Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Polls
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
 Sponsors
 Special Offers
 Our Store
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Student Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Subscribe
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

USA Today/USPW thread continued.
Greg Bartram, Photographer
Dublin | OH | | Posted: 11:02 AM on 05.16.12
->> So I guss my question would be this. How many people here think Bob Rosato is an idiot?

Because, to be honest, everyone here is assuming that USPW's photographers are substandard. That's a fairly standard assumption in these discussions, as I well remember from the last time I stuck up for USPW, and had my own abilities demeaned repeatedly.

That's neither here nor there. If you assume that USPW is sending substandard photographers, then you also should assume that Bob Rosato is either a poor businessman, or has no idea how to judge other photographers.

The Olympics are a Big Deal. Everyone knows this. All of us as individuals also realize that, if we want to continue to cover big events, we have to be at our best with the opportunities we have, or we will not get to cover such events again.

Don't you think it's fair to assume that the Powers That Be at USPW know that too? Doesn't it seem reasonable to assume that they've probably identified and booked their very best shooters to make the trip to cover the Olympics?

Having said that, I feel badly for the USA Today folks who were looking forward to the Olympics who aren't covering it. I'd love to shoot the Olympics one day...I bet it'd be brilliant, and I'd just bring a cot onto the soccer pitch and sleep in my spot.

The funny thing here is, though, that everyone seems to be blaming USPW for a decision that Gannett made based on properties that they own. I think folks are barking at the wrong dog here.

Lastly, I don't want to speak for Brad here, but he's got so many different people lobbing grenades from so many different directions that it's probably getting a little frustrating.
 This post is:  Informative (6) | Funny (0) | Huh? (8) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 12:20 PM on 05.16.12
->> Greg, not one person on the planet thinks Bob is an idiot. Where in the world did you get such an idea? Saying something like that makes you look very foolish. There is not ONE thread relating to any of this over the years saying that. In fact, I dare say Bob might be considered not only one of the great sports photographers of our generation but also the smartest. He took an idea, ran with it and turned it into a very large payday. One which almost certainly guarantees he would never have to pick up a camera again if he so chose.
 This post is:  Informative (12) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (3) |   Definitions

Michael Proebsting, Photographer
Barrington | IL | USA | Posted: 1:01 PM on 05.16.12
->> It was always my opinion the USPW was set up for nothing more than to be a pain in the ass for Getty. Be enough of a thorn to them where they buy out USPW to get rid of USPW as "competition". The business plan appeared to be this:

Take uneducated and niave photographers, let them shoot on spec, pay them next to nothing and low ball Getty. Getty decides to "get rid of them" by purchasing USPW, reaping Mr. Rosato a boatload of $$$, and the contributing photographers with nothing.

I was off on my guess about Getty being the buyer, but have no fear the fine people at Gannett that have a track record of demolishing the industry in their own right stepped up to the plate and this is what we now have.

Again, Mr. Barr loves to speak on the merits of USPW as far as being a good business model and it certainly was for Mr. Rosato but if you or anyone else somehow thinks this is good for the business of sports photography or good for any photographer that will shoot the Olympics for USPW for 15 hours a day for $150 with Zero health insurance, 401k, provide equipment ect., well then just keep on drinking the cool aid that USPW is serving.

I honestly think as a whole, that photographers rank among the worst as far as people using good business sense and good business decision making.
 This post is:  Informative (9) | Funny (0) | Huh? (2) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kent Nishimura, Student/Intern, Photographer
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 2:02 PM on 05.16.12
->> mannnn. i was so happy when that last thread hi 50 posts...

now...

::sad panda::
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (9) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Prengler, Photographer
Fairview | TX | USA | Posted: 3:43 PM on 05.16.12
->> Something doesn't quite add up. Why would you even spend $1 a day for USPW or any other shooters when you already have a qualified staff that is on the payroll?

1. Gannett is going to replace the majority of USAT staffers with USPW shooters going forward. I seriously doubt this is going to happen. If you were, this isn’t how you would do it, you would start slowly trimming. You wouldn’t setup USAT for a mutiny.

2. Gannett is going to use the Olympics in an attempt to boost USPW's market leverage and presence with regard to sales going forward. It's possible but for some reason I think #3 is more likely.

3. Gannett is putting USPW back in play for an eventual sale. This looks like the most likely scenario. It’s a gamble but if Gannett can pull it off with USPW shooters, their value goes up and the thorn they become in some other organization’s side get’s pretty big.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (2) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 4:41 PM on 05.16.12
->> Michael,

#1 appears to have already happened. I haven't seen a USA Today shooter at a sporting event in months. That includes the three different teams that we currently have in the playoffs here.
 This post is:  Informative (4) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Greg Bartram, Photographer
Dublin | OH | | Posted: 4:45 PM on 05.16.12
->> Chuck, I think you missed the point I was trying to make. 'Twas hyperbole.

My point was that, by assuming that the USPW shooters covering the Olympics would produce substandard work, one is assuming by extension that USPW will be poorly represented in their coverage of the events, and is poorly prepared to be in the position of providing such coverage. This, then, would seem to indicate a lack of preparation on the part of the managers of USPW.

You obviously respect Bob, as do I. He's been available for me every time I've had a question.

My point was that, by laboring under the assumption that USPW's coverage will be poor, folks are by extension assuming that they know more about the abilities of USPW shooters than does Bob Rosato et al, who see, edit, and market the images of those shooters, and who clearly believe they are able to provide strong coverage. I can't believe that anyone would go into such an event without the clear belief that they will succeed.

I was in no way shape or form demeaning any individual, and if someone interpreted it that way, I apologize.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 5:32 PM on 05.16.12
->> "Twas poorly communicated. Apology accepted. 8)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Frank Niemeir, Photographer
Woodstock | GA | usa | Posted: 5:40 PM on 05.16.12
->> "#1 appears to have already happened."
Wow. I wasn't paying attention.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (2) | Off Topic (1) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark J. Terrill, Photographer
Simi Valley | CA | USA | Posted: 7:20 PM on 05.16.12
->> Frank,

I'm not sure what you were trying to show. Maybe the picture on their site changed or something.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Prengler, Photographer
Fairview | TX | USA | Posted: 7:56 PM on 05.16.12
->> I wasn't talking about the entire group of shooters, I was talking about the group that was referred to in the article, the upper tier group.

"USA Today staff photographers with decades of experience covering sports were told last week that, well, their services wouldn't be needed in London."

It appears, according to Mark, the overall resources have been changing.

So is there still a group of veteran Olympic shooters at USAT? If there is I still ask the question; why would you send a group and pay them anything when you have qualified staffers that are already paid and budgeted?

You have to figure that Gannett will be assuming some liability for the USPW shooters. God forbid that something happened to a USPW shooter or a USPW shooter caused unforseen damages while under the Gannett flag. Any good lawyer worth his salt is going to look at the entity with the deepest pockets and that's going to fall back on Gannett. USAT staffers would already be covered provided Gannett's Risk Mgmt. department is doing their job.

There just seems to be more going on here than initially thought or blogged.

I will toss out a possibility, what if USPW is tapping shooters that are based in England?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
Dallas | TX | US | Posted: 8:08 PM on 05.16.12
->> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVZUVeMtYXc
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (2) | Huh? (3) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 8:31 PM on 05.16.12
->> Mark,
I think Frank's point was the lead shot for the story "Devils take on Rangers in Game 2 " on the USAT page was shot by a USPW shooter.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Nic Coury, Photographer
Monterey | CA | | Posted: 9:22 PM on 05.16.12
->> @Gerry,

I think you meant this one:

http://i.imgur.com/AqqJI.gif
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (2) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (1) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Sean Burges, Photographer, Photo Editor
Canberra | ACT | Australia | Posted: 10:02 PM on 05.16.12
->> The other thing to keep in mind is that the Olympics is about a lot more sports than those typically found in the US. It is possible that the USPW stable of photographers has individuals who are absolutely stellar in some of these other sports. The sport I know best and in which I am most competent is track and field. Kirby Lee is one of the best track shooters around and he does shoot for USPW. He also covered at least Beijing, and possibly Athens. If people like him are being sent then the quality of USPW images will be outstanding. But, does USPW have the people to give that kind of quality to all the sports? I have no idea. Everything is speculation until we know who is actually going to be sent to cover the games.

For me the bigger question is one of editorial control. What I don't fully understand from the point of view of USAT is how relying on USPW for imagery lets the paper keep a distinct editorial line that will set its coverage apart from everyone else relying on wire images. If unique, story-tailored images are part of the selling point for USAT's market, why would I bother buying the paper for Olympic coverage if it is relying on wire images? It is almost like a conscious decision has been made to not compete with other major papers such as the NYT for Olympic readership. Has a similar decision been made by USAT with respect to writers being sent to London?

Finally, I have never worked for USPW and have no plans to do so in the foreseeable future.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 11:04 PM on 05.16.12
->> honestly. do you guys who work for USPW get paid extra to keep alive/ start these threads? just wondering....

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=39018
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (3) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (3) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 11:22 PM on 05.16.12
->> ooops sorry. I meant to post that to http://www.sarcasticcomments.com
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (3) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Greg Bartram, Photographer
Dublin | OH | | Posted: 11:42 PM on 05.16.12
->> Chuck, If my posts had been in number 2-48, I wouldn't exactly be keeping anything alive, right? I'd be responding, just like everyone else. Therefore, I'm no more guilty of 'keeping threads alive' than anyone else who posted, right?

For what it's worth, I think there's a misconception here. I am quite certain that USPW applied for and received their own credentials, and that USA Today management chose not to submit requests. As we all know, such credentials are non-transferrable.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Greg Kendall-Ball, Photographer, Assistant
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 11:51 PM on 05.16.12
->> @Chuck-
I thought I remembered this from one of the first USPW/Gannett threads. Something like USPW shooters have to come to the defense of the company whenever its reputation is besmirched.

It was from this Photo Businsess News "analysis" of the USPW contract:
http://photobusinessforum.blogspot.com/2011/10/contract-analysis-gannettus-...


"n. Photographer shall use Photographer’s best efforts to promote Agency's name and good reputation throughout the world at all times, and Photographer shall not make any disparaging remarks about Agency or its affiliates; and


COMMENTARY & ANALYSIS: This means that when USPW/Gannett is late to pay, or a USPW photographer gets criticized at a sporting event, you’ll defend USPW/Gannett. Further, if someone criticizes USPW/Gannett in an online forum – even if it’s a justified criticism, you not only can’t say “I see your point”, you must use your “best efforts” to promote USPW/Gannett, which means posting a positive comment."
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 12:09 AM on 05.17.12
->> Damn Greg, I guess a USPW minion will certainly give you an "Inappropriate" for THAT post. I mean, honestly, I'm getting flagged every time I start to type....
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 12:31 AM on 05.17.12
->> ..and of course to close out the night....
"The first rule of USPW is: You do not talk about USPW"
"The second rule of USPW is: You DO NOT talk about USPW"
happy trails! 8)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (5) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (2) |   Definitions

Greg Bartram, Photographer
Dublin | OH | | Posted: 1:39 PM on 05.17.12
->> "I thought I remembered this from one of the first USPW/Gannett threads. Something like USPW shooters have to come to the defense of the company whenever its reputation is besmirched."

*snicker*

Yep...that's right. I can't think for myself, so thank God I've got the USPW chip implanted that tells me what to post here...here...here...here...

Damned thing skipped a groove.

"This means that when USPW/Gannett is late to pay"

Never happened to me since this here combination got started. Getty, on the other hand, still owes me for something I shot for them 7 months ago...

Greg,I had forgotten about that article. Does anyone know if PBN's ever done the same for a Reuters, AP, or Getty contract?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (2) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Chang, Photographer
Robertsdale | AL | USA | Posted: 2:03 PM on 05.17.12
->> Chuck! 2 posts and 0 Inappropriates!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (3) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 2:17 PM on 05.17.12
->> don't worry. it's early!
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (3) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (2) |   Definitions

Michael Chang, Photographer
Robertsdale | AL | USA | Posted: 2:57 PM on 05.17.12
->> Nice
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Greg Kendall-Ball, Photographer, Assistant
Abilene | TX | USA | Posted: 3:07 PM on 05.17.12
->> @Greg Bartram-
I understand the "commentary and analysis" part of that thread represented the author of that post's understanding only.

But, as a USPW employee/contractor, how do you interpret that clause? I'm not saying all USPW shooters are mindless robots, but I do wonder how actual USPW folks interpret that.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Prengler, Photographer
Fairview | TX | USA | Posted: 3:08 PM on 05.17.12
->> I had to do it...be damned the warning, the opportunity was just to tempting.. :)~
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Michael Prengler, Photographer
Fairview | TX | USA | Posted: 3:09 PM on 05.17.12
->> too .. just too tempting not to (word police might get me)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Greg Bartram, Photographer
Dublin | OH | | Posted: 4:25 PM on 05.17.12
->> @ Greg K-B...

Honestly, I never paid any attention to it. Seemed a bit odd to me, but I was also quite certain that it wasn't anything that ever was going to affect me either way. It's not like I've ever gotten an email complaining that I hadn't lived up to that particular bit...

There are bits of any contract I've ever signed that didn't seem logical to me, and you shoulda seen my old recording contract...now THERE was a big ol' pile o' silliness!

The only reason I've ever popped up in any of the myriad of these threads is that I respect the folks I work with, and my dough shows up in my checking account exactly when it's supposed to, give or take a few days. This has been a more positive experience than my association with another certain organization.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bradley Leeb, Photographer
Champaign | IL | USA | Posted: 4:40 PM on 05.17.12
->> Greg, I did pay attention to that line, as well as some others and I had a long phone conversation back in the fall with Bob Rosato directly so that I could get some clarification on a few items. I just looked back at my notes about the conversation, and the interpretation from Bob about "disparaging remarks" is that it refers to saying something that is untrue.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
Washington | DC | US | Posted: 5:13 PM on 05.17.12
->> Bradley-->

disparaging |diˈsparijiNG|
adjective

"expressing the opinion that something is of little worth; derogatory:"

My thesaurus reads:
disparaging remarks: derogatory, deprecatory, denigratory, belittling; critical, scathing, negative, unfavorable, uncomplimentary, uncharitable; contemptuous, scornful, snide, disdainful; informal bitchy, catty; archaic contumelious

Disparaging does not me "untrue". Your notes won't hold up in a court of law since they are not signed by Bob Rosato.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bradley Leeb, Photographer
Champaign | IL | USA | Posted: 5:17 PM on 05.17.12
->> No, my notes are not signed per se, but because I am aware that a phone conversation is just "my word against his" kind of thing, I did type up an email recaping all the points we discussed and making sure that my understanding was correct on the issues and asking if my interpretations were in line with the conversation. The reply was, and I quote, "you are correct on all points here" (with additional clarification on a different point.)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 5:55 PM on 05.17.12
->> I thought I was done with this but wanted to clear up a couple of things...
@Greg Bartram, just so you know you are wrong on two points. One, you STARTED this thread, so yes you did "keep the thread alive" by resurrecting it. Two, you are also wrong about the credentialing. from what I have been told USA Today was credentialed as was USPW and management decided to let USPW do the work. Both organizations were credentialed.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Greg Bartram, Photographer
Dublin | OH | | Posted: 9:45 PM on 05.17.12
->> "This thread has reached the maximum number of posts.
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]"

I resurrected nothing. The link above clearly is offered as a way to continue the conversation (hence the word "continue").

If you are correct regarding USA Today's applying then declining to use them, then I am wrong in the second part of my statement. however so is the original poster of the other thread, who stated that USA Today's credentials were given to USPW, seeming to indicate that USPW only had credentials because Gannett gave theirs up.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

David Harpe, Photographer
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 10:43 PM on 05.17.12
->> Credentials

I heard from a reliable source that USPW had to obtain their own credentials because Gannett was selling theirs on DealChicken...


A VERY reliable source...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (7) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (2) |   Definitions

Kent Nishimura, Student/Intern, Photographer
Honolulu | HI | USA | Posted: 10:58 PM on 05.17.12
->> +1 to liddy.

@ Mr. Bartram,

resurrected...continued...

same smell...

(and that smell is stink)

I'm just hoping that once this thread hits 50, it'll stay dead...D-E-D...

http://youtu.be/Ghcv0bvzsCA?t=3m52s
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (4) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 11:22 PM on 05.17.12
->> again @greg bartram- I have to say, arguing with you USPW fanboys is somewhat like ramming your head into a cement wall. seriously...I know some of the "upper echelon" USPW shooters and they have emailed me saying "please do not pay attention to these idiots who keep posting to these threads". that, sir is a DIRECT quote.
seriously greg are you brain dead?

"I resurrected nothing. The link above clearly is offered as a way to continue the conversation (hence the word "continue")."

ahhh yeah, you CONTINUED the thread by STARTING a new one...and yes to be clear...the quote above from a few of my USPW friends is correct. at least enough oxygen was supplied to your brain to realize the second part of your post was wrong.....but then you try to blame someone else...man up dude..take responsibility for posting erroneous information. cripes you guys will say anything and blame everybody for you own shortcomings.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (4) |   Definitions

Michael Granse, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 11:50 PM on 05.17.12
->> This is like beating a dead horse with a fish.

That should be good for at least one "inappropriate."
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (5) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Greg Bartram, Photographer
Dublin | OH | | Posted: 11:56 PM on 05.17.12
->> Well, perhaps you'd take a moment and read what I post as part of a conversation then, rather than through the filter of 'USPW fanboys'.

I make my living as a photographer, as do you. You have a staff position, and I freelance for a wide variety of clients, of whom USPW is only one. I disagree with your perspective, as you disagree with mine, yet I will not belittle you.

You missed the reason for my commenting on the error in the original post. My point was this. Several people have referred to Gannett's credentials being given to USPW. Your own post referred to USPW applying for, and being granted THEIR OWN credential, right? Therefore, it is incorrect to state that Gannett's credentials were given away. As you yourself stated, it appears that they simply declined to use them.

I have replied here because I thought there was a reasonable conversation to be had. Was I wrong?
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 12:11 AM on 05.18.12
->> greg, to be clear....I was not belittling you. you posted erroneous information...whether you gleamed this from previous posts or not the fact of the matter is they were WRONG and you didn't check your facts. unless you can confirm information don't post it. plain and simple...it's a rule of journalism. a lot of people on SS don't like what I post. they don't like what I say. I get a LOT of "inappropriates" because of this. but I sleep okay at night because I, A)don't make shit up B)check my facts and C)care a LOT more about this business and not so much much what non-professionals think. so keep making excuses but please make sure your facts are straight before posting.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Sam Morris, Photographer
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 12:25 AM on 05.18.12
->> You're welcome Granse.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Richard Wolowicz, Photographer
Montreal | QC | Canada | Posted: 12:28 AM on 05.18.12
->> Granse ... should've hit the shift key on the "f" in fish for more effect !

Love it ! Funny (1) from me !
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer, Photo Editor
PLANET | EARTH | | Posted: 12:30 AM on 05.18.12
->> btw...granse we WANT photos of that.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Greg Bartram, Photographer
Dublin | OH | | Posted: 12:33 AM on 05.18.12
->> And I made an excuse exactly where?

If you've got your sense of humor about you, it's ironic indeed that your post about accuracy used the word 'gleamed' instead of 'gleaned'...I realize it was a typo, but you have to admit it's sorta funny.

If youdon't have it with you, feel free not to read what I just wrote.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (5) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Greg Bartram, Photographer
Dublin | OH | | Posted: 12:35 AM on 05.18.12
->> Michael Granse, I may not have a horse to beat with that fish, but I can cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (4) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Gene Boyars, Photographer
Matawan | NJ | United States | Posted: 6:58 AM on 05.18.12
->> What is worse? Beating a dead horse with a fish or being pecked to death by a duck? Or this whole thread? Gannett is a business. They are supposed to make a profit. They bought USPW for that very reason. They made a business decision to use USPW to cover the Olympics because they feel it is cost effective. It is that simple. Why am I typing all of this? To try and fill out this thread and make it go away.
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Sutton, Photographer
Herndon | VA | USA | Posted: 9:10 AM on 05.18.12
->> I can't believe I read the whole thing.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (3) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Greg Bartram, Photographer
Dublin | OH | | Posted: 9:22 AM on 05.18.12
->> "Michael Granse, I may not have a horse to beat with that fish, but I can cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with a herring...

This post is: Informative (0) | Funny (1) | Huh? (3) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) | Definitions"

This tells us how much Monty Python awareness there is on this here board...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dave Prelosky, Photographer
Lower Burrell | Pa | US | Posted: 9:48 AM on 05.18.12
->> If this keeps up much longer I suppose I'll have to fart in someone's general direction...
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (5) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (1) |   Definitions

Michael Granse, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 9:53 AM on 05.18.12
->> Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of ELDERBERRIES!!!!
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (9) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

This thread has reached the maximum number of posts
If you would like to continue it, please create a new thread.
[ Create new thread? ]

|| Sponsor Special Deals

Impossible Project Instant Lab
Available from: Samy's Camera | Price: $199.95
Notes: The Impossible Project Impossible Instant Lab creates beautiful instant photos from your iPhone 4/4S, iPhone 5/5S or iPod Touch 4th/5th generation.
-- More Info --



Return to --> Message Board Main Index
Check out this Blog: Click Here ::..