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

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)

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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.

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)

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)