Jim Charter wrote:
> Oh yeah?  What school?

Northern Illinois University.  Only took 2 years worth before moving to 
Florida, tho.

--
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.freesitespace.net

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>
> Still, I really don't like shots /without/ any focal blur. Aside from
> giving a sense of scale, it also gives a sense of depth, and helps add
> emphasis to some elements of the image (by literally putting them in
> focus), so you lose a lot if you don't use at least some subtle focal blur.

I tend to agree (even though I almost never use it in my POV scenes--due
primarily to the length of time it takes to render!  I get impatient...) Thomas
mentioned some of the great photographers/filmmakers who didn't seem to want or
need it--Cartier Bresson, Frank Capra--and their work is of course quite
beautiful.  Yet my own 'favorites' are the cinematographers (mostly of the
pre-1960's) who selectively used DOF for 'zero-ing in' on the important
elements of a scene, particularly close-ups of actors. Used well, DOF can take
a very 'cluttered' scene and bring out the most important element, focusing
attention on it (the surrounding details being even detrimental to the
emotional response that was intended.) Though I admit that part of that
*artistic decision* was purely a technical one--a rather shallow depth of field
due to 'slow' camera lenses of the time; and, for example, the 3-strip
Technicolor camera, which required enormous amounts of light--oftentimes
impractical. But given those limitations, some great art was achieved
nonetheless, with a true 'style.'

Regarding the first image here, I do have to agree with some of what Thomas has
said, though: I think the image would have been more effective if the cat had
been more or less totally in-focus, with perhaps a detailed background of some
sort that could then have been thrown *out* of focus.  As-is, the cat looks
like a *very* tiny figure that the photographer had trouble focusing
on--there's no obvious 'point of interest.'

Ken W.

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I agree, I'm not a great fan of focal blur myself, I seldom use it preferring
> fog to cover up inadequacies in an image. :)

I have a tendency to go overboard with effects like focal blur, media, 
radiosity, et cetera.  Typically, I have to force myself to dial it back 
to where it's barely noticeable... which is often where it looks best ;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> It's alright ;) Everything is subjective of course!

Not to me, it isn't!

;)

...Chambers

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a89f1c4@news.povray.org...
>
> The closest I have come to a universal tenent with Art is:
>
> "Meaning lies with the viewer."
>
> Sometimes tough to accept.
>
> Othertimes no help at all.
>

Yes indeed, and which underlines the fact that debates similar to these now 
have been raging for many, many decades.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a89ed2c$1@news.povray.org...
>
> A study in comparative sentience? The plane in focus defines the closest 
> part of the cat to the viewer and the framing of the shot places that 
> plane of focus almost coincident with the picture surface.  So the picture 
> space begins just at the limit of the cat's bodily space along the viewing 
> axis.
>
> What humans sentiently perceive to be their personal, bodily space is a 
> very important thing to them psychologically.  At a very basic level it 
> involves a sense of self.  What about cats?

I mentioned to Mike and, re-examining the photograph again, I become even 
more convinced that the real troublemaker is the cat itself. Your comment 
here seems to confirm this. The cat's personality (as the expression of 
self-awareness which cats certainly possess) draws the viewer to its eyes in 
an absolutely compulsive way, which makes any other possibility of focus 
impossible, with the exception maybe of the point of its nose :-)

There are cases where the personality of the subject completely subjugates 
the artist's actions. I know this can  happen in photography, I think this 
can also happen in portrait painting.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a89fefd@news.povray.org...
> The critter in it's original texturing ...
>
>
> Now.... to customize the texture!

LOL!

I love this.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

I absolutely agree with what you are saying.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

BTW, this is the first render ... Same DOF as the crystal one,

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '3813361292_591c8a4272_o.jpg' (36 KB)

Preview of image '3813361292_591c8a4272_o.jpg'

On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 21:31:38 -0400, Tim Cook wrote:

> Jim Charter wrote:
>> Oh yeah?  What school?
> 
> Northern Illinois University.  Only took 2 years worth before moving to
> Florida, tho.

Small world, I've got a friend who works in the IT department at NIU....

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a89f1c4@news.povray.org...
>> The closest I have come to a universal tenent with Art is:
>>
>> "Meaning lies with the viewer."
>>
>> Sometimes tough to accept.
>>
>> Othertimes no help at all.
>>
> 
> Yes indeed, and which underlines the fact that debates similar to these now 
> have been raging for many, many decades.
> 
> Thomas 
> 
> 
Well, years, decades, centurys, millenias,... all the same, just some 
small shifts in the points of view ;)


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a89ed2c$1@news.povray.org...
> 
>>A study in comparative sentience? The plane in focus defines the closest 
>>part of the cat to the viewer and the framing of the shot places that 
>>plane of focus almost coincident with the picture surface.  So the picture 
>>space begins just at the limit of the cat's bodily space along the viewing 
>>axis.
>>
>>What humans sentiently perceive to be their personal, bodily space is a 
>>very important thing to them psychologically.  At a very basic level it 
>>involves a sense of self.  What about cats?
> 
> 
> I mentioned to Mike and, re-examining the photograph again, I become even 
> more convinced that the real troublemaker is the cat itself. Your comment 
> here seems to confirm this. The cat's personality (as the expression of 
> self-awareness which cats certainly possess) draws the viewer to its eyes in 
> an absolutely compulsive way, which makes any other possibility of focus 
> impossible, with the exception maybe of the point of its nose :-)
> 
> There are cases where the personality of the subject completely subjugates 
> the artist's actions. I know this can  happen in photography, I think this 
> can also happen in portrait painting.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
Humans usually define their personal space to include the reach of their 
extremities (and their is even some evidence that as tool users humans 
can mentally 'map' their bodily space to include the reach of the tool 
also.)  So if the artist, or even just the viewer, was to pursue this 
theme I am suggesting, of sentience as equated to the mapping of bodily 
space, then the position of the paws, and the drawing of attention to 
them could play a role don't you think?

(I accept your point, though, that, especially with a subject as kitchy 
as this one, and also with the face aligned so perfectly with the 
picture plane, the primacy of the eyes is difficult to avoid.)

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:
> "Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
> news:4a89f1c4@news.povray.org...
> 
>>The closest I have come to a universal tenent with Art is:
>>
>>"Meaning lies with the viewer."
>>
>>Sometimes tough to accept.
>>
>>Othertimes no help at all.
>>
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, and which underlines the fact that debates similar to these now 
> have been raging for many, many decades.
> 

"They fought and they talked in the North and the South, they talked and 
they fought in the West,
Till the waters rose on the pitiful land, and the poor Red Clay had rest"

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a8b474f$1@news.povray.org...
> Humans usually define their personal space to include the reach of their 
> extremities (and their is even some evidence that as tool users humans can 
> mentally 'map' their bodily space to include the reach of the tool also.) 
> So if the artist, or even just the viewer, was to pursue this theme I am 
> suggesting, of sentience as equated to the mapping of bodily space, then 
> the position of the paws, and the drawing of attention to them could play 
> a role don't you think?

Yes indeed, and I am sure Mike was exploring just that. However, I think 
this works best when there are no obvious "highlights" imposing themselves 
in the first pace, one can then choose where to put the spotlight so to 
speak. It reminds me of the chiaroscura technique where this can be done in 
interesting ways. The recent contribution by Lightbeam (Julia) comes also to 
mind.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a8b47a0$1@news.povray.org...
>
> "They fought and they talked in the North and the South, they talked and 
> they fought in the West,
> Till the waters rose on the pitiful land, and the poor Red Clay had rest"

Lol! Now, what does this remind me of...? I am not sure I can place it.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> 
> Yes indeed, and I am sure Mike was exploring just that. 

I'd bet he wasn't! :P

But the point for me is that once you put an image out there it is open 
for anyone to interpret in any way. It functions independently 
uncontrolled by either artist or critic.

The thing I took issue with was my sense that, in your critique, you'd 
strayed into a position that no meaning was possible because you 
personally didn't see any meaning.  And that became your criteria for an 
up or down vote on the general success of the image.

Now my own sense of the picture is similar to yours.  That it appears to 
be a cutesy grab shot of a pet and without any indication of why I 
should see it in any other way, the unusual use of the DOF provides some 
visual interest, but not much and not for long.

Given the expected intention of such images, it even looks technically 
clumsy. Its look could have resulted mostly from the camera's 
autifocusing.  But, once 'hung on the wall', we must assume that the 
artist wanted it that way.  Editing and selection are a big part of 
photography.  So there is some responsibility, I believe, to get past 
habits of seeing and speculate on other possibilities.  That is part of 
my fascination with images, anyway.

And poor Mike, this is all rather beside the point considering the shot 
was ancilliary to his original posting. But I enjoyed the conversation. 
  Thanks to Mike for being a good sport about it.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

"Jim Charter" <jrc### [at] msncom> schreef in bericht 
news:4a8bf9dd$1@news.povray.org...
>
> But the point for me is that once you put an image out there it is open 
> for anyone to interpret in any way. It functions independently 
> uncontrolled by either artist or critic.
>
> The thing I took issue with was my sense that, in your critique, you'd 
> strayed into a position that no meaning was possible because you 
> personally didn't see any meaning.  And that became your criteria for an 
> up or down vote on the general success of the image.

Yes indeed. I immediately sensed I had sprung a trap on myself :-)  Not a 
problem. My initial intention was to ventilate my personal opinion only, but 
it got sidetracked into a more general discussion where I could only loose 
firm ground. No problem either.

> And poor Mike, this is all rather beside the point considering the shot 
> was ancilliary to his original posting. But I enjoyed the conversation. 
> Thanks to Mike for being a good sport about it.

Absolutely! I certainly join you here.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

WIP of critter.

Took forever to trace because of all of the refraction on the crystals. 
The texturing is original to the model, and he is sort of gray ingame, too.

Max Trace: 64/64 (!!!) Trace time was 1 day, 13 hours, 50 minutes.

I cheated with radiosity, I pre-rendered the scene at a lower 
resolution, with good radiosity settings, and a lower max_trace_level. 
Then rendered the full resolution with much lower radiosity settings. 
Focal blur is still turned on in this image, but the effect is much more 
subtle.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> WIP of critter.
> 
> Took forever to trace because of all of the refraction on the crystals. 
> The texturing is original to the model, and he is sort of gray ingame, too.
> 
> Max Trace: 64/64 (!!!) Trace time was 1 day, 13 hours, 50 minutes.
> 
> I cheated with radiosity, I pre-rendered the scene at a lower 
> resolution, with good radiosity settings, and a lower max_trace_level. 
> Then rendered the full resolution with much lower radiosity settings. 
> Focal blur is still turned on in this image, but the effect is much more 
> subtle.

Oops, I guess it helps to post the picture?

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download 'lithma_pov_scene.jpg' (149 KB)

Preview of image 'lithma_pov_scene.jpg'

"Mike Raiford" <mraXXXiford.at.@g1023mail.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4a90083b@news.povray.org...
> Mike Raiford wrote:
>> WIP of critter.
>>
>> Took forever to trace because of all of the refraction on the crystals.
>> The texturing is original to the model, and he is sort of gray ingame, 
>> too.
>>
>> Max Trace: 64/64 (!!!) Trace time was 1 day, 13 hours, 50 minutes.
>>
>> I cheated with radiosity, I pre-rendered the scene at a lower
>> resolution, with good radiosity settings, and a lower max_trace_level.
>> Then rendered the full resolution with much lower radiosity settings.
>> Focal blur is still turned on in this image, but the effect is much more
>> subtle.
>
> Oops, I guess it helps to post the picture?
>

I like this alien. Looking good.

I suppose it grows those crystals as defense? I wonder what the next stage 
of the foodchain looks like.... :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Original looking creature.  Interesting justaposition, with some 
intiguing possibilities.  Waiting to see where you take it.

The Silicoids from Master of Orion comes to mind, or life forms with 
elaborate camoflage, but neither is really a fit.

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford escreveu:
> Creature I created in Spore and exported, then applied a glass texture.

wonderful.  Without blurrying it'd look like a boring hard-edged 
low-poly glass statue.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:
> Creature I created in Spore and exported, then applied a glass texture.

Final rendering (for now ...)



-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Attachments:
Download '3883346469_c614e14276_o.jpg' (149 KB)

Preview of image '3883346469_c614e14276_o.jpg'

You know what's bothering me with this creature's face?

The whole body indicates that this is a vegetarian animal, with need to 
protect itself from predators.

But vegetarian animals don't have forward-looking eyes. That's an 
exclusive feature of predators.

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> You know what's bothering me with this creature's face?
>
> The whole body indicates that this is a vegetarian animal, with need to
> protect itself from predators.
>
> But vegetarian animals don't have forward-looking eyes. That's an
> exclusive feature of predators.

Two words: Giant Panda :-)

Cheers,
Edouard.

Post a reply to this message

Edouard a écrit :
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> You know what's bothering me with this creature's face?
>>
>> The whole body indicates that this is a vegetarian animal, with need to
>> protect itself from predators.
>>
>> But vegetarian animals don't have forward-looking eyes. That's an
>> exclusive feature of predators.
> 
> Two words: Giant Panda :-)
> 
> Cheers,
> Edouard.
> 

Originaly, giant pandas were predators. It's only through dures and 
survival obligation that they converted to a vegetarian diet.
Their ordinary preys seems to have disapeared, other potential preys 
where to strong, fast, nimble or small to serve as a viable food source.
They still have the digestive system of a carnivorous creature, their 
dentition is also closer to that of a carnivore than an hebivore.


Alain

Post a reply to this message

Edouard schrieb:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>> You know what's bothering me with this creature's face?
>>
>> The whole body indicates that this is a vegetarian animal, with need to
>> protect itself from predators.
>>
>> But vegetarian animals don't have forward-looking eyes. That's an
>> exclusive feature of predators.
> 
> Two words: Giant Panda :-)

Well, that's obviously a predator that refuses to eat meat because of 
ethic reasons, after having come into contact with asian religion :-)

(No, really: They've only very recently in their evolution become so 
picky as to only eat bamboo.)

Post a reply to this message

"Edouard" <pov### [at] edouardinfo> schreef in bericht 
news:web.4aa033ba634ec29ec83e2c410@news.povray.org...
>
> Two words: Giant Panda :-)

The other way round (Predators with non-stereoscopic view):  blue whale and 
sperm whale  ;-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot schrieb:
> The other way round (Predators with non-stereoscopic view):  blue whale and 
> sperm whale  ;-)

Yeah, sharks too.

But as for blue whales, I'd rather consider them "grazing" animals, sort 
of. It's not like they actually /hunt/ anything - they just open their 
mouth and eat...

Another thing about those animals is that they don't have particularly 
large eyes (due to the fact that they a lot on other senses). Neithe 
does the giant panda. But that "crystal monster" has disturbingly 
/large/ eyes.

... it /definitely/ wants to *EAT US ALL! GOD HELPUS! RUN!*

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4aae58d1@news.povray.org...
> Another thing about those animals is that they don't have particularly 
> large eyes (due to the fact that they a lot on other senses). Neithe does 
> the giant panda. But that "crystal monster" has disturbingly /large/ eyes.
Binocular vision is usefull as well if you eat fruits, live in trees and 
want to jump from one branch to another.
But I agree that obviousely this animal lives on or under the ground

The poor little cute creature need to see through the night the small 
insects it catches

>
> ... it /definitely/ wants to *EAT US ALL! GOD HELPUS! RUN!*

or merely bite your toes :-)

Marc

Post a reply to this message

m_a_r_c wrote:
> "clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> a écrit dans le message de news: 
> 4aae58d1@news.povray.org...
>> Another thing about those animals is that they don't have particularly 
>> large eyes (due to the fact that they a lot on other senses). Neithe does 
>> the giant panda. But that "crystal monster" has disturbingly /large/ eyes.
> Binocular vision is usefull as well if you eat fruits, live in trees and 
> want to jump from one branch to another.
> But I agree that obviousely this animal lives on or under the ground
> 
> The poor little cute creature need to see through the night the small 
> insects it catches
> 
>> ... it /definitely/ wants to *EAT US ALL! GOD HELPUS! RUN!*
> 
> or merely bite your toes :-)
> 
> Marc 
> 
> 

One of these days, I'll post the back story for the creature. But very 
fun reading this!

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

"Mike Raiford" <"m[raiford]!at"@gmail.com> a écrit dans le message de news: 
4aae7b14$1@news.povray.org...
>
> One of these days, I'll post the back story for the creature. But very fun 
> reading this!
>
Mind you!
It is a very serious scientific discussion ;-)

Marc

Post a reply to this message

m_a_r_c schrieb:
> Mind you!
> It is a very serious scientific discussion ;-)

Yes, absolutely! :-)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <ano### [at] anonymousorg> schreef in bericht 
news:4aae58d1@news.povray.org...
> But as for blue whales, I'd rather consider them "grazing" animals, sort 
> of. It's not like they actually /hunt/ anything - they just open their 
> mouth and eat...

Well... from the point of view of the krill... ;-)

>
> ........ But that "crystal monster" has disturbingly /large/ eyes.
>
> ... it /definitely/ wants to *EAT US ALL! GOD HELPUS! RUN!*

I think it *is* a meat eater. Needs lots of energy to grow those 
crystals.....

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

"m_a_r_c" <jac### [at] wanadoofr> schreef in bericht 
news:4aae7ce1@news.povray.org...
>
>>
> Mind you!
> It is a very serious scientific discussion ;-)
>

Indeed. Never been more serious...

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot schrieb:
>> But as for blue whales, I'd rather consider them "grazing" animals, sort 
>> of. It's not like they actually /hunt/ anything - they just open their 
>> mouth and eat...
> 
> Well... from the point of view of the krill... ;-)

 From their point, there's not much hunting going on either. It's not 
like they would have any chance of escape. They're just being 
"harvested" :-)

Post a reply to this message

High!

Thomas de Groot wrote:

> The other way round (Predators with non-stereoscopic view):  blue whale and 
> sperm whale  ;-)

As the sperm whale feeds on giant squids, which are a powerful, 
comparatively intelligent and thus risky prey, which literally has to be 
hunted and caught, it is in fact a true predator - but the blue whale 
simply sieves krill out of the water, an activity for which the word 
"hunting" seems quite inappropriate... when I read of predators, I 
usually think of animals hunting their food, so the blue whale is a 
predator only in a formal sense (as its food is in fact animal, not 
vegetarian).

See you in Khyberspace!

Yadgar

Post a reply to this message

"Jörg 'Yadgar' Bleimann" <yaz### [at] gmxde> schreef in bericht 
news:4aaf8c1b$1@news.povray.org...
> As the sperm whale feeds on giant squids, which are a powerful, 
> comparatively intelligent and thus risky prey, which literally has to be 
> hunted and caught, it is in fact a true predator - but the blue whale 
> simply sieves krill out of the water, an activity for which the word 
> "hunting" seems quite inappropriate... when I read of predators, I usually 
> think of animals hunting their food, so the blue whale is a predator only 
> in a formal sense (as its food is in fact animal, not vegetarian).
>

Getting formal, do we?  ;-)
I am going to found the Association for the Defense of Defenseless Krill 
(ADDK).... "Ban All Blue Whales from Our Waters"

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:07:19 +0200, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>I am going to found the Association for the Defense of Defenseless Krill 
>(ADDK).... "Ban All Blue Whales from Our Waters"

You are cracking up, Thomas. :P
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
news:puova5lckdch6c8ms4ci3ifb5q3925qbj5@4ax.com...
>
> You are cracking up, Thomas. :P

Indeed... Stress you know  :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:41:02 +0200, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>
>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
>news:puova5lckdch6c8ms4ci3ifb5q3925qbj5@4ax.com...
>>
>> You are cracking up, Thomas. :P
>
>Indeed... Stress you know  :-)
>

No! I live on it and coffee :-)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
news:e5e2b51sds81a4d1bp76j3s050ili94vcf@4ax.com...
> No! I live on it and coffee :-)

He He! No. Stress is bad company for me ;-)

Ok. Totally OT this, but in line with the thread: I was thinking 
mischievously about krill / blue whale evolution. Krill being not so 
defenseless in the *arms race* after all, and following the strategy of 
numbers to survive; answered by the size strategy of blue whales (nature 
could also have chosen numbers for them, but size was probably more 
convenient and had other positive side effects).

Hmmm... so, back to Mike's creature: stereo vision + crystals on its back 
could mean two things at least: (1) Defense: predator (insects, grubs, look 
at the digging horns and the absence of large teeth) being hunted by bigger 
predator, or (2) display: predator (or not) bearing crystals as display for 
females.

Fascinating: the evolution of imaginary creatures... :-)

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

Thomas de Groot a écrit :
> "Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
> news:e5e2b51sds81a4d1bp76j3s050ili94vcf@4ax.com...
>> No! I live on it and coffee :-)
> 
> He He! No. Stress is bad company for me ;-)
> 
> Ok. Totally OT this, but in line with the thread: I was thinking 
> mischievously about krill / blue whale evolution. Krill being not so 
> defenseless in the *arms race* after all, and following the strategy of 
> numbers to survive; answered by the size strategy of blue whales (nature 
> could also have chosen numbers for them, but size was probably more 
> convenient and had other positive side effects).
> 
> Hmmm... so, back to Mike's creature: stereo vision + crystals on its back 
> could mean two things at least: (1) Defense: predator (insects, grubs, look 
> at the digging horns and the absence of large teeth) being hunted by bigger 
> predator, or (2) display: predator (or not) bearing crystals as display for 
> females.
> 
> Fascinating: the evolution of imaginary creatures... :-)
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
Another view:
Those crystals growths can makes for a very effective armor.

Or that creature lives in an area where there is a LOT of crystaline 
formations. In that case, it would be a kind of defencive mimetism.

For the horns, among terestrial creatures in our world, it's almost only 
herbivores that have them, and mostly, the relatively large ones. Among 
carnivorous creatures, the only ones that have some, use them to DIG 
ther meals out. Maybe because, most of the time, horns can be an hadicap 
when hunting, but can be used as an agressive defence by the hunted.

Alain

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Sep 2009 09:19:43 +0200, "Thomas de Groot"
<tDOTdegroot@interDOTnlANOTHERDOTnet> wrote:

>"Stephen" <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> schreef in bericht 
>news:e5e2b51sds81a4d1bp76j3s050ili94vcf@4ax.com...
>> No! I live on it and coffee :-)
>
>He He! No. Stress is bad company for me ;-)

I gave up on stress, it is so counter productive. Unless there is an imminent
danger of death or serious injury then there is no use worrying. 
[I just deleted a whole ramble on how to live your life (not your life Thomas, I
would not be so presumptuous but life in general) because who cares what I think
about it.] 

Ah! The thrill of the Krill kill, yum!
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen schrieb:

> I gave up on stress, it is so counter productive. Unless there is an imminent
> danger of death or serious injury then there is no use worrying. 

There's a popular sayind in Germany you'll find on self-printed signs in 
many offices (especially in highly bureaucratic domains): "Bitte nicht 
hetzen - wir sind auf der Arbeit, nicht auf der Flucht" ("Please don't 
hasten us - we're at work, not on the run"; unfortunately the pun 
suffers from translation) :-)

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:11:43 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>Stephen schrieb:
>
>> I gave up on stress, it is so counter productive. Unless there is an imminent
>> danger of death or serious injury then there is no use worrying. 
>
>There's a popular sayind in Germany you'll find on self-printed signs in 
>many offices (especially in highly bureaucratic domains): "Bitte nicht 
>hetzen - wir sind auf der Arbeit, nicht auf der Flucht" ("Please don't 
>hasten us - we're at work, not on the run"; unfortunately the pun 
>suffers from translation) :-)

Nice one! But far be it for me to correct your very fluent English, may I
suggest "on the job, not on the run" :)

This would give a double, double meaning as "on the job" can mean working or
having sex and "on the run" can mean, as you translate, running or escaping. 

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen schrieb:
> Nice one! But far be it for me to correct your very fluent English, may I
> suggest "on the job, not on the run" :)

Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that.

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 14:56:21 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>Stephen schrieb:
>> Nice one! But far be it for me to correct your very fluent English, may I
>> suggest "on the job, not on the run" :)
>
>Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that.

You can't think of everything ;)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen schrieb:
>> Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that.
> 
> You can't think of everything ;)

No? I always thought I could :-P

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 16:24:43 +0200, clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:

>Stephen schrieb:
>>> Ah yes, I hadn't thought of that.
>> 
>> You can't think of everything ;)
>
>No? I always thought I could :-P

Maybe you can http://tinyurl.com/nllcu4
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message