Call for mandates
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: 46.8 degrees photos are available for viewing
Next: Pack a Gun to Protect Valuables from Airline Theft or Loss?
From: Allen on 22 Feb 2010 20:08 On 2/22/2010 4:58 PM, Geoff G wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:11:23 -0600, Allen<allent(a)austin.rr.com> wrote: > >> On 2/21/2010 11:13 PM, John Turco wrote: >>> John McWilliams wrote: >>>> >>>> tony cooper wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:26:55 -0800, John McWilliams >>>>> <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Bruce wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 02 Feb 2010 18:44:53 -0500, Robert Coe<bob(a)1776.COM> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:02:26 +0000, Bruce<docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>> : I'm really being very gentle here, because the execrable SI is >>>>>>>> : actually a gross insult to capable photographers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You don't say. Can you actually cite any capable photographers who think >>>>>>>> they've been insulted? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is quite a long list of capable photographers who participated >>>>>>> in the early days of the SI. They left both the SI and the SI's >>>>>>> sponsoring newsgroup, never to return. >>>>>> All kinds of capable photogs have left NGs right and left, as well as >>>>>> canning usenet altogether. >>>>> >>>>> Some of which, undoubtedly, left due to a severe case of death. >>>> >>>> Yes, many of which were fatal! >>>> >>>> Not many replacements, either, so unless there's some event I cannot >>>> forsee, usenet will continue to dwindle. Until it, too, catches the >>>> death badly enough. >>>> >>>> Film at eleven. >>> >>> >>> Ron Hunter is this newsgroup's (news:rec.photo.digital) all-time leading >>> poster, with 15,003 articles. Alas, he seemingly abandoned r.p.d., during >>> July of 2009. >>> >>> As I recall, he mentioned the sudden death of his brother, at 77; I'd >>> guessed that his grief was too much to overcome. (Ron's own age is 64 >>> or so, as I believe he wrote publicly.) >>> >>> Nevertheless, Ron is still rather active within Usenet, itself. Boasting >>> a grand total amounting to 37,389 messages, he's been concentrating his >>> attention on "mozilla.support" groups, lately. >>> >>> Rod Hunter's current statistics (as of February 21, 2010): >>> >>> 420 groups >>> >>> All - 37,389 (Dec. 2001 - Feb. 2010) >>> >>> rec.photo.digital - 15,003 (Jan. 2002 - July 2009) >>> >>> Another familiar r.p.d. member ("ASAAR") has left Usenet altogether, >>> apparently. His final post was on August 22, 2009, in the "Battery >>> question" thread. >>> >>> ASAAR's past stats: >>> >>> 146 groups >>> >>> All - 11,128 (Dec 2004 - Aug. 2009) >>> >>> rec.photo.digital - 8,342 (Mar. 2005 - Aug. 2009) >>> >>> Sadly, there is one confirmed death. "Blinky the Shark" was a very >>> prodigious Usenet contributor, who died on January 31, 2009, at the >>> age of 61. >>> >>> My subsequent Google research revealed he'd begun complaining of >>> flu-like symptoms, within some of his closing articles. Eventually, >>> I'd gathered that a heart attack may have been the immediate cause >>> of his tragic demise. >>> >>> Blinky the Shark's real name was Lee Rizor (1947-2009). >>> >>> Blinky's final r�sum�: >>> >>> 341 groups >>> >>> All - 93,112 (June 2001 - Jan. 2009) >>> >>> rec.photo.digital - 595 (Oct. 2005; Nov. 2007; Jan. 2008 - Jan. 2009) >>> >> Hunter is an extremely valuable contributor to the Mozilla groups. >> Allen > > And why would someone like that, who sits at their computer with no > real-life experience in anything else but, not have the information needed > to run a browser all their life? > > Are you catching on to what "prolific poster" in any forum topic, one that > depends on experiences gained from being away from their computers, really > means yet? I've taken a two-year sabbatical from my lifetime of photography > expeditions, only to find out how inanely ignorant the "resident experts" > are on any forum that depends on experience beyond their keyboards. Now > easily discerning what ridiculous answers they can obtain from Google and > even believe. Passing off that absurd parroted misinformation again as > "truth" for years and years to come. They know no better, they can't, > they've never tested these things for themselves in the real world. > > They are always depending on the most popular and plausible but totally > wrong explanations on Google's first one or two pages of hits. Furthering > their ignorance and bolstering the most popular answer being the most > factual to the psychotics that think popularity of an answer somehow makes > it the truth. It only makes it a truth to those with lazy, ignorant, and > foolish minds who will accept the first answer that is slightly beyond > their comprehension but "sounds good!" Googling for answers armed with > inexperience only breeds their own ignorance. > > Camera manuals too are full of misinformation. All of them authored by > techno-geeks who most likely never even used the product other than to take > a few snapshots of the pencil-cup and paperclip holder on their desks. I > frequently fill up the blank "notes" pages in the back of my camera manuals > with many corrections. Should I ever give that camera to another some day. > So they won't be left as confused and inept as those who never even realize > their manuals are rife with errors. > > Even worse, these "prolific-posting experts" don't even know how to search > for the correct answers. You can't ask a proper valid question about > something with which you have zero experience in life. I learn so much more > about the level of comprehension someone has by the question they are > capable of asking than any statements they might ever make. Only from > real-life experience and testing things for yourself will you find out the > real truth, from which one can then formulate useful questions to further > their understanding. Armed with that experience, only then can you use > Google as any kind of effective search engine. But still the answers must > be cross-referenced and checked against your own findings. Even if 1000 > answers all claim the same thing from Google, your tests might reveal > something that all the rest forgot to consider, making all 1000 of their > answers in error. But "prolific-posting experts" realize none of this. How > can they? That's like asking someone with severe brain-damage to truthfully > answer the question, "Do you have brain damage?" They'll never know. > They'll defend their answers borne from ignorance to their death. > > "Prolific online poster" and "expert" are mutually exclusive. Unless that > topic is directly dealing with their keyboard and mouse. It's the only > thing with which they'll ever have any first-hand expertise in life. > > Post, post, post you expert role-playing fools. > > If nothing else, you are an interesting form of entertainment for those > with real-life experience who know more than you ever will. This is a bit > like Einstein sitting on the fence of a pig-sty and pondering why its > inhabitants are doing what they do. A frivolous distraction. Summarized > well, from of all places, the story of "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate > Factory". When Mr. Wonka states, "A little nonsense now and then is > relished by the wisest of men." One need only read these groups for a few > minutes to enjoy an overwhelming amount of nonsense posted by the most > prolific-posting, zero-life-experience, "experts" each day. > > > Then why do you read any ngs, Geoff, as the posters can have no useful information? Don't bother to answer, as I will no longer see your posts.
From: whisky-dave on 24 Feb 2010 08:24
"nate bishop" <nateb(a)spamfree.org> wrote in message news:01c4o5pl6al30c6e98gphldogtnrrq6jcm(a)4ax.com... > What a fine tribute to computer-chair and armchair role-playing experts. > Outsitting in their fields of imaginary expertise! Surely the Depths of those Fields are what we need to focus on. :-P > |