BAD NEWS FOR THE 40D!

Annika1980 wrote:
Bad news, sports fans!
Rob Galbraith has declared on his site that "the EOS 40D is not a
viable sports camera."

He says it cannot reliably be used to get sharp action shots.
Well dip me in ****!

LOL, he's got as much credibility as Ken Rockwell or Thom Hogan. I
wouldn't worry too much about that declaration.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Annika1980 wrote:
Bad news, sports fans!
Rob Galbraith has declared on his site that "the EOS 40D is not a
viable sports camera."

He says it cannot reliably be used to get sharp action shots.
Well dip me in ****!

LOL, he's got as much credibility as Ken Rockwell or Thom Hogan. I
wouldn't worry too much about that declaration.

Rockwell is truly awful, but, in all fariness, Rockwell freely admits that
he just makes it all up and it's total bull****. Too bad for the people who
take that horse**** as gospel.

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:42:32 -0700, SMS, our "What, me worry?" guy,
wrote:

He says it cannot reliably be used to get sharp action shots.
Well dip me in ****!

LOL, he's got as much credibility as Ken Rockwell or Thom Hogan. I
wouldn't worry too much about that declaration.

Not to worry. It's clear that you've never given your own lack of
credibility much thought. Thom is extremely knowledgeable and the
only reason that the above quote doesn't hurt your credibility much
is that it's already about as low as it can possibly go. Next to
you, even puckish Ken comes across as a benevolent genius. Who else
but you maintains that some of Canon's Powershots can only get 10 to
20 shots from fresh batteries? You're off by well over an order of
magnitude, but for your pronouncements, it's par for the course.

Böwser wrote:

Rockwell is truly awful, but, in all fariness, Rockwell freely admits
that he just makes it all up and it's total bull****. Too bad for the
people who take that horse**** as gospel.

I've never seen that admission by him, but I rarely go to his site so
you may be right. Still, he gives Nikon a bad name.

"SMS" wrote in message
...
Böwser wrote:

Rockwell is truly awful, but, in all fariness, Rockwell freely admits
that he just makes it all up and it's total bull****. Too bad for the
people who take that horse**** as gospel.

I've never seen that admission by him, but I rarely go to his site so you
may be right. Still, he gives Nikon a bad name.

By his own words, shall you know him:

"While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other
good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if
they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just
plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please
treat this entire site as a work of fiction."

This quote was pulled from he http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

I've "suggested" that people avoid that site at all costs, but he's got a
real fan base, especially on DP Review. Some of those morons rationalize
Ken's articles to the Nth degree to the point of embarassment.

Böwser wrote:

I've "suggested" that people avoid that site at all costs, but he's got
a real fan base, especially on DP Review. Some of those morons
rationalize Ken's articles to the Nth degree to the point of embarassment.

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 24/08/2008 3:37 AM:

I've "suggested" that people avoid that site at all costs, but he's
got a real fan base, especially on DP Review. Some of those morons
rationalize Ken's articles to the Nth degree to the point of
embarassment.

... I suspect that half of Ken "JPG is good enough" Rockwell fans are
Ken himself ...



I suspect you have no clue what you're talking about.
Here is an idea: if you all know so much better than Ken,
why don't you create YOUR own site, where you expose
your knowledge to wide criticism. Like he does.
But that would presume you'd have a spine. And we all
know that "Usenet critics" lack such...

For the record: I don't "follow" Ken's site,
it's just like any other as far as I'm concerned.
So spare yourself the usual moronic fanboy tirades,
they'll be wasted.