Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: John Navas on 29 Oct 2009 11:07 On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:09:47 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in <8LadnRuX3IH1dnXXnZ2dnVY3gomdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>: >"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> >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. >>> >>> Simply not true. >> >> "provide proof if you wish to be taken seriously" > >It's hard to provide proof if you're dead wrong... Irony, thy name is Usenet. -- 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
From: nospam on 29 Oct 2009 12:21 In article <etbje5liarp6o09iasibjkuu0drpevbq2a(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>> >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. > >>> > >>> Simply not true. > >> > >> "provide proof if you wish to be taken seriously" > > > >It's hard to provide proof if you're dead wrong... > > Irony, thy name is Usenet. you *are* dead wrong and playing games only makes you look worse.
From: George Kerby on 29 Oct 2009 14:49 On 10/28/09 9:11 PM, in article gbuhe5djjtpnbec82u2qbra5l24u483jum(a)4ax.com, "Curiouser and Curiouser" <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:56:30 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank(a)fshe2fs.com> wrote: > >> >> There is a normal drive to be seen, heard, recognized. "At >> any cost, by any means", is common in infants and pre-school children. >> Most grow out of it. For those who don't, where better to be seen, >> heard, recognized - without meaningful cost - than Usenet Groups? It's >> just a variation on the "troll" theme, maybe a little less dishonest. >> >> Sucks to be you, doesn't it. > > > 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. Did someone nail your foot to the floor, thus the endless circular repetition? BTW: Your last statement above is not properly punctuated. For a perfectionist such as yourself, that must be a painful revelation.
From: George Kerby on 29 Oct 2009 14:49 On 10/28/09 9:12 PM, in article 2009102819120464440-savageduck(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-28 19:07:01 -0700, Curiouser and Curiouser > <questioning(a)anyisp.net> said: > >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:45:44 -0700, Savageduck >> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2009-10-28 18:05:15 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/28/09 1:05 PM, in article 8a1he5t2p9poj2m3bun235oluvkcgbgo32(a)4ax.com, >>>> "Curiouser and Curiouser" <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:41:30 -0700, Savageduck >>>>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2009-10-28 10:08:32 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> >>>>>> said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:C70C71FC.3744B%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/26/09 10:27 PM, in article >>>>>>>> acpce5drnv7l03118nnsrbh6sirvur1nj5(a)4ax.com, >>>>>>>> "Curiouser and Curiouser" <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:02:31 -0700, Savageduck >>>>>>>>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2009-10-26 19:52:48 -0700, Michael <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2009-10-26 22:33:32 -0400, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You tell us. Why do you praise P&S cameras to high heaven while >>>>>>>>>>>> denigrating DSLRs you've never used, touched, nor even considered? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It's all in the words. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd wonder how many of those DSLR psychotics would reply, never >>>>>>>>> realizing >>>>>>>>> that I HAVE used DSLRs, sold them all when I found out P&S cameras >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> better. So I *DO* have first-hand knowledge of what I speak about. How >>>>>>>>> do >>>>>>>>> you think I know of so many of the glaring faults wrapped in the DSLR >>>>>>>>> design concept? Found the faults by using the cameras. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You will also note, that I *NEVER* go out of my way to slam any camera >>>>>>>>> unless some psychotic troll is inventing stories about P&S cameras >>>>>>>>> they've >>>>>>>>> never used. I don't slam DSLRs, I only defend P&S cameras against the >>>>>>>>> wild >>>>>>>>> imaginings of insecure and psychotic DSLR-Trolls. It's that simple. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm so far ahead of you psychotic, useless, ignorant, and >>>>>>>>> inexperienced >>>>>>>>> trolls in experience and knowledge about photography and the required >>>>>>>>> equipment that you don't even have a clue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I've concluded that you are suffering from a severe case of >>>>>>>> Anatidaephobia... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <guffaw!> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, that was worth looking up! :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> Reciprocal snicker! >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Are you aware that you and ............. >>> >>> ---------<Silly Diatribe Removal Service>------- >>> >>>>> Sucks to be you, doesn't it. >>>>> >>>> Naa-Naa Na Nah _ na-naa! >>> >>> I am not sure he actually gets it. >>> ...er no, he doesn't get it. >> >> Like all useless trolls, you have that quite backward. You're here for MY >> entertain......... > >> ----------------------<Silly Diatribe Removal Service>---------------------- > > Confirmed. He doesn't get it. > Are you surprised?
From: John Navas on 29 Oct 2009 19:48
On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 13:09:18 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <22edd4d0-9d3c-48ea-b09c-aae137b9e020(a)g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>: >For example, John Navas denying that a $399 cited post for a specific >camera's retail price doesn't adequately validate a claim of "Starting >at $400..." ... Does it smart so much to have your silly and misleading claim exposed for what it is? -- 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 |