A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old June 26th 09, 09:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers

ASAAR wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:48:38 -0500, "Mean old" Ron Hunter wrote:

We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you will
save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or two.
That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever.

Chances are they have more time that I do. I'm not going to take the
time to do that editing to save readers 1 or two keystrokes. All it
takes me to get to the bottom of a long post is one press on my
multi-button pointing device. Hardly an imposition.


That only shows how inconsiderate and self centered you are. You
*incorrectly* assume that anyone reading your replies also assumes
that your replies are always contained at the very bottom of your
posts. Very often replies from others are scattered between long
quotes, and immediately skipping to the bottom guarantees that most
of the new text contained in the reply will never be seen. As I
hinted in my previous reply, trimming the unnecessary quotes can be
quick and easy if you're bright enough to figure out how to do it,
no matter how limited your newsreader is. Mine may be easier, as it
can quote only the text that's highlighted, but that's not the
point. It's much quicker than scrolling down through hundreds of
lines to make sure that any pertinent parts of your replies aren't
missed, which is the burden you impose on those that are patient
enough to read your replies. Had you been royalty, I suppose your
adopted motto would be "Let them eat cake."


What you describe, interspersed posting, is especially difficult to
snip, and may lead to increased confusion about who said what. I really
hate that posting style, but it is sometimes better to do that than wait
until the end when many points are covered. I won't even consider
trying to snip an interspersed post as a long one can take a LONG time
to edit without losing all meaning.

Perhaps, when the next release of my software comes out (it's supposed
to have the ability to quote only selected text, but then they have
promised that before, so....) I will do more snipping, or maybe not.

  #32  
Old June 26th 09, 09:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers

Savageduck wrote:
On 2009-06-25 15:53:02 -0700, Ron Hunter said:

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:31:19 -0500, Ron Hunter
wrote in :

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.
Your headers say Thunderbird, which can do it easily. Would you like
some help?

Skipping to the end is vastly easier, and
For you.

unless you are one of the 5% of people who are still using dialup for
newsgroup access, why bother?
Because it's both wasteful and rude to others, who may be paying for
metered Internet access, and who may have to manually scroll down to see
your response -- I'll often not bother, especially when I'm on a small
screen device.
If you don't care about your audience, why bother posting at all?

Come on, Ron, you're better than that.

Actually, I don't care if you, or anyone else reads my posts, likes my
posts, or likes the way I post. I express my opinion, or I give
advice, or provide information. What you chose to do with it is your
business.


Then why waste your time posting anything?

You might as well stand on a street corner and rail at the World.


I have felt like doing that more than once, but haven't gotten that far
yet.
  #33  
Old June 26th 09, 10:11 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
bugbear
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers

Ron Hunter wrote:
JustaTroll wrote:



Or a kill-file... I get the impression he doesn't care one way or the
other.


- JT



You have it!

Now, notice that I have substantially changed the import of your message
by snipping. That is another reason I don't do it often.


Because you're incompetent? Most people can improve skills
with practice.

BugBear
  #34  
Old June 26th 09, 11:40 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:22:36 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

Intentionally incompetent trimming just makes you look silly.
You've made quite a number of one or two line replies after quoting
hundreds of lines in past posts. Usually only a couple of lines or
a paragraph needed quoting. We both know full well that the bulk of
your quoted lines have not been necessary. To supply newsgroup
newcomers with all of the missing context they'd need (according to
your logic) you'd have to quote the entire previous thread. You're
just stubborn, Ron. But that's not so uncommon in these parts, and
I may have a touch of it myself.

BTW, although I'm not familiar with your newsreader (Thunderbird),
I'll bet that I could use TB and usually do all of the selective
quoting and trimming in a couple of seconds. Anyone with your
computer experience could also do that. As they say, where there's
a will there's a way.



The loss of context is annoying, to me, at least. Threading back
through previous posts is quite time consuming, while skipping to the
end of a post is quite easy, at least with my newsreader.


You're so obtuse at times, Ron. I never said or implied that any
useful context should be trimmed. You also completely missed the
point about quoting entire threads. You've never been so out of
touch as to do that (nor have I ever seen anyone else do that in
newsgroups) so what put into your head the idea of reading back
through previous messages in a thread? The point was simply that
you often quote *much* more material than is necessary to provide
sufficient context for your replies, and if you feel that there's a
need to quote even the unnecessary bits, why not take it to an even
more absurd extreme and provide the supposed context provided by
earlier replies in the thread. You show that you're trying only to
find some way to justify your egregious quoting without taking an
extra second or two to understand what you're replying to.


Perhaps the
real issue is that you want me to make life easy for you, at my expense.


Yes, just as you're expected to stop your car at red lights, even
though it's at your expense (time and wasted gas). You think that
you're making a logical argument, but it's completely unreasonable,
unless perhaps you have some anarchist genes, and have no truck with
the Golden Rule.


Could I trim as you indicate? Sure, but then I would spend several
times as much time each day in newsgroups as I currently do.


That's nonsense, but after repeating it for many years you may
even believe it by now.


I have reached an age where I am very aware of the ticking of the clock,
and I would rather have my pleasure than spend my seconds of life
editing newsgroup posts. If you don't like that attitude, by all means
add me to your 'twit list'.


I don't generally use twit lists even though I recognize twits
when I see them.


Life is way too short to waste doing something you don't need to
do, and which gives you no pleasure.


Then why have you been posting so many defensive replies in this
thread? Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? You've
used that "ticking of the clock" argument for at least 5 years and
you're still here. It'll probably be many more years before the
grim reaper trims your wide butt. Then we'll expect to see "But
most of all, I did it *my* way" engraved on your tombstone.

  #35  
Old June 26th 09, 12:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
DRS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 430
Default How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers

"John McWilliams" wrote in message

Ron Hunter wrote:
ASAAR wrote:
Is it too late to try, Ron?


Her is what trimming looks like. It takes 10 times as long, and
results in little information for the person who reads the post. What
were we talking about? Sigh.


We're talking etiquette for one thing. The ten seconds it takes you
will save each of your thousands- or dozens- of readers a second or
two. That's being thoughtful. Courteous. Whatever.


Ten seconds? Two, more like. The problem isn't the time it takes, the
problem is the unfortunately large number of posters who have no
consideration for others.


  #36  
Old June 26th 09, 01:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Karl Thompson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 0
Default How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 06:40:33 -0400, ASAAR wrote:

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:22:36 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

The loss of context is annoying, to me, at least. Threading back
through previous posts is quite time consuming, while skipping to the
end of a post is quite easy, at least with my newsreader.


You're so obtuse at times, Ron. I never said or implied that any
useful context should be trimmed.


Well, let's fix that then:


On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:50:05 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Plastic? Thermal expansion of plastic is much greater than metal and
it could very well be why we are seeing focus issues that need "lens
re-calibration" at service depots or that we see the need for in-
camera focus fine-tuning. Even cameras and lenses that appear to be
metal today may have plastic cells holding lenses, components in
cameras. The cameras are produced in a control temp environment but
that isn't real life use where temps can vary by 10's of degrees. I
don't remember all metal AF SLRs needing focus fine-tuning (or having
that facility) in the film days.


The top #1 reason for so many focusing errors:

Idiots who have become dependent on automated focusing systems. Especially
those snapshooters who are so stupid as to justify their common user-error
by blaming it on materials, focusing systems, or camera designs.



Do you honestly think that any automatic focusing system in the world is
ever going to be smart enough to figure out if you want the leading edge of
that small-butterfly's wing, the antennae, or the further wing edges in
precise focus?

There's only so much that any auto-anything system will ever be able to do.
This is why you have Snapshooters and Photographers. No photographer worth
his salt will ever depend on any automated focusing system. Nor do they
ever expect that some point and shoot feature in any camera, all DSLRs
included, should be expected to do the work correctly for them. They know
better. Do you ever wholly depend on your camera's automatic metering
system too? That makes you a point and shoot Snapshooter, whether you use a
P&S camera or DSLR. Every real photographer on earth knows that the camera
will never be able to select the proper exposure for them. That's why they
like cameras with a handy EV compensation dial or toggle, always at the
ready. The camera might get you in the ballpark for focusing and exposure
settings but then you have to take it from there. That's what real
photographers always do. That's what snapshooters won't ever comprehend.
Instead they would rather loudly proclaim the meager benefits of RAW to try
to recover their badly exposed and color-shifted shots, because they're
nothing but snapshooters in the first place.

People reveal much about their total lack of talent by what they find most
important in their cameras.


Snapshooter-Detection System
_________________________________________

What their camera requires or is already best at = what it really means
when they say it.


High ISO = I don't know how to pan properly to give my photo a much needed
sense of motion and action, nor do I know how to predict when to capture
the right shot at the peak moment. High ISO lets me use very fast shutter
speeds in dimly lit sports-fields so I don't have to do all that, then each
and every one of my shots look sterile and lifeless. So what if all those
masters took all their sports shots at ISOs of 64 or less. Big deal. They
probably didn't realize why you NEED ISO3200, or even know what they were
doing and why they were doing it. But *I* do! Because I'm so much better at
photography than they ever were.

High-Speed Burst Rates = I can't get any shot for the life of me, ever. Nor
do I ever know when to shoot an image. I can now machine-gun my way through
life and see if I can find any so-so photo later in my talentless pile of
garbage. Sure, the loud sound of my camera is annoying as hell to everyone
for a block around, but so what? Only PRO photographers with PRO cameras do
what I do. We don't care about anyone else as long as we get some good
photos ..... someday.

Fast Auto-Focus = Huh? You're supposed to know how to focus these damn
things too or know what part of your subject that you want in focus? Go on.
You must be kidding me. You're insane. NOBODY who is a real photographer
EVER focuses their own cameras these days! My camera knows EXACTLY what I
want in focus! Besides, my camera has an optical viewfinder! I can tell
exactly what's in focus in that dim tunnel-view image. So what if the
shallow DOF of my camera didn't allow me to see that my main subject was
really out of focus in the small image in my superior optical viewfinder.
It looked like it was, everything around looked like it was in focus, so
shouldn't the main subject be in focus too? It must be an auto-focusing
defect. I bet that's what it was. I'll send my camera in again to have my
auto-focusing system recalibrated. After all, look at how much money I
spent! A camera this expensive shouldn't fail on some simple point and
shoot feature like this. You get what you pay for and I'm going to prove
it! No matter how many times I have to send it in to have its
phase-detection focusing system recalibrated!

Evaluative Metering = Oh, c'mon now. You expect me to be able to tell when
my subject is underexposed due to backlight too? My camera is supposed to
do that for me with all its fancy point and shoot features. Isn't it? ISN'T
IT? You get what you pay for, right? RIGHT?! My camera even relies on a
built-in database of the most commonly lit scenes so my Evaluative Metering
can make the right choice for me based on what every other snapshooter has
ever done before. Surely that MUST be a good system. Right? I don't want to
have to think and reason, I just want my photo done correctly for me by the
camera, based on a database of simple snapshots. That's why I paid so much
for that new point and shoot feature. Only an idiot would buy a camera that
didn't have this.

Fastest Start-up Time = Sorry, but I totally fail to comprehend why any
camera that is ready by the time I touch it and bring it up to my eye is
all the speed it ever needs to have for start-up time. So I buy cameras
with just the fastest, latest, and greatest, then relentlessly try to
justify why I spent $5000 more on my camera gear than anyone else, by
posting about it on-ad-infinauseum in news-groups. Hang on a minute ... my
camera started up just fine, super fast, but let me rummage through my
camera bags and find the right prime lens to use on it, after it started up
so fast. It's in here somewhere, I know it is ... damn, I left that one
back home. Never mind. See how fast my camera started up though? SEE! Now
THAT'S a camera worth buying!

Shallow DOF = I don't know how to compose any scene properly so I MUST
depend on a very shallow DOF, to isolate my subject from the very scene
that gives the subject its reason for being there. Nor do I realize that
for all macro shots I'll never be able to get even a whole flower or insect
in focus. I'm that amazingly stupid. Some idiots talk about how you can
decrease the DOF the very same way if needed by just using longer focal
lengths, but then that would require I change lenses or carry
poorly-figured 10 lb. monster glass that costs over $10,000. Losing my shot
in the time needed to change the lens, then getting dust all over my sensor
so all my shots are ruined. No, I need shallow DOF with the only lens that
I'm willing to carry and keep on my camera all day. I'm actually that poor
at this "photography" stuff. I really don't have one clue about how optics
and well done compositions are related. I'm just so overwhelmed and proud
of how blurry I can make everything! That's the sign of a good camera. The
only kind worth having and paying a small fortune for. REAL PROs even go on
and on about how the blurry parts of their photos are better and more
important than the in-focus parts. They even came up with a name for it,
calling it "bokeh" today, because it's more important than what's actually
in focus in any of their photos. That's the sign of a REAL PRO. Umm ...
isn't it? You know, the same PROs that go on and on about how much detail
is in some other image, because the whole image itself isn't worth talking
about nor worth looking at. You know. Those kind of "PRO"s.

RAW = Yeah? So what if the JPG output from my expensive camera sucks
big-time. So what if I don't know how to set exposure or white-balance
properly. I can shoot any image any way I want and then spend hours trying
to recover something, well, maybe something, from my superior RAW data. So
there! That's why I'm a better photographer than you'll ever be! Even
though all digital cameras made today have more dynamic range than most any
film of the past. Even 1/2.5 size sensors can have 10 stops of dynamic
range, film only 7 stops. So what if those films provided proper exposures
and dynamic range for all photographers for a century because they knew how
to expose them properly in the first place. This doesn't mean that I don't
need more dynamic range. Remember, I don't know how to expose the image
correctly in the first place. I've become dependent on my camera's point
and shoot "Evaluative Metering" system. It's doing it all correctly for me.
Right? Isn't it? OH well. If not, I have RAW to try to recover from my
camera automatically under-exposing or over-exposing all my shots by 3 or
more stops. So there.

Highest Resolution = I never capture any images with any content worth
seeing, but look how sharp and clear it is! Well, the small parts that I
can view at any one time on my much smaller resolution monitor. So what if
it's been proven that even 3 megapixels can rival the best 35mm film. So
what if no publication on earth ever prints photos larger than the pages in
it. So what if no web page shows the "large size" selection over 1024
pixels wide or high. So what if I do have the full resolution original
image and I can never view it on any monitor that exists on earth at full
view at 1:1 resolution. So what if that award-winning image can be fully
appreciated in just 640x480 pixels on my monitor because the content is so
striking and the original resolution really means nothing. I can even make
poster-size prints of my snapshots that nobody else ever wants to look at!
Besides, the most important use of all -- if really lucky I can crop out
something interesting from my snapshot that royally-sucked when I first
shot it. I'm that bad at photography that I don't know how to compose a
good shot worth viewing or printing in the first place. All that useless
and unnecessary resolution in my hands is what makes me a PRO! You're not a
PRO unless you choose the same camera as I have! No PRO would ever use
anything less. I read all about that on the internet so it must be true.
Right?

_________________________________________


The list goes on and on. All you have to do is stop to realize why they
NEED those camera features. Each and every time it points directly to them
being nothing but a talentless-hack, point and shoot, snapshooter; or total
gear-head, not even a lowly snapshooter; crippled and dependent on their
automated point and shoot cameras.





  #37  
Old June 26th 09, 01:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
whisky-dave
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 559
Default How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers (was: Reason for so many focus errors we see today?)


"Truer Dat" wrote in message
...


The top #1 reason for so many focusing errors:

Idiots who have become dependent on automated focusing systems. Especially
those snapshooters who are so stupid as to justify their common user-error
by blaming it on materials, focusing systems, or camera designs.


I guess that's true but I wonder if such people[1] even consider checking
that
the camera is focusing on the image they want. I doubt it as when a person
has brought an auot focus camera they expect it to focus automatically.




Do you honestly think that any automatic focusing system in the world is
ever going to be smart enough to figure out if you want the leading edge
of
that small-butterfly's wing, the antennae, or the further wing edges in
precise focus?


Yes in a manor of speaking. The new Apple iPhone, when used as a camera
you touch the screen to select what you want the camera to focus on.
In the near future I expect camera will use this technology in that they'll
store
a picture(s) with varying points of focus a bit like auto-bracking for
exposure
but with focus, you'll then have the option to tape on teh LCD where you
want the
best focus point and teh camera will select that stored image deleteing the
others all done on-the-fly.


There's only so much that any auto-anything system will ever be able to
do.

I think they will do much more, not that it's really needed by those that
know
what they are doing, but that;s not a good marketing ploy is it.
You supply/offer what people want rather than what they actually need.
Stagnate and die.

This is why you have Snapshooters and Photographers. No photographer worth
his salt will ever depend on any automated focusing system.


They will start to depend on it as they have done with internal exposure
meters.
I remember the days when pros and even amateurs didn't 'depend' on the new
fangled
TTL metering systems.


Nor do they
ever expect that some point and shoot feature in any camera, all DSLRs
included, should be expected to do the work correctly for them. They know
better. Do you ever wholly depend on your camera's automatic metering
system too?


I think most people do and will use that meter reading as a starting point
at the very least.

That makes you a point and shoot Snapshooter, whether you use a
P&S camera or DSLR. Every real photographer on earth knows that the camera
will never be able to select the proper exposure for them. That's why they
like cameras with a handy EV compensation dial or toggle,


The EV compensation does rely on an intial reading.

always at the
ready. The camera might get you in the ballpark for focusing and exposure
settings but then you have to take it from there. That's what real
photographers always do.


And always will, years ago is it was cloudy, sunny or overcast you'd select
an
exposure to suit if you were out a little you'd correct it in the darkroom.


That's what snapshooters won't ever comprehend.
Instead they would rather loudly proclaim the meager benefits of RAW to
try
to recover their badly exposed and color-shifted shots, because they're
nothing but snapshooters in the first place.

People reveal much about their total lack of talent by what they find most
important in their cameras.


Like whether they are Nikon or Canon or Olympus etc....
Or even what shoes they wear, as comfortable shoes are important if you're
taking
photos, bad footwear is painful and may lead you to taking shaky photos.


[1] those that just buy a camera without really understanding the specs.


  #38  
Old June 26th 09, 03:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Ron Hunter
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,064
Default How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers

ASAAR wrote:
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 03:22:36 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

Intentionally incompetent trimming just makes you look silly.
You've made quite a number of one or two line replies after quoting
hundreds of lines in past posts. Usually only a couple of lines or
a paragraph needed quoting. We both know full well that the bulk of
your quoted lines have not been necessary. To supply newsgroup
newcomers with all of the missing context they'd need (according to
your logic) you'd have to quote the entire previous thread. You're
just stubborn, Ron. But that's not so uncommon in these parts, and
I may have a touch of it myself.

BTW, although I'm not familiar with your newsreader (Thunderbird),
I'll bet that I could use TB and usually do all of the selective
quoting and trimming in a couple of seconds. Anyone with your
computer experience could also do that. As they say, where there's
a will there's a way.


The loss of context is annoying, to me, at least. Threading back
through previous posts is quite time consuming, while skipping to the
end of a post is quite easy, at least with my newsreader.


You're so obtuse at times, Ron. I never said or implied that any
useful context should be trimmed. You also completely missed the
point about quoting entire threads. You've never been so out of
touch as to do that (nor have I ever seen anyone else do that in
newsgroups) so what put into your head the idea of reading back
through previous messages in a thread? The point was simply that
you often quote *much* more material than is necessary to provide
sufficient context for your replies, and if you feel that there's a
need to quote even the unnecessary bits, why not take it to an even
more absurd extreme and provide the supposed context provided by
earlier replies in the thread. You show that you're trying only to
find some way to justify your egregious quoting without taking an
extra second or two to understand what you're replying to.



I admit that I sometimes miss the point of a post, but then that means
that should I snip, I might make the situation even more confused. My
main concern about snipping is that aside from the issue of time, it
often leads to confusion, or even unintentional (I hope) changing of the
meaning of a post.


Perhaps the
real issue is that you want me to make life easy for you, at my expense.


Yes, just as you're expected to stop your car at red lights, even
though it's at your expense (time and wasted gas). You think that
you're making a logical argument, but it's completely unreasonable,
unless perhaps you have some anarchist genes, and have no truck with
the Golden Rule.



I don't complain about other's lack of snipping... So that doesn't apply.

Could I trim as you indicate? Sure, but then I would spend several
times as much time each day in newsgroups as I currently do.


That's nonsense, but after repeating it for many years you may
even believe it by now.



It's a fact. I spend very little time quoting, and replying, but would
have to spend several times as long editing and snipping. Sure,
snipping with a hatchet would be easy, but would likely lose the whole
meaning sometimes.


I have reached an age where I am very aware of the ticking of the clock,
and I would rather have my pleasure than spend my seconds of life
editing newsgroup posts. If you don't like that attitude, by all means
add me to your 'twit list'.


I don't generally use twit lists even though I recognize twits
when I see them.



I have a few entries in my filters that are specifically for
individuals, rather for the spam mongers, but very few as I have a
pretty thick skin.


Life is way too short to waste doing something you don't need to
do, and which gives you no pleasure.


Then why have you been posting so many defensive replies in this
thread? Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? You've
used that "ticking of the clock" argument for at least 5 years and
you're still here. It'll probably be many more years before the
grim reaper trims your wide butt. Then we'll expect to see "But
most of all, I did it *my* way" engraved on your tombstone.


Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? DARN RIGHT!
If I have been using that ticking clock for 5 years, that means I have 5
years less left than when I started it, for certain.
It's summer, and I am not working (substitute teacher for fun and
profit), so maybe I will invest a few minutes snipping, but don't bet
the rent on it.
  #39  
Old June 26th 09, 03:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Kennedy McEwen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 639
Default How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers

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!
--
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)
  #40  
Old June 26th 09, 05:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default How To Detect Snapshooters from Photographers

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:05:38 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

Life is way too short to waste doing something you don't need to
do, and which gives you no pleasure.


Then why have you been posting so many defensive replies in this
thread? Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? You've
used that "ticking of the clock" argument for at least 5 years and
you're still here. It'll probably be many more years before the
grim reaper trims your wide butt. Then we'll expect to see "But
most of all, I did it *my* way" engraved on your tombstone.



Is writing them more pleasurable than trimming? DARN RIGHT!
If I have been using that ticking clock for 5 years, that means I have 5
years less left than when I started it, for certain.
It's summer, and I am not working (substitute teacher for fun and
profit), so maybe I will invest a few minutes snipping, but don't bet
the rent on it.


Ok, fair enough, and this reply of yours was even nicely formed,
with interspersed counterpoints following points. It's a good thing
I didn't hit a key to jump to the bottom of your reply or I would
have missed much of what you had to say.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.