Brian Moore
Moderator
LOL. No. He was a Sassenach.Any relation to Bobby?
Great player, though!
LOL. No. He was a Sassenach.Any relation to Bobby?
True and my apologies. I do live in the Edinburgh of the south if that mitigates the offence a little.LOL. No. He was a Sassenach.
Great player, though!
All is forgiven, Tony.True and my apologies. I do live in the Edinburgh of the south if that mitigates the offence a little.
But do you mean:Just Photographers Forum?
I would agree, Bill. And assuming "Bill Watts" ain't a pseudonym I'd say you doubly qualify!From the foregoing I think that makes me a "Real Photographer"
OK Bill, if you insist...I think that makes me a "Real Photographer"
Not a pseudonym, I was christened with it. But I don't understand the inference?I would agree, Bill. And assuming "Bill Watts" ain't a pseudonym I'd say you doubly qualify!![]()
Sorry Bill. I thought you might have read @Pete Askew"s post earlier in this thread. The "Real" in The Real Photographers Forum is for real names. A quote from Pete's post:Not a pseudonym, I was christened with it. But I don't understand the inference?
I had read it, but did not make the associationSorry Bill. I thought you might have read @Pete Askew"s post earlier in this thread. The "Real" in The Real Photographers Forum is for real names. A quote from Pete's post:
"When Hamish created RPF he used the real and the rules that surround it to insist that members use their real names and not a nickname to limit the poor behaviour he had become frustrated with on other forums. And it worked."
I at times, have my doubts. especially from what I see....if there's real and imaginary numbers, does that mean there's real and imaginary photographers? do any of us truly exist?