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 |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
In article , Ron Hunter
writes Kennedy McEwen wrote: In article , Ron Hunter writes Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort to insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent arguments? Precisely the point I was making about YOUR arrogant response! I admit to arrogance, thus fully deserving of all the personal attacks, or obscene language I receive. Fixed your post for you! -- 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) |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: John Navas wrote: Please trim huge quotes to just a relevant portion, not the whole thing. Thanks. Maybe you have the time to do that, or a newsreader that makes it easy, but I have neither. Thank you for informing us that we, your audience, aren't worth even 3 seconds of consideration. Skipping to the end is vastly easier, 1000 times skipping is faster than one time snipping? Don't make me laugh. and unless you are one of the 5% of people who are still using dialup for newsgroup access, why bother? Please be informed, that at least I, as part of your audience, feel that you have in the balance nothing valuable to add if you don't even manage basic courtesy. I will negatively score your postings accordingly. Why should I bother to read you? It's easy to see how much a poster values their communications -- it's indicated by the care they take to make them clear and comprehensible. There's no point in reading posts which the author himself clearly thinks are worthless. -- Chris Malcolm |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
Kennedy McEwen wrote:
In article , Ron Hunter writes Kennedy McEwen wrote: In article , Ron Hunter writes Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort to insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent arguments? Precisely the point I was making about YOUR arrogant response! I admit to arrogance, thus fully deserving of all the personal attacks, or obscene language I receive. Fixed your post for you! I think that is what is called putting words in someone else's mouth. Which is exactly the point I was trying to make. It's a bad idea. |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: John Navas wrote: Please trim huge quotes to just a relevant portion, not the whole thing. Thanks. Maybe you have the time to do that, or a newsreader that makes it easy, but I have neither. Thank you for informing us that we, your audience, aren't worth even 3 seconds of consideration. Skipping to the end is vastly easier, 1000 times skipping is faster than one time snipping? Don't make me laugh. and unless you are one of the 5% of people who are still using dialup for newsgroup access, why bother? Please be informed, that at least I, as part of your audience, feel that you have in the balance nothing valuable to add if you don't even manage basic courtesy. I will negatively score your postings accordingly. Why should I bother to read you? -Wolfgang That's entirely your choice. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
Chris Malcolm wrote:
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote: Ron Hunter wrote: John Navas wrote: Please trim huge quotes to just a relevant portion, not the whole thing. Thanks. Maybe you have the time to do that, or a newsreader that makes it easy, but I have neither. Thank you for informing us that we, your audience, aren't worth even 3 seconds of consideration. Skipping to the end is vastly easier, 1000 times skipping is faster than one time snipping? Don't make me laugh. and unless you are one of the 5% of people who are still using dialup for newsgroup access, why bother? Please be informed, that at least I, as part of your audience, feel that you have in the balance nothing valuable to add if you don't even manage basic courtesy. I will negatively score your postings accordingly. Why should I bother to read you? It's easy to see how much a poster values their communications -- it's indicated by the care they take to make them clear and comprehensible. There's no point in reading posts which the author himself clearly thinks are worthless. I am not able to judge, and wouldn't try, the value of my posts, if any, for any single individual. For some, they may be useful, for others a crashing waste of time. In any case, I have no interest in spending several hours a day on newsgroups so that I can edit every post I make in order to squeeze every non-essential byte from the post. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
Ron Hunter wrote:
I am not able to judge, and wouldn't try, the value of my posts, if any, for any single individual. For some, they may be useful, for others a crashing waste of time. In any case, I have no interest in spending several hours a day on newsgroups so that I can edit every post I make in order to squeeze every non-essential byte from the post. No one expects that. Just please remove the bulk of the hulk of the preceding post. -- john mcwilliams "Baldrick, you wouldn't recognize a subtle plan if it painted itself purple and danced naked on top of a harpsichord singing 'Subtle Plans Are Here Again'." -- Blackadder |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:26:10 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:
It's easy to see how much a poster values their communications -- it's indicated by the care they take to make them clear and comprehensible. There's no point in reading posts which the author himself clearly thinks are worthless. I am not able to judge, and wouldn't try, the value of my posts, if any, for any single individual. For some, they may be useful, for others a crashing waste of time. In any case, I have no interest in spending several hours a day on newsgroups so that I can edit every post I make in order to squeeze every non-essential byte from the post. Ron, that old canard never flew and still doesn't fly. Checking both rec.photo.digital.slr-systems and rec.photo.digital I see 43 replies for June, 146 for May, 26 for April, 47 for March, 36 for February and 64 for January. As today is the 27th, it's close enough to consider it a full month, and your average for six months is 60.3333 posts per month, or two per day. I may have missed a couple of posts (news servers occasionally miss a few) but this should be pretty representative of what you've actually posted. Virtually everyone in the newsgroup other than you has said that they can trim posts in a matter of seconds. How can you expect anyone to take seriously your claim that it takes you several hours (on average) to trim two replies? Even in May when you must have been chugging your Geritol you only averaged 5 replies per day. This is a good example of arguing for its own sake, credibility be damned. I hope that you don't really believe your "logic". I'll close with this. Hours? At your advanced age, time should seem to be advancing much more rapidly, not more slowly! |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 17:58:07 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 15:26:10 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote: It's easy to see how much a poster values their communications -- it's indicated by the care they take to make them clear and comprehensible. There's no point in reading posts which the author himself clearly thinks are worthless. I am not able to judge, and wouldn't try, the value of my posts, if any, for any single individual. For some, they may be useful, for others a crashing waste of time. In any case, I have no interest in spending several hours a day on newsgroups so that I can edit every post I make in order to squeeze every non-essential byte from the post. Ron, that old canard never flew and still doesn't fly. Checking both rec.photo.digital.slr-systems and rec.photo.digital I see 43 replies for June, 146 for May, 26 for April, 47 for March, 36 for February and 64 for January. As today is the 27th, it's close enough to consider it a full month, and your average for six months is 60.3333 posts per month, or two per day. I may have missed a couple of posts (news servers occasionally miss a few) but this should be pretty representative of what you've actually posted. Virtually everyone in the newsgroup other than you has said that they can trim posts in a matter of seconds. How can you expect anyone to take seriously your claim that it takes you several hours (on average) to trim two replies? Even in May when you must have been chugging your Geritol you only averaged 5 replies per day. This is a good example of arguing for its own sake, credibility be damned. I hope that you don't really believe your "logic". I'll close with this. Hours? At your advanced age, time should seem to be advancing much more rapidly, not more slowly! Yet another way to detect snapshooters from photographers. They find anything at all to post about other than photography, any obscure topic at all that they might know a little about. GPS units, cell-phones, batteries, syntax and spelling, top vs. bottom posting ... you name it. Anything at all to get away from that scary topic of photography. The topic where their book/manual-learned and net-learned ignorance will be easily revealed by real photographers. Actually, the kinds of people like above aren't even snapshooters. They live on the internet, never held a camera in their lives, stalking down their only known companions in life, that being the text on their screens. Deducing their rival posters' every move by how many posts their imaginary "friends" make and in what newsgroups. They only hope and pray that someone would stalk them in return the same way one day, showing that much interest in them. They have yet to figure out that they aren't worth even that much of anyone's time. That kind of psychotic behavior serves no purpose to those with real lives. What a sad sad sad self-evident existence. Oh well. Their choice. Now, what other ways can we list to deduce point and shoot snapshooters from real photographers? Point and shoot photography style, not P&S camera style. Because most every DSLR owner is also nothing but a remedial point and shoot snapshooting camera owner. Otherwise they wouldn't pride themselves on and depend on all their camera's automatic features. Touting the superiority of their camera for having the latest and greatest automatic features. .... Or have we pretty much covered all the more obvious ways to flush-out these point and shoot snapshooting posers who try to pretend to be "X-Spurts" online. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
In article , Ron Hunter
writes I have no interest in spending several hours a day on newsgroups Should have stopped there. It would have been the most interesting contribution to the thread you would have made, despite being an obvious lie as demonstrated by the stats. Get a life Ron and stop lying to yourself and us. -- 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) |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers
In article , Ron Hunter
writes Kennedy McEwen wrote: In article , Ron Hunter writes Kennedy McEwen wrote: In article , Ron Hunter writes Why do people with no ability in debating a subject always resort to insults, and personal attacks when they run out of coherent arguments? Precisely the point I was making about YOUR arrogant response! I admit to arrogance, thus fully deserving of all the personal attacks, or obscene language I receive. Fixed your post for you! I think that is what is called putting words in someone else's mouth. No, its called advice - you would be wise to take the hint. -- 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) |
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 |