is rewarded with a hypothetical 'carrot', ...and disbelif punished with an equally-hypothetical "stick", ... both of the highest imaginable(key-words on both-sides of this set of parentheses) fright/satisfaction quotient, (i.e. Heaven/Hell!!!) ...

If at the same time you are aware of the manipulative aspects of all this (dare "you let yourself think it?), you are also being told that you have been given "free will",(as-if the above presentation itself isn't composed of coersive elements)...so that you will think, in the frightened end-state, that YOU have "freely" (and of course, wisely)made your choice, ...

If , in some lunatic moment-of-false-courage, you dare to mumble "BS" under your breath, and hear the catch-all non-answer "Mysterious ways!" being offered as if the words actually SAY something, ...

If you then turn around and participate in applying this whole "organised" procedure to the next innocent who approaches trustfully,...(supported by the "Our way is the RIGHT way!" chants of your peers, ...the others who have convinced-themselves/been-convinced that they do, in-fact, see 'the light")

AND ...If all this is acceptable to you(GENERIC "you", ...NOT David-specific), ...than we are very different creatures indeed.

-----------------------------

That was a long way of saying "YES, ...I believe that religion (as "organised religion") CREATES "whackos".

And after the by-now-obedient (and convinced their soul's survival depends upon that obedience) 'converts' are so conditioned, ...all that remains is for them to be given their "mission". GO here. TEACH this. OPPOSE/refuse-to-consider anything contrary to your indoctrination. FIGHT "EVIL/SATAN" (we will define these for you). (and, in the worst cases of fanaticism, KILL so-and-so). All for, and with the blessings of, GOD!

How can you go wrong?

Easily!

Fortunately, for a great many thinking people, resistance is NOT "futile".

(Yeah, I have strong feelings about the subjugation of mind and spirit.)

Larry

 

[DavidP #28649]

Will you accept my adding "in the eye/mind of the beholder"?

I think it goes without saying that "appearance" can only be in the eye/mind of the beholder. As such, it's redudant to add it on.

OK, We have each reported how the post came across to us. Neither
of us can speak for all readers, I'm sure you'll agree.

Agreed. But it just illustrates the importance of thinking how OTHERS might interpret a message.

You may not choose to believe it, but when the dust settled, their
feelings were very-much different. The friends in question are
no-longer church-members.

Being a church member, of course, is NOT a requirement of Christianity. Regardless of what others (Christian or not) say about the matter.

There IS a difference between Christianity and "Christian religions". And (just for the sake of completeness) a difference between the latter and specific churches.

PS -- did you get my email? Let me know what Pat thinks.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Larry H. Smith]

...with a red-ink pen to circle my errors

uncorrected version;

How much fun could a fun/-dee(circled) -dee(circled) , if a fundy could de-fun/!(circled)

A whole BUNCH, if he had any choice in the matter, I'Il bet!

Correct version;

How much fun could a fundy de-, if a fundy could de-fun?

Whew! (more grammatically correct, ...but somehow the 1st way was "cuter", IMO ;-)

Larry

 

[Larry H. Smith]

Check this out:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/message.asp?forum=1019&parent=3650501&thread=3645398

(Homer Simpson- not the Iliad guy...)

thanks again-

-dc

I KNOW! .... I can't tell you how upset I got.

Thanks for the criticism.

Want more? "Censure" is not quite the same thing as "censoring" ;-)

Larry

 

[Danny Cardenas]

I don't think anybody said what happened to Paul was OK.

I noticed you haven't said otherwise.

Nor have I seen anybody post (haven't read everything yet) that seems to be a > "sympathizer" with whoever did this, either.

Well there's this-

If the guy's smart, the header has been spoofed.

What does the email header say is the origin?

(although granted- as an example of sympathy, that is a bit of a stretch)

All that was said was that Paul's initial post was misleading. And it is.

No it's not-

What can be construed from his original post is that he was extremely PO'd at being mail bombed, by "christian extremists" that he believed to have gotten his address from this board.

How is that misleading?

And the way in which it was written appears to be an attempt to throw mud on > all Christians. THAT has nothing to do with Paul's complaint about what
happened.

If that's what you perceived- that he was trying to slander all christians, well, that's a bit extreme don't you think?

 

[DavidP #28649]

I noticed you haven't said otherwise.

Actually, I do believe that I have. Of course, I think it goes without saying that what happened to Paul was wrong. Which is why I haven't really bothered to say it much.

Well there's this-

If the guy's smart, the header has been spoofed.

Hardly "sympathetic". Simply stating the fact that using email headers to track down mail-bombers can be quite problematic if the guy is smart, and has spoofed it.

I, too, have been email bombed. And the email headers were spoofed.

What can be construed from his original post is that he was
extremely PO'd at being mail bombed, by "christian extremists" that
he believed to have gotten his address from this board.

How is that misleading?

It's misleading because it was ONE guy who email-bombed him with 23,000+ emails. That's quite a bit different than thousands of "christian extremists" sending him emails.

If that's what you perceived- that he was trying to slander all
christians, well, that's a bit extreme don't you think?

Perhaps. But it's quite obvious to me that somebody could easily interpret what he wrote as such. A little bit more care in how he phrased himself could've prevented it.

Again, the problem is that somebody email bombed him. It hardly matters if it was a "christian extremist" or an atheist (like Caroline) who objects to his photography subject.

By saying what he did, the way he said it, Paul made this more of a religious thing than it needed to be. In fact, it wasn't even obvious until much later that Paul had been email bombed. Several of us obviously thought that many people had emailed him, and that he was fed up with it, and that he was exagerrating about 23,000 emails.

Note that he even had a part in there about getting emails on how to use the 550-EX.

It sure sounded to me like he was simply fed up with getting emails from people. Email bombing never even crossed my mind.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Danny Cardenas]

uncorrected version;

How much fun could a fun/-dee(circled) -dee(circled) , if a fundy could de-fun/!(circled)

A whole BUNCH, if he had any choice in the matter, I'Il bet!

Correct version;

How much fun could a fundy de-, if a fundy could de-fun?

Whew! (more grammatically correct, ...but somehow the 1st way was
"cuter", IMO ;-)

Larry

 

[Danny Cardenas]

Whatever. I got his point right away, as I believe did most others. It seems to me you're PO'd about the term "christian extremists." I understand how a believer, vested in his or her faith would want to defend its name, but the fact of the matter is there ARE christian extremists who do some pretty horrible things, far worse than email bombs. Rarely do you hear about atheists mail bombing anyone. But it's not at all uncommon to hear about christian extremists using all sorts of harrasment tactics including murder to bend other people to their will.

It's misleading because it was ONE guy who email-bombed him with
23,000+ emails. That's quite a bit different than thousands of
"christian extremists" sending him emails.

If that's what you perceived- that he was trying to slander all
christians, well, that's a bit extreme don't you think?

Perhaps. But it's quite obvious to me that somebody could easily
interpret what he wrote as such. A little bit more care in how he
phrased himself could've prevented it.

Again, the problem is that somebody email bombed him. It hardly
matters if it was a "christian extremist" or an atheist (like
Caroline) who objects to his photography subject.

By saying what he did, the way he said it, Paul made this more of a
religious thing than it needed to be. In fact, it wasn't even
obvious until much later that Paul had been email bombed. Several
of us obviously thought that many people had emailed him, and that
he was fed up with it, and that he was exagerrating about 23,000
emails.

Note that he even had a part in there about getting emails on how
to use the 550-EX.

It sure sounded to me like he was simply fed up with getting emails
from people. Email bombing never even crossed my mind.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

Really?

You thought (after reading his first post in this thread) that one single person had email bombed him with 23,000 emails?

You must be a mind-reader.

It sure seemed to me that he was sick and tired of gettings LOTS of emails . . . on varying topics . . . . like 550-EX flashes AND anti-nudity crusades . . . and God only knows what else he failed to mention.

Whatever. I got his point right away, as I believe did most others.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Danny Cardenas]

Get off the soapbox. Nobody's judging or equating fanaticsm with "all christians."

Most reasonable people know there are decent people of all faiths- Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Believe it or not there are decent atheists and agnostics as well.

It's "OK" to judge Christians.

You just can't judge anybody else. THAT's not "PC"

Can you imagine the media circus if the DC sniper had been a white
Christian male instead of a Black Muslim?

Of course, Chief Moose didn't want to release a composite sketch of
the guy, because he "didn't want to paint with a broad brush" or
something like that. ROFLMAO.

Of course, given that so many "witnesses" saw a white van that was
apparently never even related, maybe we shouldn't release any
descriptions at all.

It's pretty clear that Paul Pope would like to slur all Christians
in the same breath, despite it being a few that caused whatever
problems he feels he's having (and has to broadcast so confusingly).

I won't make the same mistake and assume that all pornographers are
idiots like PP. I'll judge them one at a time.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[DavidP #28649]

I see that SOME soapboxes are OK, I guess.

If I'm on a soapbox, I guess Larry (lhsmith) must be on one, too, eh?

That's OK, though. Some of us can actually talk to each other while we're on our respective soap boxes, and not try to knock each other off.

Get off the soapbox. Nobody's judging or equating fanaticsm with
"all christians."

Most reasonable people know there are decent people of all faiths-
Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Believe it or
not there are decent atheists and agnostics as well.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[biggles]

you people are easily amused.........LMFAO

If I'm on a soapbox, I guess Larry (lhsmith) must be on one, too, eh?

That's OK, though. Some of us can actually talk to each other
while we're on our respective soap boxes, and not try to knock each
other off.

Get off the soapbox. Nobody's judging or equating fanaticsm with
"all christians."

Most reasonable people know there are decent people of all faiths-
Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. Believe it or
not there are decent atheists and agnostics as well.

--
The Unofficial Photographer of The Wilkinsons
http://thewilkinsons.crosswinds.net
Photography -- just another word for compromise

 

[Phillips40]

Danny,

I don't know why you reacted the way you did to my posting...it was urging other Christians to NOT behave judgementally and to NOT "impose" our will on others. Our duty is simply to present the message of Jesus's love and sacrifice...period. It is not to "cut the heads off of infidels" as some other religions propose.

To be so defensive, Danny, there must be something else...
--
Frank Phillips
http://www.digicaminfo.com

One thing we Christians tend to forget is that the rest of the
world is watching us.

Also- please don't forget that the rest of the world may not want
to buy your snake oil, no matter how much you believe in it. Leave
us the F* K alone!

We have a very POSITIVE message, and we must

conduct ourselves in a positive manner, not in a manner that is
judgemental. After all, the Bible says "All have sinned, and
fallen short...", and that includes us Christians, which is why we
are in need of the forgiveness that our Saviour provides to anyone
who asks.

Let us also remember that we are in a Photography forum, which
borders/overlaps the "fine arts", and there are many in the arts
who resist Chrisitianity because of the judgemental way in which it
is often presented by us.

Or maybe they "resist" because they don't accept it, and aren't
willing to have it imposed on them.

Remember, Christ said he came NOT to condemn the world, but to
redeem it with his blood shed on the cross. Let's be positive when
presenting our message; being judgemental only builds resentment
like we've seen in this thread. Christ doesn't want to condemn us,
he wants to give us new life.
--
Frank Phillips
http://www.digicaminfo.com

1. This is a photography forum open to all expressions dictated by
the host http://www.dpreview.com
2. This forum is meant to discuss the technical details of
photography, not what the contents of the photograph are so long as
they follow dpreviews requests.
3. Free speech is indeed free, but listening is not mandatory and
shouldn't be enforced by spam emailing.
4. Blaiming any religious group for the actions of one is like
banning all weapons because of a deranged sniper.
5. Let it go and lets move on with photography...
6. I am a christian and it's precisely nutballs that do these kinds
of things to Mr.Pope that make me shake my head...it's like saying
all photographers are paparrazzi and are responsible for Lady Di's
death...

Thanks....

One person produces an e-mail loop and he lashes out at Christians.
He doesn't tell the truth and tries to make us think that almost
24,000 Christians e-mailed him in a matter of 8 hours. Anyone with
half a brian would know that this is just nonsense. I had a kid do
this to me one time and although it upset me at the time, it really
wasn't any big deal to stop it.

Paul, if you really are leaving, I'll just say that I hope that
someday you discover what the "Truth" really is. However, this
looks like just another Christian bash thread started by a troll.

--

.........................................
Danny Cardenas
http://www.canonusers.net/