Re: ULF photography

From: Judy Seigel ^lt;jseigel@panix.com>
Date: 01/18/05-04:55:53 PM Z
Message-id: <Pine.NEB.4.61.0501181643210.2919@panix3.panix.com>

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 sanking@CLEMSON.EDU wrote:

> No reason to screw 'em. Just ignore 'em since they don't have anything to
> contribute but BS.
>
> Sandy

Well Sandy, I'd been about to post a semi-apology to you, but you seem to
make that superfluous -- not to mention that if everything non-ULF
photographers contribute is BS, you probably aren't even reading this.

   However, being the fair-minded, sweet-natured, good person that I am, I
note the following: Due to a REAL screw-up on the Internet (see NY Times
business section today, Tuesday) my service provider, Panix, was hijacked
to Australia by way of Canada, which may account for the fact that
Patrick's explanation of the term and apology for not explaining appeared
in my queue long after your comment that non-ULF users had nothing to
contribute.

That comment had seemed a strangely rude reply to a good-natured query.
Then, reflecting on the sequence, I figured you probably meant something
else.

Now it looks like I was right the first time.

Sorry about that.

Judy

>
>
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 sanking@CLEMSON.EDU wrote:
>>
>>> ... People who do not know that
>>> ULF means ultra large format are likely to have little or nothing to
>>> contribute to your site.
>>
>>
>> In which case, screw 'em?
>>
>> J.
>>
>
>
>
Received on Tue Jan 18 16:56:02 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/01/05-09:28:08 AM Z CST