Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bob Larter on 2 Nov 2009 11:42 Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote: > On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:54:04 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Neil Harrington wrote: >>> "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. >> That trick is very common with net-kooks. The P&S troll is a classic >> net-kook. > > > > Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer > Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: > alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2005) > Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a group where he'll stay on topic. Hi kook! ;^) Still trying to sucker me into posting to a non-existant group, I see. ;^) -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. on 2 Nov 2009 21:34 On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:42:41 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote: >> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:54:04 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Neil Harrington wrote: >>>> "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. >>> That trick is very common with net-kooks. The P&S troll is a classic >>> net-kook. >> >> >> >> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer >> Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: >> alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2005) >> Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a group where he'll stay on topic. > >Hi kook! ;^) > >Still trying to sucker me into posting to a non-existant group, I see. ;^) <http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer> "Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer." Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy: alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004) Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a group where he'll stay on topic.
From: Pete D on 3 Nov 2009 01:13 You repeat yourself, are we surprised?
From: Pete D on 3 Nov 2009 01:18 "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4aed0539(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... > 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. > > LOL, excellent.....
From: Bob Larter on 3 Nov 2009 05:45
Pete D wrote: > "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:4aed0539(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au... >> 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. >> >> > LOL, excellent..... He'll have to join the queue though - he's only about the 35th net-kook who thinks he can scare me off Usenet. ;^) -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |