From: George Kerby on



On 10/28/09 1:41 PM, in article
heGdnSTUxcG3DXXXnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d(a)giganews.com, "Neil Harrington"
<secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:

>
> "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:2t2he51qommtr6sieuivu1dkhur7ngoeem(a)4ax.com...
>> 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.
>
> John, you have worn out "childish" as an argument some time ago.
>
>
He is an idiot, proven!

From: nospam on
In article <0u2he5ds6892skja3413uuf2qmgg319c52(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> What real photographers really do is take photographs,
> not try to boast about their equipment.

based on your endless posts about your equipment and how much better it
is than a dslr, we know into which category you fall.
From: nospam on
In article <633he5pfrta9hc07t1q8ehmi4n3118g8eg(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> 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.
>
> Simply not true.

"provide proof if you wish to be taken seriously"
From: George Kerby on



On 10/28/09 1:53 PM, in article mn4he59mngjfa296oa3e4nb9630a0nm6m2(a)4ax.com,
"Curiouser and Curiouser" <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:37:04 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> <secret(a)illumnati.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> "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.
>>
>
>
> 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.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........(snore).......zzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZz
z...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....zzzzzzzzz.......(p-p-p-ph-h-h-a-a-a-r-r-rt-t-t).......
....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ....(yawn)...zzzzzzzzzzz....

From: David J. Littleboy on

"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> 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.
>>
>> Simply not true.
>
> "provide proof if you wish to be taken seriously"

It's hard to provide proof if you're dead wrong...

--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan