If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
In article , Ron Hunter
writes Chances are they have more time that I do. Dear Ron, YOU are an arrogant ****! Regards, PS. Sorry I don't have enough time to explain my conclusion. No doubt you have enough time to debate it. ;-) PPS. I apologise to regular readers for my misuse of Anglo-Saxon language - a **** is a very useful and pleasurable piece of human anatomy, whilst Ron certainly is not! -- Kennedy Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed; A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's ****ed. Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying) |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
Ron Hunter wrote:
Robert Spanjaard wrote: On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:29:05 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: Is it too late to try, Ron? Her is what trimming looks like. It takes 10 times as long, and results in little information for the person who reads the post. What were we talking about? Sigh. ASAAR, are you sure about his age? Considering his childish behaviour, he still has a lot of growing up to do. OTOH, Ron seems to care a lot about the two seconds it takes to quote properly, which suggests he doesn't have much time left... Two seconds? I have to select the text to be quoted, copy to the clipboard, select 'reply', delete old quoted data, dropdown a menu, and select past as quotation. If can do that in two seconds, you are much faster than this semi-handicapped 66 year old. More power to you. I gave you ten seconds, being generous with a time allocation. Now that I see that was about on, given you use an extraordinarily inefficient way to operate. Others have commented on how to do so. Again, etiquette...... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:29:05 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
Is it too late to try, Ron? Her is what trimming looks like. It takes 10 times as long, and results in little information for the person who reads the post. What were we talking about? Sigh. Intentionally incompetent trimming just makes you look silly. You've made quite a number of one or two line replies after quoting hundreds of lines in past posts. Usually only a couple of lines or a paragraph needed quoting. We both know full well that the bulk of your quoted lines have not been necessary. To supply newsgroup newcomers with all of the missing context they'd need (according to your logic) you'd have to quote the entire previous thread. You're just stubborn, Ron. But that's not so uncommon in these parts, and I may have a touch of it myself. BTW, although I'm not familiar with your newsreader (Thunderbird), I'll bet that I could use TB and usually do all of the selective quoting and trimming in a couple of seconds. Anyone with your computer experience could also do that. As they say, where there's a will there's a way. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:48:38 -0500, "Mean old" Ron Hunter wrote:
We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you will save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or two. That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever. Chances are they have more time that I do. I'm not going to take the time to do that editing to save readers 1 or two keystrokes. All it takes me to get to the bottom of a long post is one press on my multi-button pointing device. Hardly an imposition. That only shows how inconsiderate and self centered you are. You *incorrectly* assume that anyone reading your replies also assumes that your replies are always contained at the very bottom of your posts. Very often replies from others are scattered between long quotes, and immediately skipping to the bottom guarantees that most of the new text contained in the reply will never be seen. As I hinted in my previous reply, trimming the unnecessary quotes can be quick and easy if you're bright enough to figure out how to do it, no matter how limited your newsreader is. Mine may be easier, as it can quote only the text that's highlighted, but that's not the point. It's much quicker than scrolling down through hundreds of lines to make sure that any pertinent parts of your replies aren't missed, which is the burden you impose on those that are patient enough to read your replies. Had you been royalty, I suppose your adopted motto would be "Let them eat cake." "Let them eat cake" is the traditional but incorrect translation of the French phrase "qu'ils mangent de la brioche." Brioche is actually a type of egg bread enriched with a large proportion of butter, rather than any type of dessert or confection. The quote, as attributed to Marie Antoinette, was claimed to have been uttered during one of the famines that occurred in France during the reign of her husband Louis XVI. Upon being alerted that the people were suffering due to widespread bread shortages, she is said to have replied, "Then let them eat brioche." This type of callousness on the part of the monarchy is often referred to when studying the possible factors that may have led to the French Revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:31:19 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote: John Navas wrote: On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:17:43 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote in : Truer Dat wrote: On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:50:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote: [HUGE SNIP] I think you will find that the focusing systems on modern cameras are faster, and more accurate than most humans. Now if you have something like a case where something large is closer than your subject, the camera can be confused, and the photographer can compensate. I always take note of this situation, and allow the camera to focus on my subject, then lock the focus, and recompose the shot. Please trim huge quotes to just a relevant portion, not the whole thing. Thanks. John, Maybe you have the time to do that, or a newsreader that makes it easy, but I have neither. Skipping to the end is vastly easier, and unless you are one of the 5% of people who are still using dialup for newsgroup access, why bother? ....courtesy to the readers of the "thread" (sometimes "hawser"). Better communication. cg |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
Robert Spanjaard wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:50:14 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: OTOH, Ron seems to care a lot about the two seconds it takes to quote properly, which suggests he doesn't have much time left... Two seconds? I have to select the text to be quoted, copy to the clipboard, select 'reply', delete old quoted data, dropdown a menu, and select past as quotation. If can do that in two seconds, you are much faster than this semi-handicapped 66 year old. More power to you. No, I can't do _that_ in two seconds, but that would be a very foolish way to select the text you want to quote. In any case, you can just delete the quotes you're _not_ replying to from the 'old quoted data'. And in most newsreaders, you can select the desired quotes first, press "reply" (or something similar) next, and your reply- window will open containing just the selected quotes. If I say I can cross the street in three seconds, that doesn't mean I can do it on hands and knees. Just remember, some of us have trouble getting across the street before the light changes, and don't honk! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:48:38 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote in : John McWilliams wrote: We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you will save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or two. That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever. Chances are they have more time that I do. What a lame excuse. I'm not going to take the time to do that editing to save readers 1 or two keystrokes. All it takes me to get to the bottom of a long post is one press on my multi-button pointing device. So screw them. Hardly an imposition. This just might quality you for my twit filter. When you act like a dick, expect to get treated like one. Feel free, John, but then you have acted even worse from time to time. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter writes Chances are they have more time that I do. Dear Ron, YOU are an arrogant ****! Regards, PS. Sorry I don't have enough time to explain my conclusion. No doubt you have enough time to debate it. ;-) PPS. I apologise to regular readers for my misuse of Anglo-Saxon language - a **** is a very useful and pleasurable piece of human anatomy, whilst Ron certainly is not! Thank you for your opinion. Unfortunately, I don't have that particular anatomical part, so your description is inappropriate, and inaccurate. Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort to insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent arguments? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:29:05 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: Is it too late to try, Ron? Her is what trimming looks like. It takes 10 times as long, and results in little information for the person who reads the post. What were we talking about? Sigh. Intentionally incompetent trimming just makes you look silly. You've made quite a number of one or two line replies after quoting hundreds of lines in past posts. Usually only a couple of lines or a paragraph needed quoting. We both know full well that the bulk of your quoted lines have not been necessary. To supply newsgroup newcomers with all of the missing context they'd need (according to your logic) you'd have to quote the entire previous thread. You're just stubborn, Ron. But that's not so uncommon in these parts, and I may have a touch of it myself. BTW, although I'm not familiar with your newsreader (Thunderbird), I'll bet that I could use TB and usually do all of the selective quoting and trimming in a couple of seconds. Anyone with your computer experience could also do that. As they say, where there's a will there's a way. The loss of context is annoying, to me, at least. Threading back through previous posts is quite time consuming, while skipping to the end of a post is quite easy, at least with my newsreader. Perhaps the real issue is that you want me to make life easy for you, at my expense. Could I trim as you indicate? Sure, but then I would spend several times as much time each day in newsgroups as I currently do. I have reached an age where I am very aware of the ticking of the clock, and I would rather have my pleasure than spend my seconds of life editing newsgroup posts. If you don't like that attitude, by all means add me to your 'twit list'. Life is way too short to waste doing something you don't need to do, and which gives you no pleasure. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
JustaTroll wrote:
Or a kill-file... I get the impression he doesn't care one way or the other. - JT You have it! Now, notice that I have substantially changed the import of your message by snipping. That is another reason I don't do it often. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reason for so many focus errors we see today? | Don Stauffer | Digital Photography | 18 | June 25th 09 06:03 PM |
Reason for so many focus errors we see today? | Don Stauffer | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | June 25th 09 06:03 PM |
Reason for so many focus errors we see today? | Doug Jewell[_3_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 2 | June 23rd 09 04:26 PM |
Reason for so many focus errors we see today? | Pete D | Digital Photography | 0 | June 23rd 09 01:02 PM |
Reason for so many focus errors we see today? | Pete D | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | June 23rd 09 01:02 PM |