Throw away your camera. Tests on Smartphones Shown to Outperform DSLR's!

On 2016-03-15 04:19:26 +0000, RichA said:

On Saturday, 12 March 2016 10:09:50 UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-12 08:02:50 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:31:14 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:00:21 -0800, Bill
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:03:09 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

Well, yes, but in the OP he wrote that the reader should check the
fine print at the bottom. He posted it as a joke, as far as I could
tell. I laughed...

Thank you. That was my intention.

...but it wasn't funny, stupid, but not funny.

I'm sorry 'duck, but I'm not going to vet links for compatability with
your news reader and ISP before I post them. I could load the referred
site without any sign of problems and if you can't it's your problem
not mine. So please don't take your problems out on me.

I use ADBlocker in my browsers so that sites such as the one you posted
don't bother me. I don't have a problem, the problem is your insistance
to share a questionable SPAM site with no credibility at all.


You really want to block things, use Peerblock. No one can see in and you
have to allow websites to open. You can select to allow websites to always
open, or open only for a select time-span. In conjunction with and adbloc
ker, it gives you full control over things, or as near as possible.

That was a reasonable suggestion. However, Peerblock does not have an
OSX edition, so for now I will continue with what I have in place. The
ability to open web sites I want open, and questionable sites ignored.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article m, Savageduck
wrote:

Savageduck:
Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

Bill W:
Well, yes, but in the OP he wrote that the reader should check
the fine print at the bottom. He posted it as a joke, as far as
I could tell. I laughed...

Eric Stevens:
Thank you. That was my intention.

...but it wasn't funny, stupid, but not funny.

But the fact that you 1. couldn't see the site at first and 2. didn't agree
that it was funny is not Eric's fault or problem.

--
Sandman

On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 21:32:39 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2016-03-15 04:19:26 +0000, RichA said:

On Saturday, 12 March 2016 10:09:50 UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On 2016-03-12 08:02:50 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 23:31:14 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

On Mar 11, 2016, Eric Stevens wrote
(in ):

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:00:21 -0800, Bill
wrote:

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:03:09 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Roughly translated, this is SPAM!

Well, yes, but in the OP he wrote that the reader should check the
fine print at the bottom. He posted it as a joke, as far as I could
tell. I laughed...

Thank you. That was my intention.

...but it wasn't funny, stupid, but not funny.

I'm sorry 'duck, but I'm not going to vet links for compatability with
your news reader and ISP before I post them. I could load the referred
site without any sign of problems and if you can't it's your problem
not mine. So please don't take your problems out on me.

I use ADBlocker in my browsers so that sites such as the one you posted
don't bother me. I don't have a problem, the problem is your insistance
to share a questionable SPAM site with no credibility at all.


You really want to block things, use Peerblock. No one can see in and you
have to allow websites to open. You can select to allow websites to always
open, or open only for a select time-span. In conjunction with and adbloc
ker, it gives you full control over things, or as near as possible.

That was a reasonable suggestion. However, Peerblock does not have an
OSX edition, so for now I will continue with what I have in place. The
ability to open web sites I want open, and questionable sites ignored.

Then was it your problem of seeing only what you wanted to see. You
shouldn't blame me.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens