Dpreview loses its nerve, scores 5DIII same as D800!!!

On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:11:36 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

Bowser wrote:



So, as usual, you are criticising me for something I never said or
claimed. That's not something an intelligent person would do, but it
is apparently par for the course for Bowser.



By claiming that there was plenty of "evidence" to support the bias
claim, in the form of usenet discussions, you did claim a bias by DP
Review. And previous posts also show that you are unaware that Phil
Askey has long since left DP Review.

OK, since you claim you never said DP Review is biased, I'll ask you
straightforward: in your opinion, does DP Review exhibit a bias
towards or against any specific brand?

On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:11:36 +0100, Bruce
wrote:




You should read more carefully before replying. I know comprehension
isn't your strong point, as you prefer to lash out against what you
think what people are saying instead of what they actually write.


You wrote this:

On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:21:13 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
Amazon bought DPReview.


Maybe you can explain how this isn't a claim of bias?

Bruce wrote:

I reported that a pro-Canon bias was claimed by many people, and that
evidence of those claims was to be found in Usenet discussions. If
you're interested, look it up.

I just read about another "moon 'horax'" proof here on Usenet.

Basically NASA has said "don't land straight next to the historic
Apollo landing sites (and thus fling rocks and sand against them)
and treat them with proper care, try not to destroy anything there"
and only the first part was read by the poster, and he conveniently
forgot that walking 2 km is easily doable on the moon, and that
NASA cannot *tell* others what to do (merely ask), since the moon
isn't their property ... because, *obviously*, NASA is afraid that
one (the Chinese, the Russians, the whatever-non-friendly-power)
might see the non-existence of the landing sites.

Other moon hoax claims can be found in Usenet and on the Web, and
there's discussion with further ample proof to be found there, too.
There's even a whole Wikipedia entry about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_la...iracy_theories
and it details that very many people believe that it was a hoax,
despite lots of third party evidence (including the hostile USSR)
to the contrary.

By *your* logic, that means there never was a moon landing,
in fact, the claim that there never was a moon landing is much
better established and proven than the claim of some DPreview bias.

-Wolfgang

On 5/28/2012 10:15 AM, Bowser wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:11:36 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:



So, as usual, you are criticising me for something I never said or
claimed. That's not something an intelligent person would do, but it
is apparently par for the course for Bowser.



By claiming that there was plenty of "evidence" to support the bias
claim, in the form of usenet discussions, you did claim a bias by DP
Review. And previous posts also show that you are unaware that Phil
Askey has long since left DP Review.

OK, since you claim you never said DP Review is biased, I'll ask you
straightforward: in your opinion, does DP Review exhibit a bias
towards or against any specific brand?


Did you really expect a clear and straightforward answer.

--
Peter

On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:04:23 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/28/2012 10:15 AM, Bowser wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:11:36 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:



So, as usual, you are criticising me for something I never said or
claimed. That's not something an intelligent person would do, but it
is apparently par for the course for Bowser.



By claiming that there was plenty of "evidence" to support the bias
claim, in the form of usenet discussions, you did claim a bias by DP
Review. And previous posts also show that you are unaware that Phil
Askey has long since left DP Review.

OK, since you claim you never said DP Review is biased, I'll ask you
straightforward: in your opinion, does DP Review exhibit a bias
towards or against any specific brand?


Did you really expect a clear and straightforward answer.

No, I'm just messing with him. He also said this in a previous
message:

On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:21:13 +0100, Bruce
wrote:
I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
Amazon bought DPReview.

Sounds like a claim of bias to me, dontcha think?

On 5/28/2012 6:08 PM, Bowser wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:04:23 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/28/2012 10:15 AM, Bowser wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:11:36 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:



So, as usual, you are criticising me for something I never said or
claimed. That's not something an intelligent person would do, but it
is apparently par for the course for Bowser.



By claiming that there was plenty of "evidence" to support the bias
claim, in the form of usenet discussions, you did claim a bias by DP
Review. And previous posts also show that you are unaware that Phil
Askey has long since left DP Review.

OK, since you claim you never said DP Review is biased, I'll ask you
straightforward: in your opinion, does DP Review exhibit a bias
towards or against any specific brand?


Did you really expect a clear and straightforward answer.

No, I'm just messing with him. He also said this in a previous
message:

On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:21:13 +0100,
wrote:
I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
Amazon bought DPReview.

Sounds like a claim of bias to me, dontcha think?

I also noticed that he claimed forum chatter was evidence.

Be careful, though, lest you wind up with Alan, I and others, on
non-existent no response list.

--
Peter

In article , Bruce
wrote:

There's a guy called Bowser who posts here often but has never said
anything useful. So I suppose you must be right.

Well, I am right about one thing: you have nothing to support your
bull****.

There is plenty of evidence to support my statements. I told you
where to find it and how, and pointed out that it would take you only
a few minutes to find it.

if there's plenty of evidence then it should take you even less time to
post some of it.

But you were too lazy to make even that
tiny amount of effort. Just like you were too lazy to make a tiny
amount of effort when you were "running" the SI, or hastening its
death, to be more precise.

he didn't bother because he knows you're full of ****.

A leopard doesn't change its spots, and one thing that will forever be
true in your case is that you will never make even a tiny amount of
effort when the option of doing absolutely nothing is available.

sounds like a description of yourself.

you won't make a tiny amount of effort to provide some of this
plentiful evidence.

In article , Bruce
wrote:

I reported that a pro-Canon bias was claimed by many people, and that
evidence of those claims was to be found in Usenet discussions. As I
said before, comprehension is not your strong point. It helps to read
before replying.

there are people who claim dpreview has a nikon bias too.

in fact, dpreview even commented about this so called bias a while
back. it turns out they are accused of being biased for and against
*every* brand, which can only mean they are unbiased.

And previous posts also show that you are unaware that Phil
Askey has long since left DP Review.

You're right, I didn't know that. I take very little interest in what
goes on at DPReview because I have always had a low opinion of the
site. Almost my only contact with it is via links posted on Usenet
photo newsgroups by Rich Anderson. Otherwise, the site has very
little value to me. I don't know any other working photographer who
takes any interest in it either. It just isn't relevant.

so you somehow know dpreview has a canon bias but have no idea what
really goes on there?

you're so full of **** it's not even funny.

I know I know there are several new faces, at least two of whom worked
for "Amateur Photographer" here in the UK and were prepared to move to
Seattle. They are good guys and I wish them well. The site can only
improve with their input.

there are quite a few new faces.

OK, since you claim you never said DP Review is biased, I'll ask you
straightforward: in your opinion, does DP Review exhibit a bias
towards or against any specific brand?

I reported that a pro-Canon bias was claimed by many people, and that
evidence of those claims was to be found in Usenet discussions. If
you're interested, look it up. Otherwise, best to keep schtum in the
hope of avoiding further exposure of your ignorance. ;-)

I have no further interest in any of this. You can have the last word.

of course you don't because you've been cornered, again.

On Mon, 28 May 2012 21:45:36 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/28/2012 6:08 PM, Bowser wrote:
On Mon, 28 May 2012 17:04:23 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 5/28/2012 10:15 AM, Bowser wrote:
On Sun, 27 May 2012 17:11:36 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:



So, as usual, you are criticising me for something I never said or
claimed. That's not something an intelligent person would do, but it
is apparently par for the course for Bowser.



By claiming that there was plenty of "evidence" to support the bias
claim, in the form of usenet discussions, you did claim a bias by DP
Review. And previous posts also show that you are unaware that Phil
Askey has long since left DP Review.

OK, since you claim you never said DP Review is biased, I'll ask you
straightforward: in your opinion, does DP Review exhibit a bias
towards or against any specific brand?


Did you really expect a clear and straightforward answer.

No, I'm just messing with him. He also said this in a previous
message:

On Fri, 25 May 2012 13:21:13 +0100,
wrote:
I'm surprised that you, of all people, omitted to mention DPReview's
long-standing strong bias towards Canon, which dates from long before
Amazon bought DPReview.

Sounds like a claim of bias to me, dontcha think?

I also noticed that he claimed forum chatter was evidence.

Be careful, though, lest you wind up with Alan, I and others, on
non-existent no response list.

I've already been put there a few times. Each time I care even less.