From: Curiouser and Curiouser on

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.

From: BobS on

"Curiouser and Curiouser" <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote in message
news:uedce5pudtfnk3m5ql001m1jh7n3uvikgk(a)4ax.com...
>
> 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.

snip of a good post.....

Answer....

Ego, need to participate and maybe even a few really do have hands-on
experience (in their minds....;-).

Now I'll go put on my flame-proof britches.


Bob S.


From: Mike Russell on
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:26:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:

> So what causes this need for people to pretend to be authorities on things
> that they have no real knowledge about?

I think it's part of a category of behavior that predates the human race.
Among social animals, status within the group has an important survival
value. Humans are not exempt from this, and in many ways may be more prone
to it.

> Are they just psychotic trolls? And I'm not using the term "psychotic"
> pejoratively.

Basically yes, though I think neurotic is a more appropriate term than
psychotic.

> 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.

This seems like completely normal behavior to me, and not in the least
psychotic.

> 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.

You are correct about this, and it does seem to have reached a pitch at the
moment. This has always been the Achilles heel of Usenet, and is one of
the main reasons that the vast majority of discussion has moved to the web
boards.

Let it slide off your back, is my advice. I believe it is possible to
reason with trolls. It is a mistake to cross them directly. It is
possible to appeal to their sense of themselves.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
From: tony cooper on
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.

I'd reply, but first I'd have to care. I don't. Not about dslr vs
p&s, not about Canon vs Nikon, not about film vs digital, and not
about Sigma vs whatever.

I have a camera that I like. I have had days where I've spent hours
taking photographs, come home with 400 or so images, and not kept one
of them. I've never felt it was the camera's fault.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Frank ess on


BobS wrote:
> "Curiouser and Curiouser" <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote in message
> news:uedce5pudtfnk3m5ql001m1jh7n3uvikgk(a)4ax.com...
>>
>> 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.
>
> snip of a good post.....
>
> Answer....
>
> Ego, need to participate and maybe even a few really do have
> hands-on experience (in their minds....;-).
>
> Now I'll go put on my flame-proof britches.
>
>
> Bob S.

Here I go. 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.

In some cultures it is discourteous to leave a question without an
answer. Ask for directions in a rural area, in some parts of some
countries or states, you will get a detailed answer that may or may
not get you to your desired destination. "Can't send this poor guy on
his way without directions, can we?" Better any directions than none.

Seen, heard, and awaiting recognition, I remain your obedient servant,

--
Frank ess