Dear Colleagues,
Come now, it's only a coincidence that a few locquacious souls are named Bob. If I changed my name to Steve, would that make any difference? Let's deal with ideas, not with signatures. Jeff Spirer, I can't believe that you posted this irrational and meaningless epistle. But you joke!
I can only assert that I am not Karl. Although who I am should be easily apparant to those that were about when last was written:
> In the past 2 days, 121 messages have been posted on PhotoForum. Of these,
> 66 have been either directly posted by a Bob, or in direct response to a
> previous post by a Bob, which then leads to an additional response from a
> Bob, and another counter response to the Bob, etc. ...WELCOME TO THE BOB
> LIST
Aaaah, the days when there were 121 messages waitning in your inbox in the morning. And If I'm not mistaken, a desire *was* expressed to revive some of the characters from those days.
I'm not sure what happened to some of them. And as I suggested in a previous email, there are many of us who wonder about those who drop out of sight on the internet.
Bob
Jeff Spirer wrote:
Interesting, "Bob Rosen" and Karl Shah-Jenner have the same ISP in Australia (thanks to someone else here who noticed it.) Even more interesting, the IP addresses that email from "Bob" and Karl originate from are almost identical, an indication that they are being assigned in the same block, which would be an amazing coincidence if it came from two separate households. Not only that, they refer back to the same location on the ISP's network. Careful examination of full mail headers reveals quite a bit of interesting information.
I guess that brings up the question about Karl's responses, what's it like to talk to oneself?
At 05:56 AM 8/21/2004, Bob Rosen wrote:
A digital dream? More like a nightmare.
Tell me Karl, since I was last here, what has changed with digital?
I consider myself to be neutral and unbiassed in this matter. In the past I expressed some reservations about digital, but I always retain an open mind.
Has anything improved with digital that can't be expressed in one word -- resolution?
In the past I have expressed my concern over the loss of quality, digital was always a poor cousin, unable to compete with the negative.
Now, alas, with increased resolution things are so much worse. I now turn off all images when I use the World Wide Web because they all look digital to me.
Karl, how can the public know that the image they see is truth, not falsified with photoshop? How can the experts tell? And the professional photographers -- where are they now? Do they send out the assistants to shoot thousands of digital images while they are a slave to their computer?
It's easy to distort reality thru a lens. The trick is to intensify it. By doing that make life indelibly eloquent in its mystery, tragedy and joyousness. But digital has no soul, or has it been sold?
Bob
karl shah-jenner wrote:
I must have hit my head and come awake in 1999.
it's alright Jeff, you just had a bad dream.. back to sleep now
k
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
Surfaces and Marks: http://www.withoutgrass.com
