Nikon d710?

In article 2014081911124674942-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 16:46:52 +0000, android said:

In article 2014081909402553602-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 16:34:47 +0000, android said:

In article 2014081909255735642-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 15:58:45 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 16:50:36 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-19 14:40:49 +0000, Whisky-dave
said:
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 14:27:19 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,

Le Snip


""Future UK" has been floated as an idea by John Lanchester in the
London Review of Books and "Former UK" by the Spectator columnist
Charles Moore. Snappier perhaps, but as both writers have pointed
out,
the abbreviation - fUK - is somewhat unfortunate. "

Trouble is you couldn't use the word future if scotland left because
it
will no longer be the future. New UK would be better, if they
decidedit
needed changing.

...and then there will be the redesign of the Union Jack. No more blue
in that red, white, & blue flag.

Not neccessarily .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017

"Andrew Rosindell, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on
Flags
an
d Heraldry, agrees that the matter is unclear. "There is no official
legal
protocol on flags, to the extent that you can't even say that the union
jac
k is the flag of the United Kingdom."

Not sure I really care as long as I don;t have to draw one, which I did
whe
n at school.

Just remove the blue from the current flag,

The second cross would still be reminiscence of the union with Scotland.
It would appear as the English throne were trying to claim supremacy
over another nation.

Nope! There are three nations involved, England, Ireland, & Scotland.
Therefore three flags, the primary Red cross on white field of St.
George, the white saltire (diagonal cross) on blue fild of St. Andrew,
& the red saltire on white field of St. Patrick. So all that has to be
removed is any blue.

Any Irish part should be removed as well. That would be long overdue.
Ireland did not volunteer to become subjects to the English king.

Well, if you include Northern Ireland it should look something like this:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/New-UJ-1.jpg

That flag belong to Ireland. If they chose to use it.

...and if you dump St Patrick we are back to the pre-King James St. George.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/StG.jpg

That would be what now is called the flag of England.

...or if we consider Wales which never was part of the Union Jack, we
could add the yellow cross of St. David on its black field to get to
this:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/New-UJ2.jpg

That would be the Ulster flag.

Give it a rest, stay out west...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

In article 2014081911124674942-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 16:46:52 +0000, android said:

In article 2014081909402553602-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 16:34:47 +0000, android said:

In article 2014081909255735642-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 15:58:45 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 16:50:36 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-19 14:40:49 +0000, Whisky-dave
said:
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 14:27:19 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,

Le Snip


""Future UK" has been floated as an idea by John Lanchester in the
London Review of Books and "Former UK" by the Spectator columnist
Charles Moore. Snappier perhaps, but as both writers have pointed
out,
the abbreviation - fUK - is somewhat unfortunate. "

Trouble is you couldn't use the word future if scotland left because
it
will no longer be the future. New UK would be better, if they
decidedit
needed changing.

...and then there will be the redesign of the Union Jack. No more blue
in that red, white, & blue flag.

Not neccessarily .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017

"Andrew Rosindell, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on
Flags
an
d Heraldry, agrees that the matter is unclear. "There is no official
legal
protocol on flags, to the extent that you can't even say that the union
jac
k is the flag of the United Kingdom."

Not sure I really care as long as I don;t have to draw one, which I did
whe
n at school.

Just remove the blue from the current flag,

The second cross would still be reminiscence of the union with Scotland.
It would appear as the English throne were trying to claim supremacy
over another nation.

Nope! There are three nations involved, England, Ireland, & Scotland.
Therefore three flags, the primary Red cross on white field of St.
George, the white saltire (diagonal cross) on blue fild of St. Andrew,
& the red saltire on white field of St. Patrick. So all that has to be
removed is any blue.

Any Irish part should be removed as well. That would be long overdue.
Ireland did not volunteer to become subjects to the English king.

Well, if you include Northern Ireland it should look something like this:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/New-UJ-1.jpg

That flag belong to Ireland. If they chose to use it.

...and if you dump St Patrick we are back to the pre-King James St. George.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/StG.jpg

That would be what now is called the flag of England.

...or if we consider Wales which never was part of the Union Jack, we
could add the yellow cross of St. David on its black field to get to
this:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/New-UJ2.jpg

That would be the Ulster flag. On black.

Give it a rest, stay out west...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

On 2014-08-19 18:36:15 +0000, android said:

In article 2014081911124674942-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 16:46:52 +0000, android said:

In article 2014081909402553602-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 16:34:47 +0000, android said:

In article 2014081909255735642-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 15:58:45 +0000, Whisky-dave said:

On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 16:50:36 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-19 14:40:49 +0000, Whisky-dave
said:
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 14:27:19 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article ,

Le Snip


""Future UK" has been floated as an idea by John Lanchester in the
London Review of Books and "Former UK" by the Spectator columnist
Charles Moore. Snappier perhaps, but as both writers have pointed
out,
the abbreviation - fUK - is somewhat unfortunate. "

Trouble is you couldn't use the word future if scotland left because
it
will no longer be the future. New UK would be better, if they
decidedit
needed changing.

...and then there will be the redesign of the Union Jack. No more blue
in that red, white, & blue flag.

Not neccessarily .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017

"Andrew Rosindell, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on
Flags
an
d Heraldry, agrees that the matter is unclear. "There is no official
legal
protocol on flags, to the extent that you can't even say that the union
jac
k is the flag of the United Kingdom."

Not sure I really care as long as I don;t have to draw one, which I did
whe
n at school.

Just remove the blue from the current flag,

The second cross would still be reminiscence of the union with Scotland.
It would appear as the English throne were trying to claim supremacy
over another nation.

Nope! There are three nations involved, England, Ireland, & Scotland.
Therefore three flags, the primary Red cross on white field of St.
George, the white saltire (diagonal cross) on blue fild of St. Andrew,
& the red saltire on white field of St. Patrick. So all that has to be
removed is any blue.

Any Irish part should be removed as well. That would be long overdue.
Ireland did not volunteer to become subjects to the English king.

Well, if you include Northern Ireland it should look something like this:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/New-UJ-1.jpg

That flag belong to Ireland. If they chose to use it.

...and if you dump St Patrick we are back to the pre-King James St. George.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/StG.jpg

That would be what now is called the flag of England.

...or if we consider Wales which never was part of the Union Jack, we
could add the yellow cross of St. David on its black field to get to
this:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/New-UJ2.jpg

That would be the Ulster flag.

Ulster? The patron saint of Ulster is St. David?
I always believed St. David to be associated with Wales.

Give it a rest, stay out west...

It is all a part of my heritage, my mother was born in Battersea, and
my wife in Cheltenham.

....and my father, born in Georgia, tells me the US side of the family
comes from a long line of English chicken thieves and made it over here
sometime in the 1600's.

Just one more, swap the black field for white:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/New-UJ3.jpg


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article 2014081911475052487-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 18:36:15 +0000, android said:

In article 2014081911124674942-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 16:46:52 +0000, android said:

In article 2014081909402553602-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 16:34:47 +0000, android said:

In article 2014081909255735642-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-08-19 15:58:45 +0000, Whisky-dave
said:

On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 16:50:36 UTC+1, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-08-19 14:40:49 +0000, Whisky-dave
said:
On Tuesday, 19 August 2014 14:27:19 UTC+1, android wrote:
In article
,

Le Snip


""Future UK" has been floated as an idea by John Lanchester in the
London Review of Books and "Former UK" by the Spectator columnist
Charles Moore. Snappier perhaps, but as both writers have pointed
out,
the abbreviation - fUK - is somewhat unfortunate. "

Trouble is you couldn't use the word future if scotland left
because
it
will no longer be the future. New UK would be better, if they
decidedit
needed changing.

...and then there will be the redesign of the Union Jack. No more
blue
in that red, white, & blue flag.

Not neccessarily .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25205017

"Andrew Rosindell, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group on
Flags
an
d Heraldry, agrees that the matter is unclear. "There is no official
legal
protocol on flags, to the extent that you can't even say that the
union
jac
k is the flag of the United Kingdom."

Not sure I really care as long as I don;t have to draw one, which I
did
whe
n at school.

Just remove the blue from the current flag,

The second cross would still be reminiscence of the union with
Scotland.
It would appear as the English throne were trying to claim supremacy
over another nation.

Nope! There are three nations involved, England, Ireland, & Scotland.
Therefore three flags, the primary Red cross on white field of St.
George, the white saltire (diagonal cross) on blue fild of St. Andrew,
& the red saltire on white field of St. Patrick. So all that has to be
removed is any blue.

Any Irish part should be removed as well. That would be long overdue.
Ireland did not volunteer to become subjects to the English king.

Well, if you include Northern Ireland it should look something like this:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/New-UJ-1.jpg

That flag belong to Ireland. If they chose to use it.

...and if you dump St Patrick we are back to the pre-King James St.
George.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/StG.jpg

That would be what now is called the flag of England.

...or if we consider Wales which never was part of the Union Jack, we
could add the yellow cross of St. David on its black field to get to
this:
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/New-UJ2.jpg

That would be the Ulster flag.

Ulster? The patron saint of Ulster is St. David?
I always believed St. David to be associated with Wales.

http://tinyurl.com/p8o2nxo

Give it a rest, stay out west...
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 8/19/2014 9:04 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...

snip


More importantly, I was going to text you this evening. We had dinner at
the Cooperage Inn, and were thinking of Snowflake. My wife is not
allowed
sugar or anything dairy, and I really didn't need it.

We had a cute young waitress. I asked for a female lobster and she made
the mistake of asking how you tell the difference. I told her she was
old
enough to know the difference between a male and a female. Wow! did she
ever blush.

My wife and I like the Cooperage Inn, it's a nice place. And I do like
lobster, it's the only seafood I eat. Topping it off with a visit to
Snowflakes makes for a great night.


The Coop is our go to place when Tanger Mall is on the itenerary. But, as
I said before Snowflake omes in third behind McNulty's and Magic Fountain.
Bsck to photography, there is still two osprey in the nest just before
East Marion, on the South side of the road, across from the DEC boat
ramp.

I've seen the osprey there. Right before you get to the nest, there is a
side road on your right. Years ago, I took a turn down there one day and
found a huge snapping turtle in the middle of the road

http://www.pete-the-greek.com/Animal...IMG06058-L.jpg

http://www.pete-the-greek.com/Animal...IMG06051-L.jpg

The next time you're at the Tanger Mall, stop into the Movado store and ask
for Judah, that's my younger son. He works there, he's finishing up at Suny
Stony Brook and still waiting to be called into the NYPD.

On 8/19/2014 3:09 PM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...
On 8/19/2014 9:04 AM, PAS wrote:
"PeterN" wrote in message
...

snip


More importantly, I was going to text you this evening. We had dinner at
the Cooperage Inn, and were thinking of Snowflake. My wife is not
allowed
sugar or anything dairy, and I really didn't need it.

We had a cute young waitress. I asked for a female lobster and she made
the mistake of asking how you tell the difference. I told her she was
old
enough to know the difference between a male and a female. Wow! did she
ever blush.

My wife and I like the Cooperage Inn, it's a nice place. And I do like
lobster, it's the only seafood I eat. Topping it off with a visit to
Snowflakes makes for a great night.


The Coop is our go to place when Tanger Mall is on the itenerary. But, as
I said before Snowflake omes in third behind McNulty's and Magic Fountain.
Bsck to photography, there is still two osprey in the nest just before
East Marion, on the South side of the road, across from the DEC boat
ramp.

I've seen the osprey there. Right before you get to the nest, there is a
side road on your right. Years ago, I took a turn down there one day and
found a huge snapping turtle in the middle of the road

http://www.pete-the-greek.com/Animal...IMG06058-L.jpg

http://www.pete-the-greek.com/Animal...IMG06051-L.jpg

Those guys can be really mean, and they can reach a lot further than you
might expect.


The next time you're at the Tanger Mall, stop into the Movado store and ask
for Judah, that's my younger son. He works there, he's finishing up at Suny
Stony Brook and still waiting to be called into the NYPD.


I stay away from that store. My wife has enough Movado watches and I
have two Movados, plus two cheap titanium Skagens. I can only wear
watches that have either surgical steel, or titanium bands. I don't know
about you, but I would rather have a new lens than another watch. I am
waiting to see if the Tamron 150-600 lives up to its hype.



--
PeterN

In article 2014081820183346753-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-08-19 02:43:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/18/2014 8:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

You brought this particular Leica into this war zone, and initiated
another sub-thread skirmish. So it is your problem. What specifically
was it you pal liked about this Leica that he felt compelled to spend a
stupid amount of extra $$$.


That is his issue. When my wife wants a new refridgerater even though
our current one is fine, I really don't care. It makes her happy. No
reason to question a friend on how he spends his money.

However, there is no harm in asking; "Why on Earth woul you have paid ±
$700 for that Leica, when you could have got the same camera, with the
same specifications in the Panasonic for $300 less?"

He will not starve.

So what? It is a pretentious buy. If he had bought a pure Leica such as
the "X Vario", or even spring for an "M", I would be less critical.
Since he obviously has the financial resources to do so.
http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-X/Leica-X-Vario
http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-E

I don't know whether I would make that choice.

My bank balance and my pension have already made that choice for me.
Gadget envy not withstanding, I await a lottery win.

BTW I think the Panasonic is a fine camera.

It remains identical in specification and function to the Leica, ...or
is it the other way around?

People who buy the Leicasonics are like people who bought Cadillac
Cimarrons (a rebadged Chevy Cavalier with some different trim) and
deluded themselves that they were buying Cadillacs.

It's a smart move by Leica--the Leicasonics are good equipment and
getting more than double the price just by changing a few stickers is
brilliant marketing, but it shows just how gullible the status-conscious
can be.

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:46:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 2014081820183346753-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-08-19 02:43:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/18/2014 8:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

You brought this particular Leica into this war zone, and initiated
another sub-thread skirmish. So it is your problem. What specifically
was it you pal liked about this Leica that he felt compelled to spend a
stupid amount of extra $$$.


That is his issue. When my wife wants a new refridgerater even though
our current one is fine, I really don't care. It makes her happy. No
reason to question a friend on how he spends his money.

However, there is no harm in asking; "Why on Earth woul you have paid ±
$700 for that Leica, when you could have got the same camera, with the
same specifications in the Panasonic for $300 less?"

He will not starve.

So what? It is a pretentious buy. If he had bought a pure Leica such as
the "X Vario", or even spring for an "M", I would be less critical.
Since he obviously has the financial resources to do so.
http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-X/Leica-X-Vario
http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-E

I don't know whether I would make that choice.

My bank balance and my pension have already made that choice for me.
Gadget envy not withstanding, I await a lottery win.

BTW I think the Panasonic is a fine camera.

It remains identical in specification and function to the Leica, ...or
is it the other way around?

People who buy the Leicasonics are like people who bought Cadillac
Cimarrons (a rebadged Chevy Cavalier with some different trim) and
deluded themselves that they were buying Cadillacs.

It's a smart move by Leica--the Leicasonics are good equipment and
getting more than double the price just by changing a few stickers is
brilliant marketing, but it shows just how gullible the status-conscious
can be.

I would still like to know what, if anything, is different about their
firmware.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:46:55 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article 2014081820183346753-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
says...

On 2014-08-19 02:43:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 8/18/2014 8:08 PM, Savageduck wrote:

snip

You brought this particular Leica into this war zone, and initiated
another sub-thread skirmish. So it is your problem. What specifically
was it you pal liked about this Leica that he felt compelled to spend a
stupid amount of extra $$$.


That is his issue. When my wife wants a new refridgerater even though
our current one is fine, I really don't care. It makes her happy. No
reason to question a friend on how he spends his money.

However, there is no harm in asking; "Why on Earth woul you have paid ±
$700 for that Leica, when you could have got the same camera, with the
same specifications in the Panasonic for $300 less?"

He will not starve.

So what? It is a pretentious buy. If he had bought a pure Leica such as
the "X Vario", or even spring for an "M", I would be less critical.
Since he obviously has the financial resources to do so.
http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-X/Leica-X-Vario
http://us.leica-camera.com/Photography/Leica-M/Leica-M-E

I don't know whether I would make that choice.

My bank balance and my pension have already made that choice for me.
Gadget envy not withstanding, I await a lottery win.

BTW I think the Panasonic is a fine camera.

It remains identical in specification and function to the Leica, ...or
is it the other way around?

People who buy the Leicasonics are like people who bought Cadillac
Cimarrons (a rebadged Chevy Cavalier with some different trim) and
deluded themselves that they were buying Cadillacs.

It's a smart move by Leica--the Leicasonics are good equipment and
getting more than double the price just by changing a few stickers is
brilliant marketing, but it shows just how gullible the status-conscious
can be.

I would still like to know what, if anything, is different about their
firmware.

Ain't there anyone out there that got both???
--
teleportation kills
http://tinyurl.com/androidphotography

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 05:59:37 +0200, android wrote:

It's a smart move by Leica--the Leicasonics are good equipment and
getting more than double the price just by changing a few stickers is
brilliant marketing, but it shows just how gullible the status-conscious
can be.

I would still like to know what, if anything, is different about their
firmware.

Ain't there anyone out there that got both???

dpreview?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens