 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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] msn com> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
