Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/28/10 11:50 AM, in article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:17:56 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:02:59 -0400, Bowser wrote in
:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:06 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:22:29 -0400, Bowser wrote in
:

Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in
the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed.
Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR.

Uh, really. I own an FZ28, which is excellent, and the FZ35 I borrowed
for a day was ever better. Autofocus speed is excellent *if* you
configure the cameras properly. Image quality likewise.
I routinely get better shots (in all respects) than those shooting the
same subjects with dSLR cameras. Perhaps you need more practice with
the FZ35.

Nah, it's configured just fine.

Apparently not.

Every time we go down this road I ask
you to prove what you say, we banter, and you never provide proof.
Some other time, John.

I've provided more than adequate proof repeatedly (again today), but you
are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded.

OK, just this once:

You claim that the Panny FZ35 AF is as fast as a DSLR. Prove it. Not
your opinion, not a statement that "it's fast" but real proof. Some
third party testing that shows it's as fast as, say, my Canon 5D II.

When you've conquered that one, post a few samples shot at ISO 3200
that match the 5D II.

We're all waiting.

Don't hold your breath...

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/28/10 12:23 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:51:23 -0400, Bowser wrote in
:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:20:06 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:05:00 -0400, Bowser wrote in
:

Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes
ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass
on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore
me.

'Those who have evidence will present their evidence,
whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'

And your evidence is....where?

"Google is your friend."

WEAK! But typical NavAss...

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/28/10 2:11 PM, in article ,
"C. Werner" wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT), DanP
wrote:

On May 28, 2:40*am, John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:59 -0700, SMS
wrote in :





On 27/05/10 4:22 PM, Bowser wrote:

Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in
the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed.
Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR.

You've got to understand the issue here. Apparently our favorite troll
has an FZ-35/FZ-38 so by default that camera becomes the perfect camera
and it can have no faults.

Unlike you and I, who could objectively look at most any item we own and
point out both its highs and lows to someone who inquires about it,
there are people that immediately after purchasing an item feel
compelled to justify the purchase to the entire world and make it clear
that their purchasing decision was in fact the best possible one. It's
deep-seated insecurity that causes this behavior.

The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces
acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features.
But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image
quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR.

The actual reality is that you have zero experience with any of these
cameras, and have no idea what you're talking about.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

Erm, have you ever tried a DSLR?


DanP

I sold my favorite one (and gave a couple away) when I found out that
high-quality P&S cameras were far more adaptable and versatile with just as
good, if not better, image quality in some of them. You might want to
actually compare cameras some day and put them through their paces instead
of listening to all the insecure trolls online trying to justify why they
wasted so much money trying to get their DSLRs to get decent snapshots. If
you had as many wide-ranging creative requirements as I do for my
photographic gear, and could actually think for yourself, you'd ditch your
DSLRs too.

**** OFF, lying troll. You and NavAss need to join hands and dance down
Lombard Street, while clicking away with your P.O.S. P & S at all the other
fruits. Bliss, I tell ya!

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/28/10 2:14 PM, in article ,
"LOL!" wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 18:18:31 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


"SMS" wrote in message
...
On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote:

Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes
ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass
on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore
me.

I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to
digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at
first, then as you stated, it gets boring.

He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well...

The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his
comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art
/ science of picture taking.

As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can
produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but
the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens
interchangeability.


And you would know this because ....

You actually see the images you take?

News Flash: Blind Photographer hired by DPReview to do all their latest
camera and lens reviews. Word has it that he's even better than their
present camera reviewers. (Actually, there wouldn't be much difference.)

LOL!

Oh lookie! The Troll has morphed! Come over here, let me give you a lye
enema for being such a BAD BOY!

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/28/10 2:16 PM, in article ,
"Russ D" wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:31:52 -0700, nospam wrote:

In article XNTLn.5310$z%6.360@edtnps83, Dudley Hanks
wrote:

The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his
comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art
/ science of picture taking.

very true, and he considers anything other than what he purchased is
junk. point out an advantage of a different product and it's "i don't
need that feature." that's wonderful but other people might.

As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can
produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but
the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens
interchangeability.

of course. it depends whether someone wants convenience and portability
versus quality and flexibility. there's a reason why pro photographers
don't use compact digicams.

More words coming from a role-playing pretend-photographer troll.

MANY Pros use P&S cameras. I being one of them.

You forget, nospam, that we've PROVED that you have never used any camera
in your lifetime. You only know about the imaginary ones you hold inside
that little head of yours.

The socks just don't end, do they?!?

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/28/10 2:26 PM, in article ,
"Henry Olson" wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:04:11 -0700, SMS wrote:

On 28/05/10 11:18 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote:

Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes
ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass
on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore
me.

I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to
digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at
first, then as you stated, it gets boring.

He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well...

The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his
comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art
/ science of picture taking.

It's always amusing, though rather sad, to see Usenet (and other forum)
posts where the sole purpose of the poster is to try to justify their
purchase. It's as if it's a personal insult when someone points out even
the slightest flaw in the product and why some other product might be
better.

For most people, there's not a single item they've ever purchased that
they could not point out some issue with, and often they were well aware
of the issue prior to the purchase. If someone asks about something they
own, they're likely to be honest about it and point out both the pros
and cons, and why they made their selection.

As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can
produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but
the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens
interchangeability.

For outdoor photos in good light with non-moving subjects, a superzoom
can produce good results, and is certainly more convenient than a D-SLR.
The reason why D-SLR sales are going up so much faster is the situations
where they excel--low light, moving subjects, and better wide angle and
telephoto lenses than the compromise lenses on the ZLRs.

That's all complete and total nonsense coming from a troll that has never
used any of these cameras. EVER.


You are an endless stream of frothing foaming flatulence, turd troll.

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/28/10 2:40 PM, in article ,
"Jeff Jones" wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:29:44 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:


On the flip side, distortion and purple-fringing in SX120 pics is worse than
I'd expected, even after reading several reviews containing warnings about
these problems.


You truly are blind.


And you are truly ****ing INSANE, cocksucker...

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/28/10 3:29 PM, in article
, "DanP"
wrote:

On May 28, 8:11*pm, C. Werner wrote:
On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:55:01 -0700 (PDT), DanP
wrote:





On May 28, 2:40*am, John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:59 -0700, SMS
wrote in :

On 27/05/10 4:22 PM, Bowser wrote:

Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in
the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed.
Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR.

You've got to understand the issue here. Apparently our favorite troll
has an FZ-35/FZ-38 so by default that camera becomes the perfect camera
and it can have no faults.

Unlike you and I, who could objectively look at most any item we own and
point out both its highs and lows to someone who inquires about it,
there are people that immediately after purchasing an item feel
compelled to justify the purchase to the entire world and make it clear
that their purchasing decision was in fact the best possible one. It's
deep-seated insecurity that causes this behavior.

The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces
acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features.
But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image
quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR.

The actual reality is that you have zero experience with any of these
cameras, and have no idea what you're talking about.

--
Best regards,
John

Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams

Erm, have you ever tried a DSLR?

DanP

I sold my favorite one (and gave a couple away) when I found out that
high-quality P&S cameras were far more adaptable and versatile with just as
good, if not better, image quality in some of them. You might want to
actually compare cameras some day and put them through their paces instead
of listening to all the insecure trolls online trying to justify why they
wasted so much money trying to get their DSLRs to get decent snapshots. If
you had as many wide-ranging creative requirements as I do for my
photographic gear, and could actually think for yourself, you'd ditch your
DSLRs too.

If you want to keep on this muppet show you have to answer as John
Navas.
Otherwise why do you answer my question directed to him?

DanP

Could be? Hummm!

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/28/10 4:24 PM, in article ,
"Jeff Jones" wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 21:14:36 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
wrote:

the difference between you and I is that you start with
your own ideas / opinions / prejudices and devote your energy to bringing
the world down to your level

Quite the contrary. I sort out the wheat from the chaff. I'm a
photographer. I find those rarest of gems in the most unlikely places. It's
part of being a photographer. Looking for gold amongst the world's trash.
Your photography is trash. That simple.

And you cannot count.

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On Sat, 29 May 2010 09:26:47 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 5/28/10 10:02 AM, in article ,
"SMS" wrote:

On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote:

Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes
ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass
on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore
me.

I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to
digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at
first, then as you stated, it gets boring.

Yep. He bounces from group to group. When he make a big enough ass of
himself in one, he leaves and shows up at another.

The guy needs a life.

How would you know this unless you were nothing but a psychotic
net-stalking troll with no life?

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:IQULn.5311$z%6.2582@edtnps83...
[]
In my case, my SX120 has a f/2.8 IS lens and an ISO 3200 setting which
help it outperform my XSi in certain low-light situations, since I don't
have a large-apertured, long focal-length lens for the XSi.

Nor do you with the SX120 - at its longest focal length (60mm, 360mm
equivalent), it's f/4.3, not f/2.8.

The ISO 3200 image I found with a quick search was not full resolution,
but 1600 x 1200.

Cheers,
David

I was wondering when somebody would point that out...

My only lenses for the XSi are either 3.5 - 5.6 or 4.0 - 5.6, so the f/2.8 -
4.3 is still larger, even at long focal lengths...

As for the ISO 3200 not producing the full resolution, that would only be a
problem if I intended to produce low light, large format prints, which I
obviously would not, and the image size is plenty big enough for posts to
Usenet, my site, etc...

I forgot to put the smaller end of the aperture range, as I do not shoot at
full zoom very often. Most of my pics are at the shorter to mid focal
length of the 36 to 360mm lens. So, even at 3.5 for about 180mm, the
aperture is as large as the lowend of my other lenses, which seems like a
large aperture zoom to me...

Take Care,
Dudley

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:7waMn.5161$Z6.1914@edtnps82...
[]
I was wondering when somebody would point that out...

My only lenses for the XSi are either 3.5 - 5.6 or 4.0 - 5.6, so the
f/2.8 - 4.3 is still larger, even at long focal lengths...

The aperture (as an f/number) may be slightly "smaller" (i.e. higher
f/number), but more light is collected because the actual physical
aperture is greater (i.e. more photons get in).

As for the ISO 3200 not producing the full resolution, that would only
be a problem if I intended to produce low light, large format prints,
which I obviously would not, and the image size is plenty big enough for
posts to Usenet, my site, etc...

Of course, but applying the same resolution reduction, the DSLR will work
as well at 6400 12800 etc. ISO.

I forgot to put the smaller end of the aperture range, as I do not shoot
at full zoom very often. Most of my pics are at the shorter to mid
focal length of the 36 to 360mm lens. So, even at 3.5 for about 180mm,
the aperture is as large as the lowend of my other lenses, which seems
like a large aperture zoom to me...

Take Care,
Dudley

Normally, I have similar lenses to you (16-85mm, f/3.5-f/5.6; 70-300mm,
f/4.5-f/5.6), but I treated myself to an f/1.8 lens for my DSLR recently.
The f/1.8 combined with the ISO 3200 allowed me some shots of the aurora
borealis, with which I was very pleased. For low-light and night-time
shots, I would be in envy of the full-frame DSLR and f/1.4 lenses! G

Cheers,
David

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Hanks" wrote in message
news:7waMn.5161$Z6.1914@edtnps82...
[]
I was wondering when somebody would point that out...

My only lenses for the XSi are either 3.5 - 5.6 or 4.0 - 5.6, so the
f/2.8 - 4.3 is still larger, even at long focal lengths...

The aperture (as an f/number) may be slightly "smaller" (i.e. higher
f/number), but more light is collected because the actual physical
aperture is greater (i.e. more photons get in).

As for the ISO 3200 not producing the full resolution, that would only be
a problem if I intended to produce low light, large format prints, which
I obviously would not, and the image size is plenty big enough for posts
to Usenet, my site, etc...

Of course, but applying the same resolution reduction, the DSLR will work
as well at 6400 12800 etc. ISO.

I forgot to put the smaller end of the aperture range, as I do not shoot
at full zoom very often. Most of my pics are at the shorter to mid focal
length of the 36 to 360mm lens. So, even at 3.5 for about 180mm, the
aperture is as large as the lowend of my other lenses, which seems like a
large aperture zoom to me...

Take Care,
Dudley

Normally, I have similar lenses to you (16-85mm, f/3.5-f/5.6; 70-300mm,
f/4.5-f/5.6), but I treated myself to an f/1.8 lens for my DSLR recently.
The f/1.8 combined with the ISO 3200 allowed me some shots of the aurora
borealis, with which I was very pleased. For low-light and night-time
shots, I would be in envy of the full-frame DSLR and f/1.4 lenses! G

Cheers,
David

You and me both ... :)

My next lens will probably be either a macro (not sure which one) or the
f/2.8 85mm lens. With my old A1 camera, I had a nice 130mm lens which was
great for portraits, candids, etc, and I think the 85mm will yield similar
results with the XSi.

Take Care,
Dudley

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On Sat, 29 May 2010 09:29:45 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 5/28/10 11:50 AM, in article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:17:56 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:02:59 -0400, Bowser wrote in
:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:06 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:22:29 -0400, Bowser wrote in
:

Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in
the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed.
Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR.

Uh, really. I own an FZ28, which is excellent, and the FZ35 I borrowed
for a day was ever better. Autofocus speed is excellent *if* you
configure the cameras properly. Image quality likewise.
I routinely get better shots (in all respects) than those shooting the
same subjects with dSLR cameras. Perhaps you need more practice with
the FZ35.

Nah, it's configured just fine.

Apparently not.

Every time we go down this road I ask
you to prove what you say, we banter, and you never provide proof.
Some other time, John.

I've provided more than adequate proof repeatedly (again today), but you
are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded.

OK, just this once:

You claim that the Panny FZ35 AF is as fast as a DSLR. Prove it. Not
your opinion, not a statement that "it's fast" but real proof. Some
third party testing that shows it's as fast as, say, my Canon 5D II.

When you've conquered that one, post a few samples shot at ISO 3200
that match the 5D II.

We're all waiting.

Don't hold your breath...

I wasn't, trust me, George. And now the slimy little **** denies ever
saying it. Even though it appears in his post just a day ago.
Honestly, I think he has issues.

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:21:46 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:50:35 -0400, Bowser wrote in
:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:17:56 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

I've provided more than adequate proof repeatedly (again today), but you
are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded.

OK, just this once:

You claim that the Panny FZ35 AF is as fast as a DSLR. ...

I haven't said that. Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or is
your position so weak you have to put words in my mouth?

When you've conquered that one, post a few samples shot at ISO 3200
that match the 5D II.

I have no interest in ISO 3200. Is your position so weak you have to
resort to fringe situations?

The FZ28 and FZ35 do the job for 99% of the things I want to do,
and I'm not terribly concerned about the other 1%.

Then that explains why you're so satisfied with the Pannys. You have
very modest demands and can live within the confines of a P&S. 99% of
the time. For some of us, who need to get shots at ISO 6400, well, we
need more capable tools to do the job.

Happy snap shooting.

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/29/10 10:21 AM, in article ,
"Truman" wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2010 09:26:47 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 5/28/10 10:02 AM, in article ,
"SMS" wrote:

On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote:

Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes
ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass
on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore
me.

I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to
digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at
first, then as you stated, it gets boring.

Yep. He bounces from group to group. When he make a big enough ass of
himself in one, he leaves and shows up at another.

The guy needs a life.

How would you know this unless you were nothing but a psychotic
net-stalking troll with no life?

You are again looking in the mirror.

Tell us, Trollie, just WHY are you taking up for your butt-buddy, NavAss?!?

No run along with another sock...

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/29/10 12:44 PM, in article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2010 09:29:45 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:




On 5/28/10 11:50 AM, in article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 07:17:56 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:02:59 -0400, Bowser wrote in
:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:06 -0700, John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:22:29 -0400, Bowser wrote in
:

Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in
the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed.
Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR.

Uh, really. I own an FZ28, which is excellent, and the FZ35 I borrowed
for a day was ever better. Autofocus speed is excellent *if* you
configure the cameras properly. Image quality likewise.
I routinely get better shots (in all respects) than those shooting the
same subjects with dSLR cameras. Perhaps you need more practice with
the FZ35.

Nah, it's configured just fine.

Apparently not.

Every time we go down this road I ask
you to prove what you say, we banter, and you never provide proof.
Some other time, John.

I've provided more than adequate proof repeatedly (again today), but you
are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded.

OK, just this once:

You claim that the Panny FZ35 AF is as fast as a DSLR. Prove it. Not
your opinion, not a statement that "it's fast" but real proof. Some
third party testing that shows it's as fast as, say, my Canon 5D II.

When you've conquered that one, post a few samples shot at ISO 3200
that match the 5D II.

We're all waiting.

Don't hold your breath...

I wasn't, trust me, George. And now the slimy little **** denies ever
saying it. Even though it appears in his post just a day ago.
Honestly, I think he has issues.

Sad sack of a little man with a bloated ego is our little friend NavAss...

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:31:15 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:



I wasn't, trust me, George. And now the slimy little **** denies ever
saying it. Even though it appears in his post just a day ago.
Honestly, I think he has issues.

Sad sack of a little man with a bloated ego is our little friend NavAss...

He truly is pathetic. First he makes wild claims about how his P&S
focuses as fast as a DSLR, then he claims image quality is as good,
then he claims he shot some night football under weak lighting using
his P&S, but as usual he offers nothing but his bull**** opinion and
resorts to weaseling out of anything he's said. Truly, truly a
pathetic excuse for a human being. It's impossible to carry on a civil
discussion with him.

There is good news, however, since he's saved us the trouble of
killfiling him.

As we say up here in MA, "wicked mega luzah"

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On 5/30/10 10:07 AM, in article ,
"Bowser" wrote:

On Sat, 29 May 2010 13:31:15 -0500, George Kerby
wrote:



I wasn't, trust me, George. And now the slimy little **** denies ever
saying it. Even though it appears in his post just a day ago.
Honestly, I think he has issues.

Sad sack of a little man with a bloated ego is our little friend NavAss...

He truly is pathetic. First he makes wild claims about how his P&S
focuses as fast as a DSLR, then he claims image quality is as good,
then he claims he shot some night football under weak lighting using
his P&S, but as usual he offers nothing but his bull**** opinion and
resorts to weaseling out of anything he's said. Truly, truly a
pathetic excuse for a human being. It's impossible to carry on a civil
discussion with him.

There is good news, however, since he's saved us the trouble of
killfiling him.

As we say up here in MA, "wicked mega luzah"

As we say down here in Texas, "Roll up your pants. The NavAss bull**** is
getting deep."

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

zulu wrote:
How would you know this unless you were nothing but a psychotic
net-stalking troll with no life?- Hide quoted text -

Troll hunting fun, you good target

NO, it's not fun for anyone here; it's way too easy, unless you're brand
new, or a pest yourself.

Please refrain from replying!

--
john mcwilliams

Canon and Panasonic: updated models
 

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:27:21 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

zulu wrote:
How would you know this unless you were nothing but a psychotic
net-stalking troll with no life?- Hide quoted text -

Troll hunting fun, you good target

NO, it's not fun for anyone here; it's way too easy, unless you're brand
new, or a pest yourself.

Please refrain from replying!

But Zulu adds such helpful information about photography and cameras in
every one of his posts! You know, just like all of YOURS.

Don't either of you know how to use a mirror?