Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. on 31 Oct 2009 01:42 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:01:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Neil Harrington wrote: >> -hh wrote: >>> On Oct 29, 3:19 pm, Curiouser and Curiouser <question...(a)anyisp.net> >[...] >>> That's about all you'd ever be good for..." absolutely must explicitly >>> mean that you have extensive first-hand experience with male strangers >>> giving you blowjobs. >> >> Or vice versa, of course. >> >>> In actuality, the answer to the OP's question is quite simple, and it >>> has actually already been provided elsewhere. Apparently you've >>> overlooked it, which isn't anyone's fault other than your own. >> >> I think he has overloaded and burned out. I'm not reading his posts any >> more, but the last ones I glanced at seemed to be just the same fatuous >> drivel pasted in over and over. > >It is. In fact, he's spamming. I'll be interested to see what his NSP >has to say about 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. Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a group where he'll stay on topic.
From: Neil Harrington on 31 Oct 2009 13:52 Bob Larter wrote: > Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: >> I'm a well accomplished professional. 50,000 photos on some years >> is not out of the question, >75% of that being of marketable quality. > > And yet you can't show us a single one of them. Imagine that. If he could really produce 37,500+ "marketable" photos in a year, you'd think he'd have bought a DSLR by this time.
From: John Navas on 31 Oct 2009 15:00 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:52:50 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in <Q4GdnZoVv9Pe5HHXnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>: >Bob Larter wrote: >> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: >>> I'm a well accomplished professional. 50,000 photos on some years >>> is not out of the question, >75% of that being of marketable quality. >> >> And yet you can't show us a single one of them. Imagine that. > >If he could really produce 37,500+ "marketable" photos in a year, you'd >think he'd have bought a DSLR by this time. Just the opposite -- if you haven't needed a dSLR for that many marketable images, then there would seem little point to buying one. -- 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: Neil Harrington on 31 Oct 2009 15:43 John Navas wrote: > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:52:50 -0400, "Neil Harrington" > <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in > <Q4GdnZoVv9Pe5HHXnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>: > >> Bob Larter wrote: >>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: >>>> I'm a well accomplished professional. 50,000 photos on some years >>>> is not out of the question, >75% of that being of marketable >>>> quality. >>> >>> And yet you can't show us a single one of them. Imagine that. >> >> If he could really produce 37,500+ "marketable" photos in a year, >> you'd think he'd have bought a DSLR by this time. > > Just the opposite -- if you haven't needed a dSLR for that many > marketable images, then there would seem little point to buying one. The successful craftsman would naturally have bought the more adequate tool long before reaching that number of efforts.
From: John Navas on 31 Oct 2009 15:55
On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:43:09 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in <jvmdnRzFE7qDDnHXnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>: >John Navas wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:52:50 -0400, "Neil Harrington" >> <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in >> <Q4GdnZoVv9Pe5HHXnZ2dnUVZ_uqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>: >> >>> Bob Larter wrote: >>>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: >>>>> I'm a well accomplished professional. 50,000 photos on some years >>>>> is not out of the question, >75% of that being of marketable >>>>> quality. >>>> >>>> And yet you can't show us a single one of them. Imagine that. >>> >>> If he could really produce 37,500+ "marketable" photos in a year, >>> you'd think he'd have bought a DSLR by this time. >> >> Just the opposite -- if you haven't needed a dSLR for that many >> marketable images, then there would seem little point to buying one. > >The successful craftsman would naturally have bought the more adequate tool >long before reaching that number of efforts. "Assumes facts not in evidence": (allegedly) more adequate tool, when the available evidence indicates otherwise. ;) You must feel very threatened. -- 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 |