Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 28 Oct 2009 14:05 On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 10:41:30 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2009-10-28 10:08:32 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> said: > >> >> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:C70C71FC.3744B%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/26/09 10:27 PM, in article >>> acpce5drnv7l03118nnsrbh6sirvur1nj5(a)4ax.com, >>> "Curiouser and Curiouser" <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:02:31 -0700, Savageduck >>>> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2009-10-26 19:52:48 -0700, Michael <adunc79617(a)mypacks.net> said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2009-10-26 22:33:32 -0400, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:26:05 -0500, Curiouser and Curiouser >>>>>>> <questioning(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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You tell us. Why do you praise P&S cameras to high heaven while >>>>>>> denigrating DSLRs you've never used, touched, nor even considered? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> It's all in the words. >>>> >>>> I'd wonder how many of those DSLR psychotics would reply, never realizing >>>> that I HAVE used DSLRs, sold them all when I found out P&S cameras were >>>> better. So I *DO* have first-hand knowledge of what I speak about. How do >>>> you think I know of so many of the glaring faults wrapped in the DSLR >>>> design concept? Found the faults by using the cameras. >>>> >>>> You will also note, that I *NEVER* go out of my way to slam any camera >>>> unless some psychotic troll is inventing stories about P&S cameras >>>> they've >>>> never used. I don't slam DSLRs, I only defend P&S cameras against the >>>> wild >>>> imaginings of insecure and psychotic DSLR-Trolls. It's that simple. >>>> >>>> I'm so far ahead of you psychotic, useless, ignorant, and inexperienced >>>> trolls in experience and knowledge about photography and the required >>>> equipment that you don't even have a clue. >>>> >>> I've concluded that you are suffering from a severe case of >>> Anatidaephobia... >> >> <guffaw!> >> >> Well, that was worth looking up! :-) > >Reciprocal snicker! Are you aware that you and others of your ilk have now proved yourselves beyond a shadow of all doubts to be nothing but inexperienced and ignorant trolls, again? Stay on topic, you ignorant and inexperienced know-nothing thread hijacking trolls. Catch-22. If you stayed on topic you wouldn't be a troll. Continue going off topic and you have precisely proved my point. Sucks to be as stupid as you, doesn't it. 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. We all wait with bated breath for your non-troll response. (Apostrophe left off of "bated" to see how many apostrophe-trolls are in abundance.) Since you failed to address or answer the question, there it is again. Any further off-topic trolling without addressing the question and you will prove, beyond all doubt, that you are nothing but an ignorant troll, again. It's just that simple. Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
From: John Navas on 28 Oct 2009 14:21 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 22:59:37 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in <oncfe59jih38kcp5bqa9pe7lfibtobh2tc(a)4ax.com>: >On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 14:45:26 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>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. How childish. -- 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: John Navas on 28 Oct 2009 14:24 On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:59:55 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote in <1sidnUVdiMMN5XXXnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>: >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:25qee5h8skamoc67bpvbdbu8kc8qdjhq53(a)4ax.com... > >> Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, >> it makes you a dSLR owner. > >And buying a tractor doesn't make you a farmer. > >Nevertheless, real farmers buy tractors Sometimes. Sometimes not. >and real photographers buy DSLRs. Sometimes. Sometimes not. What real photographers really do is take photographs, not try to boast about their equipment. -- 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: John Navas on 28 Oct 2009 14:24 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:55:57 -0500, Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu> wrote in <hc81ac$bo2$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>: >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. Simply not true. -- 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: Neil Harrington on 28 Oct 2009 14:37
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hc9vd3$7ec$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > Neil Harrington wrote: >> "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. > > Why are so many unable to resist? Well, a handful continually rise to the > bait. Because it becomes kind of a fun thing. And note, the P&S troll isn't getting anywhere, at least by the classic definition for trolls. I realize of course that the definition has become muddled into something like "anyone who says something that annoys me," but the classic troll was one who started a squabble among newsgroup users and then sat back to watch the fun. The best of the trolls could do this with a single post -- and then never add another word, while the newsgroup regulars argued with increasing ire and fury amongst themselves. The troll who could do that was a troll for whom one had a certain grudging admiration. This P&S troll, on the other hand, works hard at what the does, and to relatively little effect. He slaves away at his keyboard, post after post after post, day after day. Gradually people tire of him and ignore him. Discussions and arguments may continue, but they have less and less to do with him. Now he's laboring over his 300-word posts and getting 10-word replies. This is a failed troll. |