| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/16/2004 01:06:20 PM · #26 |
Are we going to have a challenge only open to those who have got 1 or 2 ribbons also? hahaha. Interesting challenge.
Good luck to you who can enter this one, at least there are some three people going to get their first ribbons.
|
|
|
|
11/16/2004 03:17:55 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by Morgan:
What an absolutely silly and ridiculous challenge idea.
Why bother, if there is no ribbon? And, with such a tough entry criteria too! You must be a loser to enter. As a fellow loser, I can enter any and every challenge; save and except those elitists winners challenges (Masters).
In some twisted way, this is the inverse to the Master's Challenge. But, I fail to see the point? Did a loser dream this idea up?
The subject matter for a Low Tech challenge is fine. It is the motivation that I question. Is this a challenge to permit previous losers to continue to be future losers? Who the heck dreamed up this challenge - the winners no doubt! Winners just want to keep the losers down.
The aforementioned hammer might be the perfect low tech device. But rather then photograph it, why not just use it to hit our collective selves in the head. It is what a REAL loser would do anyway.... |
I guess if you're a loser you aren't considered smart enough to tackle something like Impressionism; and need more guidance than a free study provides. Try not to pound your thumb. |
Thank you for the humour.
I am amazed at how many folks thought I was being serious. LOL I have been told and corrected several times about my "no ribbon" blunder. Of course, I read it and was just trying to have some fun. But, it is interesting to see how many people will jump to criticize a simplistic error, is it not?
I will now make solid contact in the frontal lobe with the hammer.
BAM BAM BAM
By the way, this post sure increased the "hit" counter on my DPC profile. I should post silliness more often to cause that counter to go over the top. [just kidding, of course???]
|
|
|
|
11/16/2004 09:22:15 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by soup:
i'm not sure that re-wording is any clearer than the previous wording.
what exactly is "low" technology? |
from yourdictionary.com:
low technology (n.) Technology that does not involve highly advanced or specialized systems or devices. |
|
|
|
11/16/2004 10:17:53 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by skiprow:
Originally posted by soup:
i'm not sure that re-wording is any clearer than the previous wording.
what exactly is "low" technology? |
from yourdictionary.com:
low technology (n.) Technology that does not involve highly advanced or specialized systems or devices. |
" A Digital Box Brownie" lol
|
|
|
|
11/16/2004 11:19:48 PM · #30 |
| Another approach. Check this thread. |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 08:52:50 PM · #31 |
I dont think I really get Low Tech. Does anyone have some examples? I really wanna enter this, yet I dunno what to do :(
|
|
|
|
11/17/2004 09:21:14 PM · #32 |
| I'm taking "low tech" to mean non-mechanized. Is that getting close?? |
|
|
|
11/17/2004 09:23:00 PM · #33 |
| Well, I have one in, but I'm having doubts. I may take another shot. |
|
|
|
11/19/2004 02:43:52 AM · #34 |
| Hello everyone. Not that it will apply for my entry, but to clarify, by "electronic", does that mean a device/object with logic circuits? Or are we talking about "electrical" devices? For example an old toaster is considered electric, but not necessarily electronic. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/09/2025 05:10:11 PM EDT.
