Mmmh... Not too many fans of Glen Baxter and David Cronenberg, around here, eh?

I see you are very pernickety about technique. And you are right: there is a lack of detail due to the backlighting. On the other hand, you definitely miss the point. But we can't be too demanding, can we?

Whether I missed the point or not is irrelevant. The theme is macro, and this isn't a particularly good one. End of story.

Ho ho! I fell on a stubborn humorless relevance maniac! But it's OK, I don't like your pictures either. End of story.

Now now, philipe. No need to get all pissy. If you knew anything about me you'd know I'm as constantly perplexed by people's relevance ratings as anyone.

My comment was nothing to do with relevance. In fact I gave you quite a good relevance score. I also gave you honest, and I thought, constructive feedback. If you can't handle that, then maybe weeklysot isn't for you.

I just feel like being pissy. I'll try to explain and maybe you'll try to understand. When I made this shot, I never pretend to make a world class macro shot. I'm not really interested in macro photo although I can appreciate a good picture, macro or not (and we had a few this week). So I chose the angle of humour, expecting my little tribute would ring a bell for some (not for you, obviously). The theme gave me the idea to test the macro abilities of the pocket camera I recently offered my daughter. And for my first "bug shot", I was quite satisfied with the result. I did notice there was a lack of details on the back (and I admitted your critique)but, again, it was not the point. That's why your comment is not relevant to ME.
I'll tell you what I can handle: I can handle a honest critique from a skilled, understanding human being. I cannot handle the lack of understanding and hair splitting and other things that I'd rather keep for me. BTW, why don't you show us what you're capable of? Fortunately, YOU don't decide if WS is for me or not.
One more thing: I regret what I said about your pictures, that was not necessary.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm a bit tired of this discussion.

Philippe,

it might be a bit uncomfortable sometimes to be here if you can't take criticism. Thanx to your very good photos you don't often get those (how I envy you!), but I don' think Montage intended to personally offend you with his remarks.

As about humour... it's just like that: not everyone gets a joke, even if it doesn't require some pre-reading, like, I assume, in this case. I doidn't get the joke either, although I suspected there was something to understand here. Well, it might be my fault, still, I don't think you should hate my photos for that - hate them because they are bad photos :)

Maybe I missed the point by making an "intelectual" joke (I was naîve enough to think everyone could get a nonsensic joke- my mistake).

Maybe critics could accept critiques on their critiques, too?

Or maybe I should shut my mouth when I think a critique is unfair or irrelevant?

And maybe we're getting to serious, here. The original idea was just: fun!

Aaaah! Thank you, Thelma, I'm glad you're here. If you enjoy this, check out Glen Baxter's work.

I think I'm gonna cry. :O)
Thanks, Banana!

Love this! And I'm a great fan of David Cronenberg (is that the reason I love this?).

This would also make a very good Gary Larson (Far Side) cartoon.

Oh, and by the way, Philippe can handle criticism as well as anyone. I've seen him handle some pretty harsh criticism from me with great aplomb.

Whoa! Philippe and Thelma Blizzard (#40) mistaken for me (Fat Bastard) in the same theme. I must be doing something right!

Thanks everyone, and thanks to Philippe and Thelma for giving me this opportunity.