Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: tony cooper on 28 Oct 2009 00:23 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:03:28 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >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 >> volunteer. >> >> > > > 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. I'm not unclear at all. I understand that you are a professional and worked pro bono. However, the process of interviewing you, verifying your credentials, and determining your qualifications would not be described as pro bono. Pro bono is not a process. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: D. Peter Maus on 28 Oct 2009 00:28 On 10/27/09 23:23 , tony cooper wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:03:28 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" > <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> 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 >>> volunteer. >>> >>> >> >> >> 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. > > I'm not unclear at all. > > I understand that you are a professional and worked pro bono. > However, the process of interviewing you, verifying your credentials, > and determining your qualifications would not be described as pro > bono. Pro bono is not a process. HIRING is the process to which I referred, there, Tony. Pro Bono is not a process. But good to see you're getting the most out of that Pedantry Degree. Carry on. p
From: tony cooper on 28 Oct 2009 00:48 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:28:05 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >On 10/27/09 23:23 , tony cooper wrote: >> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:03:28 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" >> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>> volunteer. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> 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. >> >> I'm not unclear at all. >> >> I understand that you are a professional and worked pro bono. >> However, the process of interviewing you, verifying your credentials, >> and determining your qualifications would not be described as pro >> bono. Pro bono is not a process. > > > > HIRING is the process to which I referred, there, Tony. > > Pro Bono is not a process. > > > But good to see you're getting the most out of that Pedantry Degree. It's not working out for me. You still don't see where you are wrong. There was no hiring process involved in what you describe. No one was hired. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hire -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: D. Peter Maus on 28 Oct 2009 02:36 On 10/27/09 23:48 , tony cooper wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:28:05 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" > <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > >> On 10/27/09 23:23 , tony cooper wrote: >>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:03:28 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" >>> <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>>>> volunteer. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I'm not unclear at all. >>> >>> I understand that you are a professional and worked pro bono. >>> However, the process of interviewing you, verifying your credentials, >>> and determining your qualifications would not be described as pro >>> bono. Pro bono is not a process. >> >> >> >> HIRING is the process to which I referred, there, Tony. >> >> Pro Bono is not a process. >> >> >> But good to see you're getting the most out of that Pedantry Degree. > > It's not working out for me. Sorry to hear that. As committed as you are to your pedantry, one would think you'd be more satisfied with it's application. Perhaps if you start drinking.
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 28 Oct 2009 05:53
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 21:23:24 -0500, "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >On 10/27/09 20:40 , Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: >> >> We await your non-troll answers with bated breath. > > > That's " 'bated breath." > > And....um...I believe he was talking about you. > bate \"bat\ verb bat�ed bat�ing [ME, short for abaten to abate] (14c) verb transitive 1 : to reduce the force or intensity of : restrain <with bated breath> 2 : to take away : deduct 3 archaic : to lower esp. in amount or estimation 4 archaic : blunt verb intransitive obs : diminish, decrease (C)1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated. All rights reserved. No single-apostrophe needed, except by a troll trying to find more red-herring nonsense evasions to hijack a thread. By a single unnecessary apostrophe this time no less. Only 3 screen pixels that aren't even needed. Talk about a troll getting majorly desperate for trolling material. You can't even read nor keep track of the threads you troll in. I are the OP, that's why I asked you the question again that you are evading with your troll's red-herring nonsense. Read it again. Here it is again for your perusal. Can you answer it without your usual off-topic trolling? The challenge is on. (Guess who's going to win. Once a troll, always a troll. Asking a troll to not act like a troll is like asking a slug to not travel by use of its exuded slime layer discharge.) > >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. |