Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 29 Oct 2009 03:03 On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:56:26 -0400, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:12:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" ><secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: > >> >>"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >>news:bcqhe5hnsmgg44mn5orqspdqr6h35pq4f3(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:37:04 -0400, "Neil Harrington" >>> <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>>>news:hc9vd3$7ec$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>>>> "Miles Bader" <miles(a)gnu.org> wrote in message >>>>>> news:buo8wex1oxp.fsf(a)dhlpc061.dev.necel.com... >>>>>>> Michael <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> writes: >>>>>>>>> We know why, of course: you're the infamous P&S Troll. We simply >>>>>>>>> don't >>>>>>>>> know specifically why you are a troll, or why you chose to target >>>>>>>>> this >>>>>>>>> group in particular. Nor do we care, actually. >>>>>>>> I was wondering how many responses I'd read before someone recognized >>>>>>>> our infamous friend. >>>>>>> Using one of his standard trolling techniques too. He may be an idiot >>>>>>> when it comes to photography, but he's actually pretty skillful at >>>>>>> trolling... >>>>>> >>>>>> I wouldn't say he's particularly skillful at it, but he does have an >>>>>> effective (if transparent) procedure for it. The procedure is simple >>>>>> enough that I think anyone could do it; it requires little if any >>>>>> skill: >>>>>> >>>>>> 1. Enter a newsgroup making any ordinary trollish comment >>>>>> >>>>>> 2. Crudely insult anyone who replies, while accusing *them* of being a >>>>>> troll >>>>>> >>>>>> Simple as that. >>>>> >>>>> Why are so many unable to resist? Well, a handful continually rise to >>>>> the >>>>> bait. >>>> >>>>Because it becomes kind of a fun thing. >>>> >>>>And note, the P&S troll isn't getting anywhere, at least by the classic >>>>definition for trolls. I realize of course that the definition has become >>>>muddled into something like "anyone who says something that annoys me," >>>>but >>>>the classic troll was one who started a squabble among newsgroup users and >>>>then sat back to watch the fun. The best of the trolls could do this with >>>>a >>>>single post -- and then never add another word, while the newsgroup >>>>regulars >>>>argued with increasing ire and fury amongst themselves. The troll who >>>>could >>>>do that was a troll for whom one had a certain grudging admiration. >>>> >>>>This P&S troll, on the other hand, works hard at what the does, and to >>>>relatively little effect. He slaves away at his keyboard, post after post >>>>after post, day after day. Gradually people tire of him and ignore him. >>>>Discussions and arguments may continue, but they have less and less to do >>>>with him. Now he's laboring over his 300-word posts and getting 10-word >>>>replies. >>>> >>>>This is a failed troll. >>> >>> Well, sometimes he labors. Then there's a lot a copying & pasting of >>> his >>> anti-DSLR/pro-P&S/camera-type-doesn't-matter/any-or-all-of-the-above >>> manifesto du jure. >> >>I've only glanced briefly at his recent offerings but yes, I've noticed that >>he's reduced to pasting in the same old stuff for the most part. Apparently >>he's drying up and will eventually blow away. > >Oh, he's been a copy & paste kind of troll since the beginning with >his "dear resident troll" canned messages accusing the regular >on-topic posters of being trolls. Are you aware that you and others of your ilk have now proved yourselves beyond a shadow of all doubts to be nothing but inexperienced and ignorant trolls, again? Stay on topic, you ignorant and inexperienced know-nothing thread hijacking trolls. Catch-22. If you stayed on topic you wouldn't be a troll. Continue going off topic and you have precisely proved my point. Sucks to be as stupid as you, doesn't it. Read it again. Here it is again for your perusal. Can you answer it without your usual off-topic trolling? The challenge is on. (Guess who's going to win. Once a troll, always a troll. Asking a troll to not act like a troll is like asking a slug to not travel by use of its exuded slime layer discharge.) > >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 all wait with bated breath for your non-troll response. (Apostrophe left off of "bated" to see how many apostrophe-trolls are in abundance.) Since you failed to address or answer the question, there it is again. Any further off-topic trolling without addressing the question and you will prove, beyond all doubt, that you are nothing but an ignorant troll, again. It's just that simple. Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 29 Oct 2009 03:04 On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:30:10 -0400, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote: >On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:04:28 -0400, tony cooper ><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:13:32 -0400, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> >>wrote: >> >>>Anyone know a good psychologist or FBI profiler willing to look over >>>his posts and share some insights? Might be entertaining. :) >> >>You can't help but form some impressions about him. He's not >>unintelligent. His writing style and subject matter indicates that >>he's intelligent enough to be articulate and intelligent enough to do >>research on subject matter. >> >>Most probably a victim of some form of autism with a helping of idiot >>savant. The repetition in his posts and posting style point to the >>autism. He needs to feel things are in proper order, writes something >>that he feels is right, and then repeats and repeats and repeats that >>same thing. >> >>Like idiot savants, he has a splinter skill. His is becoming very >>familiar with one technical subject area. This indicates high >>right-side brain development. >> >>His inability to demonstrate any applied skill in photography despite >>a knowledge of the technical side of cameras and photography says that >>he's fulfilled in knowing the subject matter but has no interest in >>actually doing photography. Photography isn't his goal; knowing the >>subject area is. Because actually taking photographs doesn't interest >>him, he denigrates those who do because he considers that skill to be >>unimportant. >> >>The lack of social skills is further indication of the idiot savant >>manifestation in autism. He understands that he has no social skills >>and, to avoid rejection, he pushes people away with his abuse. It's a >>"You can't reject me because I've already rejected you" thing. >> >>You won't get him out of the newsgroup. He needs it. He's unable to >>form normal social relationships so he's made this his social >>relationship, and - unlike in his outside life - he can control this >>relationship. He feels that people must pay attention to him here. >> >>The bit about retiring at 25 is probably a reference to the age when >>he came to grips with the fact that he wasn't going to be able to >>function in a normal environment and hold a job. The references to >>treks in the desert and in swamps are fantasies about how his life >>would have been if he was normal. >> >>That's my theory, anyway. > >While it's fun to tweak him with the "idiot savant" label, I really >think the "savant" part of it is giving him too much credit. I'm >fairly sure his knowledge of the subject stems from Google searches. >(Or maybe he uses Yahoo or MSN Search/Live Search/Bing/whatever >today's rebranding of MS's search engine is. Doesn't really matter.) > >As an example, IIRC some of his earlier arguments about optics were >from an astronomy standpoint. I suspect he Googled optics & lenses and >happened to glean his info from an astronomy page dealing with >telescopes. He soon corrected that, no doubt from further reading on >more camera-related pages on optics. That kind of misstep and >correction doesn't strike me as idiot-savantish. Are you aware that you and others of your ilk have now proved yourselves beyond a shadow of all doubts to be nothing but inexperienced and ignorant trolls, again? Stay on topic, you ignorant and inexperienced know-nothing thread hijacking trolls. Catch-22. If you stayed on topic you wouldn't be a troll. Continue going off topic and you have precisely proved my point. Sucks to be as stupid as you, doesn't it. Read it again. Here it is again for your perusal. Can you answer it without your usual off-topic trolling? The challenge is on. (Guess who's going to win. Once a troll, always a troll. Asking a troll to not act like a troll is like asking a slug to not travel by use of its exuded slime layer discharge.) > >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 all wait with bated breath for your non-troll response. (Apostrophe left off of "bated" to see how many apostrophe-trolls are in abundance.) Since you failed to address or answer the question, there it is again. Any further off-topic trolling without addressing the question and you will prove, beyond all doubt, that you are nothing but an ignorant troll, again. It's just that simple. Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 29 Oct 2009 03:05 On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:20:51 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: > >"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >news:m83ie5hmvukq2gv2assl0dqj4v4s27c29h(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:04:28 -0400, tony cooper >> <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >> >>>On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:13:32 -0400, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> >>>wrote: >>> >>>>Anyone know a good psychologist or FBI profiler willing to look over >>>>his posts and share some insights? Might be entertaining. :) >>> >>>You can't help but form some impressions about him. He's not >>>unintelligent. His writing style and subject matter indicates that >>>he's intelligent enough to be articulate and intelligent enough to do >>>research on subject matter. >>> >>>Most probably a victim of some form of autism with a helping of idiot >>>savant. The repetition in his posts and posting style point to the >>>autism. He needs to feel things are in proper order, writes something >>>that he feels is right, and then repeats and repeats and repeats that >>>same thing. >>> >>>Like idiot savants, he has a splinter skill. His is becoming very >>>familiar with one technical subject area. This indicates high >>>right-side brain development. >>> >>>His inability to demonstrate any applied skill in photography despite >>>a knowledge of the technical side of cameras and photography says that >>>he's fulfilled in knowing the subject matter but has no interest in >>>actually doing photography. Photography isn't his goal; knowing the >>>subject area is. Because actually taking photographs doesn't interest >>>him, he denigrates those who do because he considers that skill to be >>>unimportant. >>> >>>The lack of social skills is further indication of the idiot savant >>>manifestation in autism. He understands that he has no social skills >>>and, to avoid rejection, he pushes people away with his abuse. It's a >>>"You can't reject me because I've already rejected you" thing. >>> >>>You won't get him out of the newsgroup. He needs it. He's unable to >>>form normal social relationships so he's made this his social >>>relationship, and - unlike in his outside life - he can control this >>>relationship. He feels that people must pay attention to him here. >>> >>>The bit about retiring at 25 is probably a reference to the age when >>>he came to grips with the fact that he wasn't going to be able to >>>function in a normal environment and hold a job. The references to >>>treks in the desert and in swamps are fantasies about how his life >>>would have been if he was normal. >>> >>>That's my theory, anyway. >> >> While it's fun to tweak him with the "idiot savant" label, I really >> think the "savant" part of it is giving him too much credit. > >By far, yes. > >> I'm >> fairly sure his knowledge of the subject stems from Google searches. > >That's what I think too. He Googles things he doesn't know anything about, >which is an easy way to come up with some arcane information which he then >copies and posts, in the hope it will make him appear knowledgeable.. > Are you aware that you and others of your ilk have now proved yourselves beyond a shadow of all doubts to be nothing but inexperienced and ignorant trolls, again? Stay on topic, you ignorant and inexperienced know-nothing thread hijacking trolls. Catch-22. If you stayed on topic you wouldn't be a troll. Continue going off topic and you have precisely proved my point. Sucks to be as stupid as you, doesn't it. Read it again. Here it is again for your perusal. Can you answer it without your usual off-topic trolling? The challenge is on. (Guess who's going to win. Once a troll, always a troll. Asking a troll to not act like a troll is like asking a slug to not travel by use of its exuded slime layer discharge.) > >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 all wait with bated breath for your non-troll response. (Apostrophe left off of "bated" to see how many apostrophe-trolls are in abundance.) Since you failed to address or answer the question, there it is again. Any further off-topic trolling without addressing the question and you will prove, beyond all doubt, that you are nothing but an ignorant troll, again. It's just that simple. Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
From: DRS on 29 Oct 2009 06:27 "John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message news:s0fie5hkd8p2potmu56hhjrl1m4infanea(a)4ax.com > On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:12:05 -0400, "Neil Harrington" > <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: [...] >> I've only glanced briefly at his recent offerings but yes, I've >> noticed that he's reduced to pasting in the same old stuff for the >> most part. Apparently he's drying up and will eventually blow away. > > Oh, he's been a copy & paste kind of troll since the beginning with > his "dear resident troll" canned messages accusing the regular > on-topic posters of being trolls. And neither he nor his detractors have sufficient respect for other readers to snip extraneous cited material from their posts.
From: John Navas on 29 Oct 2009 11:06
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:27:49 +1100, "DRS" <drs(a)removethis.ihug.com.au> wrote in <rqqdnZ1da9iz83TXnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d(a)westnet.com.au>: >"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote in message >news:s0fie5hkd8p2potmu56hhjrl1m4infanea(a)4ax.com >> Oh, he's been a copy & paste kind of troll since the beginning with >> his "dear resident troll" canned messages accusing the regular >> on-topic posters of being trolls. > >And neither he nor his detractors have sufficient respect for other readers >to snip extraneous cited material from their posts. Adding their own ad hominems. Makes the detractors little better. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams |