Camera follow-up
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: DanP on 29 Jun 2010 07:48 On Jun 29, 3:13 am, Robert Coe <b...(a)1776.COM> wrote: > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 01:34:20 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > : On Jun 27, 3:48 pm, Robert Coe <b...(a)1776.COM> wrote: > : > On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 05:15:48 -0700 (PDT), DanP <dan.pe...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > : > > : > : On Jun 26, 5:28 pm, Jane Galt <Jan...(a)gulch.xyz> wrote: > : > : > FYI, for the few friendlies here, I decided to order the SD4000IS.. > : > : > > : > : > But this group is too infested with communist types to have a > : > : > viable discussion about photo topics. > : > : > : > : By your logic Pablo Picasso work is all rubbish. > : > > : > That's a poor analogy. Pablo Picasso's work *is* all rubbish. > : > > : > Bob > : > : Do you use Canon or Nikon? > > I ought to have better sense than to answer that. But what the hell, everybody > in this group knows anyway. I was a Nikon user in the film days and switched > to Canon when I went digital. > > So what's that got to do with Pablo Picasso? I'd guess he was a Leica user, > assuming he ever took photographs at all. > > Bob Your strong remark about Picasso made me think you would be the strong opinionated type that gets involved into the silly Nikon vs Canon debate. It was a wild shot and I have missed. IMHO Picasso reinvented painting and was a genius. In the not so humble opinion of the experts he is still a genius. DanP
From: Doug McDonald on 29 Jun 2010 11:04 On 6/29/2010 4:25 AM, Paul Heslop wrote: >> You don't have to be a right-winger to dislike Michael Moore. I think >> he's a fraud. Like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and the rest of the >> radical fringe, Moore presents selected bits that support his >> positions. Moore's a radical, but at the opposite end of the spectrum >> from the others mentioned. > > oh yeah, I take much of what he says with a pinch of salt. I don't > think he lies, as such, but has a very narrow field of view. But then > he is in the entertainment business where fox 'news' is supposedly a > news channel. > The difference is that the Fox News commentators are basically right. You will note that O'Reilly hates certain CNBC personalities ... but not others. Fact is, the CNBC business types agree with him. Doug McDonald
From: Peter on 28 Jun 2010 22:00 "Gill Collins" <gillcollins26325(a)yahoo.net> wrote in message news:45ii26lspd3hm1lg8vfif6d2j7keohupmi(a)4ax.com... > On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:11:15 -0400, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> > wrote: > >>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>news:2010062721102882188-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>> On 2010-06-27 20:21:18 -0700, Jane Galt <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> said: >>> >>><snip>> >>>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2541446/posts >>>> Smear on dude. >>> >>> Again, the source of your information certainly has its agenda, and has >>> a >>> bias which has you hanging off the right edge of the cliff. Your lack of >>> original thought is telling. >>> >> >>You definitely will get more accurate and pertinent information from >>Google. > > You're new around here, aren't you. > > Google presents those pages that get the most hits, whichever become the > most popular go to the top of their food-chain. Google is not a wellspring > of knowledge, it's a wellspring of whatever lame reasoning is the most > popular with those who can't grasp simple concepts to begin with. > > The largest percentage of the population, which have lazy minds and lazy > research skills, will accept whatever explanation seems the most plausible > to them, with their limited powers of reasoning. These pages then become > the most popular and are then presented as of top-priority on any Google > search. Those who are equally afflicted with a lack of mental acuity and > prowess will then tell others of those links, forming and perpetuating a > fount of stupidity pandered off as some kind of truthful resource. > > The discriminating, intelligent, reasoning mind will reject all first 20 > to > 50 or so listed pages of hits that Google presents, and will instead dig > deeper for any semblance of knowledge. Popularity of an answer does not a > fact make. The thinking person often comparing the answers from a dozen or > more resources before that information is deemed even the least bit worthy > for consideration. If even one of those pages disagrees with 50 others, no > matter how "professionally" they might all be presented, then that one > page > in disagreement must be researched to see if it is in fact the truth and > the 50 others are just parroted squawkings of webpage-mimicking > imbecility. > I've even found pages hosted by universities and government research > centers that have been in grievous error. > > Ignorance is duplicated and spreads exponentially on the internet. If only > the same could be said for real knowledge. > > Google is your friend -- but only if you are a total idiot. > Well! Glad someone got my point. -- Peter
From: Peter on 29 Jun 2010 11:15 "Jane Galt" <Jane_G(a)gulch.xyz> wrote in message news:Xns9DA5E8EC4B163JaneGgulchxyz(a)216.196.97.142... > Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote : > > >>: >>: What would it have to do with demographics? >> >> Most people on Usenet are a good bit younger than I am. >> >>: Are you, or not? >> >> I have been a registered Republican since 1958. >> >>: And who cares? "Republicrat" is a meaningless term because it's not >>: objectively defined. You could be a conservative or a leninist and >>: still be under the "big tent" of that undefined party. >> >> I'm a Barry Goldwater Republican. (You've heard of him?) Which means I'm >> to the left of virtually everybody in the party today. > > Of course, my grandma voted for him. But he was true libertarian leaning, > not > socialist leaning. > > > "Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is > also big enough to take away everything you have." -Barry Goldwater > > > This Cicero quote was what lost him the election, wasnt it?: > > "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit > of > justice is no virtue." - Marcus Tullius Cicero > Wrong again. It was the A bomb TV ad that did him in. A technique quickly stolen by the right wing nuts. -- Peter
From: Paul Heslop on 29 Jun 2010 12:05
Doug McDonald wrote: > > On 6/29/2010 4:25 AM, Paul Heslop wrote: > > >> You don't have to be a right-winger to dislike Michael Moore. I think > >> he's a fraud. Like Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, and the rest of the > >> radical fringe, Moore presents selected bits that support his > >> positions. Moore's a radical, but at the opposite end of the spectrum > >> from the others mentioned. > > > > oh yeah, I take much of what he says with a pinch of salt. I don't > > think he lies, as such, but has a very narrow field of view. But then > > he is in the entertainment business where fox 'news' is supposedly a > > news channel. > > > > The difference is that the Fox News commentators are basically right. > > You will note that O'Reilly hates certain CNBC personalities ... > but not others. Fact is, the CNBC business types agree with him. > > Doug McDonald right as in wing? :O) -- Paul (we break easy) ------------------------------------------------------- Stop and Look http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/ |