rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Response to P&S reasons list - 8 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a54d4f54a92e6ebf?hl=en
* Why do DSLR's still use mirrors? - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a53e34f2dbe14272?hl=en
* The 1248 mm challenge - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/45464bb7793115c9?hl=en
* The Obamanation Gets a Dire and Critical Warning From South Africa.. - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/66a180c16d084ddf?hl=en
* Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.
WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour - 10 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
* P&S cameras exist for one reason - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/7076f36b91d1c779?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Response to P&S reasons list
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a54d4f54a92e6ebf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 2:30 am
From: edward-jorgen
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:13:28 +1000, Doug Jewell <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you>
wrote:
>William Clinton wrote:
>
>> Only if you snip out the link that proves you 100% wrong. Here, I'll insert it
>> again so you aren't poking your own eyes out to retain your bliss-of-ignorance.
>>
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
>
>How about actually posting a link to the flickr page,
>instead of just the image - that way we can assess the
>legitimacy of the above link.
>
>I found that www.imaging-resource.com uses the same charts
>for some cameras (doesn't have the S3 though). Comparing
>their test for the Canon XTi/400D vs the S3 page you linked
>to reveals...
>
>Total DR (with in-camera JPG on 400D) is 9.98 stops vs 10.3
>on the S3IS. Ok so total DR on the S3 is better than the
>in-camera JPG DR on the 400D. That is true, but it is also
>not relevant, because that includes noise. At the point
>where there is still a whopping 1 stop of noise in the
>shadows (which would be considered low image quality), the
>400D is at 9.83 stops DR vs 9.05 of the S3IS. ie, the 400D
>is delivering almost 1 stop better DR. If you are a little
>pickier about image quality, with .25 stop of noise, the
>400D has 8.27 stops of DR, vs 7 stops on the S3. For what
>would be considered high image quality, with .1 stop of
>noise, the 400D is delivering 7.04 stops DR vs only 4.82 for
>the S3 - that's more than 2 stops better performance on the
>400D.
>
>But it gets better yet. Shoot in RAW and use ACR, and the
>400D jumps to 11 total stops of DR, and 7.84 stops with .1
>noise. At the level where there is only .1 stop of noise,
>the 400D is delivering a whopping 3 stops more DR than the S3IS.
>
>So, your claim that P&S delivers more DR is comprehensively
>debunked, so probably best for you to fuck off back to troll
>school now.
>
>BTW, when you post a "sample" of how good P&S is, why won't
>you post the link to the flickr page, so we can actually see
>what the EXIF info is. I won't hold my breath, because the
>shots you are linking to are A) probably not yours, and B)
>probably taken with an SLR anyway.
Then all your claims are debunked if you use CHDK on an S3 and use the RAW data
giving it a full extra EV stop in dynamic range, it will still win over your
beloved DSLR. Not all noise is noise when you now how to filter out real noise
from real data. It must feel pretty bad to finally see that all those
theoretical calculations that idiots spewed out on the newsgroups, claiming that
no small sensor could ever compete with a DSLR sensor, have now been totally
proved wrong with real-world test results.
Would you like to see the S3 ISO800 graphs that prove it still has more dynamic
range than the average APS-C sensor at ISO800? Yes, even at ISO800.
Your troll's request for images posted is laughable. You want images for proof
and then in the same breath you claim they would be stolen, forged, or edited.
You set yourself up to lose no matter what. Like any typical deceiving troll.
You self-deceptive trolls are so amazingly transparent. It's a wonder that
anyone would take the time to try to educate you. It's not worth it.
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 2:40 am
From: WilliamHurst
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 20:29:30 +1000, Doug Jewell <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you>
wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>> TheParadeOfTrolls <spamless@trollspottersinc.org> wrote:
>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> William Clinton <wclinton@invaliddomain.org> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:16:32 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>>>>> No, it is not seamless.
>>>>> Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
>>>> Which lens is that? You don't say andanybody can make up numbers that
>>>> don't have anything to do with reality.
>>> Thanks for revealing just how non-observant you are. Any camera review site in
>>> the world will list that camera with that lens on it.
>>
>> Which camera is that? You don't say and anybody can make up numbers
>> that don't have anything to do with reality.
>>
>P&S Troll keeps making claims about all the virtues of P&S,
>however there isn't a single camera that delivers the things
>he claims. 27-486 (35mm equiv) is the range on the Fuji
>S8100, but then he raves on about CHDK, which is available
>for some of the older Canon cameras (he posts a link with
>specs of the S3 so presumably that is the camera he is
>referring to). Then he talks about small and lightweight,
>which the S8100 & S3 aren't, so maybe now he is talking
>about an IXUS or Powershot. He then talks about a good
>quality EVF, which neither the fuji nor canon have, so maybe
>he has an old Minolta, a Sony or a Kodak as well.
>
>Of course all of these P&S cameras weigh more and are
>bulkier, than the typical SLR kit.
It's fun watching you run around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to
figure out which of the many P&S cameras would be best. They're all
excellent--in the hands of a photographer with real talent. A quality which you
apparently lack, or the existence of P&S cameras and those who claim to find
them more useful than a DSLR wouldn't bother you so.
Your protestations speak loud and clear, but only about your lack of any
photography skill whatsoever. I'm sure you hadn't intended that message being
conveyed in your posts, but that's all that you've managed to prove so far.
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 4:13 am
From: "Toby"
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:491734eb$0$33571$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> TheParadeOfTrolls <spamless@trollspottersinc.org> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>William Clinton <wclinton@invaliddomain.org> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:16:32 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>>>>
>>>>>No, it is not seamless.
>>>>
>>>>Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
>>>
>>>Which lens is that? You don't say andanybody can make up numbers that
>>>don't have anything to do with reality.
>>
>>Thanks for revealing just how non-observant you are. Any camera review
>>site in
>>the world will list that camera with that lens on it.
>
> Which camera is that? You don't say and anybody can make up numbers
> that don't have anything to do with reality.
> Ray Fischer
Ignore the abusive troll. There are three large P&Ss with that range from
Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic. The lenses themselves are not terrible. They
suffer from fringing and CA, which the Panasonic, at least, corrects
in-camera (I'm not sure about the Oly and the Fuji doesn't, making the
corners pretty horrible). Dpreview says that all of these cameras make nice
5x7 inch prints, but you can't go much larger decently. All three suffer
from horribly noisy sensors, losing considerable detail to noise reduction
already by ISO 400. Also they all tend to clip the highlights.
I have a friend with the Panasonic, and she says that she absolutely cannot
get rid of the noise artifacts after ISO 400. She thought she was getting a
good deal with the zoom range, but is not happy with the rest of the
package.
Toby
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 4:14 am
From: "Toby"
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:491802f1$0$33543$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> paul-torgensen <ptorgensen@noaddress.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Alex R <alexanderr@wherever.org> wrote:
>>>> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>>>Troll wrote:
>>>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>>> P&S guy <man of many names> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>>>>>> No, it is not seamless.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes but not 6mm-2100mm or whatever you are claiming.
>>>>
>>>>I guess you missed those thread with photos to prove that it can be
>>>>done, and
>>>>done well.
>>>
>>>Then with an SLR you can go "seamless" from 6mm to 4000mm and longer
>>>and with much better quality. You can use tilt-shift lenses, you can
>>>go as fast as f1.0, you can use a wide variety of filters.
>>
>>Yes, f/1.0 with fixed focal-length lenses.
>
> Which is not possible at all with a P&S.
>
>> How many of those will you need to
>>get that 6mm to 4000mm focal-length range? Let's count them, shall we?
>>You'd
>>need 3,994 individual lenses.
>
> LOL! You a really are a _stupid_ little asshole.
Not stupid, but definitely disturbed.
Toby
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 4:17 am
From: "Toby"
>
> IGNORE his postings no matter what he follows up with, and in time he
> might just disappear, doubtful, but worth a shot... unless of course you
> or others hellbent on replying enjoy being referred to as morons, or
> <gasp> resident-trolls. It is after all a GAME for him, one that none of
> you currently replying will ever win...
Wise words, indeed.
Toby
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 4:57 am
From: clarence patkin
On 10 Nov 2008 06:13:03 -0600, "Toby" <kymarto123@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:491734eb$0$33571$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> TheParadeOfTrolls <spamless@trollspottersinc.org> wrote:
>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>William Clinton <wclinton@invaliddomain.org> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:16:32 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it is not seamless.
>>>>>
>>>>>Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
>>>>
>>>>Which lens is that? You don't say andanybody can make up numbers that
>>>>don't have anything to do with reality.
>>>
>>>Thanks for revealing just how non-observant you are. Any camera review
>>>site in
>>>the world will list that camera with that lens on it.
>>
>> Which camera is that? You don't say and anybody can make up numbers
>> that don't have anything to do with reality.
>
>> Ray Fischer
>
>Ignore the abusive troll. There are three large P&Ss with that range from
>Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic. The lenses themselves are not terrible. They
>suffer from fringing and CA, which the Panasonic, at least, corrects
>in-camera (I'm not sure about the Oly and the Fuji doesn't, making the
>corners pretty horrible). Dpreview says that all of these cameras make nice
>5x7 inch prints, but you can't go much larger decently. All three suffer
>from horribly noisy sensors, losing considerable detail to noise reduction
>already by ISO 400. Also they all tend to clip the highlights.
>
>I have a friend with the Panasonic, and she says that she absolutely cannot
>get rid of the noise artifacts after ISO 400. She thought she was getting a
>good deal with the zoom range, but is not happy with the rest of the
>package.
>
>Toby
>
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:04:23 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>They're also often very disappointed
>>with the results in sub-optimal lighting conditions, compared to what
>>they used to get with film. With film, everyone bought the same sensors
>>on rolls.
>
>Yes, all at ASA25, ASA64, ASA80, ASA100, rarely ASA200, and all managed to get
>those photos just fine. What's your problem today? Oh, that's right, you are a
>talentless idiot who has never used any camera. Those wanting to do starscapes
>then delved into the very grainy ASA400 and ASA800 films, often using more
>elaborate darkroom processes like push-processing and hypering. If they could
>first wrap their minds and exposure times around reciprocity failure in those
>films.
>
>You were saying?
>
>Ah, that's right, you were saying even more uneducated and clueless crap....
>
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 6:50 am
From: FrankH
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:19:02 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>Troll wrote:
>>
>> You MIGHT take a 20-minute exposure of some rare bird that's sleeping and nested
>> at night that's only lit by starlight, but you'd probably wait until morning.
>
>You'd have to wait till noon when the light was adequate.
The ignorance and stupidity of that comment doesn't even rate a 0.001 on the
0-10 scale of the "Typical-Resident-Trolls'-Tactics Meter"
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 7:52 am
From: SMS
Toby wrote:
> I have a friend with the Panasonic, and she says that she absolutely cannot
> get rid of the noise artifacts after ISO 400. She thought she was getting a
> good deal with the zoom range, but is not happy with the rest of the
> package.
That's the danger of buying based solely on specifications. Panasonic
has a terrible reputation in terms of noise, even though on paper their
cameras look appealing.
Still, even with less noisy P&S cameras, going beyond 8" x 10" prints is
very dicey, but few people ever have the need for larger than 8" x 10"
See the table at "http://i33.tinypic.com/28m3669.jpg" for a good guide
to where you can go in terms of print sizes for P&S versus D-SLR.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why do DSLR's still use mirrors?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a53e34f2dbe14272?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 2:43 am
From: Chris Malcolm
David J Taylor <david-taylor@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
> Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <Vp2Rk.84291$E41.39553@text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J
>> Taylor says...
>>
>>> They did - Sony made the R1 but it ended up having less zoom range,
>>> and being a brute of a camera becuase of the size of the sensor.
>>> Did it sell?
>>
>> I bought it and can tell you that it's a fine camera. The only problem
>> is that the sensor Sony chose was not that good at high ISO and that
>> for practical purposes there was no way to extend the zoom range
>> beyond 24- 120, because these adapters were really HUGE.
> []
> It's a pity, because it was a camera I was really looking forward to. The
> size and weight put me off. I suppose its zoom must be similar to the
> 16-85mm VR lens I have now (no IS/VR on the Sony, of course), and I do
> find that a good range. It's nice to be able to quickly swap to the
> 70-300mm VR (105-450mm 35mm equivalent FoV) for those distant shots,
> though. That's an 18.75:1 zoom range.
> Have you compared the A350/R1/8080 taking the same scene?
I've repeated a few of my best R1 shots with an A350 plus SAL18-250mm
zoom. There's a slight loss of contrast but the extra detail you'd
expect from the 14MP is there. At first I thought the loss of contrast
was a natural consequence of the larger number of lenses in the more
complex longer zoom, but now that I've noticed the very much wider
dynamic range in the A350 images, it may be a consequence of that. I'd
say that generally speaking when compared at pixel level and when both
lenses are used at their best apertures the SAL18-250 is the effective
equal in performance of the R1's zoom when used in the same zoom range
on a 14MP sensor, and up to the extra resolution.
At its wide and long extremes the optical performance falls off a bit,
I'd guess down to about 7MP standards, since downsizing to 7MP
conceals the optical flaws.
Two improvements of the A350 over the R1 which are very obvious as you
just wander about snapping things is that the exposure is much more
accurate. Highlights are very much more rarely blown. The second is
that not only is the autofocus much faster, and operates well in worse
conditions, but it's also more often right on the nail.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 2:51 am
From: Chris Malcolm
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <f06bh4tsdh79j9rs5g0b0i2bbcmlnqt4l0@4ax.com>, clayton J
> says...
>> You've never heard of filter step-up rings that allow you to use larger filters
>> on your cameras? They cost about $4-5 from reputable dealers. I always buy
>> oversized filters so I may use the same ones on all my cameras. I have to travel
>> light and for great distances with minimal equipment and still provide for the
>> most adaptable "anything can happen" configurations. I use the step-up rings on
>> the cameras with smaller filter-thread diameters. No vignetting ever, no matter
>> how many that you need to stack.
>>
>> You people seriously need some remedial photography classes ... or something.
> Sure, but I have already spent 100+ Euro on this high quality slim line
> polariser filter. And no, Sony didn't tell me that I had to use an
> oversized filter with a step-up ring. They never mentioned anywhere, so
> how was I supposed to know that you need an oversized polariser filter?
> All cameras I've been using previously didn't have this vignetting
> problem.
It's not a camera problem, it's a wide lens problem. If you want a
wide lens to operate without vignetting with standard sized filters
you have to make the lens body wide enough to take the width of filter
required. Or you can slim it down and require the use of slim filters
or step-out rings. Since polarisers don't work well with wide lenses
anyway, because they're so wide the polarisation shifts a lot over the
image, wide lenses will very often not accommodate the extra depth of a
polariser, even a slimline one.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 4:25 am
From: "David J Taylor"
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> David J Taylor
[]
>> Have you compared the A350/R1/8080 taking the same scene?
>
> I've repeated a few of my best R1 shots with an A350 plus SAL18-250mm
> zoom. There's a slight loss of contrast but the extra detail you'd
> expect from the 14MP is there. At first I thought the loss of contrast
> was a natural consequence of the larger number of lenses in the more
> complex longer zoom, but now that I've noticed the very much wider
> dynamic range in the A350 images, it may be a consequence of that. I'd
> say that generally speaking when compared at pixel level and when both
> lenses are used at their best apertures the SAL18-250 is the effective
> equal in performance of the R1's zoom when used in the same zoom range
> on a 14MP sensor, and up to the extra resolution.
>
> At its wide and long extremes the optical performance falls off a bit,
> I'd guess down to about 7MP standards, since downsizing to 7MP
> conceals the optical flaws.
>
> Two improvements of the A350 over the R1 which are very obvious as you
> just wander about snapping things is that the exposure is much more
> accurate. Highlights are very much more rarely blown. The second is
> that not only is the autofocus much faster, and operates well in worse
> conditions, but it's also more often right on the nail.
Thanks for that, Chris. About what you'd expect considering that the A350
and R1 have similar-sized sensors. Would the focus difference be due to
phase-detection (A350) versus maximum-contrast (R1)? The exposure
metering should be as though, shouldn't it? Or is it that the separate
focus on the A350 can offer a greater dynamic measurement range than the
on-sensor exposure metering of the R1?
SAL - you have me puzzled!
Cheers,
David
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The 1248 mm challenge
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/45464bb7793115c9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 2:56 am
From: Chris Malcolm
grant-thomas <gthomas@gthomas.org> wrote:
> Why on earth would I want to entertain this blatant DSLR-troll with more test
> results that would only prove him wrong again? His claims were disproved nearly
> a year ago with even less capable P&S cameras than exist today.
> The guy is a moron who lives in his own mind. Still trying to justify why he
> spent over $15,000 and still can't compete with $300 P&S cameras. Hint: he's a
> crappy photographer who thinks if he just throws enough money at his
> snap-shooting hobby that it'll make him a "Pro", just like most DSLR buyers.
> Nothing new. Commonplace self-justifying idiots without a clue.
My Dad's got a better camera than your Dad, so there, donkey brains!
--
Chris Malcolm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Obamanation Gets a Dire and Critical Warning From South Africa..
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/66a180c16d084ddf?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 3:56 am
From: Kurt Ullman
In article <e4vfh4hbu28nk4kvr3apco1bj7uqsefug6@4ax.com>,
Mariner <mariner@mariner.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 11:37:43 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Political Correctness is ...
>
> ... a social attempt to teach the immature and insecure what "respect" means.
What certain people say THEIR concept of respect means. Which often
also means not respecting others who may have a different concept (or in
the case of many, no concept. The latter of course don't generally have
an epiphany and all of sudden become respectful).
> The problems is that they've never had any self-respect so they can't be
> expected to ever have respect for anyone else. We still hope that they learn
> what it means one day so they will finally deserve the respect they so
> desperately want and need, and in turn, will learn to respect all others.
You could have been more self-righteous and condescending if you
tried couldn't you? Shows a great lack of respect in your manner of
trying to teach respect..
> You could call "political correctness" the more apparent meaning of "respect
> for
> others", but they still wouldn't be able to figure it out. Those who fail to
> understand this most basic of human principles have never been too
> intelligent.
I was wrong.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 7:14 am
From: "AnotherD@rnedSock" < @ >
Mariner wrote:
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 11:37:43 -0800, Gunner Asch <gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Political Correctness is ...
>
> ... a social attempt to teach the immature and insecure what "respect" means.
> The problems is that they've never had any self-respect so they can't be
> expected to ever have respect for anyone else.
Ludicrous.
It is not now and never has been necessary to have "self respect" to
respect something or someone else.
You are confusing being respectful - manners - with having respect.
Political Correctness is about showing respect, not about having respect.
It is about not creating offense, not about magically having a genuine
respect for someone you don't know or might not even like. It is absolutely
impossible to feel respect toward someone who hasn't earned it. Respect is
a form of admiration, showing respect is form of social communication.
> We still hope that they learn
> what it means one day so they will finally deserve the respect they so
> desperately want and need, and in turn, will learn to respect all others.
You define cluelessness. You do it well.
>
> The only challenge with dealing with people who have no self-respect is that you
> will somehow have to try to retain your own dignity and self-respect, while the
> non-politically-correct who lack those things will desperately try to rob you of
> them.
Desperately? You like that word, don't you? Perhaps one day you will learn
what it really means and stop using it in an inappropriate manner.
>
> You could call "political correctness" the more apparent meaning of "respect for
> others", but they still wouldn't be able to figure it out. Those who fail to
> understand this most basic of human principles have never been too intelligent.
It isn't a basic principle and it is impossible to be "too" intelligent.
However you do illustrate that being too dumb might be possible.
Socky
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-
marriage ban. WARNING Contains photos of extreme sexual behaviour
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 4:21 am
From: "William Sommerwerck"
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:gf8606$nq9$2@registered.motzarella.org...
> Are you serious? I can't say I know one hetero male who's done
> anything the homo fags were doing in those pictures.
Then you obviously don't know much about your friends.
Same-sex sexual experimentation is relatively common among hetero males.
When I was in college, two hetero friends approached me for sex out of
curiosity.
By the way, I knew two gay men who were ex-LDS.
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 4:46 am
From: savvo
On 2008-11-10, Dimond Geeza <michaelnewport@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 10 Nov, 03:17, "Stormin Mormon"
><cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It's sad that our society has degraded this far.
Yes. It's the twenty-first century and still we have these vociferous,
poweerful groups trying to drag us back to the middle ages with their
bronze age morality tales.
>> Learn more about Jesus
I'd rather not, thanks. Being raised a catholic exposed me to more
bullshit than is necessary in one lifetime.
>
> yes...lets get back to good old fashioned violence,,,
For once, the christians are leading by example:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7718587.stm>
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7357496.stm>
--
savvo orig. invib. man
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 5:36 am
From: tony cooper
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:01:55 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <913fh45dl622m547kme4kd15o4g4m2iqpi@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 17:45:40 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>>So gay marriage or civil partnership has nothing to do with the church.
>>>If two gays want to get married they can get a civil partnership. They
>>>just cant marry in a church if the religion and or the priest does not
>>>approve.
>>>
>>>What are the religious lot complaining about? No one is forcing their
>>>church to conduct gay marriages. No one is asking them to get involved
>>>at all.
>>>
>>
>>The objection that I read about, in articles written by gays, is that
>>they want to be treated the same as heterosexual couple. Not
>>different.
>
>How is it different? Let homosexuals have same sex civil partnerships
>they like anyone else can marry in any church/temple that will marry
>them.
You should ask a gay person, and I'm not gay nor is anyone close to me
gay. From what I've read, the gay's position is that heteros can get
married and gays have to have a civil union. That's two different
things in their mind.
>The average catholic church will refuse to marry a Jewish couple and a
>synagogue won't marry a catholic couple. Some churches will marry some
>one who is divorced others will not.
From what I understand, it's the civil union v. marriage that's the
issue, not what the churches do.
>How are they treated differently if legally a civil partnership is the
>same as a marriage?
Vide supra.
Look, I really don't understand their perspective either. It seems
the same to me if the results are the same. However, it doesn't seem
the same to *them*, and their feelings should be considered.
It doesn't bother me in the slightest if a gay couple can get married
exactly the same way that a heterosexual couple can. It isn't going
to make the slightest difference in my life or yours.
But if we are not part of a group we we really can't ever understand
that group's attitudes about things. We can't truly see things from
their side. In this case, they think it's problem and I'm willing to
accept that it is.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 5:47 am
From: tony cooper
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:57:34 -0800, Jürgen Exner
<jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 20:53:47 -0800, Jürgen Exner
>><jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>>No, that's not true. In the US, a couple can be married when they
>>>>walk out of the office in a civil marriage.
>>>
>>>Yes, that is exactly my point. In the US it is a _can_.
>>>
>>>In (at least parts of) Europe it is a _must_ because only the civil
>>>ceremony is legaly valid. I.e. it is a requirement to finalize the
>>>secular wedding in the registrars office before you can commence with a
>>>religious ceremony which in turn has no legal value.
>>>
>>If you understood this, then why did you say "in the US only after
>>whatever other ceremony is performed."? No other ceremony is required
>>in the US.
>
>Ok, now I understand what you are getting at. Simple missunderstanding.
>
>I was trying (obviusly not very successful) to point out that you and I
>have a different understanding of "registration". I was using the term
>to mean registering the marriage in the official city documents while
>you were using it in the US way where the registration does _NOT_
>constitute the marriage but only a permission to wed and where an
>additional ceremony (the actual wedding itself, be it secular or
>religious) is required to put the marriage into effect.
>
Is a ceremony not required after the registration in the European
countries you are describing? Not a church ceremony, but a civil
official going through a short spiel?
Let's not get hung up on the word "ceremony". I'm not talking about
religious pageantry. A ceremony is just a formal process followed. In
the US, the civil process includes a "ceremony" of sorts in that the
civil official recites some words and none of them have to do with
religion. We call it the exchanging of vows. After that, the
marriage is recorded/registered and the marriage is officially legal.
What you have said implies that the mere fact of registration is all
that's done; that the couple fills out the form and that's it. Is
this correct, or is a ceremony required?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 6:45 am
From: Chris H
In message <iedgh4lc24j8s7kfi0005v7vujkmrki2td@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>But if we are not part of a group we we really can't ever understand
>that group's attitudes about things. We can't truly see things from
>their side. In this case, they think it's problem and I'm willing to
>accept that it is.
Can any homosexual on this group PLEASE explain the problem on the
difference between civil union and marriage that is causing the problem
in the US
BTW to quote Quentin Crisp when asked in court (UK 1950's) if he was
"suffering from sexual perversion" replied:
"Well....... I wouldn't call it suffering! "
:-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 6:55 am
From: Chris H
In message <u2nlu5-nuo.ln1@tog.savvo.co.uk>, savvo
<spam.goes.here@devnull.savvo.co.uk> writes
>On 2008-11-10, Dimond Geeza <michaelnewport@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 10 Nov, 03:17, "Stormin Mormon"
>><cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> It's sad that our society has degraded this far.
>
>Yes. It's the twenty-first century and still we have these vociferous,
>poweerful groups trying to drag us back to the middle ages with their
>bronze age morality tales.
>>> Learn more about Jesus
>I'd rather not, thanks. Being raised a catholic exposed me to more
>bullshit than is necessary in one lifetime.
Strange most people I know who went to Catholic run schools have that
opinion. More so those who went to boarding schools
>> yes...lets get back to good old fashioned violence,,,
>For once, the christians are leading by example:
><http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7718587.stm>
What is really unusual is the Israeli authorities are actually
peacekeeping
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 6:52 am
From: Chris H
In message <n9egh4p357loosgsael6p6teo59ve9cgvd@4ax.com>, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>
>Is a ceremony not required after the registration in the European
>countries you are describing? Not a church ceremony, but a civil
>official going through a short spiel?
In the UK a civil wedding registration is a short declaration a bit like
wedding vows in front of witnesses.
>religion. We call it the exchanging of vows. After that, the
>marriage is recorded/registered and the marriage is officially legal.
That's it.
However it is about 5 minutes in total from memory. Bride and groom go
in and complete paperwork bar signatures. Everyone else comes in. Vows
given ie name free will take partner etc in front of witnesses. Need two
witnesses.
The witnesses are asked if there is any *lawful* impediment to the
marriage. Being immoral, gay, communist, Satanist, swinger, porn actor
or anything else that is legal for an adult to do is not lawful
impediment. Neither is being a criminal unless you are breaking bail/
sentencing conditions. :-)
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 7:55 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...
>>But if we are not part of a group we we really can't ever
>>understand that group's attitudes about things. We can't
>>truly see things from their side. In this case, they think
>>it's problem and I'm willing to accept that it is.
>
> Can any homosexual on this group PLEASE explain the problem on
> the difference between civil union and marriage that is
> causing the problem in the US
Right after you get a clear answer to that, I'd certainly like to
know what other "choice" the Pro-choice crowd espouses except that
of murdering an innocent human being. I mean, how many "feminists"
do you know who are PRO-LIFE?
> BTW to quote Quentin Crisp when asked in court (UK 1950's) if
> he was "suffering from sexual perversion" replied:
>
> "Well....... I wouldn't call it suffering! "
>:-)
>
Interesting word, "perversion".
--
HP, aka Jerry
Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 7:58 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...
>>Is a ceremony not required after the registration in the
>>European countries you are describing? Not a church ceremony,
>>but a civil official going through a short spiel?
>
> In the UK a civil wedding registration is a short declaration
> a bit like wedding vows in front of witnesses.
>
>>religion. We call it the exchanging of vows. After that, the
>>marriage is recorded/registered and the marriage is officially
>>legal.
>
> That's it.
> However it is about 5 minutes in total from memory. Bride and
> groom go in and complete paperwork bar signatures. Everyone
> else comes in. Vows given ie name free will take partner etc
> in front of witnesses. Need two witnesses.
>
> The witnesses are asked if there is any *lawful* impediment
> to the marriage. Being immoral, gay, communist, Satanist,
> swinger, porn actor or anything else that is legal for an
> adult to do is not lawful impediment. Neither is being a
> criminal unless you are breaking bail/ sentencing conditions.
> :-)
>
The thing is, that in the US, "marriage" connotes procreation or at
least raising of children and also comes with significant tax
advantages that were specifically written into the IRS code eons
ago to encourage marriage of the traditional kind. So, besides
homesexual marriage costing me money in wasted tax advantages, it
is also highly immoral on any number of grounds but even worse is
that it so clearly traumatizes children raised in an environment of
butt fucking, vibrators, and limp wrists.
BTW, sodomy IS illegal today in quite a few places but then, so is
birth control.
--
HP, aka Jerry
Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 7:59 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...
> Strange most people I know who went to Catholic run schools
> have that opinion. More so those who went to boarding schools
If there were only one good reason to get rid of the vow of
celibacy for prospective priests it would be to stop the porking of
"impressionable young boys".
--
HP, aka Jerry
Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: P&S cameras exist for one reason
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/7076f36b91d1c779?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Nov 10 2008 5:03 am
From: savvo
On 2008-11-10, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ntDRk.3351$8_3.1404@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> RichA wrote:
>>>> Because users of them are congenitally lazy people. Same can be said
>>>> for nearly every "labour saving" device ever invented. If these weren't
>>>> lazy, they'd put up with the extra EFFORT needed to shoot with a DSLR and
>>>> marvel at the vast quality increase instead of crying about "wanting to
>>>> put it in their pocket."
>>> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of utmost
>>> importance compared to convenience.
>>>
>>> There's a good web site with the trade-offs of D-SLR versus P&S at
>>> "http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps".
>>
>> Then why even bother with a dedicated camera? Carry a camera phone and get
>> the nadir of quality you've always wanted.
>>
>>
> I know that most people consider cell phone cameras to be on a par with
> 'keychain cameras', but that comparison is really not valid for the
> current models, most of which are 2mp or better.
Wow!
> Some even have flash,
Coo!
> and optical zoom.
Gasp!
Any word as to their quality?
--
savvo orig. invib. man
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment