# lightning



## canonrebel (Jun 16, 2004)

Walace Lake


----------



## Lyanna (Jun 17, 2004)

When the pic started to load I first thought it was a black and white but obviously it isn\t. I am very intrigued by the colors...it makes the shot very eerie. Beautiful. Was this post-processed in any way?


----------



## daniel_p (Jun 17, 2004)

These forums should have a dedicated section for these kinds of things, and leave the rest for actual photographs.

Ok, if anyone is not convinced the image is artificially composed, consider this:
1)  That's not how real lightning looks like, real lightning lights up the clouds and the ground below.  
2) The clouds are OBVIOUSLY fake,  you can find repeating patterns in them if you look closely
3) The bush in the lower-right corner was obviously pasted there, you can see how it "fades" into the water
4) The author has not claimed it is an actual photograph (although I think he should have mentioned it isn't, as this is not a photoshop forum)

That should be enough, but you don't really need to analyze it, the overall look of the picture makes it obvious it's fake (it does for me anyway).


----------



## captain-spanky (Jun 17, 2004)

he's always stickin up photoshopped images... they used to be a lot worse but he's learning, bless 'im.  

but yeah, seeing as this is a PHOTO forum, it should be photo's *only* IMO.
Try http://www.eatpoo.com for some *real* photoshopped creativity


----------



## canonrebel (Jun 17, 2004)

captain-spanky said:
			
		

> he's always stickin up photoshopped images... they used to be a lot worse but he's learning, bless 'im.
> 
> but yeah, seeing as this is a PHOTO forum, it should be photo's *only* IMO.
> Try http://www.eatpoo.com for some *real* photoshopped creativity



Jheeez! photoshop really makes some enemies here.  I'm really detecting some personal sarcasm here.  Is this going to be a feeding frenzy?  

I personally see no diff in a little use of PS from using it a lot.  Some of us may use it only to boost saturation a little,  change the exposure a little, blur the background a little, but that's still cheating if PS is cheating if you claim to be a camera purist.  and your past submissions may find you out.


----------



## canonrebel (Jun 17, 2004)

daniel_p said:
			
		

> These forums should have a dedicated section for these kinds of things, and leave the rest for actual photographs.
> 
> Ok, if anyone is not convinced the image is artificially composed, consider this:
> 1)  That's not how real lightning looks like, real lightning lights up the clouds and the ground below.
> ...



Woa, there big fella.  It's only a picture. *It's not a contest*--*no competition*, *No winning or no losing here*; and nothing to get riled about.  No need to go for the jugular, here.  The pic isn't even in the critique section--so what gives. You're spilling blood all over the place.

The Critique section is generally for the camera purists.  this submission isn't in the Critique Section so I've cheated no one. 90% of submissions here in this section are post processed to a degree. Even Vonnagy's submissions are admittedly processed to a degree and he's the best photographer here.  He's the best not because he is in the best locality for photos, but because he has the most talent.  Hes definitely not a wannabe who buys a camera, reads directions to learn where the shutter release is and then instantly thinks hes an expert because he can snap off a few shots.

here are a couple of submissions that I'm certain you'll like.  They are unique, well planned and one-of-a-kind.  couldn't even be duplicated if the camera was to be dropped and it's shutter triggered by accident- the 2nd one is post processed, BTW.  I wont mention the author who submitted themthatll remain his and my secret.

http://img19.photobucket.com/albums/v56/d_puiu/sky800x600.jpg

and leave the rest for actual photographs
natural saturation, huh?
http://img19.photobucket.com/albums/v56/d_puiu/green.jpg


----------



## StvShoop (Jun 17, 2004)

canonrebel said:
			
		

> I personally see no diff in a little use of PS from using it a lot.  Some of us may use it only to boost saturation a little,  change the exposure a little, blur the background a little, but that's still cheating if PS is cheating if you claim to be a camera purist.



!yea man!
photos are translations, not reality. if they're interpretations, all the better to go into ps and make sure they interpret what you want them to

i saw your pic and immediately understood it as a digital creation (maybe the lack of shadows on the center trees, when the lightning is behind them). then i wasn't sure, and i really looked at it for a long time before deciding it was digitally made. like it.


----------



## photobug (Jun 17, 2004)

canonrebel- Personally, I think there's a fine line between a digital photo and digital art. Where's that line? At what point in the post-processing work flow does one cross the line? Everyone will have a different take on that issue, but the line is there.

Saturation/color correction/sharpening/etc., the traditional darkroom arts (for lack of a better term) are accepted as part of photography. Placing things wholesale into a photo until it no longer resembles a photo, to my mind, crosses the line into digital art.

Now, there isn't a thing in the world wrong with digital art, but I feel it belongs in the proper forum. Should there be a "manipulated picture" forum here? Not for me to say. But since there isn't one, and you feel you need to show your "art" (my term), then at least identify it as such.

Then the purists won't have anything to quibble about, will they? Except the _quality_ of the manipulation.


----------



## captain-spanky (Jun 17, 2004)

sorry. I didn't mean any offence CR.
T'was just a gentle 'pisstake but can i just say, you _are_ getting a lot better at PS. 
And just to clarify... I'm not *totally* against photoshop on here and perhaps i posted before i thought.. I'm certainly not saying i've never posted a photoshopped pic but i do think the less pshop the better... 
Perhaps we could have a pshop section with hints, tips  and examples or something?


oh, and what photobug said


----------



## daniel_p (Jun 17, 2004)

canonrebel, it's unfortunate that you feel you have been personally attacked, since that was not my intention. It is true though that I've gradually become disappointed with this forum, as I realized that so many great looking photos have been more or less altered or processed. It's just a matter of taste. Some people like fake boobs, some like all natural, to make an analogy. When I came here I hoped to interact with people that love taking spectacular (or just plain beautiful) photos, just for the joy of capturing that moment of real life in a picture.  That's why I say there should be a separate section for this, because I'm not interested in seeing any form of digital art, just great photos.
As for the 2 photos you say I've altered, you're wrong, I haven't touched them in ANY way, they are exactly how they've been downloaded from the camera,  with the exception of having been resized and having had the JPEG quality factor lowered in order to meet Photobucket's 250KB limit. I don't even know what saturation is. I don't even have Photoshop, I use Microsoft Photo Editor, and I only use it to crop/resize, and once I used it to turn up the brightness and gama, that's all.


----------



## voodoocat (Jun 17, 2004)

canonrebel said:
			
		

> Jheeez! photoshop really makes some enemies here.  I'm really detecting some personal sarcasm here.  Is this going to be a feeding frenzy?
> 
> I personally see no diff in a little use of PS from using it a lot.  Some of us may use it only to boost saturation a little,  change the exposure a little, blur the background a little, but that's still cheating if PS is cheating if you claim to be a camera purist.  and your past submissions may find you out.


There is a huge difference between boosting contrast and adding elements to a photograph that were never there in the first place.  Things like contrast, color balance, etc are things that were done in a traditional darkroom so using that as an argument holds no ground.  When you add things like lightning bolts, cut and paste wolves, add clouds using the cloud filter in photoshop, etc... it ceases to be photography.   The thing that gets me is you either post a photo saying no postwork was done (like anyone cares) or you post photos with deers pasted in and babies floating on the water then ***** when anyone says anything about photoshop.  

We do not act like elite "purists" contrary to your claims.  The only person that ever makes a big deal about photoshop is you.  This is a forum for photography.  There is no rule against photoshop here.  Never has been.  But people would prefer to look at an actual photograph.


----------



## Lyanna (Jun 17, 2004)

Ugh. I had just woken up this morning and was staring at a very bright screen with sandpapery eyes in a dark room. I thought something was funny about the thing but didn't really want to wake up any more than I had to 

Anyway, aside from the theoretical discussion, I will say that I still like it, specially the contrast between color and what seems like black and white. Which means, that for me, it is a successful picture, whether you regard it as digital photography or digital art.

When I first came on here, I had no idea what your ideas all were in regards to post-processing in photoshop. Since this IS a _photo_forum, I guessed that all would be against. I assumed wrong, and by now, I've gotten really nice tips on how to post-process photo's and make them look even better than some already did. I highly appreciate that. 

As for the rest, I am going to keep my mouth shut cause I am way too much the newbie to just drop in my two cents.


----------



## doxx (Jun 17, 2004)

nothing wrong with a piece of digital art,
there is a category in the photoforum where it might fit better

*The Creative Corner*
A place to share artwork that is NOT photography. 
Post your Poetry, Music, Paintings, etc.


----------



## terri (Jun 17, 2004)

doxx said:
			
		

> nothing wrong with a piece of digital art,
> there is a category in the photoforum where it might fit better
> 
> *The Creative Corner*
> ...



Or, could pieces like this be called an "alternative" process....?   There is an Alt section here, as well.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Jun 17, 2004)

Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed :shock: 

I think the lightning looks real, has a similar look to that of heat lighting (a optical elution), also I have no problem with the clouds, but the water dose not look right IMO, Should have more of a glassily blur look


----------



## karissa (Jun 18, 2004)

Dang... I always miss the good stuff.  *snap*

Everyone has a style and I think if you don't like a particular persons style...  don't look at there stuff.  Now, as far as composition here... I think you follow the rule of thirds quite well Cannon.  I have done some digital art like this before.  It can be fun.  However the goal is to make it as real as possible. So take the notes that where posted to say it was fake and try to expand on them.  People here are not much into using photoshop to alter the reality of a picture.  You might want to warn them ahead of time.  I posted one not to long ago that had been digitally composed like this and did not get this kind of a response.

The people here love taking photos and like to help people become better in there craft.  I think we all need to just calm down a bit and be a little more understanding of other people.


----------



## canonrebel (Jun 20, 2004)

daniel_p said:
			
		

> As for the 2 photos you say I've altered, you're wrong, I haven't touched them in ANY way, they are exactly how they've been downloaded from the camera,  with the exception of having been resized and having had the JPEG quality factor lowered in order to meet Photobucket's 250KB limit. I don't even know what saturation is. I don't even have Photoshop, I use Microsoft Photo Editor, and I only use it to crop/resize, and once I used it to turn up the brightness and gama, that's all.




daniel_p, I don't recall implying that both of your pictures were edited--Only the snapshot of the tree tops.  And I only came about that opinion because there is a certain amount of latitude that digital cameras and film can capture and the tree-top picture seemed to me when viewed on my specific monitor to have surpassed the max range of latitude possible from a digital camera or even a film camera--just seemed to be too much contrast to be natural and pure.  The pic doesn't have any focal point. it doesn't have a point of interrest.  it doesn't make a statement. it doesn't show that there was any deliberate effort of composition, but it is beautiful and that makes it art in my opinion. 

The other picture (the one of the sky) to which I  referred  was mentioned because I thought it was less than a snapshot.  

Anyone from 3 years old to 90 years old could have shot that shot. And I've noticed that it's no longer available to view--it should not have been submitted in the Critique thread, anyway.

My opinion of what is Art, is any painting, any construction, any picture or any creation that has been meticulously and  deliberately created and is non ordinary.  By ordinary, I mean a snapshot or painting or construction or creation  that appears to have been created by accident or by the totally inexperienced.

I'm becoming afraid that the digital-film era could destroy photographic art.  Back in the days when film was truely king, there were few amature photographers that would waste 29 cents on a 4x6 print that was made when the camera was accidently pointing at the sky when it was dropped.  Now that the digital era upon us there is no cost or value to snapping a shutter, there's not as much deliberation or hesitation or planning or composing before the shutter is snapped.  The snap is free, it doesn't cost anything, it might get lucky.

It's likely that  if one could stand beside Vonnagy with an identical camera as his and shoot the same scene, one would come up with a totally dissimilar outcome.  Or it's possible that one could shoot a different scene than his and during the RAW-to-jpg conversion, change the light temperature just slightly and produce that gorgeous blue cast (that is so common in a lot of his creations) and be *fooled* completely into thinking it was real and pure; but it would be Art just the same if it were as pleasant to look upon as one of Vonnagy's fantastic photos.

Once upon a time, I never liked dark-room manipulations.  I thought of them as being faked until I learned to do some of it.

I feel there is no middle line with art.  It either is or it isn't art regardless of whether it is a Pure un-retouched photo, a painting, a skyscraper, or photoshopped.  *The main concern for art is only about beauty--or should be* regardless of however it was achieved.  

Those who put limits on certain kinds of post processing but use a little of it should be true to themselves and never use any kind or any amount of post processing.

Those who are purest and want a purest forum may want to visit 
www.pbase.com
But not if they fear being ripped to shreads. This forum has a special section of photoshop only.  And if you post anything in the photographs section, take special care that it is righteous.

cheers 8)


----------



## canonrebel (Jun 21, 2004)

photobug said:
			
		

> canonrebel- Personally, I think there's a fine line between a digital photo and digital art. Where's that line? At what point in the post-processing work flow does one cross the line? Everyone will have a different take on that issue, but the line is there.


I appreciate your views on the fine line. My own view on that fine line is that the fine line is as conspicious as a brick wall and as obnoxious as a bull elk in a china shop. 



> Saturation/color correction/sharpening/etc., the traditional darkroom arts (for lack of a better term) are accepted as part of photography


.
If a pic has been through a manipulation process for any reason ( 1/2 step exposure correction, crop, ANYTHING that has changed since the moment of the sutter snap) THE PICTURE HAS BEEN MANIPULATED. 


> Placing things wholesale into a photo until it no longer resembles a photo, to my mind, crosses the line into digital art.



I can relate to this point of view because I once disliked darkroom manipulation until I learned how to do it--now, I find it acceptable.  I once dispised faked pictures until I learned how to fake them.




> Now, there isn't a thing in the world wrong with digital art, but I feel it belongs in the proper forum. Should there be a "manipulated picture" forum here? Not for me to say. But since there isn't one, and you feel you need to show *your "art" (my term)*, then at least identify it as such.



There already is a manipulated picture forum here (the "critique" and the "The Photo Gallery - post your photos here!" contain manipulated submissions.  There maybe should be a purest forum where nothing is permitted except what was captured at the moment that the shutter was tripped.  Or if you want to be identified as a purest, then *identify your submissions as "ABSOLUTELY NO MANIPULATION".*


> Then the purists won't have anything to quibble about, will they? Except the _quality_ of the manipulation.



I've a hunch that there would still be someone who might quibble about the quality of the original vision which existed at the moment of shutter release. Or even about certain brands of film or certain iso values being unfair because their specific camera doesn't support it.  

It just seems to me, that it's sometimes obvious that there exists a certain rationalization for not knowing how to manipulate.  The "IF-I-can't-do-it- then-it-isn't-fair" synopsis type of rationalization that may exist here to a slight extenct.  And if that attitude were to  prevail, then the playing field might be a more level playing field. AND NOBODY WOULD HAVE TO FEEL THAT HE SHOULD EXPLAIN AND DEFEND HOW HE VIEWS THE WORLD THROUGH HIS OWN PERSONAL SET OF EYES.


----------



## canonrebel (Jun 21, 2004)

daniel_p said:
			
		

> I don't even know what saturation is. I don't even have Photoshop, I use Microsoft Photo Editor, and I only use it to crop/resize, and once I used it to turn up the brightness and gama, that's all.


  "Saturation" is a photographic term. A purest photographer would know this.


----------



## canonrebel (Jun 21, 2004)

voodoocat said:
			
		

> canonrebel said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## daniel_p (Jun 21, 2004)

Both of those pictures are available to view, and none of them is posted in any "critique thread". 
Anyway, I've read some of your blabbering until I realised it has nothing to do with anything. I don't know what your problem is, but it looks to me like you're just "looking for trouble" so to speak. I mean, look how this thread started, and look what you have done of it. I mean literally no one was even talking to you, and you started running around screaming for no reason.  So this the last reply you'll ever see from me, since I'm not interested in this kind of thing.


----------



## canonrebel (Jun 21, 2004)

daniel_p said:
			
		

> So this the last reply you'll ever see from me, since I'm not interested in this kind of thing.



Whew! Thank you, Sir!

Please remember that it wasn't I who "drew first blood"

You wouldn't have taken the cheap shot had you any idea that I would return fire.  Surpprised, huh?


----------



## Patrick (Jun 21, 2004)

daniel_p said:
			
		

> These forums should have a dedicated section for these kinds of things, and leave the rest for actual photographs.
> 
> Ok, if anyone is not convinced the image is artificially composed, consider this:
> 1)  That's not how real lightning looks like, real lightning lights up the clouds and the ground below.
> ...



Probably all true but hey........Still Very Very Very COOL
Great job with the PS work.


----------



## daniel_p (Jun 22, 2004)

Someone tell canonrebel that I'm not talking to him. And also ask him how does he figure that I "drew first blood"? By revealing that his picture was made with Photoshop? Was that offensive to him, was it a secret or something? Did he intend to pass it as an actual photograph? If that's not the case, then tell him I think he's deeply paranoid, because there was no reason for him to flip out. If anyone can describe exactly how I "drew first blood", please enlighten me.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 22, 2004)

daniel_p said:
			
		

> Someone tell canonrebel that I'm not talking to him. And also ask him how does he figure that I "drew first blood"? By revealing that his picture was made with Photoshop? Was that offensive to him, was it a secret or something? Did he intend to pass it as an actual photograph? If that's not the case, then tell him I think he's deeply paranoid, because there was no reason for him to flip out. If anyone can describe exactly how I "drew first blood", please enlighten me.





Man, how old are you??


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 22, 2004)

daniel_p said:
			
		

> If anyone can describe exactly how I "drew first blood", please enlighten me.



daniel_p, you seem to have a very good eye, and you have strong points regarding the image. BUT it would all have been heavily valued if he had posted the image in the Critique section. canonrebel never asked us to disect/critique the image when he posted it. All he mentioned was 'Walace Lake' . 

*Until* a decree against heavily/moderately pshopped images is issued in this thread, I do not see one reason why we should blast someone who only but different from some of us. Aren't we all unique?!


----------



## daniel_p (Jun 22, 2004)

LOL, I'm 25 



> daniel_p, you seem to have a very good eye, and you have strong points regarding the image. BUT it would all have been heavily valued if he had posted the image in the Critique section. canonrebel never asked us to disect/critique the image when he posted it. All he mentioned was 'Walace Lake' Smile



I see what you're saying, but please understand that it is a false perception that I critiqued anything. That post was addressed to people like the one who had posted previously, who were not sure whether the picture was processed in any way and to what degree, and its intention was to convince them that it was indeed a processed image. There is nothing in it that should cause you to believe it was intended as critique.


----------



## sobi (Jun 22, 2004)

how much of this picture was done with bryce? I know a bryce rendering when i see one.


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 22, 2004)

daniel_p said:
			
		

> LOL, I'm 25
> 
> 
> 
> ...



daniel_p, I did not say you critiqued the image. I said 'your points would have been heavily valued if it were in the Crit section'. Your *tone* just caught him off gaurd, which led to his reaction this way.  Thats all!

There is no one to be blamed here. 
You were merely addressing to, in your words 





> to who were not sure whether the picture was processed in any way and to what degree, and its intention was to convince them that it was indeed a processed image.


And he is just reacting to an unexpected blast which was raised unintentionally. 

I'm sure we are mature enough to shake hands and move on.

Have a splendid day!  :thumbsup:


----------



## Lyanna (Jun 22, 2004)

I think this is all blown way out of proportion. Daniel_p, as the forum newbie, maybe you should think first and then post, and save heavy critiques for the appropriate - Critique - forum. And I also think that not speaking to Canonrebel simply because he retorted some of your remarks is kind of childish. Even if you are a 25 year old (or maybe especially).

Canonrebel, I think it is very clear how you see things and how you feel about things. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Personally, I like the shot, but not everyone might like it. I think you've stated your case, and maybe you can think about the effect of using caps in a post


----------



## daniel_p (Jun 22, 2004)

Can someone tell Lyanna that I'm not talking to her? Thanks.


----------



## StvShoop (Jun 22, 2004)

how many people are you not talking to?
better yet, who ARE you talking to?

this thread is no fun anymore, it makes the baby jesus cry when i see a new post in it.


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 22, 2004)

StvShoop said:
			
		

> this thread is no fun anymore, it makes the baby jesus cry when i see a new post in it.





That is RICH!!!  hehehe


----------



## malachite (Jun 22, 2004)

This thread has given me gas &lt;burp>


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 22, 2004)

StvShoop said:
			
		

> this thread is no fun anymore, it makes the baby jesus cry when i see a new post in it.



classic!!!  :smileys: 

I think this thread is becoming funnier with each post


----------



## voodoocat (Jun 22, 2004)

> Can someone tell Lyanna that I'm not talking to her? Thanks.


Would someone tell daniel_p that we like to act like adults on this website?  Thanks.


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 22, 2004)

voodoocat said:
			
		

> > Can someone tell Lyanna that I'm not talking to her? Thanks.
> 
> 
> Would someone tell daniel_p that we like to act like adults on this website?  Thanks.



see... I told you  ..... :lmao:


----------



## daniel_p (Jun 22, 2004)

danalec99 said:
			
		

> voodoocat said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Would everybody tell each other that I'm not talking to them? Thanks.


----------



## canonrebel (Jun 22, 2004)

daniel_p said:
			
		

> Someone tell canonrebel that I'm not talking to him. And also ask him how does he figure that I "drew first blood"? By revealing that his picture was made with Photoshop? Was that offensive to him, was it a secret or something? Did he intend to pass it as an actual photograph? If that's not the case, then tell him I think he's deeply paranoid, because there was no reason for him to flip out. If anyone can describe exactly how I "drew first blood", please enlighten me.



daniel_p, *I am deeply sorry for the trouble I've caused you!  *
I mistook your comments as adversarial and I percieved you as being more significant.

But if you could referr your critique to the critique thread and make your remarks *to* the submitters rather than *about* them as in  "first person", they'd be less likely to be offended.  And then your comments would be less likely to be perceived as being vicious rather than constructive.

dont refer to the submitters in the "third person" as when you refered to me as the "Author" of the pic.  That's adversarial and puts people on the defense.  Refer your critiques to the author of the thread rather than the entire membership. constructive crit is more person-to-person when it's in the proper tense referrence.

Our critiques here on the forum are meant as constructive criticism and not to injure--Or should be. The other stuff is for kindergarden. 

For instance, Shark's criticism of my photo manipulation in the past has always been constructive (never abusive) and as a result, I've grown both as a photographer and an artist.  That's what this forum is about--to help each other grow as dedicated hobbiest.  My pursuit is to expand my growth in both directions, as a photographer and also an artist.  I mean, after all, isn't it easier to appreciate photography if you can also appreciate other forms of art?  Obviously the path you seek is only as a photogapher. But that's ok. That's your thing. You're entitled to it. You have my blessing. As for myself, there's more to beauty than only one avenue to obtain it.

*Again,  daniel_p,  I apologize for the trouble I've caused you.*

Cheers

The Rebel


----------



## karissa (Jun 22, 2004)

Now.. Canon and Daniel... I want you to to shake hands and play nice.....  No more throwing rocks from the playground at each other.


----------



## canonrebel (Jun 23, 2004)

karissa said:
			
		

> Now.. Canon and Daniel... I want you to to shake hands and play nice.....  No more throwing rocks from the playground at each other.





> Again, daniel_p, I apologize for the trouble I've caused you.



Folks, it's been a wild ride, but I think it was probably necessary. I've learned much from it.  There are views that have been demonstrated here in this thread that I do not necessarily agree with, BUT I DO AND ALWAYS HAVE  RESPECTED THEM.  All I would ask in return is similar courtesy.  

You may Check everyone of my critiques and you will not find one defamitory, derogitory, flamable, or destructive comment.  I've always been respectful except in defense.  My critiques have always been in the form of suggestions or advice or "this is how I would have done it type of commentary".  I've never commented 3rd person about any one to the membership.   Viewing My past critiques will demonstrate that I have a wide lattitude of acceptance and a gentle nature except for when critiques have been personal subjective evaluations rather than focused on my submissions



> Again, daniel_p, I apologize for the trouble I've caused you.



I apologize for any discomfort that my attempt of self defense in this thread may have caused anyone.

Good luck and happy shooting.


----------



## karissa (Jun 23, 2004)

Canon, I was poking a little fun.  I think it's great that you have apologized.  Please don't take my earlier comment for anything more than a little humor.  I'm glad you didn't just get up and leave the forum like some people would.  If anything I think we all learned a little bit from the issues brought up here.

Canonrebel, thanks for being bigger than the argument and apologizing for any hurt feelings.  If my comment was taken the wrong way, I also apologize. :hug:


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 23, 2004)

karissa said:
			
		

> Canon, I was poking a little fun.  I think it's great that you have apologized.  Please don't take my earlier comment for anything more than a little humor.  I'm glad you didn't just get up and leave the forum like some people would.  If anything I think we all learned a little bit from the issues brought up here.
> 
> Canonrebel, thanks for being bigger than the argument and apologizing for any hurt feelings.  If my comment was taken the wrong way, I also apologize. :hug:



Ahh...this reminds me.

Daniel_p....  pls don't ever think that I was making fun of you. Just wanted this unnecessarily and childishly bloated issue solved. And the attempts at humor were merely meant to diffuse the tension and NOT IN ANYWAYS to be sarcastic towards you or anyone here. 

Cheerio!


----------



## Lyanna (Jun 23, 2004)

daniel_p said:
			
		

> Can someone tell Lyanna that I'm not talking to her? Thanks.



 :shock: 

Bwahahahahhahahaha

*oops, sorry*

*hiccups*

*rolls over laughing again*

Okay, now onto the more serious things....Canon, I hope I didn't offend you anywhere, was absolutely not my intention. If I did, please accept my sincere apologies. I think you are handling things very well. I'm going to abstain from further comment on this thread cause it is getting long enough as it is 

ps: by the way, I'm getting the impression that our dear Daniel_p is just provoking us for the fun of it to see how we react or somethin'.


----------



## graigdavis (Jun 23, 2004)

I broke my arm once in the third grade.


----------



## karissa (Jun 23, 2004)

graigdavis said:
			
		

> I broke my arm once in the third grade.



 Um.. where did that come from?


----------



## voodoocat (Jun 23, 2004)

If a one legged man moons you is that considered a crescent moon?


----------



## graigdavis (Jun 23, 2004)

If a Fly had no wings...would it be called a Walk?


----------



## karissa (Jun 23, 2004)

If a photographer screams in the woods with no one to hear, is he still weird?


----------



## graigdavis (Jun 23, 2004)




----------



## karissa (Jun 23, 2004)

graigdavis said:
			
		

>


 :shock: :lmao:


----------



## daniel_p (Jun 23, 2004)

> I'm getting the impression that our dear Daniel_p is just provoking us for the fun of it to see how we react or somethin'.



The issue is resolved, let's not make baby jesus cry anymore ...


----------



## Sharkbait (Jun 23, 2004)

If I name my upcoming kid jesus, would it be cursing to yell at him?


----------



## danalec99 (Jun 23, 2004)

Shark said:
			
		

> If I name my upcoming kid jesus, would it be cursing to yell at him?



I actually knew someone whose name was 'Jesus P. Mathew'   
No kidding!


----------

