Best Coolpix for HD and low light too?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 23:40 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9EDADEF5879JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > >> >> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >> news:Xns9D9ED7602F22FJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >>> >>> >>>> As a blind guy out walking around, if I get a bit disoriented and look >>>> like I could use a helping hand, it's interesting that Muslims, or at >>>> least people who come across as Muslims, are the ones most often to >>>> offer help... One day, I must have looked hungry in addition to lost, >>>> so >>>> this elderly Muslim fellow, even offered to share his lunch with me... >>>> >>>> Then, I come home, get on the internet, and how do the fine "white >>>> folk" >>>> come across? Well, if I'd let the crazies on this group sway me, I'd >>>> head for the nearest Mosque and look into joining... >>>> >>> >>> Go for it, you sound quite compatible. You want to inflict your brand of >>> tyranny on the human rights of everyone else. Great mob rule tyrant. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Jane Galt >> >> That was a figure of speech which I'd hoped would illustrate just what >> lengths behaviour like yours might lead others too. But, of course, as a >> bigot of the highest order, others are always in the wrong... > > here we go, anyone who disagrees with Marx is a "racist". So boring. > > > > -- > - Jane Galt Marx? You really need to take a better remedial reading course... Haven't said a word about Marx... But, then again, anything left of the extreme Right is Marx to you... Galbraith, keynes, Trudeau are more to my liking. Take Care, Dudley
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 Jun 2010 23:41 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9D9EDB6E39198JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : > >> >> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >> news:Xns9D9ED7779C113JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >>> >>> >>>> Just the kind of mature, level-headed woman we'd all feel real safe >>>> around, knowing she's packing a pistol... >>>> >>> >>> Go ahead, tell us you have a "right to feel safe" now. LOL >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Jane Galt >> >> Actually, that's why most countries maintain a police / military force. >> Wouldn't go so far as to say I'd like anything in writing, but I'm >> pretty sure a lot of politicians would be out pounding the pavement if >> the majority starts getting overly antsy... >> >> Besides, isn't that safe feeling why you're packing? If you have a >> right to carry a gun to feel safe, why does that trump my right to keep >> that gun away from you in order for me to feel safe? > > If you had any grasp at all, of the meaning of freedom, I wouldnt have to > take you by the hand and explain it. Because you dont, no explanation can > work. > > "If ye love wealth better than liberty, > the tranquility of servitude > better than the animating contest of freedom, > go home from us in peace. > We ask not your counsels or your arms. > Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. > May your chains set lightly upon you, > and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." > - Samuel Adams > > You're a waste of time, a festering tyrant. Bye now. > > > > -- > - Jane Galt So, your freedom to feel safe trumps mine, thought so... Take Care, Dudley
From: LOL! on 22 Jun 2010 00:06 On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:14:34 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >"Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >news:Xns9D9ED640A3F1EJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >> >>>> You realize that you're essentially saying that you dont trust people to >>>> make the judgements necessary to even defend themselves, right? >>>> >>> >>> No, not at all. I told SD in this very thread I'd feel a lot safer if we >>> had a lot more trained cops, retired officers / military types wandering >>> around packing pistols, even living right next door... >>> >>> I just get a bit edgy when people paint an entire nation unfavourably >>> because of a perceived discrepancy in beliefs, belittle their neighbours >>> because they won't offer support for packing legislation, and in general >>> display a rather immature attitude... >>> >>> Those people should not be carrying. >> >> You want to dictate who may exercise their human rights. I see. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> - Jane Galt > >When crazies want to carry guns in public, yep... I'd like to add my >input... > Like you're in any sort of adequate mental-state to be able to discern that. LOL!!!!!!!!
From: Dudley Hanks on 22 Jun 2010 00:25 "LOL!" <lol(a)lol.org> wrote in message news:4kd026tkbj9bruo5rq5pp3r0tl254vcpgd(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 03:14:34 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" > <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >> >>"Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message >>news:Xns9D9ED640A3F1EJaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... >>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote : >>> >>>>> You realize that you're essentially saying that you dont trust people >>>>> to >>>>> make the judgements necessary to even defend themselves, right? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, not at all. I told SD in this very thread I'd feel a lot safer if >>>> we >>>> had a lot more trained cops, retired officers / military types >>>> wandering >>>> around packing pistols, even living right next door... >>>> >>>> I just get a bit edgy when people paint an entire nation unfavourably >>>> because of a perceived discrepancy in beliefs, belittle their >>>> neighbours >>>> because they won't offer support for packing legislation, and in >>>> general >>>> display a rather immature attitude... >>>> >>>> Those people should not be carrying. >>> >>> You want to dictate who may exercise their human rights. I see. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Jane Galt >> >>When crazies want to carry guns in public, yep... I'd like to add my >>input... >> > > Like you're in any sort of adequate mental-state to be able to discern > that. > > LOL!!!!!!!! > Ah, there's the hook I've been waiting for, LOL posting about mental state... Thanks, Pavlov, I knew you'd come through... Regarding, "Jane," I've been keeping stats as to which puppets have been silent while you, myself, and a few others have been furiously typeing about this subject, and it's really elluminating as to who's been silent and who's kept up their normal routine of replying to threads they'd normally be interested in, or want to provoke interest in over the last 48 hours. Let's face it, "Jane," you wouldn't get past the Firearms Acquisition Certificate application psychological profile, let alone the concealed carry licensing procedure, so you might want to drop the charade... As for me, this is a subject I'm not willing to spend the rest of my life tapping away to enlighten those who've already cemented their attitudes, so I'll drop out now. But, LOL, I look forward to baiting the MasterBaitee in future posts... It's been a slice... Take Care, Dudley
From: David Ruether on 22 Jun 2010 10:54
"krishnananda" <krishna(a)divine-life.in.invalid> wrote in message news:krishna-902547.21505921062010(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Neo-Platonists like our esteemed Ayn Rand devotee always crack me up. > They are so sure that they are the absolute cream of the intellectual > crop that they deserve to be the philosopher-kings dictating proper > behavior to the little people. > > They seem to base their entire worldview on a few really poorly-written > romance novels written by a Russian immigrant (!). Everyone else is to > be spat upon, disdained, called epithets like "Communist", and generally > derided for daring to voice an opinion different from theirs. So much > for their cynical championship of individual achievement. > > For that is the crux of these Neo-Platonists: by their own definition > everything they say is the absolute truth and everything anyone else > says is laughable. Disagreeing with them is tantamount to mental > retardation, treason, nazism, communism, or worst of all: small "D" > democratic. > > And it all comes down to these lousy romance novels like Atlas Shrugged. > Neo-Platonists seem to regard these texts as fundamentalist Christians > view the bible or fundamentalist Muslims regard the Qur'an: every word > is true and applies to the entire population of the world, whatever > their opinion. Once you have heard the "Good News" of Libertarianism you > have the obligation to believe it wholeheartedly. > > I knew a guy in high school, long ago, who's parents named him "Roark" > because their last name was "Howard". Roark was a really nice guy and > didn't deserve to be burdened whth that name. > > Of course now, in the "Tea Party" we have [Ayn] Rand Paul, who seems to > live up to his name pretty well. > > Ironically, Neo-Platonists hew to their invented utopia stronger than > any good and proper Stalinist ever did. Ah, a good summation...! ;-) I read "Atlas Shrugged" as a kid (I was into Sci-fi...), and even then, the writing appeared to me to be terrible (I was used to gobbling up "pulp" sci-fi - but even that was generally of much higher quality than "A-S"), the plot silly, and the "philosophy" stupid and unrealistic (and the later movie wasn't any better, being a melodramatic bunch of idiotic "slush"). 'Course, about the same time, I also gave up religions (I *was* into trying to *think* on my own at the time, which I'm still trying to continue to do...;-). I guess in the end, though, I dislike religions far less than ill-conceived impractical philosophies of governing - the first can offer comfort to the believers, but the second delivers nothing of value, and often pain... Watching the growth of the "Tea Party", Libertarianism, and even the rise of the more extremist side of the 'Bublican party (if they feel that they can rename the "Democrat" party, I feel that their name is fair game...;-) I find scary. I hope we survive this period of much reduced thoughtfulness... --DR |