Daniel Craig --- too good to be true??

[mike savad]

He has an email address of [email protected]!!!!!
He must have made that up recently!!!

really, i must have missed that one.

so far i dug up:

names:

Daniel Craig - i think this one is actually the real one.

David Lynch - changed it after mouthing off in a computer support group.

Jennifer Fletcher - it had the same exact email address, catman at blah.

Goldibear - his dog name and handle on ezboard (making those wonderus graphic moderations of his.

Ugoldibear - popped up somewhere as well.

email addressed i've seen:

[email protected] and i think @home.net as well.

in the other groups, he seems well behaved. the picture he gives on the ezboard site, the blurry one of him sitting on the couch with his dog. i'll assume that's what he really looks like, as it doesn't match his current photo at all.

his intrests, photography - sort of. and is a little too much into chess, according to his forum comments in the dayton chess club site.

---Mike Savad

 

[mike savad]

my man daniel!!!!!
derek

Your posts. Mike, are beginning to sound more funnier than mine.
Keep up the good work!!!!

Aren't these busybodies incredible!!!!

i'm assuming your talking to yourself now... as i see you have no other comment's but this one.

aren't you still going to go on telling us all about the ruler of all camera's - the S30???

---Mike Savad

 

[Will53889]

He has an email address of [email protected]!!!!!
He must have made that up recently!!!

I think Phil outlawed such addresses months ago. Before that restriction you could register with a hotmail, netscape type address. If you had already registered with such an email address before the freeze took hold you were able to keep using it.

 

[Daniel Craig]

considered photography -- accept that you will not get the
expression of approval here and move on. Abandon this thread.

What? I can't even be in a thread about me? Hey, since you think
my web design is so childish, then perchance you might give me a
link to your web page so as I can learn from someone more
sophisticated? That's what I thought. Move on.

sure, go to http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1141/ provided that
geocities doesn't wimp out. since there ban on popular pages, i can
only a little over 100 people on the site daily, where it was from
300+ a day.

the site was designed by me, typing in the code by hand. unlike you.

of course you won't check back to ever see it, if you get the geo
bandwidth page. but if you want to see it, then check it out, and
no i can't help the geo problems.

---Mike Savad

--
http://www.pbase.com/savad/

Ok I viewed some of your site. It is very good because it serves your purpose--and of course has no thumbnails like mine does--at least I didn't see any. And congratulations on being the first--and only--so far of my enemies that has shown his mug. That you don't like any sports is a shame, though. Albeit I can hardly blame you and I am just about there myself. The USA had 31+ athletes that failed drug testing before the sydney olympics and got away with it--so far. What has been called the greatest marathon of all-time was just ran in London, England. And it was a farce. They advertised fully in advance that they were going to test for EPO--and not test for hormone growth drugs or for any steroid use. I have all but quit following sports myself. It is pretty sickening at what lengths they will go to allow drugs in and make it look like they are applying their rules all the same. The Sydney Olympics puposely used the weakest testing for drug that has ever been performed. Yet, they did their GREAT duty of stripping the gold from the all-around gymnist when they knew for a fact that she had taken nothing more than non-subscription cough medicine. the USA cheats primarily in sprinting events--so sayeth Carl Lewis whom I believe never touch the stuff. But you better bet that all the others have been doing it--from Marion Jones (disqualified for skipping a drug test as a high schooler--Gail Deavers (who had alll her track bonus money stripped this year for not complying to out-of-competiton drug testing)--to Michael Johnson, Maurice Green and others who have never been subject to any serious drug testing--and a whole host of more athletes besides. Butch Reynolds, Florence Johnson, Regina Jacobs--the list is a who's who. Don't get me started.

 

[Daniel Craig]

He has an email address of [email protected]!!!!!
He must have made that up recently!!!

I think Phil outlawed such addresses months ago. Before that
restriction you could register with a hotmail, netscape type
address. If you had already registered with such an email address
before the freeze took hold you were able to keep using it.

that address isn't quite right--but I don't use yahoo anyway
I use msn IM
[email protected]

 

[mike savad]

considered photography -- accept that you will not get the
expression of approval here and move on. Abandon this thread.

What? I can't even be in a thread about me? Hey, since you think
my web design is so childish, then perchance you might give me a
link to your web page so as I can learn from someone more
sophisticated? That's what I thought. Move on.

sure, go to http://www.geocities.com/Paris/1141/ provided that
geocities doesn't wimp out. since there ban on popular pages, i can
only a little over 100 people on the site daily, where it was from
300+ a day.

the site was designed by me, typing in the code by hand. unlike you.

of course you won't check back to ever see it, if you get the geo
bandwidth page. but if you want to see it, then check it out, and
no i can't help the geo problems.

---Mike Savad

--
http://www.pbase.com/savad/

Ok I viewed some of your site. It is very good because it serves
your purpose

of course it does. it's about stained glass, and it's about stained glass.

--and of course has no thumbnails like mine does

umm... good. who cares? the pictures are small, they load up quick, and i didn't want the hassle of making thumbs for that. not to mention the extra coding it would require. but you wouldn't know anything about coding.

--at

least I didn't see any. And congratulations on being the
first--and only--so far of my enemies that has shown his mug.

i don't mind anyone knowing what i look like. though i really should update the picture. that was from awhile ago, and is not nearly as clear as i'd like it.

That

you don't like any sports is a shame, though. Albeit I can hardly
blame you and I am just about there myself. The USA had 31+
athletes that failed drug testing before the sydney olympics and
got away with it--so far. What has been called the greatest
marathon of all-time was just ran in London, England. And it was a
farce. They advertised fully in advance that they were going to
test for EPO--and not test for hormone growth drugs or for any
steroid use. I have all but quit following sports myself. It is
pretty sickening at what lengths they will go to allow drugs in and
make it look like they are applying their rules all the same. The
Sydney Olympics puposely used the weakest testing for drug that has
ever been performed. Yet, they did their GREAT duty of stripping
the gold from the all-around gymnist when they knew for a fact that
she had taken nothing more than non-subscription cough medicine.
the USA cheats primarily in sprinting events--so sayeth Carl Lewis
whom I believe never touch the stuff. But you better bet that all
the others have been doing it--from Marion Jones (disqualified for
skipping a drug test as a high schooler--Gail Deavers (who had alll
her track bonus money stripped this year for not complying to
out-of-competiton drug testing)--to Michael Johnson, Maurice Green
and others who have never been subject to any serious drug
testing--and a whole host of more athletes besides. Butch
Reynolds, Florence Johnson, Regina Jacobs--the list is a who's who.
Don't get me started.

ok... i won't... i may have asked too much as it is....?...?

---Mike Savad

 

[Jeff_C]

Mike,

I don't know how easy/hard it is to get all that info on him, especially his stuff from other forums. But dont you think going to all that trouble is getting a little obsessive?

Danny boy, before you reply to this saying how the tables have turned on Mike, DONT BOTHER! I do not support YOU in anyway, and do not attribute to you ANY credibility. Its quite obvious you're nothing but a computer geek with too much time on his hands...and sadly, nothing to do with it. Except play chess of course.

I see this more as a 'Forrest Gump' type scenario. A bumbling idiot who, despite being totally clueless to whats REAlly going on around him, manages to grab attention anyway.

...but it this situation (again, let me emphasize, NOT YOU specifically) gets four stars for entertainment.

Let me put it another just to make sure you don't misunderstand: The FACT that an idiot is getting so much attention is entertaining unto itself. NOT the idiot himself.

 

[Amal Schmitz]

Dan, let me be the first to say that you are absolutely correct in your statements. The truth is the truth. I just had the great opportunity to view your website. All I can say is your pictures suck. This thread is too funny!

And that's the truth, (ptlhptlhpthlptlh)

i'm mostly saying all of this, because in other posts, you stated
that you can take better pictures then the people you critized (by
giving a "i'm better then thou attitude"). making it seem that you
are some kind of creative king.

Maybe my attitude indicated that I am a better photograher, but I
neveer said such. As far as my statements regarding what the S30
could do, I only re-stated what is well-know and from my own
experiences. But 95% of the pictures I see posted on here are not
very appealing. When they aren't I say so, and when they are I say
so. The truth is the truth, isn't it?

 

[mike savad]

i do it every now and then for people i find entertaining. to see how they are in other mediums. it takes maybe 20 min. not to hard. he hasn't been around alot, maybe a year or two.

i wouldn't give him the honor of computer geek. maybe a chess nerd, that's just about all though.

---Mike Savad

Mike,

I don't know how easy/hard it is to get all that info on him,
especially his stuff from other forums. But dont you think going
to all that trouble is getting a little obsessive?

Danny boy, before you reply to this saying how the tables have
turned on Mike, DONT BOTHER! I do not support YOU in anyway, and
do not attribute to you ANY credibility. Its quite obvious you're
nothing but a computer geek with too much time on his hands...and
sadly, nothing to do with it. Except play chess of course.

I see this more as a 'Forrest Gump' type scenario. A bumbling
idiot who, despite being totally clueless to whats REAlly going on
around him, manages to grab attention anyway.

...but it this situation (again, let me emphasize, NOT YOU
specifically) gets four stars for entertainment.

Let me put it another just to make sure you don't misunderstand:
The FACT that an idiot is getting so much attention is entertaining
unto itself. NOT the idiot himself.

 

[daryl73209]

I admit to having enjoyed the recent "Daniel Craig" threads - both Daniel's posts and some of the incredible responses they have generated. At least when they first started, as debating jpeg vs. Raw or S30 vs. G2 and S40. I have been tempted a couple times to jump in but have resisted until now.

Jeff has touched a nerve though - I agree with him (nothing personal, Mike) that this has all crossed into some wierd territory. I'm not going to defend Daniel, his words/ideas, his website, or his pictures. But I'm not going to "pile on" with everyone else either and attack all of the above along with everything from his looks to his intelligence. It seems now like people are purposely antagonizing him just to get a response. And so of course he is getting even more attention and is responding more than ever.

Admittedly (so far anyway) I have not been the target of any of his posts so maybe it's too easy for me to be sitting here and taking a "holier than thou" position on all this. But I'm amazed at the attacks on anything and everything the guy says and does and how personal the attacks have become.

I've read hundreds of messages here since around the first of the year and have learned a great deal from a lot of people. But I cringe every time I see someone who I have respected for their knowledge, skill, and/or willingness to help with a question or problem jump in and bash Daniel just for the sake of bashing Daniel. And similar to a post in the "bananas" thread I just saw, some of the regulars over the past several months don't even seem to be participating here much any more - they probably got tired of the endless posts about "the crack" and now this.

Others have said it - if you want to express your true feelings about someone that is being a pain in the a.., IGNORE THEM and they will most likely go away (eventually).

Daryl

Mike,

I don't know how easy/hard it is to get all that info on him,
especially his stuff from other forums. But dont you think going
to all that trouble is getting a little obsessive?

Danny boy, before you reply to this saying how the tables have
turned on Mike, DONT BOTHER! I do not support YOU in anyway, and
do not attribute to you ANY credibility. Its quite obvious you're
nothing but a computer geek with too much time on his hands...and
sadly, nothing to do with it. Except play chess of course.

I see this more as a 'Forrest Gump' type scenario. A bumbling
idiot who, despite being totally clueless to whats REAlly going on
around him, manages to grab attention anyway.

...but it this situation (again, let me emphasize, NOT YOU
specifically) gets four stars for entertainment.

Let me put it another just to make sure you don't misunderstand:
The FACT that an idiot is getting so much attention is entertaining
unto itself. NOT the idiot himself.

 

[Richard P.86467]

Others have said it - if you want to express your true feelings
about someone that is being a pain in the a.., IGNORE THEM and they
will most likely go away (eventually).

 

[Alex Filatov]

I just spent time reading this thread... some of it at least and most of it is stupid, funny, interesting, boring, childish... I just think that they guy looks funny. Don't know if it's genetic, but I got the biggest laugh just by looking at him. Sorry for the personal hit, but the rest of the threads are he said this, she said that. It's more fun to poke fun at something funny, than to read something that isn't funny and try to imagine that it was funny. When they say a picture is worth a thousand words, Dan's picture is worth a darwinian novel.

Now back to your regular scheduled G1 pictures.

 

[derek pearson]

heres another- people just cant stop talking about this guy and speaking of childish?

derek

I just spent time reading this thread... some of it at least and
most of it is stupid, funny, interesting, boring, childish... I
just think that they guy looks funny. Don't know if it's genetic,
but I got the biggest laugh just by looking at him. Sorry for the
personal hit, but the rest of the threads are he said this, she
said that. It's more fun to poke fun at something funny, than to
read something that isn't funny and try to imagine that it was
funny. When they say a picture is worth a thousand words, Dan's
picture is worth a darwinian novel.

Now back to your regular scheduled G1 pictures.

 

[Mike S40523]

OK I find your site less than childish -- and I TEACH WEB DESIGN .. my new students do a better job..

oh so you can learn -- here's the link

http://www.mbswebcreations.com

considered photography -- accept that you will not get the
expression of approval here and move on. Abandon this thread.

What? I can't even be in a thread about me? Hey, since you think
my web design is so childish, then perchance you might give me a
link to your web page so as I can learn from someone more
sophisticated? That's what I thought. Move on.

 

[Daniel Craig]

oh so you can learn -- here's the link

http://www.mbswebcreations.com

considered photography -- accept that you will not get the
expression of approval here and move on. Abandon this thread.

What? I can't even be in a thread about me? Hey, since you think
my web design is so childish, then perchance you might give me a
link to your web page so as I can learn from someone more
sophisticated? That's what I thought. Move on.

A better design than what? Not certainly that link you just gave me--anybody can do that. My design serves the type of purpose that I created it for. Notice no flower decorations? They are for the innumerable female sites--they all have them--just about. So, I have leaf designs--which serves my purpose. The blurred nav bar serves my purpose from a photographic/3D illusion angle. I am happy with it. My roll overs are for people who like roll overs is design--so they serve a purpose too--though I may make them bigger. I can put a variety of slide shows on my site--I have done so in the past--but thumbnails serve my purpose better. I could make it fancier--I'd like to--but more fancy means more download time--so it ainta gonna happen. I'm not going to put animation or block letters for the title--though I could. I want a site that is functional in design--not plain jane like the one you just sent me to. OK--give me a link to one of your star student's site. Then maybe I will listen to what you got to say on the topic.

 

[Mike S40523]

Ok Daniel let me take this point by point . first you think your site is nbetter than mine? well you also didnt look at the client sites i have done obviously -- and your wise crack remarks and criticisms of my sites will not work --

Oh -- plain jane -- on the web simpler is better .. but simple and eye catching.. i dont think anyone who views your site and mine will say yours even comes close
your site has NO STYLE no FLAIR its DULL

First your roll overs are VERY plain jabe and the colors are awfull -- you also used canned buttons nothing you created -- your design is too large for an 800 x 600 screen -- the size the MAJORITY of users view sites at. PROFESSIONALS never design for larger than 800 x 600

There is nothing creative about your site nothing that makes your site different than others try creating your own graphics instead of using canned elements

Do not even attempt to try to compare yours to mine - no matter how YOU say it -- there is NO comparison

try taking advice from those on this forum who know more than you do -- you might learn something

oh so you can learn -- here's the link

http://www.mbswebcreations.com

considered photography -- accept that you will not get the
expression of approval here and move on. Abandon this thread.

What? I can't even be in a thread about me? Hey, since you think
my web design is so childish, then perchance you might give me a
link to your web page so as I can learn from someone more
sophisticated? That's what I thought. Move on.

A better design than what? Not certainly that link you just gave
me--anybody can do that. My design serves the type of purpose that
I created it for. Notice no flower decorations? They are for the
innumerable female sites--they all have them--just about. So, I
have leaf designs--which serves my purpose. The blurred nav bar
serves my purpose from a photographic/3D illusion angle. I am
happy with it. My roll overs are for people who like roll overs is
design--so they serve a purpose too--though I may make them bigger.
I can put a variety of slide shows on my site--I have done so in
the past--but thumbnails serve my purpose better. I could make it
fancier--I'd like to--but more fancy means more download time--so
it ainta gonna happen. I'm not going to put animation or block
letters for the title--though I could. I want a site that is
functional in design--not plain jane like the one you just sent me
to. OK--give me a link to one of your star student's site. Then
maybe I will listen to what you got to say on the topic.

 

[Mike S40523]

Pardon the typos its almost 2 am LOL

Oh -- plain jane -- on the web simpler is better .. but simple
and eye catching.. i dont think anyone who views your site and
mine will say yours even comes close
your site has NO STYLE no FLAIR its DULL

First your roll overs are VERY plain jabe and the colors are
awfull -- you also used canned buttons nothing you created --
your design is too large for an 800 x 600 screen -- the size the
MAJORITY of users view sites at. PROFESSIONALS never design for
larger than 800 x 600

There is nothing creative about your site nothing that makes your
site different than others try creating your own graphics instead
of using canned elements

Do not even attempt to try to compare yours to mine - no matter
how YOU say it -- there is NO comparison

try taking advice from those on this forum who know more than you
do -- you might learn something

oh so you can learn -- here's the link

http://www.mbswebcreations.com

considered photography -- accept that you will not get the
expression of approval here and move on. Abandon this thread.

What? I can't even be in a thread about me? Hey, since you think
my web design is so childish, then perchance you might give me a
link to your web page so as I can learn from someone more
sophisticated? That's what I thought. Move on.

A better design than what? Not certainly that link you just gave
me--anybody can do that. My design serves the type of purpose that
I created it for. Notice no flower decorations? They are for the
innumerable female sites--they all have them--just about. So, I
have leaf designs--which serves my purpose. The blurred nav bar
serves my purpose from a photographic/3D illusion angle. I am
happy with it. My roll overs are for people who like roll overs is
design--so they serve a purpose too--though I may make them bigger.
I can put a variety of slide shows on my site--I have done so in
the past--but thumbnails serve my purpose better. I could make it
fancier--I'd like to--but more fancy means more download time--so
it ainta gonna happen. I'm not going to put animation or block
letters for the title--though I could. I want a site that is
functional in design--not plain jane like the one you just sent me
to. OK--give me a link to one of your star student's site. Then
maybe I will listen to what you got to say on the topic.

 

[Daniel Craig]

Ok Daniel let me take this point by point . first you think your
site is nbetter than mine? well you also didnt look at the client
sites i have done obviously -- and your wise crack remarks and
criticisms of my sites will not work --

Oh -- plain jane -- on the web simpler is better .. but simple
and eye catching.. i dont think anyone who views your site and
mine will say yours even comes close
your site has NO STYLE no FLAIR its DULL

I thought simpler was better--can't make up your mind?

First your roll overs are VERY plain jabe and the colors are
awfull -- you also used canned buttons nothing you created --
your design is too large for an 800 x 600 screen -- the size the
MAJORITY of users view sites at. PROFESSIONALS never design for
larger than 800 x 600

Yeah my buttons need improving--you are right there. But if you checked my site at the 1024X768 then you'd know that it falters there--I'll fix that too--when I feel like it. Although I think it is not very too bright for people to put their monitors at the higher resolution--a heck of a lot of people do it. So, I do think the web designers of today have to take that into consideration when building their sites.

There is nothing creative about your site nothing that makes your
site different than others try creating your own graphics instead
of using canned elements

Do not even attempt to try to compare yours to mine - no matter
how YOU say it -- there is NO comparison

try taking advice from those on this forum who know more than you
do -- you might learn something

I might--but I might be led astray by well intended people. Just like with photography, I'll form my own theories about building web sites or whatever I choose to do. I'm just very glad you didn't give me a link to one of your students' sites to show me up. Don't do it now--you had your chance to try and trick me there. You send me to a site now and I won't believe that it was built by one of your students. Your ire is to great now--when you aught to be ashamed of yourself for attacking a forthright and prudent man like myself. As an instructor, don't you think your remarks against my site is contemptable. Especially considering the site example that you have set. You should be praising anyone's effort to build a site--not condemning it. You'll get a lot further in life with honey instead of vinegar. Scratch that idiotic cliche--see how angry you have gotten me--causing me to recite cliches to prove my point? What? When I went over to Mike's site did I run it down and say I have children that I teach who could do a better job? When people put up their pictures on this site, however, they open themselves up to criticism--even moi. So, what my site isn't perfect. I don't know of anybody who has a perfect site that is going to make everyone happy. But I don't see how you can substantiate your claim that your plain jane site (by your own admission) is superior to my plain jane site. But let that rest. Your site functions for you--and mine fuctions for me--albeit I must try to finish mine as soon as I can. Well, not "finish"--you know what I mean I should hope.

 

[mike savad]

oh so you can learn -- here's the link

http://www.mbswebcreations.com

considered photography -- accept that you will not get the
expression of approval here and move on. Abandon this thread.

What? I can't even be in a thread about me? Hey, since you think
my web design is so childish, then perchance you might give me a
link to your web page so as I can learn from someone more
sophisticated? That's what I thought. Move on.

A better design than what? Not certainly that link you just gave
me--anybody can do that. My design serves the type of purpose that
I created it for. Notice no flower decorations? They are for the
innumerable female sites--they all have them--just about.

how many sites do you visit that has a flower motif? what kinds of sites do yo visit?

So, I

have leaf designs--which serves my purpose.

yeah that's a guy thing alright, dead leaves.

The blurred nav bar

serves my purpose from a photographic/3D illusion angle.

blur is blur, there is no 3-d effect here.

I am

happy with it. My roll overs are for people who like roll overs is
design--so they serve a purpose too--though I may make them bigger.

any button serves a purpose but only 2 of yours works.

I can put a variety of slide shows on my site--I have done so in
the past--but thumbnails serve my purpose better.

here's an improvement that can easily make the site slightly better. change the main background color or change the text color from blue to orange. i keep going back to that site, just to make sure what i'm seeing is accurate. to give a fair outlook on it. and it took about 6 times before i noticed that there was more then 1 page. i was thinking "is is crazy, what panorama, what does think a panorama is". then i finally found it, that should be looked into.

I could make it

fancier--I'd like to--but more fancy means more download time--so
it ainta gonna happen. I'm not going to put animation or block
letters for the title--though I could.

the title isn't going to help anything. as it is the front page is simply 1 graphic, no text. text downloads faster then a graphic. search engines finds words not pictures with words in them. and search engines dont' look inside frames - though in this case, that's a good thing.

I want a site that is

functional in design--not plain jane like the one you just sent me
to. OK--give me a link to one of your star student's site. Then
maybe I will listen to what you got to say on the topic.

you won't listen to anyone.

mostly it's the fact that your calling attention to your site design so we can compliment it. but it ain't worth it, because there are far nicer sites. yes it takes you where you need to go, and there isn't alot of useless clutter, but the site doesn't look that nice. it looks like it was assembled in 5 minutes. it actually reminds me a bit of that printshop program i used as a kid. add leaves here, this backround there etc.

---Mike Savad

 

[simon Beal]

Daniel seems to be taking it all in his stride. He must be very thick skinned to make the comments he does. Although I agree with some of his comments others are down right cruel and rude. Plus how can you bad mouth other peoples photography when your own isn't even off the ground.

I don't think for a minute that this thread bothers him. He feels like a celebrity with all the attention. He is lapping it up!!

derek

I just spent time reading this thread... some of it at least and
most of it is stupid, funny, interesting, boring, childish... I
just think that they guy looks funny. Don't know if it's genetic,
but I got the biggest laugh just by looking at him. Sorry for the
personal hit, but the rest of the threads are he said this, she
said that. It's more fun to poke fun at something funny, than to
read something that isn't funny and try to imagine that it was
funny. When they say a picture is worth a thousand words, Dan's
picture is worth a darwinian novel.

Now back to your regular scheduled G1 pictures.