Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 20:53 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:55:57 -0500, Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu> wrote: >Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: >> I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments >> on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered >> as part of their camera gear. >> > >I can give a good, correct answer to that, for some commenters: > >Because they want to explain the laws of physics and their >consequences to people who don't understand physics. > >For example, a camera with a larger sensor can take a >noisefree picture in lower light than a smaller sensor. That's >a law of physics. > >Doug McDonald > Using your off-topic example, which is just more ignorant and inexperienced troll's red-herring evasion. You're completely wrong. A small sensor of today's technology far surpasses a larger sensor of yesterday's technology. Your physics theorems didn't include reality. (Not surprising because trolls live in their imaginary cyber-world minds.) Do try to stay on topic next time, troll. Your mission was to try to explain why people want to give advice about something that they know nothing about. Just like the example you provided. You know absolutely nothing about reality and physics and tried to wrap that into an obvious troll's red-herring evasion. Giving advice about things that you know nothing about. Why do you do that?
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 21:02 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 17:10:09 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Oct 26, 8:26�pm, Curiouser and Curiouser <question...(a)anyisp.net> >wrote: >> I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments >> on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered >> as part of their camera gear. > >Or, someone who owns TONS of equipment and never uses it. There was >one kook on the Olympus group of dpreview who had something like 67 >cameras! How does this different from some demented old woman with 50 >cats? Or someone who collects hundreds of news snippets (factual or not) from all over the net and posts them into photography groups, someone who doesn't even own a camera, using that method to try to get attention for himself. As any cat-lady tries to get attention from all her cats. How is that any different? Cat Lady = Collects 100 cats, petted for attention. RPD RichA Troll = Collects 100 unverified news bytes, petted for attention. Nope, your answer wasn't a good one. Try again. So far the only good answers have come from people who have never behaved like the ignorant and inexperienced trolls that I'm trying to analyze.
From: D. Peter Maus on 27 Oct 2009 21:22 On 10/27/09 19:41 , Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: > Next time address the topic and questions proposed by the OP instead of > helping to evade them. Actually, I did. You're the one who took the discussion off topic by making it personal. That, by definition, would make you the troll. But nice try.
From: Robert Coe on 27 Oct 2009 21:21 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:41:56 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: : On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:03:04 -0400, tony cooper : <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in : <tkkce5tlau0cr750vcbvpdu6thl5d58de7(a)4ax.com>: : : >On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:26:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser : ><questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: : > : >>I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments : >>on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered : >>as part of their camera gear. : > : >I'd reply, but first I'd have to care. I don't. Not about dslr vs : >p&s, not about Canon vs Nikon, not about film vs digital, and not : >about Sigma vs whatever. : > : >I have a camera that I like. I have had days where I've spent hours : >taking photographs, come home with 400 or so images, and not kept one : >of them. I've never felt it was the camera's fault. : : Now if only you actually lived by that prescription... ;) John, you're too smart a guy to cough up such a knee-jerk reaction, smiley or no smiley. If you were one of the dummy trolls, it would be understandable, even predictable. But you're not. At least I never thought you were, even in the cell phone groups years ago. Bob
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 21:40
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:22:12 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >On 10/27/09 19:41 , Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: > >> Next time address the topic and questions proposed by the OP instead of >> helping to evade them. > > > > Actually, I did. You're the one who took the discussion off topic by >making it personal. That, by definition, would make you the troll. > > > > But nice try. > > If you can't provide an answer to the OPs question, then you are nothing but a troll in that thread. Proved again. Next time, provide an answer to the original question, or don't post in this thread at all. Is that too difficult for you to comprehend? Most likely. Here it is again for your perusal, in case you can't be bothered to actually read the thread you've been erroneously posting to as a troll: > >I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments >on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered >as part of their camera gear. > >There have been outlandish claims being made. Mostly by dSLR proponents >over what can and cannot be done with the myriad P&S cameras available for >the last decade. Yet, when pressed for clarity, you find out they've never >even been near the cameras they are commenting on so strongly, assuredly, >and adamantly with their self-appointed authoritative and seemingly (to >themselves) concrete stance. They will loudly and incessantly claim that >some camera does not have a feature, when in fact a large range of cameras, >sometimes all of those styles of cameras do indeed have that feature or >capability. They would instantly know this if they would only go out and >test it for themselves with real cameras. But no, to them they have >imagined something about some equipment that they've never touched which is >nothing but a total fabrication in their own minds. Believing their >imaginations as if it is some kind of fact. Like any psychotic religious >zealot would. > >What causes them to do this? I've never commented on nor given advice about >anything in life other than that with which I have had first-hand knowledge >and experience of my own in that field. If I haven't personally tested >something for myself, then I am in no position to make comments about it. >Even reading about something doesn't mean what I am reading is true >representation of whatever might be in question. I MUST test things for >myself before I feel I can comment on anything with any sense of authority >whatsoever. I also never strongly rely on some "credible"(?) 3rd-party's >review of photography equipment. I learned long ago after having purchased >equipment that even those well-meaning reviewers failed to understand how >to use a camera, a feature of that camera, or other equipment properly. Or >their simplified testing methods to begin with had huge faults in them. >(GIGO) Which I only discovered later when my findings didn't match their >findings, and I started to wonder why. Their testing methods were to blame. > >So what causes this need for people to pretend to be authorities on things >that they have no real knowledge about? > >Are they just psychotic trolls? And I'm not using the term "psychotic" >pejoratively. I believe they really are psychotic if they can so adamantly >believe what they say, when in fact, reality and genuine experience proves >them out to be in complete error. If so, if that's all they are, psychotic >trolls, they seem to be wall-to-wall in these newsgroups. Far more in >abundance than those who have genuine experience and knowledge about the >subjects at hand. We await your non-troll answers with bated breath. |