Prev: Suggestions for digital camera which has 1920x1080 video
Next: eat more meat
From: Ray Fischer on 26 Nov 2009 02:43
RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>Robert Coe wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:48:20 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> : On Nov 25, 12:33�am, nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> : > In article <YrOdnUkGWe8JJpHWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdn...(a)giganews.com>, Rich
>> : >
>> : > <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>> : > > The thread might be gone by the time you try to read it, but silence
>> : > > speaks volumes. �They guy is right about some of the more prolific
>> : > > posters, especially the chip-on-the-shoulder, always defensive because
>> : > > of the tiny 4/3rds sensor types.
>> : >
>> : > the fact that you are reposting that garbage here suggests that it is
>> : > *you* who signed up as 'hercules' and posted it in just about every
>> : > forum.
>> :
>> : Hardly. I just applaud the guy for attacking the thin-skinned, fanboy
>> : children in those forums.
>>
>> By what convoluted logic does that puerile rant qualify as an "attack"? It
>> lacks any substantive examples of the incompetence and fraud it seems to
>> allege. At best it's a diatribe; at worst it's gibberish.
>>
>The idea was to broad-brush certain members of forums without naming
>them all and starting 100 brush fires in the process.

So you're a troll.

> Fact is, the
>guy makes good points

That you agree with them doesn't make them good. In fact, history
would indicate the exact opposite.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Robert Coe on 26 Nov 2009 08:02
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 22:01:29 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
:
:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:48:20 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
: > : On Nov 25, 12:33?am, nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
: > : > In article <YrOdnUkGWe8JJpHWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdn...(a)giganews.com>, Rich
: > : >
: > : > <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
: > : > > The thread might be gone by the time you try to read it, but silence
: > : > > speaks volumes. ?They guy is right about some of the more prolific
: > : > > posters, especially the chip-on-the-shoulder, always defensive because
: > : > > of the tiny 4/3rds sensor types.
: > : >
: > : > the fact that you are reposting that garbage here suggests that it is
: > : > *you* who signed up as 'hercules' and posted it in just about every
: > : > forum.
: > :
: > : Hardly. I just applaud the guy for attacking the thin-skinned, fanboy
: > : children in those forums.
: >
: > By what convoluted logic does that puerile rant qualify as an "attack"? It
: > lacks any substantive examples of the incompetence and fraud it seems to
: > allege. At best it's a diatribe; at worst it's gibberish.
: >
: > Bob
:
: The idea was to broad-brush certain members of forums without naming
: them all and starting 100 brush fires in the process. Fact is, the
: guy makes good points

Actually, I don't see that he makes *any* points. All he does is accuse DP
Review's reviewers of dishonesty and incompetence without citing even one
concrete example.

: and it all boils down to one cause: That too many hotheads are TOO
: emotionally involved with their particular equipment. They need to be
: reminded that a camera is a tool or a toy and NOT a lover.

Even if DP Review's forums *are* crawling with fanboys, why should you or I
care? We don't have to read their stuff. People go to DP Review to get
unbiased information about the equipment they test. If they're not providing
that, and you can prove it, that's one thing. But how does the rant you quoted
contribute to anybody's understanding of anything? Accusing a list of people
most of us never heard of, of being fanboys certainly doesn't do it.

Bob
From: Mike on 26 Nov 2009 06:59
On Nov 26, 6:01 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Robert Coe wrote:
> > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:48:20 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > : On Nov 25, 12:33 am, nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > : > In article <YrOdnUkGWe8JJpHWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdn...(a)giganews.com>, Rich
> > : >
> > : > <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> > : > > The thread might be gone by the time you try to read it, but silence
> > : > > speaks volumes. They guy is right about some of the more prolific
> > : > > posters, especially the chip-on-the-shoulder, always defensive because
> > : > > of the tiny 4/3rds sensor types.
> > : >
> > : > the fact that you are reposting that garbage here suggests that it is
> > : > *you* who signed up as 'hercules' and posted it in just about every
> > : > forum.
> > :
> > : Hardly.  I just applaud the guy for attacking the thin-skinned, fanboy
> > : children in those forums.
>
> > By what convoluted logic does that puerile rant qualify as an "attack"? It
> > lacks any substantive examples of the incompetence and fraud it seems to
> > allege. At best it's a diatribe; at worst it's gibberish.
>
> > Bob
>
> The idea was to broad-brush certain members of forums without naming
> them all and starting 100 brush fires in the process.  Fact is, the
> guy makes good points and it all boils down to one cause:  That too
> many hotheads are TOO emotionally involved with their particular
> equipment.  They need to be reminded that a camera is a tool or a toy
> and NOT a lover.

Ha ha ha ha ha. You utter hypocrite.
Canon this.
Plastic that.

Physician heal thyself
From: RichA on 26 Nov 2009 20:44
On Nov 26, 6:59 am, Mike <mikere...(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:01 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Robert Coe wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:48:20 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > > : On Nov 25, 12:33 am, nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > : > In article <YrOdnUkGWe8JJpHWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdn...(a)giganews.com>, Rich
> > > : >
> > > : > <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > : > > The thread might be gone by the time you try to read it, but silence
> > > : > > speaks volumes. They guy is right about some of the more prolific
> > > : > > posters, especially the chip-on-the-shoulder, always defensive because
> > > : > > of the tiny 4/3rds sensor types.
> > > : >
> > > : > the fact that you are reposting that garbage here suggests that it is
> > > : > *you* who signed up as 'hercules' and posted it in just about every
> > > : > forum.
> > > :
> > > : Hardly.  I just applaud the guy for attacking the thin-skinned, fanboy
> > > : children in those forums.
>
> > > By what convoluted logic does that puerile rant qualify as an "attack"? It
> > > lacks any substantive examples of the incompetence and fraud it seems to
> > > allege. At best it's a diatribe; at worst it's gibberish.
>
> > > Bob
>
> > The idea was to broad-brush certain members of forums without naming
> > them all and starting 100 brush fires in the process.  Fact is, the
> > guy makes good points and it all boils down to one cause:  That too
> > many hotheads are TOO emotionally involved with their particular
> > equipment.  They need to be reminded that a camera is a tool or a toy
> > and NOT a lover.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha. You utter hypocrite.
> Canon this.
> Plastic that.
>
> Physician heal thyself

Difference is, I'm not defending the indefensible, making up
attributes for products to minimize faults. In other words, unlike
them, I have no blind faith in any system and I recognize flaws in
those systems for what they are: flaws.
From: Pete D on 27 Nov 2009 01:17

"RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c30a3f7a-563b-46ff-be2f-f7a711be05a4(a)e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 26, 6:59 am, Mike <mikere...(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 6:01 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Robert Coe wrote:
> > > On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:48:20 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > : On Nov 25, 12:33 am, nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> > > : > In article <YrOdnUkGWe8JJpHWnZ2dnUVZ_tmdn...(a)giganews.com>, Rich
> > > : >
> > > : > <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> > > : > > The thread might be gone by the time you try to read it, but
> > > silence
> > > : > > speaks volumes. They guy is right about some of the more
> > > prolific
> > > : > > posters, especially the chip-on-the-shoulder, always defensive
> > > because
> > > : > > of the tiny 4/3rds sensor types.
> > > : >
> > > : > the fact that you are reposting that garbage here suggests that it
> > > is
> > > : > *you* who signed up as 'hercules' and posted it in just about
> > > every
> > > : > forum.
> > > :
> > > : Hardly. I just applaud the guy for attacking the thin-skinned,
> > > fanboy
> > > : children in those forums.
>
> > > By what convoluted logic does that puerile rant qualify as an
> > > "attack"? It
> > > lacks any substantive examples of the incompetence and fraud it seems
> > > to
> > > allege. At best it's a diatribe; at worst it's gibberish.
>
> > > Bob
>
> > The idea was to broad-brush certain members of forums without naming
> > them all and starting 100 brush fires in the process. Fact is, the
> > guy makes good points and it all boils down to one cause: That too
> > many hotheads are TOO emotionally involved with their particular
> > equipment. They need to be reminded that a camera is a tool or a toy
> > and NOT a lover.
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha. You utter hypocrite.
> Canon this.
> Plastic that.
>
> Physician heal thyself

Difference is, I'm not defending the indefensible, making up
attributes for products to minimize faults. In other words, unlike
them, I have no blind faith in any system and I recognize flaws in
those systems for what they are: flaws.

Yes, you are the ultimate anti-fanboi, you hate and distrust everything as
if ther is an aganda against you in particular.


First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Suggestions for digital camera which has 1920x1080 video
Next: eat more meat