How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers (was: Reason for so many focus errors we see today?)

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)

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......

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.

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

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

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.