Express your nature.

Upload, Share, and Be Recognized.

Join with Facebook
or join manually
X
Comments:

Old Comments:

2010-04-29 17:04:30
You deal in insults, I deal in facts.
2010-04-29 04:39:13
You AGAIN OMITTED some pertinent information - that I gave the reason why I did not want to divulge yet that I was rat patrol and police - I wanted to finish off letting some folks know they were reposting too much. You did not clearly and precisely prove anything. You are the Queen of Pixdaus - forever MIS-QUOTING, MIS-INFORMATION, MIS-OMISSIONS. You are obsessed with your ranking, your votes, your status on Pixdaus. I don't care about my popularity, my votes or whether folks like me on Pixdaus - it's cyberspace for crying out loud. There are some very nice people on Pixdaus, and I enjoy interacting with them. But, what is really important to me, and should be for everyone, is my family and friends, and whether I'm a good member of the family and a good friend. This is only a Web Sites in cyberspace. It is not the end all and be all of any of our existences. You can continue with your obsessions, but I refuse to go on with these comments. You are very welcome to have the last word.
2010-04-28 23:45:18
I did not omit any "pertinent information", connie. You FIRST said that ”I'm not police... I, at least, always use my own username” and afterwards you said that you were Police AND Troll Patrol. "Pertient information" is only what we see in the comments. - We all VOLUNTEER to write each comment that we do. You VOLUNTEERED to lie that you are not Police, and then you VOLUNTEERED to write that you are. QED. I very clearly and precisely proved to you that I posted pics on the day following the comment in question. If you're unable to copy and paste the reference pages I gave, that's your problem.
2010-04-28 01:43:21
I briefly glanced at your comments. It is further evidence that you are still lying - by omitted pertinent information. I VOLUNTEERED the information that I was Rat Patrol and Police; I DID NOT HAVE TO. You have NEVER VOLUNTEERED your other names. The rest of your comment will be the same - misquotes, omissions, twisting what I wrote. Don't you get tired of that? You did not prove to me that you posted after that comment. I strongly suspect that, as a Monitor for Pixdaus, you can fix captions and comments. Now, you will proceed to misquote for months that I ACCUSED you of being a Pixdaus Monitor. I repeat, I STRONGLY SUSPECT. I can only say 'suspect' because I don't have absolute proof. I have just uploaded a cartoon of a Guinea Pig - BEFORE I read your comment re Guinea Pig.
2010-04-27 17:56:30
If your intention was to bet your shirt on Patito, why first head your suspect list with my name? That was a deliberate provocation, and no amount of explaining will change that. You have accused me of being many people - none of whom I was/am - without a shred of evidence. That has to stop! You started the 'war' in March by accusing me of writing a comment I had not written, and then spread your lie around by saying that "When Poppy, using a different name, responded with a nasty and arrogant comment, I let her have it". And how’s this for a whopper of a lie from you: ”I'm not police... I, at least, always use my own username” – then later you said WERE Police and Troll Patrol! Under the above pic is one of your typical paranoid accusations: "Did you get the ‘go ahead’ from your people at Pixdaus to tell us that? IF IT WAS OK, WHY DID YOU NOT POST FOR A LONG TIME AFTER THAT? WERE WE TO BE THE GUINEA PIGS – TO SEE IF WE GET BANNED?" When I proved you wrong about the "long time after that", you merely dismissed it by saying that "I'm not going to bother checking to see if your figures are correct" and still kept insisting that “I certainly remember” and “I watched and observed”. So, connie, theres absolutely no point in me supplying proof of anything to you because even when you see the proof in black and white, you dismiss it by saying that you cannot be bothered to check. Your capacity to imagine set-ups and conspiracies is incredible! Just stop with your accusations and we'll not have any more trouble, and don't mention my name in any of your comments (because when you do, you generally use it to accuse me of something) or refer to me in any other way. That is the only way to bring these ridiculous spats to an end.
2010-04-27 04:33:31
POPPY - You ARE LYING AGAIN - THIS TIME BY OMITTING PART OF MY COMMENTS. You put, in quotes, one of my comments that said "this photo and the two cartoons could only belong to Poppy, Patito or someone else who has been on this site since well over a year”. You PURPOSELY DID NOT ADD THE NEXT SENTENCE that said between you and Patito, I would bet my shirt it was Patito. I also added "THIS IS A PATITO BEHAVIOUR" (my caps) Therefore, this was NOT as you wrote "the cause and start of the kerfuffle undder my 'ruffled feathers' pic. You are becoming more and more brazen in your manipulation and lies; you dare misquote or omit information to 'sell' your behaviour to the others. You say you "have a bookful of your lies and not a shred of evidence in sight..." The above comment of yours where you clearly omitted part of my comments shows how useless your book is. You would proceed to omit information or take information out of context.
2010-04-26 19:28:55
Can it, connie. You said of the pics Charlie Chan posted that “this photo and the two cartoons could only belong to Poppy, Patito or someone else who has been on this site since well over a year” so you clearly put me under suspicion of having posted those pics as Charlie Chan. When someone posts comments and now pics that you don’t like, I am your first suspect – and that is not acceptable and I will not tolerate it. That was the cause and start of the kerfuffle under my ‘ruffled feathers’ pic which you most efficiently managed to expand into another poppybashing session, dishing it out from your inexhaustible well of lies, imaginings, innuendos and paranoid suspicions. – You are the expert in misquotes, not I. I have a bookful of your lies and not a shred of evidence in sight. connie at 2010-04-23 01:02:01
2010-04-26 17:17:04
TO POPPY Since you brought me in this comment, I will take that as an invitation to participate in this. You say "Just because connie was verring off the subject of our squabble (over her accusing me of posting pics under another name" ???????? I REPEAT FOR THE 10TH TIME...I DID NOT ACCUSE YOU OF POSTING THOSE PICS UNDER ANOTHER NAME...I ACCUSED PATITO. SO, STOP LYING AND MISQUOTING WHAT I WROTE. You continuously do that with the hope that if you repeat your same lies over and over again, folks will finally believe you. You did the same thing to Artemis, Farhad and others. It's very manipulative and a form of brainwashing Please tell me under which photo I wrote that you insulted ru. I 'copies and pasted' you comment to ru word for word, and it involved the words 'arrogant' and sarcastic'. AGAIN...SINCE YOU BROUGHT ME INTO THIS 'CONVERSATION' I will give my two cents to your comments in the last paragraph: Nowhere in your comment to ru, did you give any indication that you might be concerned that she would not do well by posting from just one site. You were simply arrogant and sarcastic. Nowhere in ru's comment does she even hint that you were not glad that her pics are doing well in the ratings. I interpreting her comment to mean that since she noticed that her uploads were getting some votes, she thought that others had no complaint. Under another photo, ru even asked us if we had any complaint about her postings to let her know. No more no less. You are now purposely misquoting her. Don't you ever take a break in your manipulations and misquotes?
2010-04-26 16:20:08
"Blanket copyright" is my terminology, I am sure that there is better wording. What it means is that I have permission to use any photo from the website on Pixdaus, as long as I don't have any expectations to profit from it. I know that this is not foolproof, as copyright ownership is rather complicated and in some cases the actual copyright may still be under the ownership of the original photographer. But I am not going to get involved in that, what I do have essentially amounts to a "get out of jail free" card for me no matter what might happen. The alternative to this seems rather tedious, and this is what a lot of websites and photographers insist on, getting an individual approval for each individual photograph. One sight offered me approval for any photograph that was two years or more old. Great, I was supposed to research and determine how old each photo was? As for photographers giving permission...... In many cases, if not most, the photographer no longer owns the copyright. If the photo has been published in any form by anyone other than himself either hard or cyber publication. The exceptions to this would be when the photographer has retained the copyright with specific approval of the publisher or when the photographer has paid to have the photo published. If the photographer has been paid in anyway for publishing the photo he has sold the copyright as well as the photo. And, if it is published for free, then that free publication is construed as payment, unless specified differently. It works exactly the same way as the copyright on a book, poem or syndicated newspaper article.
2010-04-25 22:16:10
Hello ru. I was not 'offended' by your uploads (as you indicated under another pic). Now that you have explained the reason behind you posting only 2photo.ru pics, the matter is obviously seen in a different light. You are very lucky to get a blanket copyright approval re posting pics from that site… You also said under the other pic that my “comments were very strange and uncalled for.” (You were referring to my first comment on this page.) Why could you not say that directly to me instead of entering another forum where there was a “squabble” going on about something else entirely? Just because connie was veering off the subject of our squabble (over her accusing me of posting pics under another name) by saying that I had made an arrogant, sarcastic and insulting comment to you, it would have been more ‘proper’ for you to tell me to my face that you considered my comment very strange and uncalled for. My first comment to you was based on the fact that every time a poster has proceeded to post pics just from just one photo site, they have not done well, and there have been complaining comments about it in the past. Contrary to what you hinted at, I am glad your pics are doing well in the ratings. I regret it that you have had to witness the more unpleasant side of Pixdaus and some of its ‘players’.
2010-04-25 18:09:04
I forgot to add that after you send an email to the photographer asking for their permission to post their photo, most times they will answer you very promptly. I always thank them too for answering so quick the way they do. You don't have to wait days and days for their response... :)
2010-04-25 17:48:54
Thankyou Connie. I feel much better doing it this way... :)
2010-04-25 17:38:11
Great tips for all of us PictureGirl.
2010-04-25 17:27:34
Most photographers Ru from Flickr are very kind in giving you permission to use their photos as long as you give them credit for their photos. I have asked many people from there. Only one photographer hasn't given permission. A couple of others have simply not bothered to answer my request, but most have. Also, I have been posting photos from Wikimedia and also from the Creative Commons of Flickr, allowing you to copy their photos as long as you credit them. If you visit my gallery of posted photos, you can see where I have posted these pictures from. Hope that helps. By the way, forgive my ignorance, but what is blanket copyright ? What is involved with that kind of thing ?
2010-04-25 17:01:57
At the present time, 2photo.ru is the only site that has given me a blanket approval to upload copyrighted images to Pixdaus and, because of this, I am proceeding to use their photos. If any others, besides Poppy, disapprove of this, please comment back and let me know. Getting a blanket copyright approval seems to be very difficult, perhaps I am going about it the wrong way. Any helpful hints would be appreciated. It seems that other sites, and photographers, want to consider copyright wavers for specific photos only.
2010-04-23 14:06:54
Is this some kind of a Pixdaus rule? If so, I was not aware of it. Sorry.
2010-04-23 13:25:14
There are photo sites on the Internet other than 2photo.ru! If we wish to see all the phots on that site, we can go there. Diversify! Pls. ;-)