Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bob Larter on 1 Nov 2009 00:49 Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote: > 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. Looks like I've got a new fanboy. Aw, how cute. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: George Kerby on 1 Nov 2009 09:16 On 10/31/09 1:00 PM, in article 192pe5llhv99rics2rdb7jfhqjr31j0n3c(a)4ax.com, "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> 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. NavASS, you are showing your sock again.
From: George Kerby on 1 Nov 2009 09:17 On 10/31/09 6:41 PM, in article xv-dnQBVmNmFRHHXnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d(a)giganews.com, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote: > > "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message > news:1e5pe59h80kq2nlqgruc0e61nvaadee69g(a)4ax.com... >> 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. ;) > > The "available evidence" shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that the > overwhelming majority of serious photographers, whether professional or > advanced amateur, prefer SLRs for their most serious work. That *you* > believe *all* these other people are misguided, is understood. Your fervent > belief in this does not change reality one iota. > >> >> You must feel very threatened. > > That looks like projection to me, John. *I* am not the one who's championing > a type of camera that the vast majority of photographers know to be inferior > to the SLR. *You* are. Your feeling threatened by being part of a very tiny > minority is understandable, but it's useless to try to project your feeling > onto the other side. > He projects the troll persona, why not another?
From: John Navas on 1 Nov 2009 13:26 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 20:41:43 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in <xv-dnQBVmNmFRHHXnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d(a)giganews.com>: >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:1e5pe59h80kq2nlqgruc0e61nvaadee69g(a)4ax.com... >> "Assumes facts not in evidence": (allegedly) more adequate tool, >> when the available evidence indicates otherwise. ;) > >The "available evidence" shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that the >overwhelming majority of serious photographers, whether professional or >advanced amateur, prefer SLRs for their most serious work. The available evidence actually shows the majority of cameras currently used by "serious" photographers to be non-SLR, as in the past, when famous pros preferred simple rangefinder cameras over SLRs. >That *you* >believe *all* these other people are misguided, is understood. Your fervent >belief in this does not change reality one iota. Putting words in my mouth again. Why am I not surprised. The sure sign of someone with nothing more persuasive to say. >> You must feel very threatened. > >That looks like projection to me, John. *I* am not the one who's championing >a type of camera that the vast majority of photographers know to be inferior >to the SLR. *You* are. Your feeling threatened by being part of a very tiny >minority is understandable, but it's useless to try to project your feeling >onto the other side. You have that backwards. -- 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 1 Nov 2009 14:03
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4aed04c1$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: >> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:30:03 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >> 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. >> >> On checking my "Scrapshots that beat DSLRs" folder, I find 14 images that >> I >> posted this year > > ROTFL! - I saw most of those images, & they weren't all that good for P&S > shots, much less DSLR shots. > > PS: No, screwing with the follow-ups line won't work on me. I'm glad you pointed that out. I tend not to notice that sort of sleazy trick. This jerk seems determined to be as much of a pest as he can, in every way he can. |