From: Ray Fischer on 27 Oct 2009 22:20
Curiouser and Curiouser <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:55:57 -0500, Doug McDonald
>>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.
>Using your off-topic example, which is just more ignorant and inexperienced
Go away, idiot troll.
From: D. Peter Maus on 27 Oct 2009 22:23
On 10/27/09 20:40 , Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 20:22:12 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> On 10/27/09 19:41 , Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>>> Next time address the topic and questions proposed by the OP instead of
>>> helping to evade them.
>> Actually, I did. You're the one who took the discussion off topic by
>> making it personal. That, by definition, would make you the troll.
>> But nice try.
> If you can't provide an answer to the OPs question, then you are nothing
> but a troll in that thread.
> Proved again.
> Next time, provide an answer to the original question, or don't post in
> this thread at all.
Fortunately, for all of us, you don't get to make that call.
> Is that too difficult for you to comprehend? Most
But you wouldn't know that one way or the other.
> Here it is again for your perusal, in case you can't be bothered to
> actually read the thread you've been erroneously posting to as a troll:
>> 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.
>> There have been outlandish claims being made. Mostly by dSLR proponents
>> over what can and cannot be done with the myriad P&S cameras available for
>> the last decade. Yet, when pressed for clarity, you find out they've never
>> even been near the cameras they are commenting on so strongly, assuredly,
>> and adamantly with their self-appointed authoritative and seemingly (to
>> themselves) concrete stance. They will loudly and incessantly claim that
>> some camera does not have a feature, when in fact a large range of cameras,
>> sometimes all of those styles of cameras do indeed have that feature or
>> capability. They would instantly know this if they would only go out and
>> test it for themselves with real cameras. But no, to them they have
>> imagined something about some equipment that they've never touched which is
>> nothing but a total fabrication in their own minds. Believing their
>> imaginations as if it is some kind of fact. Like any psychotic religious
>> zealot would.
>> What causes them to do this? I've never commented on nor given advice about
>> anything in life other than that with which I have had first-hand knowledge
>> and experience of my own in that field. If I haven't personally tested
>> something for myself, then I am in no position to make comments about it.
>> Even reading about something doesn't mean what I am reading is true
>> representation of whatever might be in question. I MUST test things for
>> myself before I feel I can comment on anything with any sense of authority
>> whatsoever. I also never strongly rely on some "credible"(?) 3rd-party's
>> review of photography equipment. I learned long ago after having purchased
>> equipment that even those well-meaning reviewers failed to understand how
>> to use a camera, a feature of that camera, or other equipment properly. Or
>> their simplified testing methods to begin with had huge faults in them.
>> (GIGO) Which I only discovered later when my findings didn't match their
>> findings, and I started to wonder why. Their testing methods were to blame.
>> So what causes this need for people to pretend to be authorities on things
>> that they have no real knowledge about?
>> Are they just psychotic trolls? And I'm not using the term "psychotic"
>> pejoratively. I believe they really are psychotic if they can so adamantly
>> believe what they say, when in fact, reality and genuine experience proves
>> them out to be in complete error. If so, if that's all they are, psychotic
>> trolls, they seem to be wall-to-wall in these newsgroups. Far more in
>> abundance than those who have genuine experience and knowledge about the
>> subjects at hand.
> We await your non-troll answers with bated breath.
That's " 'bated breath."
And....um...I believe he was talking about you.
From: tony cooper on 27 Oct 2009 22:55
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:45:39 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
>On 10/27/09 15:38 , tony cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:11:31 -0500, "D. Peter Maus"
>> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>> On 10/27/09 15:06 , nospam wrote:
>>>> In article<hc7jc2$ae7$3(a)news.eternal-september.org>, D. Peter Maus
>>>> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>>>> I did a shoot in July for the Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation,
>>>>> where one of the 'official' photographers was shooting a P&S.
>>>> why the quotes? was he hired to do it, or was he someone on staff that
>>>> happened to volunteer?
>>> Like all of us, he was hired to do it. But it was a pro bono job.
>> How can you be "hired" to do pro bono work? Approved or accepted,
>> maybe, but not hired or not pro bono. It's a contradiction in terms.
If you think so, then you don't understand the meaning of "semantics".
It is the study of meanings. The meaning of "hired" and the meaning
of "pro bono" are distinctively opposite. There's no ambiguity.
> The process is the same whether hired for pay or not.
But neither "hired" nor "pro bono" is the process. You are evidently
talking about the vetting of a person to ascertain their
qualifications when you refer to "process". Pro bono is a term that
describes a professional volunteering his/her services for the public
good; services that the person would normally be paid for. If the
person is not a professional in the field, he is simply an unpaid
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 27 Oct 2009 22:59
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0700, John Navas
>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:35:41 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in
>>On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:44:38 -0700, John Navas
>>>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.
More like you are afraid to enter because you can't handle criticism.
We know that you are willing to participate in pointless and
meaningless exercises. We've read your posts.
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: D. Peter Maus on 27 Oct 2009 23:03
On 10/27/09 21:55 , tony cooper wrote:
> Pro bono is a term that
> describes a professional volunteering his/her services for the public
> good; services that the person would normally be paid for. If the
> person is not a professional in the field, he is simply an unpaid
And we were all professional...that is, we get paid for our
services....volunteering our services for a public service non-profit.
That would be pro-bono.
Amateurs were not invited to apply, and did not get interviewed.
Interesting that you should be unclear on this.