Dutfields Yard interior photograph, 1900

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • George Hutchinson
    replied
    Hi Stan and Anna

    Stan, there was certainly pressure to show the photo when I didn't want to do it. However, the reason I referred to you after it was shown was because I was saying your response when you saw it had made me more comfortable about doing so - you took a look and said cheers. That's the sign of a gentleman, and not this "So you showed us the photo - put it up permanently" that is posted above.

    PHILIP

    Leave a comment:


  • sdreid
    replied
    Originally posted by anna View Post
    He only posted this one,as Stan pushed him into it!....what was it,something stupid...like a spit in the face...or some other crap. If he'd have said that to me,he could have waited to see it until the cows came home.
    Instead of that,Philip made the uncomfortable move of showing us his photo before he felt ready.

    Is that what this site has come to?????

    ANNA.
    Ah, so it's all my fault now. I guess I was the only person who wanted to see it. Keep me in your prayers.

    Leave a comment:


  • anna
    replied
    Hi Cel,

    Exactly!...

    I know you will agree,that Philip should keep his photo to himself now,until his book comes out...

    Otherwise it will all have been spoilt for him,and that would be awful.

    Bestest,
    ANNA.

    Leave a comment:


  • Celesta
    replied
    Originally posted by anna View Post
    Hi Philip,

    I think you have answered many people's questions,and with some very detailed explanations to their inquiries.

    You have posted your precious picture,which many of us would not have wished to see,if we'd have thought you were not ready to show it.

    You should not have to justify your photo any further...it's quality speaks for itself.

    Take Care,
    ANNA.x

    Yes, ma'am. As I said earlier, a little patience, on our part, would have been good.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris
    replied
    Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
    Come on Chris---lighten up.The photo is fine.I have a few questions thats all.
    So when you said "hear, hear" to A. P.'s "What a load of ******* shite and twaddle this photo is", what you were trying to convey was "The photo is fine"?

    Leave a comment:


  • anna
    replied
    In reply to Simon's post.

    NO!........DON'T YOU DARE DO THAT PHILIP.


    Look.....Philip doesn't have to do anything of the sort......


    He only posted this one,as Stan pushed him into it!....what was it,something stupid...like a spit in the face...or some other crap. If he'd have said that to me,he could have waited to see it until the cows came home.
    Instead of that,Philip made the uncomfortable move of showing us his photo before he felt ready.

    Is that what this site has come to?????

    ANNA.
    Last edited by anna; 10-17-2008, 02:23 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
    Come on Chris---lighten up.The photo is fine.
    Good-oh, Nats. That being the case, there's no reason to callooh and callay at AP's mission to decapitate every Jabberwocky that gallumphs into his imagination.

    Leave a comment:


  • Leatherface
    replied
    Regarding the question about skirt length and what not. Then, as now, there is no concrete rule on any fashion whatsoever. People adjusted rules due their financial status and personal tastes. Having had thirty years of theatrical experience directing and dealing with costume designers, I have picked up a thing or two. The types of people that we are dealing with personally sewed great a deal of clothing that was worn by them, and cloth was great deal of money and by having extended lengths of cloth that would cover the entire leg, not only were you exhibiting status finacially, but you were snubbing those who could not do so due to their inability to pay for the extra two (or about there with hem) yards that would be needed for such lengths. This was not a deliberate social demarcation, but an implied one; very similar to someone who knows that a designer dress was bought at an outlet mall. Add to that, the provocative nature of revelaing said calf (mmmm....) was an enticment of any would be solicitor of the flesh.
    R

    Leave a comment:


  • anna
    replied
    Hi Philip,

    I think you have answered many people's questions,and with some very detailed explanations to their inquiries.

    You have posted your precious picture,which many of us would not have wished to see,if we'd have thought you were not ready to show it.

    You should not have to justify your photo any further...it's quality speaks for itself.

    Take Care,
    ANNA.x
    Last edited by anna; 10-17-2008, 02:00 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Simon Wood
    replied
    Hi Philip,

    Come on, enough of this "Tee hee, I can see something you can't." It's not funny any more and it's not doing you any favours.

    Watermark the hi-res version and post the damn thing. You've got nothing to lose, and you'll stop this acrimonious debate which you profess to hate in its tracks.

    It's your call.

    Regards,

    Simon

    Leave a comment:


  • Natalie Severn
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris View Post
    You are really saying that you don't think the photograph is authentic? Or that it doesn't show Dutfield's Yard?

    How absolutely bizarre.
    Come on Chris---lighten up.The photo is fine.I have a few questions thats all.

    Leave a comment:


  • Natalie Severn
    replied
    Ever seen Mad Max--- he"s a dead ringer for Georgie Porgie!

    Leave a comment:


  • Chris
    replied
    Originally posted by Natalie Severn View Post
    Here ! Here! Cap"n! Well said!
    You are really saying that you don't think the photograph is authentic? Or that it doesn't show Dutfield's Yard?

    How absolutely bizarre.

    Leave a comment:


  • George Hutchinson
    replied
    Arr... Captain Hook and his parrot. Always did wonder about you, Norma, and sure enough you fell on the side of the fence I thought. Like the little girl jumping with glee and clapping her hands watching the boys fighting.

    No more answers to crap. For the benefit of people on this thread with any sense or brains and lack of agenda, I will answer questions. I'm going to totally ignore posts from the mad old pair and, in fact, they're going on my ignore list right now. Neither of them has ever actually said anything that's interested me anyway and this will certainly make the thread easier to go through.

    PHILIP

    Leave a comment:


  • Natalie Severn
    replied
    Originally posted by Cap'n Jack View Post
    Well folks we were obviously looking at different photos, and the lady I saw on the left in a flimsy white frock up to her knees was just a figment of my imagination.
    But you know what? When I go back to the original thread in which this photo was introduced - the US conference thread - I feel like throwing up when I read the crass comments of people who had already seen the photo pretending that they hadn't seen the photo, and yes Monty I mean you, and others, and I do wonder whether you really believe that the ordinary users of this site are so ******* stupid as you appear to imagine?
    I don't like this kind of co-ordinated bullshit, and comfortable bullying, that you lot employ; and I aim to send it back to you.
    What a load of ******* shite and twaddle this photo is.
    Here ! Here! Cap"n! Well said!

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X