From: Dudley Hanks on

"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4aef716e$0$1582$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:47:47 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com>
>>wrote in <4aeeff28(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>>
>>>-hh wrote:
>>>> Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 21:11:24 -0000, "No spam please"
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I have no problems using any Canon EF lens on any EF body.
>>>>>> You've defining the problem away, and in fact some Canon EF lenses
>>>>>> won't
>>>>>> work on some Canon EF bodies.
>>>>> Really? That's news to me. Which lenses, & which bodies?
>>>>
>>>> The EF-S lenses won't work on full frame EOS bodies ... but that's
>>>> because its an EF-S lens, which is not an EF lens, but rather a lens
>>>> that's designed to be used on EF-S based EOS bodies, which are
>>>> compatible with both EF & EF-S lenses.
>>>
>>>Exactly. EF-S lenses aren't EF lenses.
>>
>>Again, "You've defining the problem away..."
>
> Again, you're trying to create a problem in order justify your idiocy.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfischer(a)sonic.net
>

Sometimes, I think John can't read. As long as there is an "F" in the
designation, it's all the same to him.

Take Care,
Dudley


From: George Kerby on



On 11/2/09 11:05 AM, in article hcnke1$vmm$2(a)adenine.netfront.net, "No spam
please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:

> "George Kerby" <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C7144D6A.37B56%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com...
>>> What about the crew usig their PCs while on autopilot, resulting in
>> overshooting their destination by 150 miles?
>>
>
> The NTSB said they wouldn't check the laptops as the crew already said
> they'd been using them.
>
> What would be the conclusion if the laptops were examined and found not to
> have been in use during the overshoot.
> Let's not guess what the flight crew had actually been doing.
>
> Regards, Rog.
>
>
For sure.

From: George Kerby on



On 11/2/09 11:07 AM, in article hcnkef$vmm$3(a)adenine.netfront.net, "No spam
please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote:

> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
> news:Q2CHm.50238$Db2.18755(a)edtnps83...
>>
>> ">> "Mister, at this time you are required to turn off your pacemaker.
>>> When we reach 10,000 feet, you may re-start it. Thank you."
>>>
>>
>> George, that's about as good a way of encapsulating the issue as I've
>> read... :)
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley
>>
>>
> Hi guys.
>
> Nice analogy but the wrong way round. When you visit a radar site or
> broadcast site you should see signs warning those with pacemakers not to
> enter. Pacemaker is the victim, not the perpetrator.
> An acquaintance of mine works in the world of radio but can't accept site
> visits to broadcast sites because of his pacemaker.
>
> Best wishes, Rog.
>
>
Nice info, but my tongue was "cheekin' it"...

From: George Kerby on



On 11/2/09 4:16 PM, in article RSIHm.50288$Db2.19440(a)edtnps83, "Dudley
Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

>
> "No spam please" <me(a)spamnotwelcome.org> wrote in message
> news:hcnkef$vmm$3(a)adenine.netfront.net...
>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
>> news:Q2CHm.50238$Db2.18755(a)edtnps83...
>>>
>>> ">> "Mister, at this time you are required to turn off your pacemaker.
>>>> When we reach 10,000 feet, you may re-start it. Thank you."
>>>>
>>>
>>> George, that's about as good a way of encapsulating the issue as I've
>>> read... :)
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>>>
>>>
>> Hi guys.
>>
>> Nice analogy but the wrong way round. When you visit a radar site or
>> broadcast site you should see signs warning those with pacemakers not to
>> enter. Pacemaker is the victim, not the perpetrator.
>> An acquaintance of mine works in the world of radio but can't accept site
>> visits to broadcast sites because of his pacemaker.
>>
>> Best wishes, Rog.
>>
>
> Not really, I think George was lampooning the practice of turning off ALL
> electrical devices during take-off and landing. Followed too strictly,
> nasty things would happen... :)
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
Tank ye, sir.

From: George Kerby on



On 11/2/09 5:46 PM, in article bbKHm.50296$Db2.3395(a)edtnps83, "Dudley Hanks"
<dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

>
> "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:021120091835218310%nospam(a)nospam.invalid...
>> In article <14que5l8d2v13hg7gkc2f0gvipn8t0jb8l(a)4ax.com>, John Navas
>> <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> The difference between SLRs and vehicles is that an SLR is adaptable to
>>>> the
>>>> user's changing needs.
>>>
>>> On the contrary -- dSLR is non-upgradable and rapidly obsoleted, whereas
>>> a car can be upgraded and remains close to state-of-the-art throughout
>>> it's service life.
>>
>> huh?
>>
>> let's see you upgrade the car's engine, replace a standard transmission
>> with an automatic or add air conditioning if you opted to not include
>> it at the time of purchase. let's see you add odb-ii to an older car or
>> change a 2-wheel drive car into a 4-wheel drive car. it's anywhere from
>> prohibitively expensive to impossible.
>>
>> where do you come up with this stuff?
>
> To John, money, practicality and common sense just aren't part of the
> equation...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
>
>
To NavASS, equations are non-existent. What a fool...