Chris
I’m sorry that you didn’t understand the reason for my comment. It wasn’t a
personal attack; it was a comment.
I was commenting on your lack of thanks for the praise, your lack of salutation
or sign-off and the abruptness of your rebuttal of Moose’s (polite) points.
You’ll hear no more from me on the matter.
Chris
> On 31 Jan 2020, at 13:17, Christopher Crawford <chris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Lecturing someone on their 'style' of explaining something is the last refuge
> of the man with nothing to say and a profound need to feel important. If you
> had a valid criticism of what I had said (that is, you disagreed with my
> reasons for composing that photo the way I did), you wouldn't have had to
> attack me personally. You'd have talked about the photo.
>
> Nothing I said to Moose was offensive. I explained why I made that photograph
> the way I did , in the same direct style that I always use to explain things.
> I understand what he was saying. If I just wanted a good photo of the cat, a
> closer crop would have worked well. That wasn't my purpose, though, as I
> plainly stated.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|