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 SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

P&S Teleconverters



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 5th 08, 05:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default P&S Teleconverters

Toby wrote:
My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I do
demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would be a
simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his claims. His
consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he is so frightened
of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a simple matter to
heavily edit the files in a way that would make them unsuitable for use. He
could easily overlay a thick grid, through which the frame could still be
seen.

He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues, who
gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.


That's why most have ceased replying to him.

Please put your replies following what you respond to.

--
john mcwilliams

  #22  
Old November 5th 08, 08:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Toby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default P&S Teleconverters


"John McWilliams" wrote in message
. ..
Toby wrote:
My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I
do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would
be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his
claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he
is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a
simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them
unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which
the frame could still be seen.

He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues,
who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.


That's why most have ceased replying to him.

Please put your replies following what you respond to.

--
john mcwilliams


Yes, I will stop replying as well.

Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people
consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes
prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when
reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very
long).

There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
this time at the bottom.

Toby



  #23  
Old November 5th 08, 10:35 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default P&S Teleconverters

On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" wrote:


"John McWilliams" wrote in message
...
Toby wrote:
My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I
do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would
be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his
claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he
is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a
simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them
unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which
the frame could still be seen.

He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues,
who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.


That's why most have ceased replying to him.

Please put your replies following what you respond to.

--
john mcwilliams


Yes, I will stop replying as well.

Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people
consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes
prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when
reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very
long).

There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
this time at the bottom.

Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the
problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple
scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but
the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at
the top and mark the fact that have done so with

--- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar.

This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads
becoming intolerably long.



Eric Stevens
  #24  
Old November 5th 08, 10:50 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
robert_manx
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default P&S Teleconverters



These off-topic control-freak comments (as are all your off-topic comments in
all threads) and the resulting replies that are coming from someone without a
spine, kneeling to your advice, are what is commonly referred to in
animal-behavior studies as "displacement activity".

Google and educate yourself.



On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" wrote:


"John McWilliams" wrote in message
m...
Toby wrote:
My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I
do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would
be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his
claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he
is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a
simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them
unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which
the frame could still be seen.

He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues,
who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.

That's why most have ceased replying to him.

Please put your replies following what you respond to.

--
john mcwilliams


Yes, I will stop replying as well.

Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people
consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes
prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when
reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very
long).

There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
this time at the bottom.

Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the
problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple
scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but
the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at
the top and mark the fact that have done so with

--- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar.

This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads
becoming intolerably long.



Eric Stevens

  #25  
Old November 5th 08, 01:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default P&S Teleconverters

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
this time at the bottom.


Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups.


Yes.


I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it
is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new
text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_
rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with


Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to
get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies
are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be
placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was
done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist.
Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it
will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses.


This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to
threads becoming intolerably long.


Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
trim the irrelevant text.

  #26  
Old November 5th 08, 03:10 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Toby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default P&S Teleconverters


"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place
it
this time at the bottom.


Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups.


Yes.


I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it
is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new
text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_
rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with


Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to
get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies
are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be
placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was
done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist.
Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it
will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses.


I agree that inline posting is always appropriate when the reply is specific
to particular parts of a message. And it is clear that top posting confuses
the hierarchy of messages in a long thread. But I still think that top
posting can be appropriate in many cases, especially if the reply does not
directly reference the earlier text.

I also recognize that generally this is not considered appropriate posting
etiquette on usenet.

This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to
threads becoming intolerably long.


Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
trim the irrelevant text.


OTOH I presently scroll past reams of text, vainly looking for replies, only
to find a three-word response buried a number of pages down. This is more
than annoying. In a perfect world text would be trimmed appropriately, but
given that that is never going to happen, I think that at times top posting
can be justified for speed and visibility, although I know that is not a
popular view here.

But things evolve according to the exigencies of the time, and just as we
are now dropping the 'm' from the objective case of 'who' and saying,
'that's the place I went' without collective gasps of horror, I think you
are fighting a rearguard action against top posting.

FWIW,

Toby


  #27  
Old November 5th 08, 04:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default P&S Teleconverters

Toby wrote:
"ASAAR" wrote in message


Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
trim the irrelevant text.


OTOH I presently scroll past reams of text, vainly looking for replies, only
to find a three-word response buried a number of pages down. This is more
than annoying. In a perfect world text would be trimmed appropriately, but
given that that is never going to happen, I think that at times top posting
can be justified for speed and visibility, although I know that is not a
popular view here.

But things evolve according to the exigencies of the time, and just as we
are now dropping the 'm' from the objective case of 'who' and saying,
'that's the place I went' without collective gasps of horror, I think you
are fighting a rearguard action against top posting.


Thanks, Toby for a reasoned and polite response; all too rare in 2008.

Yes, trimming is really the thing, and I try to do so in every post,
esp. if I'm contributing such gems as "Me, too!" or "OMG I am so LOL".

I try to think that if I spend one second deleting pages of garbage,
it'll save hundreds some fraction of a second in non-scrolling. Same
with watching where replies are going, but here some are just ignorant
of where they go; others don't care, and still others do so to be annoying.

There's also an add-on or two for OE, so that sig lines are auto-trimmed
if properly formatted, the old dash dash space return.

--
John McWilliams
  #28  
Old November 5th 08, 07:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
ASAAR
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,057
Default P&S Teleconverters

On 5 Nov 2008 08:10:01 -0600, Toby wrote:

But things evolve according to the exigencies of the time, and just as we
are now dropping the 'm' from the objective case of 'who' and saying,
'that's the place I went' without collective gasps of horror, I think you
are fighting a rearguard action against top posting.


Nope, I'm not fighting it at all. At most I criticize some who
provide elaborate but faulty justifications for top posting or as
you noted, appending a three word response below pages of quotes.
As for these types of replies, they never really bothered me, they
just lost a wee bit of respect for such posters. How do you feel
about the new (well, it's been going on for years) penchant for
people, in real life and in commercials to say things such as "That
was the funnest movie I've seen!" or "I had the funnest time."?
Even my spell checker balks at those two examples.

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." -- Baby Hughey

  #29  
Old November 5th 08, 10:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default P&S Teleconverters

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 03:50:39 -0600, robert_manx
wrote:



TOP POSTING CORRECTED



On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

On 5 Nov 2008 01:27:03 -0600, "Toby" wrote:


"John McWilliams" wrote in message
om...
Toby wrote:
My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I
do demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would
be a simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his
claims. His consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he
is so frightened of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a
simple matter to heavily edit the files in a way that would make them
unsuitable for use. He could easily overlay a thick grid, through which
the frame could still be seen.

He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues,
who gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.

That's why most have ceased replying to him.

Please put your replies following what you respond to.

--
john mcwilliams

Yes, I will stop replying as well.

Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people
consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes
prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when
reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very
long).

There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
this time at the bottom.

Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the
problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple
scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but
the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at
the top and mark the fact that have done so with

--- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar.

This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads
becoming intolerably long.


These off-topic control-freak comments (as are all your off-topic comments in
all threads) and the resulting replies that are coming from someone without a
spine, kneeling to your advice, are what is commonly referred to in
animal-behavior studies as "displacement activity".

Google and educate yourself.


It's not a question of being a control freak. Usenet is not email.
When you respond to a complex point in an article it makes sense to do
so after the point in question. That's why I'm responding to you after
your text and not before it. It makes it easier for other people to
follow the argument. Of course, if you don't want that ....



Eric Stevens
  #30  
Old November 5th 08, 10:34 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default P&S Teleconverters

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 07:54:53 -0500, ASAAR wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:

There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
this time at the bottom.


Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups.


Yes.


I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it
is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new
text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_
rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with


Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to
get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies
are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be
placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was
done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist.
Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it
will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses.


I agree entirely.


This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to
threads becoming intolerably long.


Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
trim the irrelevant text.


But then came Microsoft email which instructed people to top post.
This might be OK for short messages but Usenet is not email.



Eric Stevens
 




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 On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
P&S Teleconverters Eric Stevens Digital Photography 40 December 21st 08 12:04 AM
Teleconverters Fred Lebow Digital SLR Cameras 5 September 1st 06 01:47 PM
teleconverters Fred Lebow Digital ZLR Cameras 0 August 30th 06 07:04 PM
Teleconverters Paul J Gans Digital SLR Cameras 19 June 12th 06 12:57 PM
Teleconverters Paul J Gans Digital Photography 3 May 16th 06 03:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:47 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.