Lol.. you made me crack up. It is amazing how much time we spent back
then producing scans or DVD captures. It would be unthinkable of today,
at least for those of us who has job and family. They would wonder what
the heck I was doing at the computer all day. Besides, with today's
technology I can live capture from Dreambox and upload faster than it
would take to warm up that scanner. :-) Still I kind of miss the old
days although today is of course better.
Ah.. and how are you doing Quivis. How is Shadetree doing, the guy I
always argued with. I remember I always harassed him for posting only
girls. What did I do when I began photograph... shot mostly girls! To
tell the truth I find girls more photogenic than boys. Without counting
I think girl / boy ratio in my USC series is like 80-20 in favour of the
girls. Still more boys than anybody else posted in ABPC. Did you know I
actually celebrated Christmas with one of the girls from that series?
She was 6-7 yrs old in the pictures and maybe 11 when I met her.. I was
thinking, what the heck.. "do I know you?" no she did not know me. Later
I understood who it was. Obviously I can't tell which of the girl it
was.
And how is our friend Paul Jones / Joe Bowcut doing? Has he been
released from prison yet? I know he and Little Rascal was buddies and
all of a sudden LR announced he would withdraw.. I think he knew what
happend to Joe and got cold feet and left the scene.
I know I didn't had many friends but one of the guys I liked is Elmtree
so hello Elm whenever you read this. :-)
Well, nice talking to ya and take care!
Shyboy
Quivis <quivis@domain.invalid> wrote in
news:d4Xfy.449285$JS6.236630@fx41.am4:
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 19:10:59 -0600, Schrödinger's Cat wrote:
>
>> Here are some Christmas pix for the old abpfy (even though it's
>> pretty dead these days)
>
> Usenet as a whole is pretty dead, I'm afraid. It was also many years
> since I owned a scanner, or a capture card, for that matter. Besides,
> technology has passed those archaic gadgets since long ago. Takes too
> long, lesser quality for more work isn't anyone's idea of time well
> spent, so people just wait for the good stuff to come to them, or they
> just spend time on "Failbook" and similar places, chatting there
> instead of here.
>
> We used to get excited about DW's latest captures at 640x480, or
> Shade's latest scans at, back then, _huge_ file sizes ('twas the 56.6
> modem era, remember?). These days we have 1920x1080 captures from
> Bluray movies and digital images from large collections on-line, yours
> for the taking, so to speak. I don't think anyone would be
> particularly interested in ten- year-old newspaper scans anymore. ;-)
>
> Let's face it, we're the relics who still frequent this place. The Old
> timers who used to be around (Shade, Max, etc. too many to name them
> all) have pretty much gone into hiding for fear of being prosecuted
> for possession of illegal images. I mean, if you have a picture on
> your computer of somebody else's child, in whatever state of clothing,
> there _must_ be something fishy about you. I suspect it's like they
> say, better safe than sorry.
>
> The world has become a hard and sad place and I'm glad I don't have to
> endure it for too many more years, I've already lived well passed half
> of my life expectancy. The ones who are just starting out are the ones
> we should pity. The cuties and the wee models of the world who one
> day, undoubtedly, will have to sweep up the remnants of what we
> nowadays call "home" and put it out with the Monday morning trash.
>
> Oh, and thanks for posting. :-)
|
|