Canon-paid shills accused of slaging new Nikons?

On Aug 31, 9:42 pm, ASAAR wrote:
On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 18:03:37 -0700, RichA wrote:
Oops is right. Unlike shills, trolls aren't in it for money or
other bennies. Sometimes they do it because their mental health is
a bit lacking, and they crave an abnormal amount of attention.

So the guy who posted it on dpreview is a troll and so am I
for posting it here?

You'd be a troll even if DPReview didn't exist. I wouldn't call
the guy that posted it a troll. Trolls are defined by more than
just the content of any individual posts them make. They (and you)
earn the label based on the totality of their posts. That a few may
not be as moronic as most doesn't mean that they aren't trolls as
well. Your role model (Der Shrub) may occasionally utter a well
constructed sentence, but that doesn't prove that he's not a moron
or incapable of behaving like a blithering idiot.

Can a Canon D50-owning flak BE any more transparent???

What's his login name? CanonA?

Sorry! I meant you but forget you are a Nikon owner. Now I'm REALLY
confused as to WHY you would support Canon's slimy covert marketing
efforts aimed against Nikon???

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:58:06 -0700, RichA wrote:

Can a Canon D50-owning flak BE any more transparent???

What's his login name? CanonA?

Sorry! I meant you but forget you are a Nikon owner. Now I'm REALLY
confused as to WHY you would support Canon's slimy covert marketing
efforts aimed against Nikon???

Recognizing that you too often troll doesn't mean that I support
covert or viral marketing. In this particular thread, though, the
trolling is much less blatant than in most others. Sometimes
individuals have reasons other than manufacturer support for
enthusiastically supporting or denouncing products. Think Preddy
(Sigma). And just because I own a D50 doesn't mean that I'd be
biased against Canon. I own, like, and still use several of Canon's
P&S cameras. I prefer the plastic used by Fuji, though. I leave
you with these parting questions :

If Der Shrub trolled, would he be the trollerer?
If Der Shrub doesn't know if he's coming or going and a film is
made of his life, should it also be titled "Dumb and Dumber"?

On Aug 31, 9:03 pm, RichA wrote:
On Aug 31, 8:51 pm, ASAAR wrote:



On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:33:51 -0700, RichA, who doesn't play in

traffic often enough, wrote:
I hope we all resist the temptation of wanting to respond to
corporate shills and starve them of the of the one thing that
can sustain them, namely the attention that the seek to receive.
Notoriety is the oxygen of shills.

A shill is a shill, whether corporate or not. But this sentence
can also be applied to trolls, which may not be good news for a
certain familiar poster if most readers heed this advice.

Why? Posters aren't taking people's money, like Canon. Oooppsss!!!

Oops is right. Unlike shills, trolls aren't in it for money or
other bennies. Sometimes they do it because their mental health is
a bit lacking, and they crave an abnormal amount of attention.

So the guy who posted it on dpreview is a troll and so am I for
posting it here?
Can a Canon D50-owning flak BE any more transparent???

Learn the difference between "flak" and "flack."

On Sep 1, 1:16 am, ASAAR wrote:


If Der Shrub trolled, would he be the trollerer?
If Der Shrub doesn't know if he's coming or going and a film is
made of his life, should it also be titled "Dumb and Dumber"?

Nope. Maybe "Dumb and Dumbest?" Dumb being the American public for
voting this mental midget into office twice.

On Aug 31, 8:09 pm, Charlie Self wrote:
On Aug 31, 1:00 pm, RichA wrote:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=24615394

It's "slagging," Rich.

hu r u then?