From: Peter on
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i195q2$l46$2(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> Robert Coe wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:19:29 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>> <nobody(a)homehere.net>
>> wrote:
>> : : "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message :
>> news:t8c8361e99j167jvk3hvm7kcupg0vkof0l(a)4ax.com...
>> : : > (no doubt the resident anti-DSLR troll will be along in a minute
>> with
>> : > his usual anti-DSLR rant!)
>> : : Yep, there he is, right on cue. The one thing you can say for him is
>> that he isn't lazy.
>
> What's the chance you chaps can stop rattling on about him?


I suspect two chances:
slim ^ none.

--
Peter
Who remembers the lsmft cry.

From: Peter on
"Robert Coe" <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote in message
news:lasg36hi5u8tl8uj3jgdoiahedfek1def7(a)4ax.com...


> What they mean is that there are 19 million people who know that it isn't
> spelled "Linix". ;^)

Didn't Linux need a security blanket?
Remember his sister Lucy keep pulling the football away from Charlie Brown?


--
Peter

From: John McWilliams on
Peter wrote:
> "John McWilliams" <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:i195q2$l46$2(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> Robert Coe wrote:
>>> On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:19:29 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>> <nobody(a)homehere.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> : : "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message :
>>> news:t8c8361e99j167jvk3hvm7kcupg0vkof0l(a)4ax.com...
>>> : : > (no doubt the resident anti-DSLR troll will be along in a
>>> minute with
>>> : > his usual anti-DSLR rant!)
>>> : : Yep, there he is, right on cue. The one thing you can say for him
>>> is that he isn't lazy.
>>
>> What's the chance you chaps can stop rattling on about him?
>
>
> I suspect two chances:
> slim ^ none.

Let's hope they prove us both wrong.....
From: Robert Coe on
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 11:41:17 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
: On Fri, 09 Jul 2010 21:49:25 -0400, Robert Coe <bob(a)1776.COM> wrote:
: >On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 22:12:14 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
: >: As I have said before, I would value a small sensor digital camera for
: >: some macro work on account of its greatly increased depth of field.
: >: There is also the value of having a camera that is small in size and
: >: light in weight and therefore relatively inconspicuous.
: >
: >It occurs to me that the relative inconspicuity of P&S cameras took a
: >significant hit when they stopped putting proper viewfinders in them.
:
:
: You have never heard of electronic viewfinders (EVFs)?
:
: Poor you.

Yeah, poor me.

Bob