Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => Discussing Photographic Styles => Topic started by: AvidVisionary on July 19, 2012, 07:00:10 pm
-
What is the workflow for this kind of work.
(http://pcdn.500px.net/6400105/0b8409df1b8b6613047fd4b36ca37e6b87321978/4.jpg)
(http://pcdn.500px.net/6228629/9e7b79079c8755609e9d7263f328fafe801eee44/4.jpg)
(http://pcdn.500px.net/3351656/41d7dee2ae470b03eddfed9338b363d10af4a4a2/4.jpg)
(http://pcdn.500px.net/8105684/3175ba36d318eae138df1e3fc291901672fe2192/4.jpg)
(http://pcdn.500px.net/3222866/bed11cc5d0cccf1b70bfde35730fab544487a9d6/4.jpg)
(http://pcdn.500px.net/9103030/7559a05f110f68c75840580020e3fa03f5cd3d66/4.jpg)
(http://pcdn.500px.net/4616154/c6fb9106cb594dd054f195a7bf97d9abf833537e/4.jpg)
(http://pcdn.500px.net/7738184/baeea57091bb2b697b46c37d31f6d86bac3805c9/4.jpg)
-
Starts off with excellent and well-though out lighting, multiple exposures, and many hours of Photoshop including color overlays, contrast masks, selective color, compositing, etc.
-
Yes, a lot of very careful lighting and long hours compositing the results into a single image.
-
Some aspects of those effects are partially achieved with Photomatix Pro details enhancer using bracketed HDR shots. Also, some of these suggest a technique that uses a bit of selective oversharpening by making duplicate layers and applying a high-pass filter with a wide radius and then applying an overlay or similar layer blend mode. This is kind of an overdone local contrast enhancement effect. I agree with a previous poster that good lighting is important with these shots. Probably most are done with multiple strobes. Also, as others have said, several of them look composited instead of made from one image.
-
Given you've found these on 500px, have you thought about asking the photographer themselves?
-
Once we figure out exactly how it was done, is there any way to prevent it happening in the future?
(Sorry, just having some fun.) :)
-
Thanks all for your replies. Very informative answers.
I never thought about asking them. Maybe I should.
Are there any online courses I can take learning how to do something like that? I looked at Lynda and Kelby but found nothing.
-
Avidvisionary , I'm going to be quite frank here; and I'm just wondering if you copied these from another site why you haven't credited the photographers for their images... an neither asked them in the first place for their permission and then asked them personally how they did it.
Perhaps you were a bit uncomfortable asking them in case they would not divulge their techniques... so then you plopped them in another public arena to ask here.
Julie
-
+1 LOL
-
Hey, they 'sample' in music, don't they?
What's a little theft if amongst 'friends'?
As Robert suggested, let's hope the technique becomes (quickly) a lost art. For me, it represents everything (almost everything) that I dislike about some contemporary photography: medium over message.
Rob C
-
wow, people at this site have become unwelcoming. I seriously doubt that the copying of this work to these forums was motivated by anything besides wanting to learn. If you don't want to help, that's fine, and while I agree that these techniques are cliched, who am I or who are we to be the judge. The OP wanted to learn something and a bunch of LL forum folks criticized the person's artistic taste and then suggested they were somehow stealing work that is presumed copyrighted. Without evidence to the contrary, I think we should assume an innocent and educational intent.
If I am taking sarcastic comments too seriously, you might consider the fact that a person who has been here for more than seven years didn't catch or appreciate the snark.
-
wow, people at this site have become unwelcoming. I seriously doubt that the copying of this work to these forums was motivated by anything besides wanting to learn. If you don't want to help, that's fine, and while I agree that these techniques are cliched, who am I or who are we to be the judge. The OP wanted to learn something and a bunch of LL forum folks criticized the person's artistic taste and then suggested they were somehow stealing work that is presumed copyrighted. Without evidence to the contrary, I think we should assume an innocent and educational intent.
If I am taking sarcastic comments too seriously, you might consider the fact that a person who has been here for more than seven years didn't catch or appreciate the snark.
Feppe
“If I am taking sarcastic comments too seriously, you might consider the fact that a person who has been here for more than seven years didn't catch or appreciate the snark.”
Time doesn’t always open the mind or the ears to all things; I should know: I’ve lost inches of hair from things flying right over the top of my head.
LuLa isn’t a sweetie farm, we don’t live in a chrysalis nor cocoon of cotton wool nor even one of milk and honey, and whether copying somebody else’s work to that extent falls within the remit of ‘fair use’ is a legalistic fine distinction concept that might save a few necks but still makes the hair on mine bristle. You may remember somebody else (?) on another part of the Forum doing exactly the same thing with another photographer’s work with rooms and furnishings; when challenged, he had the decency to remove the shots and refer to the original snapper’s site instead.
Regarding the images: they do, in my mind, represent much of the modern stuff that, to me, isn’t about photographic skills or ideas, but all about manipulation, and I think the less of that the better. Images shown here do nothing positive for me – I don’t at all like the ‘look’. But then, as a guy from the Dark Ages, I wouldn’t, unless I felt driven by a need to appear modern and soooo contemporary. You know, cutting edge, sharpest knife in the drawer, the dog's balls etc.
I also recognize that on an amateur photography site as this one surely is, it’s the technique things that are of great interest to many viewers who seek therein the Holy Grail of Creativity and, as an added benefit, instant fame.
Unfortunately, none of those things comes from reading about them, and by the time you catch someone else’s something novel, it’s already too late for you with that one.
;-)
Rob C
-
Avidvisionary , I'm going to be quite frank here; and I'm just wondering if you copied these from another site why you haven't credited the photographers for their images... an neither asked them in the first place for their permission and then asked them personally how they did it.
Perhaps you were a bit uncomfortable asking them in case they would not divulge their techniques... so then you plopped them in another public arena to ask here.
Julie
Is your brain up your ass? Credit them for what, exactly? You know, I have had enough of people like you on here coming onto a thread and derailing it from the original question. Condemning the original poster for asking a question and then leaving it to ruin. You know, a troll.
wow, people at this site have become unwelcoming. I seriously doubt that the copying of this work to these forums was motivated by anything besides wanting to learn. If you don't want to help, that's fine, and while I agree that these techniques are cliched, who am I or who are we to be the judge. The OP wanted to learn something and a bunch of LL forum folks criticized the person's artistic taste and then suggested they were somehow stealing work that is presumed copyrighted. Without evidence to the contrary, I think we should assume an innocent and educational intent.
If I am taking sarcastic comments too seriously, you might consider the fact that a person who has been here for more than seven years didn't catch or appreciate the snark.
I felt the exact same. I am sure others on here do as well. They are afraid to ask questions in case they are scorned.
I appreciate and I am very thankful for those who are kind hearted to advise me.
-
Is your brain up your ass? Credit them for what, exactly? You know, I have had enough of people like you on here coming onto a thread and derailing it from the original question. Condemning the original poster for asking a question and then leaving it to ruin. You know, a troll.
quote]
...
That you address a lady in such a manner says all about you that's worth knowing.
Regarding the photographer(s) you copied and posted here: crediting them for being the authors of the works you lifted is what the lady is suggesting.
But then, going on your form, that wouldn't be a thing you'd find normal, would it?
Rob C
-
That you address a lady in such a manner says all about you that's worth knowing.
Regarding the photographer(s) you copied and posted here: crediting them for being the authors of the works you lifted is what the lady is suggesting.
But then, going on your form, that wouldn't be a thing you'd find normal, would it?
Rob C
WAW!! Look at that quote. It's like you know me all my life.
First of all I didn't copy anything. I asked how it was done. Copying something is to keep it as your own without paying. Secondly, you have just proven my point of why people get angry and lash out. She derailed my thread with her personal view,a misguided one, and when I have enough you scorn me.
I really don't value your opinion of what you have to say. Specifically from an individual with a needle eye view of my history.
-
I have removed my posts in this thread as I do not want to be neither associated with, nor helpful to a member who uses such language, especially with a lady.
-
Is your brain up your ass? Credit them for what, exactly? You know, I have had enough of people like you on here coming onto a thread and derailing it from the original question. Condemning the original poster for asking a question and then leaving it to ruin. You know, a troll.
That doesn't help either. If you took a moment to look at her website, you would see that she is a talented photographer artist...like most everyone else here...who deserves respect.
LuLa isn’t a sweetie farm...
Hardly something to be proud of.
-
You must give to receive.
However, I do see your view fike.
-
Thank you sincerely for those who have stood up for me in this arena. I am truly overwhelmed and quite humbled. Thank you.
I do not wish for there to be any ill-feeling created on my behalf however...and am willing as always to accept the consequences of my own thoughts and words. If AvidVisionary was standing right in front of me... I still would have said exactly what I wrote.... and been corrected if necessary by him if in fact my assertions were incorrect.... with an apology forthcoming from myself.
In this case I am neither a troll... nor did I consider I was derailing the thread because I questioned why the poster did not ask the artist for their technique.
As an artist I consider it inappropriate to copy.... (as in the act of placing it in this forum you most probably used "COPY and paste") in another arena work of another artist, without somewhere having an acknowledgement of who the artist is - regardless of one thinks the art is 'worthy' of being credited or not.
In my view...it would have been more appropriate to say.... "Here are some images from xxxxxx... how do you think they are done."
To flare up towards me so strongly I feel was very defensive and actually uncalled for. A simple "No Julie... I didn't think to credit them.... nor did I think to ask them... you are incorrect" I feel would have been more respectful and I would have immediately apologised. As the crew here know... i say things usually quite bluntly and openly.. and say thing show I see it. ... which is what I did above.
Thank you once again to those who have recognised my value, contribution and support I give to others here.
Julie
-
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the points raised by Julie.
To attack her personally in such a fashion is completely uncalled for.
Two wrongs (from you) definately do not make a right.
This forum is not unwelcoming by any stretch of the imagination.
It is a very dynamic mix of amateurs and professionals, complete newbies through to world renowned photographers.
Combine this with the illusion of anonymity given the nature of the communications on a forum can result in a certain tension at times.
Nonetheless nearly all the communications on this site are conducted with civility and respect even when correction and critique are called for.
I would suggest a certain acceptance from you that to post an image that was not yours with no recognition of the author on a site such as this was unwise. That author (or copyright holder) does have rights that you have trampled on even if that was not your motive.
An apology to Julie and the copyright holder would be right and proper in my opinion.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Thank you sincerely for those who have stood up for me in this arena. I am truly overwhelmed and quite humbled. Thank you.
I do not wish for there to be any ill-feeling created on my behalf however...and am willing as always to accept the consequences of my own thoughts and words. If AvidVisionary was standing right in front of me... I still would have said exactly what I wrote.... and been corrected if necessary by him if in fact my assertions were incorrect.... with an apology forthcoming from myself.
In this case I am neither a troll... nor did I consider I was derailing the thread because I questioned why the poster did not ask the artist for their technique.
As an artist I consider it inappropriate to copy.... (as in the act of placing it in this forum you most probably used "COPY and paste") in another arena work of another artist, without somewhere having an acknowledgement of who the artist is - regardless of one thinks the art is 'worthy' of being credited or not.
In my view...it would have been more appropriate to say.... "Here are some images from xxxxxx... how do you think they are done."
To flare up towards me so strongly I feel was very defensive and actually uncalled for. A simple "No Julie... I didn't think to credit them.... nor did I think to ask them... you are incorrect" I feel would have been more respectful and I would have immediately apologised. As the crew here know... i say things usually quite bluntly and openly.. and say thing show I see it. ... which is what I did above.
Thank you once again to those who have recognised my value, contribution and support I give to others here.
Julie
There are so many things in there for me to reply to but I won't. That's something for you to consider Julie. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.
-
There are so many things in there for me to reply to but I won't. That's something for you to consider Julie. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.
You REALLY need to reconsider your attitude mate.
-
There are so many things in there for me to reply to but I won't. That's something for you to consider Julie. Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.
Just because you can post someone else's images doesn't mean you should. I'll go back to my original question. Have you approached the photographer themselves yet? Do they know you've posted their images without acknowledgement on another website?
On the troll front. How many images like these have you ever seen directly contributed by a member here? Nil approaching none I'd guess. Why would you ask a bunch of landscape, street or documentary photographers to help you with this?
-
Just did a TinEye search on one of the images. It seems the photographer is Tim Tadder (http://timtadder.com/blog/). Here's his 500px roll (http://500px.com/timtadder).
Now that you know who it is, why don't you go ask a commercial photographer how he does his work and whether he's ok with unattributed use of his stock.
-
Just did a TinEye search on one of the images. It seems the photographer is Tim Tadder (http://timtadder.com/blog/). Here's his 500px roll (http://500px.com/timtadder).
Now that you know who it is, why don't you go ask a commercial photographer how he does his work and whether he's ok with unattributed use of his stock.
Why don't you go and tell films and games reviews they can no longer review anything unless they ask permission from the person.
-
Frankly, your ignorance is starting to irritate.
Those reviewers either had to buy the product or the ticket to view, or they were given a free viewing or copy of the software, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. In neither case was copyright infringed.
You need to apologise, and the list is growing to whom you owe an apology.
-
Why don't you go and tell films and games reviews they can no longer review anything unless they ask permission from the person.
You just don't get it do you. It starts simply with attribution.
What would have made the difference in this thread is if you'd asked: "I really like the work of Tim Tadder, do you guys have any advice on achieving the same effect?", with maybe a couple of sample images linked back to his website.
But you couldn't be bothered. Show me a single legitimate example where a game or movie is reviewed without attribution. There wouldn't be a point would there.
-
Why don't you go and tell films and games reviews they can no longer review anything unless they ask permission from the person.
Ah, I see now where you learn your manners ;)
On a serious note, in both cases reviewers properly credit authors. Have you ever seen a movie review without mentioning the title, director and main actors?
-
Frankly, your ignorance is starting to irritate.
Those reviewers either had to buy the product or the ticket to view, or they were given a free viewing or copy of the software, WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER. In neither case was copyright infringed.
You need to apologise, and the list is growing to whom you owe an apology.
You don't tell me what to do. This was between me and Julie. Nothing to do with you. You are the one being irritating by fueling the fire.
What would have made the difference in this thread is if you'd asked: "I really like the work of Tim Tadder, do you guys have any advice on achieving the same effect?", with maybe a couple of sample images linked back to his website.
Well if I didn't like the work I would not have posted it asking what is the workflow of something like this. What is the workflow of something like this = do you guys have any advice on achieving the same effect. Just because I did not word it to your liking and posted in your habit is not my concern.
Ah, I see now where you learn your manners ;)
I thought you said you don't want to be associated with me here? If Julie only knew you don't really care for her. You just pretend. You always enter peoples thread say something negative and then leave. You always post things publicly to be praised and given human recognition.
Don't bother replying. I am out of this thread.
-
Don't bother replying. I am out of this thread.
Perhaps this is for the best.
-
I would guess that the first step would be to consume a large amount of a highly caffenated energy drink such as red bull
-
... I thought you said you don't want to be associated with me here? If Julie only knew you don't really care for her. You just pretend. You always enter peoples thread say something negative and then leave. You always post things publicly to be praised and given human recognition...
Oh, I do not mind being associated with you if it means standing up to your boorish behavior. The only reason I deleted my earlier posts, which is the first time I did something like this on LuLa, is that it might have given the impression that I am somehow supporting you. I usually try to give the benefit of the doubt to newbies and help them matter-of-factly. Unfortunately, that doubt was quickly dispelled.
As for your psychoanalysis of my postings in general, I will leave it to others to judge. However, I am (mildly) puzzled by the apparent contradiction in the last two sentences above: if I post to "be praised", wouldn't I then rather choose a non-confrontational strategy, instead of saying "something negative and then leave?"
-
Don't bother replying. I am out of this thread.
Perhaps it would be best if you left the forums here altogether. You'd not be missed.
Jeremy
-
Is your brain up your ass? Credit them for what, exactly? You know, I have had enough of people like you on here coming onto a thread and derailing it from the original question. Condemning the original poster for asking a question and then leaving it to ruin. You know, a troll.
Hoping that it will be addressed by someone other than Michael, I have reported this post to the moderators. Julie's sex is irrelevant; this appalling response has no place here.
Jeremy
-
Oh well... (shoulder shrug)
Sincere gratitude to all those who stuck their neck out for me.
Julie
-
Anytime Julie
Regards
Tony Jay
-
'AvidVisionary' is no longer a member of the Forum.
Chris
-
'AvidVisionary' is no longer a member of the Forum.
Chris
AvidVisionary was impolitic. For that, LuLa bullied him. It would have been nice if he cited the artists of those works, but it was not required by copyright law. He responded with inappropriate and awkward anger. Slobodan, you initially defended him (correctly, I might add) regarding the Fair Use Doctrine, but rescinded your support because you didn't like his attitude.
as Rob said,
LuLa isn’t a sweetie farm...
..and AvidVisionary wasn't either, but he clearly felt bullied when the educational intent of his innocent query was questioned.
LuLa is a fabulous photo resource that I will continue to use for my learning and advancement, but my personal opinion of the compassion and fairness of the LuLa community has been sorely compromised.
-
AvidVisionary was impolitic. For that, LuLa bullied him. It would have been nice if he cited the artists of those works, but it was not required by copyright law. He responded with inappropriate and awkward anger...
... my personal opinion of the compassion and fairness of the LuLa community has been sorely compromised.
Impolitic?
Initially, I read that as "impolite" and thought "boy, that is one way to put it."
But then I noticed it is actually "impolitic," i.e., "unwise and not cautious." and again thought: note to myself... if I ever run a political campaign, I should surely approach Fike as my spin doctor, as you surely know a thing or two about euphemisms :) (this is meant as a friendly teasing, and not in a mean way, btw)
Bullied?
Julie and Rob expressed a legitimate concern (about crediting the author). A concern that, though not legally based, is shared by a significant number of authors. Julie and Rob expressed their opinion, which then can be (and was) debated, both on the merits of the fair-use doctrine and HDR esthetics (which you and I did), and that is what forum discussions are all about. But bullied? No way. Before the two entered, there were several helpful and matter-of-fact posts. So I would dare to say that before the OP exploded in a vulgar and boorish, bar-fight style (which would be galaxies away from "inappropriate and awkward anger," as you described it), it was a pretty decent and fair and balanced (pros vs. cons) internet debate.
Compassion?
There was plenty of it for the guy before he exploded (or shall I say imploded?). But I lost any appetite for compassion after it. I've been personally called names numerous times on these forums, and I never reported anyone, as I believe in "sticks and stones...," and can take it as a man-thing. I have no problem engaging in a bar-fight style rhetoric (not actual, though) with boys. However, and call me old-fashioned if you will, I have a visceral reaction to engaging a lady in a bar-fight. Definitely no compassion after that.
-
AvidVisionary was impolitic. For that, LuLa bullied him. It would have been nice if he cited the artists of those works, but it was not required by copyright law. He responded with inappropriate and awkward anger. Slobodan, you initially defended him (correctly, I might add) regarding the Fair Use Doctrine, but rescinded your support because you didn't like his attitude.
as Rob said,
..and AvidVisionary wasn't either, but he clearly felt bullied when the educational intent of his innocent query was questioned.
LuLa is a fabulous photo resource that I will continue to use for my learning and advancement, but my personal opinion of the compassion and fairness of the LuLa community has been sorely compromised.
I think that's unfair, Marc. There's a difference, often these days underappreciated, between justified criticism and "bullying". The latter is a charge far too often bandied about, since it reverses the burden of reproof, attaching blame not to the wrongdoer but to those who point out the wrongdoing. It wasn't anger which has led to his departure; it was abuse. They're not the same thing, not past the age of five or so.
I reported him; I still feel that it was the correct thing to do. I'd expected at most a suspension for a period of time, but I don't know what passed in communication between AvidVisionary and Chris and I'm content to accept that Chris hasn't overreacted.
Jeremy
-
I am sad that AvidVisionary has been banned, however there is no doubt that his response was inappropriate.
In face-to-face communications none of us would tolerate not so much the initial outburst but the subsequent stubborn refusal to acknowledge any wrongdoing in his interactions. All of us who tried to reach him were rudely and abusively brushed aside.
AvidVisionary clearly believes that he has no obligations regarding civil intercourse, at least on the forum, but I believe that no distinction can be made. We all have obligations in society and an apparently anonymous forum does not change anything in my view.
My humble opinion
Tony Jay
-
fike -
At great personal risk, I have to ask: do you hug trees?
Rob C
P.S. Be grateful I didn't go that step further and write: do you still hug trees? ;-)
-
LuLa is a fabulous photo resource that I will continue to use for my learning and advancement, but my personal opinion of the compassion and fairness of the LuLa community has been sorely compromised.
I am guilty of a sarcastic joke in this thread myself, but in general I agree with you that the conversational tone in the wider forum has become slightly more unfriendly in the last while. Some of the remarks of the OP were way over the top and I don't disagree with banning him, but it's not this specific thread that I am referring to. Confrontation is not a requirement of having a strong opinion. A friendlier more low-key approach is not synonymous with weakness.
-
fike -
At great personal risk, I have to ask: do you hug trees?
...
Are you talking about a full two-armed hug where my entire body touches the tree or more of a one-armed man-hug? But yes, I guess I do hug trees occasionally, but it really is just with trees I consider close friends. Don't worry, we hold hands first. ;D
-
Here is how you do it. It's no secret. Just make sure you light the subject with enough rim light. The rest is dodging and burning in Photoshop. Although Dave Hill did not invent the technique, he's usually given credit for popularizing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtpoCagYz6s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtpoCagYz6s)
To all copyright cops: this link has been posted for information purposes only. Don't you just love free speech!
-
To all copyright cops: this link has been posted for information purposes only. Don't you just love free speech!
Aren't you being a bit inflammatory here?
AvidVisonary was banned for his appalling conduct.
The fact that he responded so badly to questions regarding posting images that did not belong to him is the issue, not ultimately whether he did attribute those images appropriately. All he needed to do was simply acknowledge his oversight and correct it and there would have been no issue.
However, considering what a massive issue copyright theft is becoming for photographers I am not sure that your jibe will be well received.
As for free speech - that right should not trump other responsibilities and obligations - you have had your say, whether you get any support will remain to be seen.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
Here is how you do it. It's no secret. Just make sure you light the subject with enough rim light. The rest is dodging and burning in Photoshop. Although Dave Hill did not invent the technique, he's usually given credit for popularizing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtpoCagYz6s (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtpoCagYz6s)
To all copyright cops: this link has been posted for information purposes only. Don't you just love free speech!
Free speech does not imply a free lunch. Neither does it justify helping yourself to another's work without having the decency to ask first and await a response. Of course, if you have nothing that others may wish to pinch, your opinion on the matter may be quite different.
Rob C
-
I'm still curious as to what a 'sweetie farm' might be.
-
I'm still curious as to what a 'sweetie farm' might be.
I was wondering this myself. A google search reveals that it is, among other things, a name - there are people called "Sweetie Farm". That information gives me a gratuitous but not unwelcome feeling of being blessed, and provides some compensation for the regret I feel at not being called "Mjollnir" - a magnificent name whose owner I would avoid in any kind of bar fight.
Back on the topic, while agreeing that copyright violation is a serious matter and that the OP should have attributed his quotes and that Julie's comment was entirely unexceptionable, I think things are getting a bit out of hand on the other side of the argument when someone is accused of being inflammatory and of having achieved nothing in life merely for the offense of making a weak joke about copyright. If the joke police are allowed onto the site, "who should 'scape whipping?"
-
Ken, context is everything.
A joke in poor taste IS a joke in poor taste.
Regards
Tony Jay
-
"LuLa isn’t a sweetie farm, we don’t live in a chrysalis nor cocoon of cotton wool nor even one of milk and honey, and whether copying somebody else’s work to that extent falls within the remit of ‘fair use’ is a legalistic fine distinction concept that might save a few necks but still makes the hair on mine bristle. You may remember somebody else (?) on another part of the Forum doing exactly the same thing with another photographer’s work with rooms and furnishings; when challenged, he had the decency to remove the shots and refer to the original snapper’s site instead."
I'd have imagined that within the context of the same sentence the meaning of 'sweetie farm" would have been rendered plain. I can promise there was no allusion to any secret society nor, for that matter, Orwellian nightmare; I was quite unaware that those two words had already been spoken for by other interests! Soon there'll be nothing left in the language that we can use without payment. Oh, who was it that chipped in about free speech? Lawyers have been having a field day on this one for decades.
;-)
Rob C
-
A joke in poor taste IS a joke in poor taste.
And many, perhaps most, of the best jokes are in poor taste. What's your point?
Jeremy
-
Ken, context is everything.
A joke in poor taste IS a joke in poor taste.
Tony
I am not defending the quality of the joke. However, the rest of the post was right back on topic, after a long and unprofitable digression, and (to me at least), one of the more valuable parts of the thread. Jumping in on the joke diverted attention from that in favor of prolonging the brouhaha and seemed to me untypical of you, as your posts set a very high standard for courtesy and relevance. I guess maybe it takes a while for the ripples to die away when something nasty and shocking has been written.
-
Tsunami.
Rob C
-
I guess maybe it takes a while for the ripples to die away when something nasty and shocking has been written.
Maybe you are right Ken.
Thanks for the reality check anyway.
Regards
Tony Jay