Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 27   Go Down

Author Topic: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic  (Read 124415 times)

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #440 on: August 27, 2014, 10:55:17 pm »

I agree, and believe I said that.
Well, no you didn't - at least not in your first post here on the topic. Cameras don't get assigned an RGB space - their native output is three channels labelled R, G & B.

I agree that your second post on the topic sounds much more reasonable though.
Logged

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #441 on: August 27, 2014, 10:57:40 pm »

You're preaching to the choir with me. And to be fair, I haven't tried explaining it to grandma in terms of input/output referred spaces. I encourage you to drop by sometime and try this argument with her over green bean casserole.
You're asking the camera to render the images into an output space when you select "sRGB" or "AdobeRGB" encoded output. They comply by rendering a "pleasing" result.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #442 on: August 27, 2014, 11:13:04 pm »

Well, no you didn't - at least not in your first post here on the topic. Cameras don't get assigned an RGB space - their native output is three channels labelled R, G & B.
I agree that your second post on the topic sounds much more reasonable though.
Terrific and AFAIK, I don't believe I ever wrote cameras are assigned an RGB space.
Quote
You're asking the camera to render the images into an output space when you select "sRGB" or "AdobeRGB" encoded output. They comply by rendering a "pleasing" result.
Absolutely agree.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #443 on: August 27, 2014, 11:13:44 pm »

Slobodan, if you go back to Gary Fong's video and watch the whole thing he undeniably exhorts people to use sRGB from capture onwards.
The fact that he has subsequently, under a lot of pressure, grudgingly admitted that AdobeRGB might be OK IF one has the hardware to handle it is also a gross distortion of any of the known facts of colour management.

Again, I stress that Gary is not talking about output colourspace assignment but using the same colourspace throughout one's workflow.
We all know, I hope, that an enormous amount of information is lost between the scene when shot and whatever output mode one chooses. Colour management is a key part, but not the whole story, of making sure that the output (whether it be a small 8-bit JPEG sitting on a webpage somewhere or a room-size print) can acceptably portray what was shot.
The details may differ depending on whether one is doing product photography versus a fine-art capture of a beautiful sunset but the principles never do.

So, unlike Gary's silly demonstration of changing his monitor's colourspace on the fly to "prove" that AdobeRGB cannot represent colours accurately, it is, in fact still possible to very adequately edit and softproof an image in Lightroom using ProPhotoRGB as the working colourspace using a monitor whose gamut is similar to sRGB where the output gamut is determined by some printer/paper ICC profile.
Does a larger gamut monitor help?
Yes, it does but the bottom line is that the gamut of my printer exceeds even what my wide-gamut monitor can display (something approaching the gamut of AdobeRGB).
Yet I get excellent results.

However the logical conclusion, that is if you believe Gary Fong, is that what I do is complete bullshyte (apologies to Schewe).
Nonetheless, the reason that I get good results has absolutely nothing at all to do with the apparent ability of any bits of the hardware in that process from input to output to "handle" any particular colourspace, but rather everything to do with the rational application of colour management principles.
Is information lost along the way - You betcha! Plenty!
Colour management, however, allows me to make rational decisions every step of the way that allow a very close (obviously never identical) representation of what the camera was pointed at in the first place.

There is nothing new in what I have written - probably a large majority of people on this forum, particularly if they do their own printing, will recognise the outline there as very familiar.

Can a case be made for using sRGB from capture to output?
Absolutely.
Press photographers (are there any left these days?) will shoot JPEG's with sRGB tagged in-camera because they need their images posted on the news organisations website about five minutes after capture.
Does this make sense?
Definitely!
However, the reasons for doing this have absolutely nothing to do with the silly explanations of Gary Fong.

Also, as an aside, the suggestion has been made that it is OK for Gary Fong to promulgate his silly hypotheses because on some level he may have a point that a lot of people just want the simplest way to do something.
I want to take issue with that because no-one who is not interested in, or completely ignorant of, colour management will ever view that video clip because they will simply not look for it.
You just don't know what you don't know... (again, apologies to Schewe)
Instead those people are seeking that information specifically to get clarification on how to organise their workflow.
It is very easy, using sound colour management principles, to explain a rational workflow where one does use sRGB from capture to output. However it would be completely remiss not to mention the many and varied limitations of such an approach and also not to proffer other alternatives, explaining their various pro's and con's in turn.

I say again: Knowledge is power!
What Gary Fong has offered is not knowledge but complete FUD (again, apologies to Schewe!).

Tony Jay
« Last Edit: August 27, 2014, 11:21:48 pm by Tony Jay »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #444 on: August 27, 2014, 11:43:31 pm »

So, Tony, just to be clear, you are now attacking both the message and the explanation?

GWGill

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 608
  • Author of ArgyllCMS & ArgyllPRO ColorMeter
    • ArgyllCMS
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #445 on: August 27, 2014, 11:50:57 pm »

I don't believe I ever wrote cameras are assigned an RGB space.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=92767.msg756579#msg756579

"Therefore, the measured pixel values don't even *get* a gamut until they're mapped into a particular RGB space."

Perhaps not what you were intending, but it sure reads like you were saying that cameras don't produce RGB until their output gets mapped to an RGB space.
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #446 on: August 28, 2014, 12:15:15 am »

So, Tony, just to be clear, you are now attacking both the message and the explanation?
If I told you repeatedly that the reason you kept getting blurry shots shooting handheld with a 400mm f2.8 lens was because of the rotation of the earth and you could not shift me from ascribing the blurry shots to the rotation of the earth, does that in turn mean that the fact that you can come up with a very rational explanation for blurry images in that context that have nothing to do with the rotation of earth mean that you cannot differentiate the observation from the explanation?

Lets try a different tack:
If you were in West Africa right now how would you respond, knowing what you know about Ebola (perhaps not much, but enough anyhow), if I was an apparent bona fide doctor (I am by the way), if I was going around telling people in Sierra Leone, Liberia etc that their risk of acquiring Ebola was high (it is, in fact) but, the reason was that the gods were angry with them (this is false, however many of the people living in that region are animists and would find that explanation, no matter how erroneous, in fact, to be completely plausible).
You would rightly castigate me for not telling them the truth about how one really acquires Ebola.
Would you really really defend my behaviour because I got the first part correct (about the fact the their risk of acquiring Ebola was high) when my explanation was so patently wrong and could lead to the deaths of many people?

It is true that Gary Fong is promulgating information about completely different issues, and it is true that one could also argue that these issue are not life-and-death.
Nonetheless the principle is just the same.
The fact that Gary Fong says use sRGB from input to output for a simple workflow and (possibly) more predictable possible results may stand with a lot of qualification; his explanation that using AdobeRGB with hardware that cannot "handle" AdobeRGB gives bad results is so demonstrably false made even more so by his unbelievably goofy demonstration that it absolutely has to be questioned.
The people who that video is aimed at are generally in the formative stages of learning about photography in general, and colour management in particular, and so are not able to discriminate from the possibly correct proposal that sRGB may be an acceptable colourspace to use from capture to output from the completely false explanation that Gary gives as to why he recommends SRGB from capture to output.

If there is anyone who cannot separate observation from explanation it is Gary Fong!

So, In fact I am very surprised that you can draw this conclusion reading my post.
I am not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Tony Jay
Logged

supercurio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • Hi! New here
    • Google+
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #447 on: August 28, 2014, 12:50:38 am »

Thanks GWGill and digitaldog for your follow up on why it was said a sensor (camera or scanner) don't have a gamut per say.

My instinctive understanding was that:
- you can convert from Sensor RGB to XYZ via a 3x3 matrix, for a determined illuminant
- conversely you can convert from XYZ to XYZ via a 3x3 matrix for a determined illuminant
- Sensor RGB are expressed in a finite amount of values (like 1024 for 10 bit) or within a range: 0.0 to 1.0 when converted to floating point.

The Sensor RGB to XYZ conversion is enough to get XYZ values for saturated red, saturated green, saturated blue.
Which gives primaries coordinates for a gamut, and also a color space with this gamut and a gamma of 1.

So there's that and it seems simple enough but as you point out, colors seen by the sensor depend on the spectral sensitivity of each channel, so it doesn't make as much sense.
As we know, as a result, a simple 3x3 matrix from RGB data to XYZ is sufficient to get somewhat resembling colors but not accurate one: additional correction is required (like implemented by HueSatMap in DNG specs)

I'll play with all this tomorrow and experiment. I'd like to see if we can at least compare camera's sensor like that.
It might give useful results or misleading instead, I'm curious to know and will share that in a new topic!

(and my apology for the off topic)
Logged

garyfong

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #448 on: August 28, 2014, 01:03:00 am »

Slobodan, if you go back to Gary Fong's video and watch the whole thing he undeniably exhorts people to use sRGB from capture onwards.
The fact that he has subsequently, under a lot of pressure, grudgingly admitted that AdobeRGB might be OK IF one has the hardware to handle it

Tony Jay, where do you get this from?  The video says it right from the beginning - Adobe is better if you have the hardware to handle it.  Your heated comments came after it.

I'm under pressure?  Do you think I'm under pressure from what you folks are saying?   A handful of you Colorbators saying things like this?  Do you think the handful of people here have any influence over anybody in the photography world except for the people on this board?  Because you get dinner jackets to wear for a group photo showing how superior you are?

You heard Will Crockett say it - this debate should have been put to bed a long time ago, and it's the same few names over and over again who are in love with their workflow.  I'm not calling the end to AdobeRGB, and I didn't say the print test would fail.  I said I was going to do it, and only one of you predicted that the AdobeRGB workflow print would win and A/B contest.  So, how confident are you if only one of you (not the most vocal of you all, by the way) could say for certain, that your workflow was going to win the contest? 

You do know why this thread is useful to me right?  I'm going to use this discussion in my sRGB vs AdobeRGB blog posts and videos.  If I was under pressure, would I keep this thread going?  I am collecting this stuff.  It is going to be helpful when I hear from Jeff at X-Rite if it is true when Andrew Rodney proclaims that Will is a liar about his Coloritti relationship.  He is not on the website because he doesn't want to appear on a website with Andrew Rodney on it.  I didn't get the full context of that until I spent some time on the phone with Will. 

If Andrew Rodney calls Will deceitful or misleading and is wrong he's going to have some problems soon.  And he calls me spineless, if I were spineless, I wouldn't keep this thread going.

In fact, I have invited Andrew Rodney to be a Skype guest for a live interview for YouTube and a podcast.  He declined.  If he is so right, you would think he'd stand right up and be interviewed, and show us how wrong we are.

I want to hear all about how wrong we are.  That's why this thread keeps going.  This dialog is useful to me.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 01:12:02 am by garyfong »
Logged

supercurio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • Hi! New here
    • Google+
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #449 on: August 28, 2014, 01:25:38 am »

In fact, I have invited Andrew Rodney to be a Skype guest for a live interview for YouTube and a podcast.  He declined.  If he is so right, you would think he'd stand right up and be interviewed, and show us how wrong we are.

Simple question Gary.

Do you intend to correct the listed factual errors in videos you published earlier?
Starting with the rainbow stuff.

If you don't show any sign of effort on the quality and accuracy of your content, it's perfectly understandable Andrew doesn't trust you enough and declines you the ability to use his name and reputation, putting it in your hands.
Your channel, your video, your editing, your rules. Based on your messages here it's too likely you will misrepresent his words.

It's pretty clear you won't be taken seriously (hence the thread topic) until to do the necessary steps so it becomes possible to.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 01:32:33 am by supercurio »
Logged

supercurio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • Hi! New here
    • Google+
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #450 on: August 28, 2014, 01:43:48 am »

In fact, I have invited Andrew Rodney to be a Skype guest for a live interview for YouTube and a podcast. 

Another question gary,

You invite Andrew for a video interview, but at the same time you delete some his most useful comments on your youtube video.

Please explain.
Logged

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #451 on: August 28, 2014, 01:45:28 am »

You heard Will Crockett say it - this debate should have been put to bed a long time ago, and it's the same few names over and over again who are in love with their workflow.
There's no debate about which color space to use Gary! There is a long list of fallacies both you and Will have provided and there are pages and pages here describing them. This is about misinformation in an aim to teach new users basic color management. Come on, Distance between pixels?
Quote
You do know why this thread is useful to me right?  I'm going to use this discussion in my sRGB vs AdobeRGB blog posts and videos.
IF you present the content with proper terminology, analogies, language, great. I'm all for that. So far, in the three video's you have on your site dedicated on the subject, you have failed to do that.
Quote
He is not on the website because he doesn't want to appear on a website with Andrew Rodney on it.
Fine, whatever. You admit that no where on X-rite's site is there any indication of Will being in the program right? Odd isn't it?
Quote
If Andrew Rodney calls Will deceitful or misleading and is wrong he's going to have some problems soon.
The three videos on this subject, including the last one done by Will is misleading, flat out technically wrong and could be considered by some deceitful.
Quote
And he calls me spineless, if I were spineless, I wouldn't keep this thread going.
You censored posts to kill any peer review. Posts that had language which initially shows how some, myself included, tried to aid you. The spineless comment was not appropriate, I apologize. I hate censorship by those that do so solely to hide their ignorance which is exactly what you did. All while leaving YOUR ranting on my YouTube page up for all to see!
Quote
In fact, I have invited Andrew Rodney to be a Skype guest for a live interview for YouTube and a podcast.  He declined.
I told you early on that I would have no part in promoting your flat earth theories on color management. IF you want to go on record here as to what you propose for an interview, I'll consider it IF the aim is proper education of this subject to the audience you plan to offer it to.
Quote
If he is so right, you would think he'd stand right up and be interviewed, and show us how wrong we are. I want to hear all about how wrong we are.That's why this thread keeps going.  This dialog is useful to me.
I and other's have done this for the last 23 pages! You don't appear to understand any more on page 23 than you did when you first appeared. So what's the point of doing an interview? What hasn't been said here in terms of the mistakes on your video's that needs to be repeated so you can ignore them? You asked about testing procedures for your print test, got advise and dismissed it. Your track record here indicates you have no interest in learning this subject let alone teaching it to others. Can you blame me for wondering what your motives are?
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #452 on: August 28, 2014, 01:53:53 am »

Tell you what Gary. Pull the last two (or all three) ridiculously incorrect video's on sRGB vs. Adobe RGB (1998). I promise to do an interview. I promise to help script  and aid in any way, a video you can then do on the subject that correctly describes what I think you wanted to illustrate. I'll help promote it.

Doing so will illustrate that you really do care about feeding proper information to new and if you want to go father, advanced users.

If as you say, I want to hear all about how wrong we are, I'll go out of my way to make sure, to the best of my abilities and understanding of this topic, you do and back you up 1000%. Deal?

You have a big audience, I want them to get the right info, that's the bottom line.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #453 on: August 28, 2014, 01:55:31 am »

Tony Jay, where do you get this from?  The video says it right from the beginning - Adobe is better if you have the hardware to handle it.  Your heated comments came after it.
What hardware Gary??
How many monitors can display AdobeRGB?
Even my high-end NEC Spectraview is only advertised to cover 96% of the gamut of AdobeRGB (if memory serves).
Some slightly newer models also advertise up to 99% of the AdobeRGB colourspace - but lets not quibble over numbers right - 99% is not 100%.
My Epson Pro 7900 is a bit of a strange beast that can print colours that AdobeRGB does not contain in its gamut but at the same time cannot print some colours that are within AdobeRGB's gamut.
Adobe Lightroom only allows one to use ProPhotoRGB as the working colourspace - there is no monitor and no printer currently on this earth than can hope to either display or print its gamut.

So, please tell me I am wrong here: Since by your contention that none of the key hardware components that I am using "handle" AdobeRGB (and none do in their entirety) then the only conclusion that can be drawn is that I have to use sRGB (from my camera onwards) in my imaging workflow?

Hmm... and of course that makes Adobe complete dolts in releasing Lightroom on us poor unsuspecting photographers where the only working colourspace available for our use is ProPhotoRGB. What knuckleheads they must be.
And, oh yes, they also recommend using ProPhotoRGB as the working colourspace in Photoshop for most photographic applications.
God, what twits they are.

So, please list the magical pieces of hardware that will replace my current, obviously hopelessly deficient, crop of junk so that I can not only use AdobeRGB in my workflow but also ProPhotoRGB. Please Gary, please.

Tony Jay

Logged

supercurio

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • Hi! New here
    • Google+
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #454 on: August 28, 2014, 01:57:12 am »

digitaldog, good points on your previous message (the long answer with quotes).

However reading it made me realize how much Gary is trolling us.
Intentionally or not I don't know, but he's actually a very good troll.

Nice of you to keep the window open for the good cause (get the erroneous stuff offline).
Too bad that in the process you're feeding the troll tho.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 01:58:56 am by supercurio »
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #455 on: August 28, 2014, 02:05:26 am »

Tony, what's gotten into you? I remember you as a sensible, logical person and a good man. Why this gross distortion of logic? Why all these non sequiturs? Nothing in your last post has anything to do with what Gary said about "adobe capable hardware."

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #456 on: August 28, 2014, 02:20:17 am »

Tony, what's gotten into you? I remember you as a sensible, logical person and a good man. Why this gross distortion of logic? Why all these non sequiturs? Nothing in your last post has anything to do with what Gary said about "adobe capable hardware."
Come on Slobodan, what the hell does "AdobeRGB-capable hardware" mean?

How is that I print from Lightroom with an image that is in the ProPhotoRGB working space to a printer with a much smaller gamut that only, very roughly, approximates the AdobeRGB colourspace?
According to the logic Gary is presenting everything that I do is completely illogical.
I am editing images using a colourspace that my monitor cannot hope to display and printing colours with a printer that my monitor cannot reproduce either.
In Gary's world this is madness - in my world this is logical colour management that works.

There is no such animal as "AdobeRGB-capable hardware."
And how does he explain Adobe's choice to release Lightroom with no choice about working colourspace - ProPhotoRGB only.
Again according to the logic he presents this is complete madness.

Tony Jay

edit: Just to be clear Slobodan - I am upset and frustrated, but not with you. This guy (Gary) is genuinely going around preaching that the world is flat. It should just be funny but he is making money out of this (bad enough) but also people are going to be burned (the real danger) unless they are warned.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 02:27:29 am by Tony Jay »
Logged

mouse

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 260
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #457 on: August 28, 2014, 02:28:20 am »

Lets try a different tack:
If you were in West Africa right now how would you respond, knowing what you know about Ebola (perhaps not much, but enough anyhow), if I was an apparent bona fide doctor (I am by the way), if I was going around telling people in Sierra Leone, Liberia etc that their risk of acquiring Ebola was high (it is, in fact) but, the reason was that the gods were angry with them (this is false, however many of the people living in that region are animists and would find that explanation, no matter how erroneous, in fact, to be completely plausible).
You would rightly castigate me for not telling them the truth about how one really acquires Ebola.
Would you really really defend my behaviour because I got the first part correct (about the fact the their risk of acquiring Ebola was high) when my explanation was so patently wrong and could lead to the deaths of many people?
Tony Jay

Please understand that I agree with all you have written, but this analogy is flawed, or at least incomplete.  May I suggest:

This hypothetical doctor told people that, given the high risk of acquiring Ebola (a fact), the way to circumvent this risk was to avoid all contact with suspect individuals (a valid message).  If this same doctor (feeling an irresistible need to further elaborate) went on to explain that transmission of the virus occurred via electromagnetic waves emanating from angry gods, and infection could be prevented by wearing a tin foil hat; then he would have made the same error as Mr. Fong.  He should rightly be castigated for misinformation that places his audience in increased danger of contracting the disease.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 02:38:13 am by mouse »
Logged

garyfong

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #458 on: August 28, 2014, 02:44:12 am »

but also people are going to be burned (the real danger) unless they are warned.

Who is going to get burned?  And more importantly, who is going to listen to your warnings?  Tony, are you mad because nobody knows who you are, or cares what you have to say, outside of this forum?  

How does telling a photographer why their images all of a sudden look "dull" once they change that menu setting to AdobeRGB from sRGB do anything but benefit them- which was the point of this video?  By your "warning" the world that AdobeRGB is better, are they served when (as I've proven) their images look worse when uploaded to web and shown on most web browsers?  And again - who is going to listen to you, or all of this ridiculous puffery one-upsmanship you all are trying to do to look smart.

Sierra Leone?  Ebola?  Congratulations!  You read a lot!  Do you even realize how petty and silly you all look?  And how do you not see that I am egging you on to make you post even more verbose things, to show what a self-important group of know-it-alls you try to be to each other?  
« Last Edit: August 28, 2014, 02:46:11 am by garyfong »
Logged

Tony Jay

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2965
Re: sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic
« Reply #459 on: August 28, 2014, 02:48:04 am »

 And how do you not see that I am egging you on to make you post even more verbose things, to show what a self-important group of know-it-alls you try to be to each other?  
Don't worry on that score, we already know that you are a not too well disguised troll.

Tony Jay
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 21 22 [23] 24 25 ... 27   Go Up