Commenting On Unused Equipment
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Savageduck on 28 Oct 2009 22:08 On 2009-10-28 19:04:28 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> said: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:13:32 -0400, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> > wrote: > >> Anyone know a good psychologist or FBI profiler willing to look over >> his posts and share some insights? Might be entertaining. :) > > You can't help but form some impressions about him. He's not > unintelligent. His writing style and subject matter indicates that > he's intelligent enough to be articulate and intelligent enough to do > research on subject matter. > > Most probably a victim of some form of autism with a helping of idiot > savant. The repetition in his posts and posting style point to the > autism. He needs to feel things are in proper order, writes something > that he feels is right, and then repeats and repeats and repeats that > same thing. > > Like idiot savants, he has a splinter skill. His is becoming very > familiar with one technical subject area. This indicates high > right-side brain development. > > His inability to demonstrate any applied skill in photography despite > a knowledge of the technical side of cameras and photography says that > he's fulfilled in knowing the subject matter but has no interest in > actually doing photography. Photography isn't his goal; knowing the > subject area is. Because actually taking photographs doesn't interest > him, he denigrates those who do because he considers that skill to be > unimportant. > > The lack of social skills is further indication of the idiot savant > manifestation in autism. He understands that he has no social skills > and, to avoid rejection, he pushes people away with his abuse. It's a > "You can't reject me because I've already rejected you" thing. > > You won't get him out of the newsgroup. He needs it. He's unable to > form normal social relationships so he's made this his social > relationship, and - unlike in his outside life - he can control this > relationship. He feels that people must pay attention to him here. > > The bit about retiring at 25 is probably a reference to the age when > he came to grips with the fact that he wasn't going to be able to > function in a normal environment and hold a job. The references to > treks in the desert and in swamps are fantasies about how his life > would have been if he was normal. > > That's my theory, anyway. > There seems to be some Ted Kaczynski in there somewhere. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 28 Oct 2009 22:11 On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:56:30 -0700, "Frank ess" <frank(a)fshe2fs.com> wrote: > >There is a normal drive to be seen, heard, recognized. "At >any cost, by any means", is common in infants and pre-school children. >Most grow out of it. For those who don't, where better to be seen, >heard, recognized - without meaningful cost - than Usenet Groups? It's >just a variation on the "troll" theme, maybe a little less dishonest. > >Sucks to be you, doesn't it. 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: Savageduck on 28 Oct 2009 22:12 On 2009-10-28 19:07:01 -0700, Curiouser and Curiouser <questioning(a)anyisp.net> said: > On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:45:44 -0700, Savageduck > <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >> On 2009-10-28 18:05:15 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10/28/09 1:05 PM, in article 8a1he5t2p9poj2m3bun235oluvkcgbgo32(a)4ax.com, >>> "Curiouser and Curiouser" <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 ............. >> >> ---------<Silly Diatribe Removal Service>------- >> >>>> Sucks to be you, doesn't it. >>>> >>> Naa-Naa Na Nah _ na-naa! >> >> I am not sure he actually gets it. >> ...er no, he doesn't get it. > > Like all useless trolls, you have that quite backward. You're here for MY > entertain......... > ----------------------<Silly Diatribe Removal Service>---------------------- Confirmed. He doesn't get it. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Curiouser and Curiouser on 28 Oct 2009 22:13 On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:12:04 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2009-10-28 19:07:01 -0700, Curiouser and Curiouser ><questioning(a)anyisp.net> said: > >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:45:44 -0700, Savageduck >> <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> >>> On 2009-10-28 18:05:15 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/28/09 1:05 PM, in article 8a1he5t2p9poj2m3bun235oluvkcgbgo32(a)4ax.com, >>>> "Curiouser and Curiouser" <questioning(a)anyisp.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 ............. >>> >>> ---------<Silly Diatribe Removal Service>------- >>> >>>>> Sucks to be you, doesn't it. >>>>> >>>> Naa-Naa Na Nah _ na-naa! >>> >>> I am not sure he actually gets it. >>> ...er no, he doesn't get it. >> >> Like all useless trolls, you have that quite backward. You're here for MY >> entertain......... > >> ----------------------<Silly Diatribe Removal Service>---------------------- > >Confirmed. He doesn't get it. 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: Curiouser and Curiouser on 28 Oct 2009 22:15
On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:04:28 -0400, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:13:32 -0400, John A. <john(a)nowhere.invalid> >wrote: > >>Anyone know a good psychologist or FBI profiler willing to look over >>his posts and share some insights? Might be entertaining. :) > >You can't help but form some impressions about him. He's not >unintelligent. His writing style and subject matter indicates that >he's intelligent enough to be articulate and intelligent enough to do >research on subject matter. > >Most probably a victim of some form of autism with a helping of idiot >savant. The repetition in his posts and posting style point to the >autism. He needs to feel things are in proper order, writes something >that he feels is right, and then repeats and repeats and repeats that >same thing. > >Like idiot savants, he has a splinter skill. His is becoming very >familiar with one technical subject area. This indicates high >right-side brain development. > >His inability to demonstrate any applied skill in photography despite >a knowledge of the technical side of cameras and photography says that >he's fulfilled in knowing the subject matter but has no interest in >actually doing photography. Photography isn't his goal; knowing the >subject area is. Because actually taking photographs doesn't interest >him, he denigrates those who do because he considers that skill to be >unimportant. > >The lack of social skills is further indication of the idiot savant >manifestation in autism. He understands that he has no social skills >and, to avoid rejection, he pushes people away with his abuse. It's a >"You can't reject me because I've already rejected you" thing. > >You won't get him out of the newsgroup. He needs it. He's unable to >form normal social relationships so he's made this his social >relationship, and - unlike in his outside life - he can control this >relationship. He feels that people must pay attention to him here. > >The bit about retiring at 25 is probably a reference to the age when >he came to grips with the fact that he wasn't going to be able to >function in a normal environment and hold a job. The references to >treks in the desert and in swamps are fantasies about how his life >would have been if he was normal. > >That's my theory, anyway. > 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. |