I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Immigration: The shocking truth about the immigrants who openedthe floodgates
Next: The real cost of being sued by Getty
From: nospam on 22 Oct 2009 13:52 In article <op51e512n840e64q4ltei8emt9b2sfqmth(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > You're clutching at straws. nope.
From: -hh on 22 Oct 2009 17:50 On Oct 22, 12:51 pm, John Navas (the Liar) <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> > Perhaps Mr Navas could be so kind as to point out *precisely* where > >> > dSLRs were clearly being defended, lest John be ethically compelled to > >> > withdraw his statement as a blatant untruth? > > >> john navas withdraw a statement? don't hold your breath on that one. > > >Oh, I know not to bother. It really just serves as YA public > >reminder ... mostly to dear Mr. Navas himself .. that not only do we > >all know just what a dishonest individual he truly is, but he knows it > >too... > > >Afterall, the only person who is forcing John to lie is John himself. > >And it is Mr. Navas who is once again incapable of "Manning Up" to > >take responsibility for his own actions. > > 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, > whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.' Already done: the evidence in question is your reply, which lacked the retraction. As such, you have forfeited all plausibility of an excuse of "having not seen the post", and we can safely label all future posts from you as "John Navas the Liar" without any fear of you accusing anyone of libel. Go ahead and try to sue. I relish the prospects of the countersuit. -hh
From: John McWilliams on 22 Oct 2009 19:37 John Navas wrote: > On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:15:11 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> > wrote in <4ae04cd2$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: > >> John Navas wrote: >>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:41:36 -0500, Doug McDonald >>> <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in >>> <hbndjr$sku$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>: >>> >>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh >>>>> <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in >>>>> <6f13be1b-7470-496a-a225-c616e187862e(a)k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>: >>>>> >>>>>> John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>>>> [SNIP desperate defense of dSLR] >>>>>> And unfortunately, the performance of these P&Ss at even just ISO 400 >>>>>> makes for a relatively poor showing against what a one-use >>>>>> (disposable) Kodak Max 400 35mm film camera was able to do, a decade >>>>>> ago. >>>>> The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. >>>> Well, yes, depending on your definition of "very good". >>>> >>>> However, the best dSLRs have very good ISO 3200 performance, for >>>> the same definition of "very good". >>> That's a bit like bragging your personal equipment is an inch longer >>> than mine. ;) >> I expect that your GF would notice the difference... ;^) > > You would be wrong. > As in cameras, what matters is the workman, not the tool. An adequate tool in the hands of an artist is a good thing. A better tool in the hands of a maestro is a great thing*. Q.E.D. -- john mcwilliams * Well, that's what she said. ta-dum.
From: John Navas on 22 Oct 2009 19:40 On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:37:46 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in <hbqqcc$ped$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: >John Navas wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:15:11 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >> wrote in <4ae04cd2$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >> >>> John Navas wrote: >>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:41:36 -0500, Doug McDonald >>>> <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in >>>> <hbndjr$sku$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>: >>>> >>>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh >>>>>> <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in >>>>>> <6f13be1b-7470-496a-a225-c616e187862e(a)k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>>>>> [SNIP desperate defense of dSLR] >>>>>>> And unfortunately, the performance of these P&Ss at even just ISO 400 >>>>>>> makes for a relatively poor showing against what a one-use >>>>>>> (disposable) Kodak Max 400 35mm film camera was able to do, a decade >>>>>>> ago. >>>>>> The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. >>>>> Well, yes, depending on your definition of "very good". >>>>> >>>>> However, the best dSLRs have very good ISO 3200 performance, for >>>>> the same definition of "very good". >>>> That's a bit like bragging your personal equipment is an inch longer >>>> than mine. ;) >>> I expect that your GF would notice the difference... ;^) >> >> You would be wrong. >> As in cameras, what matters is the workman, not the tool. > >An adequate tool in the hands of an artist is a good thing. A better >tool in the hands of a maestro is a great thing*. > >Q.E.D. Nope. -- 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: Savageduck on 22 Oct 2009 19:45
On 2009-10-22 16:37:46 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> said: > John Navas wrote: >> On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:15:11 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >> wrote in <4ae04cd2$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >> >>> John Navas wrote: >>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:41:36 -0500, Doug McDonald >>>> <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in >>>> <hbndjr$sku$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>: >>>> >>>>> John Navas wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh >>>>>> <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in >>>>>> <6f13be1b-7470-496a-a225-c616e187862e(a)k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>>>>> [SNIP desperate defense of dSLR] >>>>>>> And unfortunately, the performance of these P&Ss at even just ISO 400 >>>>>>> makes for a relatively poor showing against what a one-use >>>>>>> (disposable) Kodak Max 400 35mm film camera was able to do, a decade >>>>>>> ago. >>>>>> The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. >>>>> Well, yes, depending on your definition of "very good". >>>>> >>>>> However, the best dSLRs have very good ISO 3200 performance, for >>>>> the same definition of "very good". >>>> That's a bit like bragging your personal equipment is an inch longer >>>> than mine. ;) >>> I expect that your GF would notice the difference... ;^) >> >> You would be wrong. >> As in cameras, what matters is the workman, not the tool. > > An adequate tool in the hands of an artist is a good thing. A better > tool in the hands of a maestro is a great thing*. > > Q.E.D. Aah! The Acme vs. The Strad analogy. -- Regards, Savageduck |