The transformation of photojournalism

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:10:19 +0100, Bruce wrote:

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:45:19 -0500, Catch Up
wrote:
I'm never embarrassed by my typos. That's for people who are insecure. At
130wpm a few are bound to creep in


It wasn't a typo.

Through ignorance, you used the wrong word.

No, moron. I also play bass-guitar and 12-string guitar (as well as five
other instruments fluently). I'm perfectly capable of knowing that "bass"
refers to the musical instrument homophone of "base". Something that you
don't realize, because you do not type at 130wpm, is that the muscle-memory
in my arms and hands will try to preselect what word my mind is trying to
send to them so they can get on with the rest of the sentence that's
needing to be typed. I will usually always spell a word correctly, but at
those typing speeds the typo usually comes out as a wrong word spelled
correctly, sometimes even in the wrong position in a sentence. Just as a
simpler typist might transpose two letters in a word, instead I might
transpose two whole words. Examples: I might want to type, "The rain in
Spain falls mainly on the plain." But it might come out as, "The reign in
Spain falls mainly on the plane." Or it might even come out even worse as,
"The rain in fall Pains manually on the plain," for an example that would
display all three categories of 130wpm typos. I suspect the rare times that
that third example of disastrous sentence has happened is when I am typing
well beyond 130wpm. My hands know the right spellings of words but they are
typing too fast to wait to see if there's a correction-check coming or not.
I will through (I just typed "through" but meant to type "throw") my text
through a spell-checker just once. If lucky, it mind (there I meant to type
"might" instead of "mind") find one wrongly spelled word, but it fails to
find all the words that my hands decided to use for me but still spelled
correctly. It can be most infuriating at times, as well as when trying to
explain this to a remedial hunt & peck typist who is only concerned with
spelling the right word. 130+wpm is challenging the very limits of human
nervous system response times. It is fraught with its own new discrepancies
when you type that fast. When you can type almost as fast as you think come
back and tell me how you got around this nervous-system speed-barrier.

But then again, your kind can probably only think of words even slower than
you type them.

Now go find something else to troll about to fulfill your desperate need
for attention.

Catch Up wrote:


It can be most infuriating at times, as well as when trying to
explain this to a remedial hunt & peck typist who is only concerned with
spelling the right word. 130+wpm is challenging the very limits of human
nervous system response times. It is fraught with its own new discrepancies
when you type that fast. When you can type almost as fast as you think come
back and tell me how you got around this nervous-system speed-barrier.

But then again, your kind can probably only think of words even slower than
you type them.

Whatever.

How 'bout augmenting the light-speed typing with a moment or two of
proof reading?

--
lsmft

On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 07:18:41 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

Catch Up wrote:


It can be most infuriating at times, as well as when trying to
explain this to a remedial hunt & peck typist who is only concerned with
spelling the right word. 130+wpm is challenging the very limits of human
nervous system response times. It is fraught with its own new discrepancies
when you type that fast. When you can type almost as fast as you think come
back and tell me how you got around this nervous-system speed-barrier.

But then again, your kind can probably only think of words even slower than
you type them.

Whatever.

How 'bout augmenting the light-speed typing with a moment or two of
proof reading?

What for? I've got useless trolls like you to do that for me, for free yet.
GET TO WORK, FOOL!

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:
Catch Up wrote:


It can be most infuriating at times, as well as when trying to
explain this to a remedial hunt & peck typist who is only concerned with
spelling the right word. 130+wpm is challenging the very limits of human
nervous system response times. It is fraught with its own new discrepancies
when you type that fast. When you can type almost as fast as you think come
back and tell me how you got around this nervous-system speed-barrier.

But then again, your kind can probably only think of words even slower than
you type them.

Whatever.

How 'bout augmenting the light-speed typing with a moment or two of
proof reading?

The importance a writer gives to something they write is easily gauged
by the care they take in writing it. It's a waste of time paying more
attention reading something than the author took in writing it.

--
Chris Malcolm

On 13 Aug 2009 15:34:17 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:
Catch Up wrote:


It can be most infuriating at times, as well as when trying to
explain this to a remedial hunt & peck typist who is only concerned with
spelling the right word. 130+wpm is challenging the very limits of human
nervous system response times. It is fraught with its own new discrepancies
when you type that fast. When you can type almost as fast as you think come
back and tell me how you got around this nervous-system speed-barrier.

But then again, your kind can probably only think of words even slower than
you type them.

Whatever.

How 'bout augmenting the light-speed typing with a moment or two of
proof reading?

The importance a writer gives to something they write is easily gauged
by the care they take in writing it. It's a waste of time paying more
attention reading something than the author took in writing it.

Wow. Major Moron is slightly catching on. I've said many times, I type for
me, never for anyone else. It's about time that you figured out even that
much after it's already been told to you. Duh! Go find a life more
interesting than my own. Try as much as possible but you'll never do it.
It'll at least be a start in the right direction for once in your sad and
miserable lifetime career as a mommy's-basement usenet troll.

In article ,
says...

[...] I've said many times, I type for
me, never for anyone else.

This wonderful medium, whereby so much information and opinion has been
offered and accepted by so many, and your best usage of it is to talk to
yourself. How irksome it must be to have so many trolls, ****wits and
retards trying to but into your monologues.


[...]

It'll at least be a start in the right direction for once in your sad and
miserable lifetime career as a mommy's-basement usenet troll.



Please be aware however, that as much as you would like to keep your
conservations with yourself private, others can, and will, read what you
have to say about yourself.

--
Alan LeHun

Chris Malcolm wrote:
John McWilliams wrote:
Catch Up wrote:

It can be most infuriating at times, as well as when trying to
explain this to a remedial hunt & peck typist who is only concerned with
spelling the right word. 130+wpm is challenging the very limits of human
nervous system response times. It is fraught with its own new discrepancies
when you type that fast. When you can type almost as fast as you think come
back and tell me how you got around this nervous-system speed-barrier.

But then again, your kind can probably only think of words even slower than
you type them.

Whatever.

How 'bout augmenting the light-speed typing with a moment or two of
proof reading?

The importance a writer gives to something they write is easily gauged
by the care they take in writing it.

Trite nonsense. Ideas count more than do the words to convey them.
People whine about words when they cannot understand ideas.

--
Ray Fischer

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 02:26:37 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

Catch Up wrote:
On 13 Aug 2009 15:34:17 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:
Catch Up wrote:

It can be most infuriating at times, as well as when trying to
explain this to a remedial hunt & peck typist who is only concerned with
spelling the right word. 130+wpm is challenging the very limits of human
nervous system response times. It is fraught with its own new discrepancies
when you type that fast. When you can type almost as fast as you think come
back and tell me how you got around this nervous-system speed-barrier.

But then again, your kind can probably only think of words even slower than
you type them.
Whatever.
How 'bout augmenting the light-speed typing with a moment or two of
proof reading?
The importance a writer gives to something they write is easily gauged
by the care they take in writing it. It's a waste of time paying more
attention reading something than the author took in writing it.

Wow. Major Moron is slightly catching on. I've said many times, I type for
me, never for anyone else. It's about time that you figured out even that
much after it's already been told to you. Duh! Go find a life more
interesting than my own. Try as much as possible but you'll never do it.
It'll at least be a start in the right direction for once in your sad and
miserable lifetime career as a mommy's-basement usenet troll.

Buh bye, troll!

About time you learned to use your filters, like you said you did about a
month ago, but never did learn.

In article ,
says...
The importance a writer gives to something they write is easily gauged
by the care they take in writing it.

Trite nonsense. Ideas count more than do the words to convey them.
People whine about words when they cannot understand ideas.


It's not the ideas that are being questioned, but the writers own
valuation of them.

I tend to agree with your point, however, its validity is as appropriate
to photography as it is to literacy and I do wish the pixel peepers in
here would agree with it a bit more too.

--
Alan LeHun

Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
The importance a writer gives to something they write is easily gauged
by the care they take in writing it.

Trite nonsense. Ideas count more than do the words to convey them.
People whine about words when they cannot understand ideas.

It's not the ideas that are being questioned,

That's the problem.

but the writers own
valuation of them.

Mind reading is just another way of ignoring ideas.

I tend to agree with your point, however, its validity is as appropriate
to photography as it is to literacy and I do wish the pixel peepers in
here would agree with it a bit more too.

--
Ray Fischer