Taking a preprandial break, so back on the internet again long enough to post. I did try some day or so ago and found I couldn't raise the show because of another glitch which seems to have deleted a post I think that I sent to Chuck regarding the suspicion of a light sarcasm in one of his replies. Anyway, to repeat myself if I did or to say so if I have not already, I reread the post and concluded that there was no sarcasm at all, that what I think I was reading was probably my own bewilderment at my apparent inability to articulate what struck me as a simple thought: the differences between photographic art, creation and reportage and the rarity of the creative element in much of it.
References to God were made in exactly the manner as has been suggested, where the substitution by Little Green Men would have been as suitable in the context of the post. For the record, I do have a belief in a God but not in any religion. I see no paradox. The problem, for me, is that however clever we become in maths, the other sciences, we are ever that series of steps behind, which sort of begs certain questions, does it not? Even the Big Bang doesn't seem to answer the basic problem of whence the materials and motivational forces to cause it to Big Bang in the first place. All I know for sure is that you couldn't pay me enough to temp me onto a space shuttle - having spent early years in both the engineering and then photo departments of an aero-engine factory I view flying with extreme distaste - in a personal sense. I once touched on this topic with a pilot (military) and he shared the dislike of civilian air travel, thinking the thing was never going to leave the ground, but carry straight on. I wonder is Russ shares any of that.
Anyway, thanks for the many replies to the topic!