Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up on 27 Oct 2009 17:18 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:02:20 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:51:54 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: >>>> I sometimes wonder why people feel the ne[*Yawn!*] >> >> >> >> see: alt.kooks.lionel-lauer >> >> A valid group in the known net-trolls groups. > >Really? - I don't know any servers that carry it. ;^) Huh. I guess that's what you get for living in backwards backwoods last-century-mentality Australia. alt.kooks.lionel-lauer I instantly found it on 4 main servers this side of the world. Posts going back all the way to 2005 (as far as I found still retained). I guess they like to use it to keep tabs on your trolling-tracks of disaster across the globe. A public service to out your troll's history everywhere you go, no matter what name you use. Not intending to go off-topic or anything (the main reason his own newsgroup was created for him), but I thought the Bob Larter troll should know how well he's been globally outted. His posts are quite amusing to the more advanced sectors of civilization. Amusing, of course, in a way that he's totally unaware of.
From: John Navas on 27 Oct 2009 17:45 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:35:41 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in <23mee59dmi65pru08piek0t3v6q9ler8du(a)4ax.com>: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:44:38 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>I guess the key word there is "critical", and I think it telling you're >>limiting yourself to a single forum to make a global pejorative comment. > >Yes, I am limiting myself to a single forum. Never claimed otherwise. > >The people that participate in this newsgroup, and the related >newsgroups, who continue to bleat about the marvelous qualities of P&S >cameras never seem to enter photographs in the Shoot-In for review by >the people of this group. Perhaps there are good reasons. Like it's a pointless and meaningless exercise. Like there are many much better forums. You might as well argue about exhibiting on supermarket bulletin boards. >>Childishly pejorative as usual > >But non-refutable. ... Not only childishly pejorative, but a pathetic argument to boot. If that's the best you've got then you really are in a tough spot. -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Doug McDonald on 27 Oct 2009 19:55 Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: > I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments > on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered > as part of their camera gear. > I can give a good, correct answer to that, for some commenters: Because they want to explain the laws of physics and their consequences to people who don't understand physics. For example, a camera with a larger sensor can take a noisefree picture in lower light than a smaller sensor. That's a law of physics. Doug McDonald
From: RichA on 27 Oct 2009 20:10 On Oct 26, 8:26 pm, Curiouser and Curiouser <question...(a)anyisp.net> wrote: > I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative comments > on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even considered > as part of their camera gear. Or, someone who owns TONS of equipment and never uses it. There was one kook on the Olympus group of dpreview who had something like 67 cameras! How does this different from some demented old woman with 50 cats?
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 27 Oct 2009 20:41
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:00:01 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >On 10/27/09 15:53 , Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:45:39 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" >> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> >>> >>> Interesting to note: the P&S shooter's output was rejected in its >>> entirety. And his service were not retained for next year. >>> >> >> How can we believe you? You provide no proof. Hearsay evidence coming from >> a well-known P&S-bashing DSLR-Troll. >> >> Since you love playing that trolls' game so much. >> >> Can't stay on topic can you? Of course not. Trolls never do. >> > > > > A-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-nd...Scene! > > > Nicely done. In two transactions, you've turned a civil >discussion into personal vitriol. > > Now THAT's skill. > > Especially given that, historically, I've supported your position. Nope, can't say as I *ever* recall that. Wouldn't matter anyway, I do not side with someone just because I know of them or their past behavior. I'm not here to invent imaginary friends for myself, nor ignorantly try to gain vapid and vacuous allies, as so many trolls only do. I reserve friends and allies for real life, with real people. For some odd reason I just can't be convinced to be made psychotic. Perhaps that's a character flaw, considering how much of that I witness going around. > > Do enjoy the rest of your day. > > Bravo, you managed to try to make yourself (fictitiously) look good while still staying off topic and still being the troll. Next time address the topic and questions proposed by the OP instead of helping to evade them. You might not be as easily perceived as a troll next time (or not). |