Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 21 Jun 2010 13:46 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:40:03 -0500, Jane Galt <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote: >"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > > >>> From the way this thread has progressed I would say a Nikon is not your >>> best choice. A cannon would be more suitable. >>> >>> -- >>> Pete >>> >> >> LOL... >> >> Love your humour, Pete... >> >> Take Care, >> Dudley > >The marxist snobs, who smear anyone as "stupid" who doesnt agree with their >tyrannical politiks. The nutters who smear anyone as "marxist" who doesn't agree with their extremist positions, Beck manufactured conspiracies, Limbaugh lunacy, and Hannity hysteria. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 13:54 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote : > I have been a participant in Use of Force investigations, and have been > on Use of Force Committees and Shooting Boards. I have also worked with > DA investigators in civilian shootings where there are claims of self > defense. My sincere advice to any gun owner is to familiarize your self > with Laws regarding Use of (deadly) Force before you take it upon > yourself to become a vigilante. > Oh yes, why we all know that cops are the only ones trained, qualified and stable enough to be allowed to have guns. They're above everyone else in knowing when an attack is legitimate enough to defend themselves to. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2010/06/15/AR2010061505416.html http://www.masscops.com/f38/canadian-police-shot-man-after-assault-35885/ Canadian Police Shot Man After Assault permalink Vancouver police shot and killed a man on a busy shopping street Monday night after he began assaulting officers with a potentially lethal weapon, a spokesman for the force said. The intersection of Granville Street and 16th Avenue was cordoned off after the police shooting and remained closed during the Tuesday morning rush hour. But at least one witness said she saw police shoot the man while he was trying to flee. I could go on, but why bother, Google has thousands of references. -- - Jane Galt
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 13:58 "LOL!" <lol(a)lol.org> wrote in message news:6csu169nbitma4hu6fb578pntp9rssv9eb(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:58:12 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" > <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >> >>"Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>news:Xns9D9DF25E5E4D5JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >>> >>> >>>>>>Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy >>>>>>of >>>>>>God and the rule of law: >>> >>> Rule of law? You put stock in that? What if some "democratic" types vote >>> to >>> make all jews wear stars on their clothing? >>> >>> "Rule of law" can mean rule of tyrannical law. >>> >>> As far as "God", some people may put no stock in that either, and >>> consider >>> it >>> mythology. >>> >>> So where can our rights justly be derived from? >>> >>> Some claim that rights and values derive from "God", but they needn't. >>> If >>> one >>> has a good philosophy like Objectivism, the derivation comes from the >>> most >>> primary ownership of our own lives. >>> See http://www.PlanetaryBillOfRights.org/ >>> specifically >>> http://www.planetarybillofrights.org/ThePlanetaryBillofRights.html >>> >>> Another absurdity is the notion of "collective rights", and that >>> governments >>> have them. >>> >>> The only legitimate rights are individual rights, AKA HUMAN rights and >>> only >>> individual humans can have them. >>> >>> Governments and collectives can only have powers, given to them by the >>> people, and they can be modified or even withdrawn by the people, if the >>> people only realize that they hold the power to do so. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Jane Galt >> >>I put more stock in the rule of law, as composed by a democratic >>legislature >>/ committee, than I do in the rule of law as composed by a lunatic >>neighbour >>with a handgun... >> >>Take Care, >>Dudley >> > > Your biases borne of ignorance show clearly. How about the lunatics at the > button ready to launch a nuclear attack if they're having a bad day and > finally snap under mass psychosis and paranoia? You know, those "might > makes right" lunatics put in place and making their lunatic "law" > decisions > by your beloved democratic process. How are they immune to lunacy? They > are > already all proven lunatics just for considering a nuclear attack and > having nuclear arms in the first place. > > Don't you get it? Of course you don't. You're just as fuckingly insane and > fucked-up in the head as they are. > > > LOL! > > > > So, in order to protect the world from a nutcase at the nuke button, you'd arm everybody with sidearms? Once again, LOL, great logic! Take Care, Dudley
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 13:58 Well I guess the camera thread here is officially over, co-opted by smears from the far left loons. -- - Jane Galt
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 14:00
tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote : >>The marxist snobs, who smear anyone as "stupid" who doesnt agree with >>their tyrannical politiks. > > The nutters who smear anyone as "marxist" who doesn't agree with their > extremist positions, Beck manufactured conspiracies, Limbaugh lunacy, > and Hannity hysteria. If the shoe fits, comrade. What exactly do you think grandiose redistribution of wealth schemes are? "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." - Karl Marx People are in need! Give them endless unemployment, welfare, take from those dirty rich and give it to the middle class and poor. From The London Chronicle, November 29, 1766: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? -- On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependance on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." - Benjamin Franklin, "On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor" -- - Jane Galt |