Re: OT: More Photographer's Rights

Oh, a member of the State Senate, for a minute I thought Blumenthal and Lieberman weren't both complete wastes of space... On 4/27/2012 9:41 AM, John Sessoms wrote: A friend sent me this and I thought I'd pass it along. A Connecticut Senator proposes a bill to make law enforcement accountable

OT: More Photographer's Rights

A friend sent me this and I thought I'd pass it along. A Connecticut Senator proposes a bill to make law enforcement accountable for interfering with photographers: http://www.steves-digicams.com/news/connecticut_senator_proposes_bill_to_make_police_accountable_for_interfering_with_photographe

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

On 18/4/08, Peter Fairweather, discombobulated, unleashed: >As a professional who has to deal with this on a regular basis you >have much more experience than most of us in dealing with this >problem. It may sound a bit OTT to describe the issue as one of >principle, but while there is no doubt th

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:34 PM, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually they weren't in the right. Owners, or their agents, can ask > you not to photograph, but unless it's a defense installation, (even in > Canada, not just the US), they can't legally confiscate your film. They >

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

Cotty As a professional who has to deal with this on a regular basis you have much more experience than most of us in dealing with this problem. It may sound a bit OTT to describe the issue as one of principle, but while there is no doubt that one can manage jobsworth officials by a variety of tec

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

Actually they weren't in the right. Owners, or their agents, can ask you not to photograph, but unless it's a defense installation, (even in Canada, not just the US), they can't legally confiscate your film. They can only tell you to stop and ask you to leave, or have you ejected if you refus

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know. They all seemed so nice at the time. So do baby aligators at the time.;-) I escorted 7 wind tower pieces over the winter, and only on the last trip, did i notice a signe saying no photography equipment beyond the fence, i

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

Eauh, but Eau.. mike wilson wrote: > A smelly trainer fetish would do it. > >> From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: 2008/04/17 Thu PM 06:12:53 GMT >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: Photographer's rights - UK &g

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

A smelly trainer fetish would do it. > > From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2008/04/17 Thu PM 06:12:53 GMT > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: Photographer's rights - UK > > You'd have to have a personal relationship with

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Comment: You can't film here! > Retort: Hey, you're right - you're stood in the way! Photographing in Germany isn't much fun either. There's always some self-appointed "warden" around who'll tell you you can't photograph here or pass there. Walk into a derelict

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

On 18/4/08, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed: > >BTW, humour interlude - standard wise-ass comments with my standard retorts: > >Comment: Hey did you get any good shots? >Retort: I only ever get good shots. > >Comment: we're going to have to shoot quickly in this area... >Retort: oh, that's a sh

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

On 17/4/08, Peter Fairweather, discombobulated, unleashed: >I was prohibited from taking pictures of my grandson's under 10 >football team by "a league official" I'm ambivalent about this - but not for the reasons you are thinking. If I was a punter (just an everyday bloke who likes taking pictu

RE: Photographer's rights - UK

I know. They all seemed so nice at the time. > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of P. J. Alling > > I hate to say this, but you elected them... > > Bob W wrote: > > I'm slightly alarmed to see that someone has started a > petition on

RE: Photographer's rights - UK

Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Cotty > Sent: 17 April 2008 15:33 > To: pentax list > Subject: Photographer's rights - UK > > Interesting read: > > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7351

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

ing it illegal to take photos anywhere (for security reasons). > > Bob > > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of Cotty >> Sent: 17 April 2008 15:33 >> To: pentax list >> Subjec

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:40 AM, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David Savage wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Interesting read: > >> > >> > > > > I think those "officials" are t

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

David Savage wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Interesting read: >> >> > > I think those "officials" are trying to stop us grubby, pervert > snappers from taking shots like this: > >

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

:-) Cheers DS On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 2:12 AM, P. J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You'd have to have a personal relationship with the subject to find that > particularly erotic. > > > > David Savage wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

You'd have to have a personal relationship with the subject to find that particularly erotic. David Savage wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Interesting read: >> >> >> > > I think those "of

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 10:33 PM, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting read: > > I think those "officials" are trying to stop us grubby, pervert snappers from taking shots like this:

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

I remember getting some suspicious looks from security guards when I was shooting the Gherkin. NYC cops aren't any better though. Amita -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above

Re: Photographer's rights - UK

I was prohibited from taking pictures of my grandson's under 10 football team by "a league official" I looked up the Football Association guidelines which were eminently sensible and pointed out the legal rughts we have to take pictures in public places. I did make one unpardonable error which ne

Photographer's rights - UK

Interesting read: -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pd

Re: I nice "photographer's rights" story for a change

Nice read. Great that he got a written apology for the harassment. Jostein On 12/19/06, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The right to bear SLR's: > http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,72315-0.html > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listi

I nice "photographer's rights" story for a change

The right to bear SLR's: http://www.wired.com/news/wiredmag/0,72315-0.html -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net

Re: Photographer's rights in Australia (was RE: My Home Town)

This one time, at band camp, "Paul Ewins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > we have no bill > of rights so we have no inalienable rights, and specifically no right of > privacy. Putting it another way, our rights as photographers stem from other > people's lack of rights to prevent us taking photos. M

Re: Photographer's rights in Australia (was RE: My Home Town)

take pictures of every subject except other people's kids, and let he who dares tell me I can't... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Paul Ewins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Monday, January 30, 2006 8:28 PM Subject: Photographer's

Photographer's rights in Australia (was RE: My Home Town)

John, In Australia there is basically no restriction at all on who or what you can take photos of if you are on public property. If you are on private property (which includes shopping centres and council owned land) then the property owner has the right to set the rules. A lot of the time

RE: The Photographer's Rights

Gautam Sarup wrote: That's right, I _do_ judge such things. I do my best though I haven't reached the status of being the VOICE OF REASON. Well SOMEBODY has to be it. :) I don't agree with Bob on everything and I suspect that he does not *expect* everyone, or anyone in particular, to agr

RE: The Photographer's Rights

Blakely [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 8:57 PM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights > > > The notion of requiring some sort of moral ground for one nation or one > person to object to the brutal actions of another

RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

Heh! Gautam > -Original Message- > From: P. J. Alling [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:33 AM > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave) > > > You ain't been here long enoug

Re: The Photographer's Rights

At 04:48 PM 8/22/2005, keithw wrote: Please, the both of you, will you either find something more appropriate to discuss, or at least take this conversation off the list? Please? I subscribed to the Pentax Camera list, not the Pentagon Critique list. ;-) Oddly enough, you get what is out ther

Re: The Photographer's Rights

Now how did you leap to that! Most reasonable folks would know that the statement applies to whatever the subject matter is. We all have different areas of expertise wherein we are competent. Of course there are those who just love to think the worst of people and are eager to jump on anything

Re: The Photographer's Rights

From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a message dated 8/22/2005 4:02:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No one has launched a war because they wanted to. To state such nonsense is to assume that the one launching the war has dictatorial power. To assume that the President of the US, P

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

You ain't been here long enough to know what bubbin' over is son... Gautam Sarup wrote: Aw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Brewing nicely? This pot bubbleth over. Obviously it hasn't been watched very intently. Gautam -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (screa

Re: The Photographer's Rights

In a message dated 8/22/2005 4:02:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No one has launched a war because they wanted to. To state such nonsense is to assume that the one launching the war has dictatorial power. To assume that the President of the US, Prime Minister of Briton, P

Re: The Photographer's Rights

On Mon, 22 Aug 2005, Bob Blakely wrote: I think it important to let folks talk as they wish. Otherwise, how would we know the fools among us. Hell, if they kept their mouths shut, we might think them wise. Occasional lapses of judgment aside (we all have them) we learn who is worth listening t

Re: The Photographer's Rights

The notion of requiring some sort of moral ground for one nation or one person to object to the brutal actions of another is absurd. Should you be burglarized, your kin be brutalized and your neighbor witness it, perhaps he should not intervene in as much he's only been out 5 years after a 7 yea

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

In response to We need a big guy, who enjoys a fight, and can take a lot of whipping. William Robb wrote: Get Cakalic a can of Dream Whip and a French Maid's outfit and I expect he'd be up to it. WW Hey don't mention my name in the same sentence as "French Maid's outfit"! Tom C.

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

- Original Message - From: "Tim Øsleby" Subject: RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave) BW>You could try narrowing it down a bit so that it excludes some people... This is constructive! We need a big guy, who enjoys a fight, and can take a lot of whippin

RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

> > Aw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Brewing nicely? This pot bubbleth over. Obviously it hasn't been watched very intently. Gautam

RE: The Photographer's Rights

From: Bob Blakely wrote: > > The United States and the United Kingdom reacted to Japanese military > > actions > > Those "actions" as you called them were Imperialism and brutality > on a grand > scale. > On what possible moral ground could the United Kingdom in the 1940's object to Imperial

Re: The Photographer's Rights

Bob Blakely wrote: Regarding Eactivist's post: No one has launched a war because they wanted to. To state such nonsense is to assume that the one launching the war has dictatorial power. To assume that the President of the US, Prime Minister of Briton, Prime Minister of Australia have such p

Re: The Photographer's Rights

I'll slap you around too, if you like... Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kevin, Shut the hell up before you alienate any more people. I love it when you order me about. Kevin -- When you're worried or in doubt, R

Re: The Photographer's Rights

I think it important to let folks talk as they wish. Otherwise, how would we know the fools among us. Hell, if they kept their mouths shut, we might think them wise. Occasional lapses of judgment aside (we all have them) we learn who is worth listening to and who is worth dismissing. Regards,

RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

gian) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) > -Original Message- > From: Bob W [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23. august 2005 01:16 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: RE: The P

RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

> > All this making nicey nicey is pretty sickening. I think we > should roast the living hell out of somebody. I hereby open > nominations for appointment to Official PDML Whipping Person > (we can't limit our options here). Frank has unofficially > served in that capacity for a number of yea

Re: The Photographer's Rights

Regarding Eactivist's post: No one has launched a war because they wanted to. To state such nonsense is to assume that the one launching the war has dictatorial power. To assume that the President of the US, Prime Minister of Briton, Prime Minister of Australia have such powers. To assert that

Re: The Photographer's Rights

From: Kevin Waterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I see no further way forward for educational purposes, How does this represent any change from your earlier interpretations? Lewis _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Do

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:16:30PM +0100, Cotty wrote: > On 22/8/05, Tom Reese, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >We should choose someone who sometimes uses Canon or Nikon equipment, > >writes to the list prolifically and has been around a long time. Do you > >have any suggestions? > > H. H

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

On 22/8/05, Tom Reese, discombobulated, unleashed: >We should choose someone who sometimes uses Canon or Nikon equipment, >writes to the list prolifically and has been around a long time. Do you >have any suggestions? H. H. Nope. Can't think of a single soul. Cheers, Cotty

RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

D] > Sent: 22. august 2005 23:34 > To: pentax list > Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave) > > On 22/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >I might do something even worse, ignore you. > > sorry, who are you again? > > &

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

Cotty wrote: On 23/8/05, Kevin Waterson, discombobulated, unleashed: Sorry to dissappoint you, I bowwed out :) That's it? What's this list coming too. Years gone by, you coulda guaranteed a good thrashing for a while. Now it's apologies and bowing out. Frankly I'm disgusted. I suppose you'l

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

On 23/8/05, Kevin Waterson, discombobulated, unleashed: >Sorry to dissappoint you, I bowwed out :) That's it? What's this list coming too. Years gone by, you coulda guaranteed a good thrashing for a while. Now it's apologies and bowing out. Frankly I'm disgusted. I suppose you'll want to bring th

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

On 22/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: >I might do something even worse, ignore you. sorry, who are you again? Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

This one time, at band camp, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yup - just needs a nice white-hot lance to pierce it at just the right > moment LOL Sorry to dissappoint you, I bowwed out :) Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed

Re: The Photographer's Rights

This one time, at band camp, keithw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems China might be heading a similar direction with Taiwan... > I sincerely hope not. I hope not also, I would not know what side to back. But this would be another whole discussion on its own. Sino-Thaiwanese relationships are

Re: The Photographer's Rights

This one time, at band camp, "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kevin, Shut the hell up before you alienate any more people. I love it when you order me about. Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the v

Re: The Photographer's Rights

This one time, at band camp, "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suggest that you read "flyboys" by James Bradley, especially those > parts that deal with the manner in which the military of Japan dominated > the government and distorted the samurai code of bushido into a a > mil

Re: The Photographer's Rights

Glen wrote: At 09:34 AM 8/22/2005, Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl > Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? No, those are your words. I mad

Re: The Photographer's Rights

Daniel J. Matyola wrote: So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? Interesting perspective. Oh, did he say that? Interesting interpretation of what he said. keith whaley Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time,

Re: The Photographer's Rights

P. J. Alling wrote: All true, except that the Japanese were waging an aggressive war of imperial expansion on the Chinese mainland, (where the Japanese army used rape and plague as weapons), and had previously fought a short undeclared war with the Soviet Union, (in which Marshal Zhukov handed

Re: The Photographer's Rights

Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Launching a war simply because you want to (maybe just for political reasons) I think all wars are fought for political reasons. and convincing others it is a good thing, is certainly different from responding t

Re: The Photographer's Rights

I agree. I didn't start this detour, and I avoided it as long as I could, but some things just seem to demand answer. I apologize for taking the bait and engaging in political debate here, where I agree it does not belong. I know better. Glen wrote: At 09:34 AM 8/22/2005, Kevin Waterson

Re: The Photographer's Rights

At 09:34 AM 8/22/2005, Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl > Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? No, those are your words. I made no point abou

Re: The Photographer's Rights

Kevin, Shut the hell up before you alienate any more people. Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? N

RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

r some other clever guy) > -Original Message- > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22. august 2005 18:29 > To: pentax list > Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave) > > On 22/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >Chil

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

On 22/8/05, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed: >...like a good festering boil, eh? Yup - just needs a nice white-hot lance to pierce it at just the right moment LOL Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com ___

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

On Aug 22, 2005, at 9:28 AM, Cotty wrote: Children(addressing all of you). This is not a Pentax or photo related subject, can you please stop behaving like . Aw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Don't be such a killjoy. Just needs a few more days and a couple more ingredients and it'll

Re: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

On 22/8/05, Tim Øsleby, discombobulated, unleashed: >Children(addressing all of you). This is not a Pentax or photo related >subject, can you please stop behaving like . Aw c'mon, this is brewing nicely. Don't be such a killjoy. Just needs a few more days and a couple more ingredients and it'

RE: The Photographer's Rights (please behave)

aniel J. Matyola [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22. august 2005 15:30 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights > > So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl > Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? Interes

Re: The Photographer's Rights

I attempted to take no high ground, moral or otherwise. I just responded to your preposterous statement that "Pearl Harbour was the result of failed US foreign policy." The attack was the direct result of the attempt by the Japanese govenment of that time to gain miltary control over the main

Re: The Photographer's Rights

This one time, at band camp, "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It was probably impossible to > avoid conflict with the Japanese without ceding them hegemony over Asia > and the Western Pacific. I think you may be right here, the whole mess was believed to have started with the San Fra

Re: The Photographer's Rights

This one time, at band camp, "Daniel J. Matyola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl > Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? No, those are your words. I made no point about justification and we have all seen how Americ

Re: The Photographer's Rights

So your point is that the Japanese were justified in bombing Pearl Harbor so that they could continue the rape of Nanking? Interesting perspective. Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Launching a war simply because you want to (maybe just for poli

Re: The Photographer's Rights

All true, except that the Japanese were waging an aggressive war of imperial expansion on the Chinese mainland, (where the Japanese army used rape and plague as weapons), and had previously fought a short undeclared war with the Soviet Union, (in which Marshal Zhukov handed them their heads), w

Re: The Photographer's Rights

This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Launching a war simply because you want to (maybe just for political reasons) I think all wars are fought for political reasons. > and convincing others it is a good thing, is certainly different from > responding to an outright attack (Pe

Re: The Photographer's Rights

. Regards, Bob S. On 8/22/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > - Original Message - > From: "Glen" > Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights > > > > > > I wonder if this thread will ever get back to protecting the rights o

Re: The Photographer's Rights

William Robb wrote: We in the US had a President some years back by the name of Richard Nixon. He uttered a line that became somewhat famous: "I am not a crook." My reply was meant to be a play on that old phrase. Didn't he turn out to be a crook? They (politicians) are all crooks. Tom Ree

Re: The Photographer's Rights

- Original Message - From: "Glen" Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights I wonder if this thread will ever get back to protecting the rights of photographers to use their Pentax cameras for whatever peaceful law-abiding purpose they see fit? ;-) So last nig

RE: The Photographer's Rights

> I wonder if this thread will ever get back to protecting the rights of > photographers to use their Pentax cameras for whatever peaceful > law-abiding > purpose they see fit? ;-) The rights of photographers to use all kinds of cameras without regard to media, colour or national origin. :) Ch

Re: The Photographer's Rights

At 04:52 PM 8/21/2005, Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But I see a difference between the U.S. having heavy involvement and light > involvement and a president starting it or not. I wonder if the families of those killed see the difference. I won

Re: The Photographer's Rights

In a message dated 8/21/2005 1:54:33 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But I see a difference between the U.S. having heavy involvement and light > involvement and a president starting it or not. I wonder if the families

Re: The Photographer's Rights

This one time, at band camp, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But I see a difference between the U.S. having heavy involvement and light > involvement and a president starting it or not. I wonder if the families of those killed see the difference. Kind regards Kevin -- "Democracy is two wolves and

Re: The Photographer's Rights

The reactionary press at the time... The War Starts on March 24, 1999! At approximately 1830 UTC the first bombs were dropped on Kosovo. Mr. Clinton really has no idea of what he is going to accomplish with this action. All we know is that US lives will probably be lost in this military action

Re: The Photographer's Rights

In a message dated 8/20/2005 11:49:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: didn't bring up Clinton because, what with Haiti and Somalia, I thought there might be room for argument. = Well, sort of. But as I recall, Clinton didn't START anything. And our involvement was sor

Re: The Photographer's Rights

To add to Peter's list, the President of the "Committee of Safety" (those were the guys who started the whole affair) was David Rittenhouse. That is about as far back as you can go and claim that it had anything to do with the United States. No, he was not an ancestor of mine, although family l

Re: The Photographer's Rights

This one time, at band camp, "E.R.N. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And by the way, I remember that there were conflicts in Afghanistan, > Angola, Mozambique and Central America in that time frame, but for the > life of me I can't remember any sort of wars in the Caribbean during the > Cart

Re: The Photographer's Rights

He was the head of a body much like the UN but smaller with less power. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights Washington got a city named after him because he was instrumental in getting the "Federal

Re: The Photographer's Rights

- Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights Washington got a city named after him because he was instrumental in getting the "Federal City" built But why did Peyton only get a Place? WW

Re: The Photographer's Rights

Kevin Waterson wrote: This one time, at band camp, "E.R.N. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: What about the one who caught cold at his inauguration and only lived a month? William Henry Harrison. Anybody since him? As to recent presidents hell-bent on starting wars, I don't recall which war

Re: The Photographer's Rights

ite House list those people who were before George Washington? And why did George Washington get a state *and* a city named after him, but Peyton only got a Place? -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 21 August 2005 01:37 To: penta

Re: The Photographer's Rights

Well, considering the powers of the presidency under the Articles of Confederation, maybe we were... Shel Belinkoff wrote: Hi Bob ... Nope, it's not a trick question. Think about this for a moment: The country was officially formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of The Articles of Confede

RE: The Photographer's Rights

pdml.net > Subject: RE: The Photographer's Rights > > Hi Bob ... Nope, it's not a trick question. Think about this > for a moment: > The country was officially formed on March 1, 1781 with the > adoption of The Articles of Confederation. Washington was > inaugurated in Ap

RE: The Photographer's Rights

No, Shel, we weren't leaderless. Neither was there a President of the United States. Rather, there was a President of the Congress of the Confederation which operated under the Articles of Confederation. Lewis From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Hi Bob ... Nope, it's not a trick qu

RE: The Photographer's Rights

Why hasn't anybody told the White House? -- Cheers, Bob > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 21 August 2005 01:30 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Photographer's Rights > > Give that man

RE: The Photographer's Rights

Hi Bob ... Nope, it's not a trick question. Think about this for a moment: The country was officially formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of The Articles of Confederation. Washington was inaugurated in April of 1789. We were not leaderless during those years before Washington became preside

Re: The Photographer's Rights

Give that man a Kewpie doll! Very good Peter. Washington was actually the eighth President of the US. Shel > [Original Message] > From: P. J. Alling > Articles of Confederation -- John Hanson > New "Federal" Constitution -- George Washington > > But just in case you were referring to the Co

Re: The Photographer's Rights

This one time, at band camp, "E.R.N. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What about the one who caught cold at his inauguration and only lived a > month? William Henry Harrison. Anybody since him? > As to recent presidents hell-bent on starting wars, I don't recall which > wars Ford and Carter st

Re: The Photographer's Rights

This one time, at band camp, Glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Are you only counting major wars, or are you including all military actions > abroad? Any military action is an act of war. This rubbish about police actions and the like wears a little thin very quickly, especially for those on the

  1   2   3   4   >