Dr. Disney Wizard's photostream  

I am administrator of several groups. I find the participants aren't bad, just some of their postings are disagreeable (just as I love my children, but not some of the things they do.) I haven't had to remove or ban anyone yet, a quick note suffices as behavior modification each time I remove an image explaining how the image violated group rules. This allows them to continue participation in posting and discussions, which so far has been effective and trouble free. Netiquette (French for "little e-messages") works, and prevents hard feelings.

Please do not presume to punish me because my equipment is limited to 640 x 480 pixel sized images. I always take the time to understood the group rules where I post. Most group rules, descriptions and discussions make no limiting mention of size, resolution or 3D, therefore my submissions were allowed - I break no rules.

The following was written in response to Noobies who, instead of messaging me directly and privately, were publicly polluting the comments with profane abuse unrelated to the image, because they didn't know how flickr worked, upset that the images appear short because they are so wide or angered that they were unable to copy the images and repost them as their own:

If you feel like committing the harsh act of banning me from your group, please send me Flickr mail indicating what offends you first, and allow me to correct, before your brash slap in the face
I am so tired of folks asking for a larger image.
It it has been my experience the people who clamor for a larger image are the same ones who would steal them, and they holler I should be banned when I don't satisfy their greed.
My images are large enough, 1280 by 480.
One can view my images as a slide show see them in a larger format.
One can see them at 500 pixels wide on the flickr page which allows them to comment.
If you have a problem with the way Flickr presents a photo and do think it's too small please complain at Flickr and not me.

Crosseye stereographs: see 3D with your right eye on the left image, and left on right. If you have a problem crossing your eyes to experience 3D free-viewing, please keep the results of your intelligence test failure to yourself.

Art is not how much you spent on paint or cameras, how much time was spent or wasted to create it. There is remarkable good art, extraordinarily bad art and no art at all. Good art, like the Mona Lisa, Orwell's "Citizen Kane" or Van Gogh's "Irises" is revered, referred to, discussed. Bad art like "Atlas Shrugged" or the garish industrial art meant to dress up several unimaginative cubes of poor architecture, or the reaction of your girlfriend in bed - is pointed to and laughed at "Look at that hideous mess! What were they thinking?"

Between the epic and the epic-fail is "no art at all." Setting about to create ordinary art, installing it in frames, selling it as art, someone purchasing it as art, and hanging it for display, doesn't make it art. If people see it and it remains ignored, unimpressive and undiscussed, like so many paintings above the beds of motels - it's still unremarkable "Not Art."

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm neither posing nor posting for art or aesthetics, nor do I play petty politics.
I'm sharing research of measurable historical documentation.
You are invited to appreciate my images as they are, flaws and all. And if you can't do that, don't mouth off about it, just invite yourself elsewhere.
And if you find a particularly beautiful 3D stereo photograph along the way, we'll look into it.

Peace be with you. —(o=8> Wiz. ¢