Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 15:24 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9E83D69BC41JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > >> >> In groups, the sane ones have a chance to counter-balance the crazies... > > Read "People Of The Lie" sometime. It's called group evil, where people > can > do things that they'd never have the nerve to do by themselves. Ask my > dead > ancestors in Poland. > > > -- > - Jane Galt Talking about different groups... The type who vote are more community conscious than the individualists who try to force their opinion on others through group violence... Did you sign up for LOL's logic 101 too? Take Care, Dudley
From: tony cooper on 21 Jun 2010 15:31 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:58:45 -0500, Jane Galt <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote: >Well I guess the camera thread here is officially over, co-opted by smears >from the far left loons. Interesting take. Addressing those that don't agree with your position as "Comrade", "Serviles", "Marxist", "Pathetic idiot", and "loons" isn't a smear, hunh? However, you are correct. The camera portion of the thread is officially over. Feel free to leave the building. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 15:35 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:54fv16tt82anrmuhdm8i7ban52hiop6ol6(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 12:58:45 -0500, Jane Galt <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> > wrote: > >>Well I guess the camera thread here is officially over, co-opted by smears >>from the far left loons. > > Interesting take. Addressing those that don't agree with your > position as "Comrade", "Serviles", "Marxist", "Pathetic idiot", and > "loons" isn't a smear, hunh? > > However, you are correct. The camera portion of the thread is > officially over. Feel free to leave the building. > > -- > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida It's all good fun till somebody gets hurt, then it's a sport... Take Care, Dudley
From: Gilford Brimly on 21 Jun 2010 17:11 On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 17:58:14 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >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! No. I believe that if even ONE person on earth is allowed to have nuclear weapons, that automatically gives EVERYONE ON EARTH the right to own a nuclear weapon. Why is one person's right to arm themselves to that degree above another? I don't trust those who have nuclear weapons any more than I would trust you to do the right thing. Either get rid of them all or everyone gets to own and keep one. It's only fair. I applaud all those countries that want to develop nuclear weapons. Why should the USA and other power-tripping control-freak countries just like the USA allowed to be the only ones that have them? Get rid of them all or every last person on earth gets to have their own personal nuclear arms. Those two choices are the only fair solution.
From: Jane Galt on 21 Jun 2010 19:20
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > > "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message > news:Xns9D9E7A8A1381EJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >> >> >>> >>> 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 >> >> No, you're right, we should trust any mob large enough to win a vote, >> and make individual people wear government tracking collars because >> they cant be >> trusted. Tell them what they can eat, what they can say, what they can >> hear >> and where they can be. That's the eventual outcome of your forced- >> collectivism, history has always proven that. >> >> >> -- >> - Jane Galt > > See, Jane, you can't even evaluate a whole country properly when you've > got a ton of time and the vast resources of the internet at your > disposal... > > How the hell are you going to correctly size up how to react to a > hostile situation in the time it takes to strike a match, and you don't > have all the facts clearly out in the open... You realize that you're essentially saying that you dont trust people to make the judgements necessary to even defend themselves, right? That leaves us all as simpering pacifists, at the mercy of any thug that comes along. I've witnessed your types, on the UK groups, people who think that defending oneself is "playing judge, jury and executioner" and deprives said thug(s) of their right to a trial. The very inspiration for this essay: http://rkba.org/comment/cowards.html So how do you trust mobs of people, when the inclination for "group evil" is added to the mix? -- - Jane Galt |