- Messages
- 5,001
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Come back to me when you've got pubic hair...
I can send you some of mine if you want!
Come back to me when you've got pubic hair...
Your opinion fair doos, happy with that. I have let myself down, err no I havent.Not really... In fact..thats quite a pathetic statement.. Your saying anyone who isn't a police officer isn't because they are cowards? not because of any life choice or anything? simply because they havent got the ?
the rest of your post i agree with... just let yourself down with the drama queen ending
Now you're just totally misunderstanding his work & trying to make me seem stupid for not understanding it. Further evidence that as long as you get viewers you'll say pretty much any old s***e?Can I suggest that you potter off and do some studying into the motivation behind his early work?
Why?I can send you some of mine if you want!
Now you're just totally misunderstanding his work & trying to make me seem stupid for not understanding it. Further evidence that as long as you get viewers you'll say pretty much any old s***e?
If you don't get that Parr is a compassionate human who takes questioning snaps you're really not getting it
You clearly haven't been looking at the genre much then. All of the lead artists do this. Martin Parr, Bruce Gildern and Dougie Wallace are names that spring to mind quite easily.
I think Dougie Wallace found his subjects in Harrodsburg to be absurd but Bruce Gilden identifies with underdogs in society. As for Martin Parr, I think he looks at the world with wry amusement.
...and if you don't think that one of the primary motivations for Parr's work was highlighting social injustice you really don't get it.
Yes, that's pretty much what I was saying.Can I help you further?
You can do that if you wish, personally I don't see the point, unless you feel insecure in life.
Yes, some people get very angst about their legal rights on what to me are non-issues ... YMMV.the point is you are asserting your legal rights.
Yes, some people get very angst about their legal rights on what to me are non-issues ... YMMV.
If I wanted to insult you I would, the fact is I don't and I didn't, I am merely stating the facts as I see it ... there is no issue in my mind with giving your name and address to a police officer if you have done nothing wrong. Sure you can stand on your 'rights' and say 'I don't have to so I won't' but personally I see that as pointless and it just serves to make things more difficult. The police have a job to do on our behalf that is difficult enough already, I see no reason to make it more difficult or to withhold cooperation just because you can. (I won't use a smiley if it bothers you.)Indeed MMMV, but your thinly veiled insult about peoples legal rights or their right to assert them is not mitigated by a smiley.
As I said 'some people get very angst' ... you are free to have your opinion just as I am free to have mine..
As I said 'some people get very angst'
QEDDeviation from the English Language.
(Using a noun as an adjective)
If you read Beowulf (our oldest surviving example of English) this has always been a common facet of our language. Shakespeare was very good at it.Deviation from the English Language.
(Using a noun as an adjective)
the point is you are asserting your legal rights.
Refusing and making the situation drag out longer than is necessary wastes their time even more.So, instead of the police not wasting their time asking everyone with a camera "what are you doing?" when it's pretty obvious that they are taking photos and doing nothing illegal, you should give up your legal right not to give your details, because the next time the police ask "what are you doing?" they will be more aggressive?
The problem we now have today is everyone and their dog who has a camera phone seem to want to deliberately create a situation where they know security/police will be called, then start spouting it is my right etc. ad nauseum, just so they can try and pass themselves off as some kind of up-holder of photographers rights, YouTube is full of videos of these idiots.
Use your common sense, it is not hard
Refusing and making the situation drag out longer than is necessary wastes their time even more.
Indeed, but are you assuming everyone that wishes to affirm their right is one of these people?
Use your common sense, it is not hard
I thought it looked like the police only chased people with "pro" looking cameras, while ignoring phones that can often produce images of near equal quality.The problem we now have today is everyone and their dog who has a camera phone seem to want to deliberately create a situation where they know security/police will be called, then start spouting it is my right etc. ad nauseum, just so they can try and pass themselves off as some kind of up-holder of photographers rights, YouTube is full of videos of these idiots.
Use your common sense, it is not hard
actually the whole message stated everyone with a camera phone was out to cause hassle with the police then hide behind their rights, you said that in black and white, there is no assumption there.
The police don't "chase" photographers, trust me, they have better things to do (unless of course they are purposefully photographing sensitive establishments).I thought it looked like the police only chased people with "pro" looking cameras, while ignoring phones that can often produce images of near equal quality.
You're right of course but then logically they should question the people who called them out (and take their names etc) and discover what it is they think is suspicious and then educate them/give them a hard time rather than wasting time asking a photographer why he is taking photographs - to which there is no simple answer.The police don't "chase" photographers, trust me, they have better things to do (unless of course they are purposefully photographing sensitive establishments).
However, the public do still call the police when they see photographers in particular places and the police are forced to react, knowing all they'll establish is that they are doing nothing wrong. Its these people that call the police that need educating that they're actually doing nothing wrong.
Oh they do get all the callers details etc, but people are known to embellish the facts to get the police there. Unfortunately all calls have to be taken in good faith.You're right of course but then logically they should question the people who called them out (and take their names etc) and discover what it is they think is suspicious and then educate them/give them a hard time rather than wasting time asking a photographer why he is taking photographs - to which there is no simple answer.
Oh they do get all the callers details etc, but people are known to embellish the facts to get the police there. Unfortunately all calls have to be taken in good faith.
No that is not the whole message is it?
You are taking something out of context to fit your agenda.
Like a terrorist will give them accurate details anyway
Personally I'd have no problem giving police my details.
Is it compulsory for every thread in this forum to develop into an argument?