Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Elliott Roper on 28 Oct 2009 07:11 In article <hc8opf$8e9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, D. Peter Maus <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > Sorry to hear that. As committed as you are to your pedantry, one > would think you'd be more satisfied with it's application. > > Perhaps if you start drinking. Watch out! Here come the apostrophe police! <grin> -- To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$ PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
From: Doug McDonald on 28 Oct 2009 09:40 Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: > > Using your off-topic example, Of course its on topic. You're a really great troll! My complements! I'm serious!! My hat is off ... a better troll is not possible! Everything you write is wrong!! > which is just more ignorant and inexperienced > troll's red-herring evasion. You're completely wrong. A small sensor of > today's technology far surpasses a larger sensor of yesterday's technology. Possibly ... but I said "can" ... and with today's technology used in all sensors, small and large, the large ones DO WIN. > > Your physics theorems didn't include reality. (Not surprising because > trolls live in their imaginary cyber-world minds.) > > Do try to stay on topic next time, troll. > > Your mission was to try to explain why people want to give advice about > something that they know nothing about. Just like the example you provided. > You know absolutely nothing about reality and physics and tried to wrap > that into an obvious troll's red-herring evasion. Giving advice about > things that you know nothing about. > Oh but I **DO** know about physics ... its my business. That's why my hat is off to you! You are truly expert at the exact-reverse-to-truth troll. Doug
From: Doug McDonald on 28 Oct 2009 09:41 Ray Fischer wrote: >>> 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 >>> >> Using your off-topic example, which is just more ignorant and inexperienced > > Go away, idiot troll. > He's not an idiot troll!! That's the key ... he is ALWAYS EXACTLY WRONG ... and not by chance ... so he is an expert, who carefully uses his knowledge to troll with wrong statements. Doug
From: Neil Harrington on 28 Oct 2009 12:39 "Miles Bader" <miles(a)gnu.org> wrote in message news:buo8wex1oxp.fsf(a)dhlpc061.dev.necel.com... > Michael <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> writes: >>> We know why, of course: you're the infamous P&S Troll. We simply don't >>> know specifically why you are a troll, or why you chose to target this >>> group in particular. Nor do we care, actually. >> >> I was wondering how many responses I'd read before someone recognized >> our infamous friend. > > Using one of his standard trolling techniques too. He may be an idiot > when it comes to photography, but he's actually pretty skillful at > trolling... I wouldn't say he's particularly skillful at it, but he does have an effective (if transparent) procedure for it. The procedure is simple enough that I think anyone could do it; it requires little if any skill: 1. Enter a newsgroup making any ordinary trollish comment 2. Crudely insult anyone who replies, while accusing *them* of being a troll Simple as that.
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 28 Oct 2009 12:57
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:40:07 -0500, Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote: >Curiouser and Curiouser wrote: > >> >> Using your off-topic example, > >Of course its on topic. You're a really great troll! My complements! > >I'm serious!! My hat is off ... a better troll is not possible! > >Everything you write is wrong!! > > >> which is just more ignorant and inexperienced >> troll's red-herring evasion. You're completely wrong. A small sensor of >> today's technology far surpasses a larger sensor of yesterday's technology. > >Possibly ... but I said "can" ... and with today's technology used in >all sensors, small and large, the large ones DO WIN. > > > >> >> Your physics theorems didn't include reality. (Not surprising because >> trolls live in their imaginary cyber-world minds.) >> >> Do try to stay on topic next time, troll. >> >> Your mission was to try to explain why people want to give advice about >> something that they know nothing about. Just like the example you provided. >> You know absolutely nothing about reality and physics and tried to wrap >> that into an obvious troll's red-herring evasion. Giving advice about >> things that you know nothing about. >> > > >Oh but I **DO** know about physics ... its my business. > >That's why my hat is off to you! You are truly expert at >the exact-reverse-to-truth troll. > >Doug You failed to answer the question, again. Here it is, again. Try to not red-herring side-step it, again. As all the useless troll's have done so far, again. As you no doubt will do, again. I merely post this so that everyone can see that you are nothing but an off-topic red-herring evasive troll, again. > >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. |