Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: OT more copyright questions
Jim,
Don't worry too much, 'Dicky' has assured us that he is going
to fix this right up.
-JimD
At 10:55 AM 3/22/01 -0500, Jim Snyder wrote:
>on 3/22/01 9:07 AM, Michael Moore at miguelmas@qwest.net wrote:
>
> > Richard... This is no place for flame wars... The thing I like about this
> > group
> > (and it is the only one I am on for this reason) is that the regular
> > participants seem to be possessed of a modicum of good manners and
> willingness
> > to help others out who may not be as experienced as some of the rest of
> us...
> > I
> > agree that sometimes the threads on certain topics, both OT and ONT, run a
> > little longer than I care for, but that is what my delete key is for...
> or I
> > can politely send a message (which I did once) stating that IMHO the OT
> thread
> > has gone on for too long and could we discuss something else... Another
> thing
> > to keep in mind is that many of us shoot pictures to money, and the
> questions
> > about copyright, or printers, or memory management, are all germane to our
> > daily bread... I also welcome posts such as Larry's on Jay Maisel... This
> > whole
> > rush into the digital era is happening so fast, I need all the help and
> > inspiration I can get...
> >
> > Mike M.
> >
> > Dicky wrote:
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>
> >> To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2001 9:35 PM
> >> Subject: RE: filmscanners: OT more copyright questions
> >>
> >> Yet another idiot. this is a SCANNING group. If you must discuss
> coptright
> >> then go soewhere else to do it you numbskull.
> >>
> >> Richard Corbett
> >
>One of the nice things about this list is that the scope of scanning is
>allowed to include monitors, memory, CPUs, imaging software, artists,
>photographers, and film, but there have been days in the past few weeks
>where the peripheral subjects donated over 140 messages a day to my in box,
>and few if any dealt directly with scanning. Ed left at about that time, and
>may have felt the same frustration at the volume of off-topic messages as I
>did. It is not so much that off topic messages exist, as the volume of off
>topic messages received in one day that frustrated me.
>
>Jim Snyder
|
