Photoshop How To Use: 26 new messages in 4 topics

rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* Why do DSLR's still use mirrors? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/a53e34f2dbe14272?hl=en
* Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.
- 16 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
* P & S cameras - 6 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/070ba95970b289dc?hl=en
* Obama Getting Acceptance Speech Ready!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/8391501958e1a07c?hl=en

==============================================================================
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: Fri, Nov 7 2008 9:37 am
From: ZamphorBiggins

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 09:22:20 -0800 (PST), jdear64 <jdear64@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Nov 7, 7:44 am, Harlan Adams <had...@addressdeleted.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:22:54 -0800, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> >Thanks Roger, but I think this all went over the head of our favorite troll.
>>
>> Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
>> bullshit.
>
><snip>
>
>Wow, so many posters with exactly the same view point, spelling, and
>writing
>style as yourself.
>
>You must be one of the loneliest losers on usenet to have to resort to
>so many
>sock puppets. I pity your lack of life.

And this discounts the truth of what has been posted, how? Oh, that's right. You
think that you need 1 million people to say the same thing before it should be
believed. Just like any mindless non-thinking follower.

Do try to stay on topic. If this is the only way you can discount some facts I
truly pity your lack of intellect.

If only everyone discounted Einstein for being the only one to post "E=MC^2" all
those years ago, we'd be much better off just because everyone wasn't saying it.
Granted, the information here is not as ground-breaking (because any fool in his
right mind can see the truthfulness of the P&S's superiority), but the analogy
still holds true.

Holy fuck, you are one major idiot.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 9:54 am
From: SMS

jdear64 wrote:
> On Nov 7, 7:44 am, Harlan Adams <had...@addressdeleted.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:22:54 -0800, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks Roger, but I think this all went over the head of our favorite troll.
>> Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
>> bullshit.

> You must be one of the loneliest losers on usenet to have to resort to
> so many sock puppets. I pity your lack of life.

LOL, he may not know anything about photographic equipment, but he sure
is good at forging identities really quickly!

While I feel bad for him too, it got old after a while, and he had to be
eliminated. He reminds me of the old "George Preddy" character on this
group. No knowledge, but that didn't stop him from being his own little
sock-puppet. Thank goodness the Sigma crap is over. Amazingly, Consumer
Reports included the Sigma SD14 in their D-SLR review, and rated it
"Lowest" for image quality.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:58 am
From: Alan Browne

David J Taylor wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>> On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:16:18 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
>>> to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Test your shutter lag in your camera at:
>>>> http://www.shooting-digital.com/columns/schwartz/shutter_release_test/default.asp
>>>>
>>
>> On Safari and Firefox (Mac) the arrow hesitates passing through 0, so
>> better to test from the 1 at the bottom...
>
> It does that with Firefox and MS Internet Explorer on a PC as well. I
> wonder if that's a deliberate built-in delay to allow for human reaction
> time? Or just a fault in the Adobe Flash player?

Not sure. Probably a series of images that plays once and re-starts and
that's where it hesitates, on each re-start.

Would be more effective as an executable DL.

If you have a stopwatch timer on your computer you could run that and
then depress the shutter as it goes through each second. Do 5 in a row
(say every 2 or 3 seconds) and then take the stats from the images...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Homosexuals take to the street as California voters approve gay-
marriage ban.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/1a34d0798449c87f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 9:42 am
From: Caesar Romano

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:54:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote Re Re: Homosexuals take to the street
as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.:

>The blue laws in Massachussetts are most assuredly still in force and
>are still enforced. The current statement on them can be found at
>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=elwdsubtopic&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Workers+and+Unions&L2=Wage+and+Employment+Related+Programs&L3=The+Massachusetts'+Blue+Laws&sid=Elwd.
>In 2005 several Boston businesses were charged with violation of them
>for staying open on Thanksgiving.
>
>I do not believe, however, that these are the laws to which Caesar was
>referring. His reference seemed to be specifically with regard to
>prohibited sexual acts, collectively referred to as "sodomy".

Yes indeed, the "sodomy" laws were on by mind, but others also that
seek to enforce society's general consensus as to prohibiting or
punishing what it considers (at the time) perverse sexual behavior.
For example, in some states adultery was considered a crime. As I
recall, that was the case in Oklahoma in the early 1970's; although
that was one of the "blue" laws from an earlier time.

I guess my point is that all cultures and societies seek to enshrine
their moral consensus at the point of a gun, but that the consensus
changes slowly over time. As it changes, there is a period of time
when there is effectively no clear consensus and that is where we are
now on this particular (and many other) issues.

== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 9:45 am
From: Phin

On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 11:03:38 -0800 (PST), testtest505050@googlemail.com
wrote:

>Gay California street party
>Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
>Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
>engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.
>
>http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
>
>
>
>Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
>Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
>ban on gay marriage.
>
>Demonstrators marched through West Hollywood, Hollywood and Santa
>Monica where several protesters stopped at busy intersections,
>blocking traffic and prompting police intervention.
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447744,00.html

Why couldn't they have photographed some better looking guys? You
edited out all the HUNKS and left the flabby ugly guys in there.

Phin

== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 9:56 am
From: carlton_adams

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:42:32 -0600, Caesar Romano <Spam@uce.gov> wrote:

>On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 11:54:43 -0500, "J. Clarke"
><jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote Re Re: Homosexuals take to the street
>as California voters approve gay-marriage ban.:
>
>>The blue laws in Massachussetts are most assuredly still in force and
>>are still enforced. The current statement on them can be found at
>>http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=elwdsubtopic&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Workers+and+Unions&L2=Wage+and+Employment+Related+Programs&L3=The+Massachusetts'+Blue+Laws&sid=Elwd.
>>In 2005 several Boston businesses were charged with violation of them
>>for staying open on Thanksgiving.
>>
>>I do not believe, however, that these are the laws to which Caesar was
>>referring. His reference seemed to be specifically with regard to
>>prohibited sexual acts, collectively referred to as "sodomy".
>
>Yes indeed, the "sodomy" laws were on by mind, but others also that
>seek to enforce society's general consensus as to prohibiting or
>punishing what it considers (at the time) perverse sexual behavior.
>For example, in some states adultery was considered a crime. As I
>recall, that was the case in Oklahoma in the early 1970's; although
>that was one of the "blue" laws from an earlier time.
>
>I guess my point is that all cultures and societies seek to enshrine
>their moral consensus at the point of a gun, but that the consensus
>changes slowly over time. As it changes, there is a period of time
>when there is effectively no clear consensus and that is where we are
>now on this particular (and many other) issues.

Doesn't matter what "laws" there are in any society. Laws are nothing more than
some majority's opinion put on paper, started by one fool with that opinion.
Non-realistic beliefs that the immature and insecure like to wrap their minds
in, like some "woobie" (a child's security blanket). Do you always follow the
opinions of the majority? If it is true that opinions are like assholes,
everyone has one, then it also follows true that laws when printed on paper are
proving those people who made those laws to be even bigger assholes by spreading
their opinion around so freely.

Make no mistake about it, any "law" in existence is just some fool's opinion
that other fools agreed upon.

"There are non so lost, as those who follow." ~caMel~

"Authority isn't something someone else has, it's something you've freely,
foolishly, and irresponsibly given away -- all by your little self" ~ caMel ~

"You will never be free as long as you allow yourself to be manipulated by
politicians and religious leaders." ~caMel~

"The 'truth' is any perception of reality that one or more people have where
they can successfully manipulate others into accepting that perception as their
own 'truth'. That is all that 'truth' is, that is all that 'truth' has ever
been. And that's the truth." - caMel

"If even 5 billion people are saying and believing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."

So much for your asshole's-opinion "laws", eh?

:-)

== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:12 am
From: "David Ruether"

"HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote in message news:Xns9B4F4F1D54EAAReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30...
> FoodForThought added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 10:35:13 +1100, "Seon Ferguson"
>> <seongf@gmail.com> wrote:

[Sorry for the cross-postings, but....................]

>>>I don't see why people think they have the right to tell
>>>people how to live there life's. Those gay people clearly want
>>>the right to be married and that has been taken away from them
>>>by ignorant homophobes.

And in California, primarily by African-American voters. How
quickly they have forgotten the misogyny laws that prohibited
cross-racial marriages, and the struggle to eliminate such racist
nonsense... Being anti-gay is just plain sexism, and it is as
equally indefensible as racism.

>> People who are secure in their own sexuality never feel
>> threatened by the sexual-orientation of others. Simple fact,
>> not opinion.

Correct!

> Irrelevant. Fact, not opinion. It matters not if one is or is not
> secure in their own sexuality to recognize and oppose perversion
> and attempt to stamp it out whenever it rears its ugly head.

You've GOT to be joking!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What a pathetic jerk you are, if not... Do you EVER do any
research on the topics you make such uninformed
pronouncements on before making them? If not, you are a
fool, too...

>> Heteros who know who they are have no qualms nor hesitations
>> about hugging or even friend-kissing a gay person. Just as a
>> gay person has no fears nor hesitations about hugging a hetero
>> friend. They both know, without question, that the act of
>> showing genuine affection does not change who they are. There
>> is no reason to not show support, affection, and concern for
>> the other. There will be nothing but genuine affection
>> exchanged. There is no ulterior motive between those who are
>> secure in their own sexual-orientations.

> As Archie Bunker would say "F-A-G fruit" and no, I won't kiss a
> queer or any member of the same sex.

That's up to you - but keep in mind that using the word "queer"
is equivalent to using the word "Nigger"...

[Good stuff deleted for brevity...]

> if we stopped using the euphemisms "gay" and "lesbian" and stuck
> with the more descriptive and easier to understand terms "queer"
> and "pervert", it'd be a LOT easier for the average American to
> stomp this shit out once and for all. I've heard that some 30
> states allow queers to be fired just for being perverts.

> I'd like to see that extended to all 50 states and territories via
> Consitutional Amendment. God's Law shall not be ignored by
> some nuts in Kalyfornia.

Ahem - the US is not a theocracy, and built into its constitution
is the prohibition against the establishment of any religion at all.

Oh, you are either a troll in these NGs, or are the consummate
stupid individual whose level of stupidity, ignorance, and lack of
sympathy for or understanding of your fellow humans knows no
bounds. You appear to have reached an ultimate station in life,
one to which most would not aspire.
Gee, c o n g r a t u l a t i o n s . . .

> That said, queer bashing is a crime and should be prosecuted as
> such - IF it results in harm to another citizen.

Gosh, how generous..... (it appears you don't care about the
safety of the, uh, "queer", though...). BTW, I can guarantee that
you have some homosexual relatives, just by the odds, and I
hope you will not hate them if you ever find out who they are
(and you really can't generally tell by how they sound or act,
any more than by their color...) as much as you appear to hate
yourself (and the reason for that is fairly clear...).

> NOte: aliens
> both legal and illegal have NO rights under the Consitution so
> don't bother going there. Now, it is NOT queer bashing to stop
> butt fuckers and lezzies from defiling the sacrement of
> matrimony, it is simple justice.
> --
> HP, aka Jerry

Hey, it's probably silly to point this out, but in no state (or country)
in which homosexual citizens have the rights enjoyed by the rest
of the citizenry has there been any negative effect resulting from
granting that equality, including the right of marriage. Legal gay
marriage does not diminish the institution (and, BTW, no group
or church is forced to perform ceremonies for any group), but it
does strengthen it by extending its availability, advantages, and
responsibilities to all people. And, gay relationships and families
can be formally and legally recognized and supported in society,
a positive result for society). The relationships already do exist,
but prejudice and legal limitations imposed by outdated laws.

As an aside, I think that much anti-homosexual rhetoric is based
on either a too particular reading of the bible (homosexuality is
rarely mentioned there, only obscurely, never by Jesus, and it
appears to be a sin similar in importance to a woman wearing a
red dress...;-), or a personal ***belief*** (not a researched
fact) that being homosexual is a choice. It isn't (except for some
bisexuals). But, all the above notwithstanding, narrow-minded
thoughtless prejudice and bigotry will unfortunately continue to
exist...

--David Ruether
www.donferrario.com/ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com

== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:18 am
From: zzpat

Seon Ferguson wrote:
>
> Even if 11/9 hadn't taken place there is no way America would become
> the police state anti American traitors like you want it to be.
>
>

I favor equal rights for all Americans. "Anti American traitors" think
they have the right to take rights away from others without their
consent. Shame on you.

--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm

== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:19 am
From: "David Ruether"

"TueDat" <truedat@truedat.com> wrote in message news:8an8h4hv9ct4jj19d6fotfacr48rr8v3j8@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:05:24 -0800 (PST), "Rev. Richard Skull"
> <mshotz@verizon.net> wrote:

>>Look at his screen name, "Hemi-Powered"
>>
>>Lets examine it, logicly as my Girl Frinded would say.
>>
>>By HEMI, which mean he drive on of th e"Macho" vehicle

> Yes, the signs of a true closet-case. Those effeminate men that have to try to
> appear more macho on the outside to overcompensate for what they lack on the
> inside. They think that others will never suspect if they try to cover it up
> enough.
>
> No offense to gay people, but I visited a few gay friends' bars with them when
> they were hosting a "leather night". The more macho that theses guys in leather
> tried to appear on the outside the more that a purse would drop out of their
> mouth when they talked, instantly revealing the inside. More power to them if
> that's what they need and want, to be closer to masculinity. But this
> over-compensation now exposing the real, but opposite, person on the inside
> became so blatantly obvious.
>
> A guy who is truly masculine and secure in his masculinity will still appear so
> even in a woman's dress. He'll not even have any problems doing so for the fun
> and laughs. You can't disguise innate masculinity no matter how much you try.
> But a guy who is effeminate and worried about others discovering their
> homosexuality will _always_ try to overcompensate on the outside. Doing things
> like wearing always leather, chains, using names like "Hemi-Powered" for their
> screen names.
>
> Hemi-Powered is just SO MACHO! Isn't he. (At least he's hoping everyone else
> will think so.)
>
> A good thing that we can't hear his voice and hear a purse drop out of his mouth
> every time that he talks.

While there is much truth in the above, much of it is misleading. Male
and female homosexuals *naturally* run the gamut in personality
types from effeminate to macho, as do heterosexuals. But some like
to play a type either short term (for fun) or long term (to "pass").
--DR

== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:28 am
From: zzpat

TueDat wrote:
> A good thing that we can't hear his voice and hear a purse drop out of his mouth
> every time that he talks.
>
>
>

I know straight men who talk like gays are supposed to sound and I know
gay woman who can sing like Elvis. My point is it doesn't matter what a
person sounds like or how they look or what they're sexual orientation
is. It's like all the nut cases out there complaining that we have a
black president. What does skin color have to do with anything?

It's such a waste of time.

--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm

== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:31 am
From: zzpat

Jürgen Exner wrote:
> "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.sn> wrote:
>
>> God's Law shall not be ignored
>>
>
> Which one are you talking about?
> Manu Smriti? Sharia? Halakha? Law of Christ? Divine/Abramic Law?
>
>
>> Now, it is NOT queer bashing to stop
>> butt fuckers and lezzies from defiling the sacrement of
>> matrimony, it is simple justice.
>>
>
> As the term "sacrament" does not exist in legal law your statement has
> no relevance outside of your religous group.
>
> jue
>
It's interesting to note that in the tens of thousands of years of
biblical history (in the Bible itself) there isn't one marriage
performed by a priest, rabbi, minister or other religious entity of any
kind. All marriages in the Bible were civil ceremonies. Yet, there's
this belief that it's always been this way because the bible says so. Do
these people think? Do they care that what they say is based on idiocy?

--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm

== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:36 am
From: zzpat

ArchdeaconMalli@gmail.com wrote:
> I dont' understand why they go into elementray schools
> and indoctrinate young children into accepting what is not acceptable.
> I don't see why they think they have the right to tell other people
> what to think, or how to run their society.
>
I see the problem in reverse. Straight people tell their children that
being gay is wrong but that's a lie. There's nothing wrong with being
gay, in fact, I have many gay friends and each and every one of them is
more moral than right wing religious nuts.

Jesus Christ himself, never said a word about homosexuality. If it was a
problem for him, why did he forget to say something?

In fact, there are no references to the concept gay in the New Testament
whatsoever. There were words for gay people during the time of Christ,
but none of those words were used by Christ or his disciples. Reading
old(er) Bibles proves the bible has been rewritten so it conforms to
conservative doctrine (Roman's 1 was rewritten to be anti gay sounding
in the early 1960s).

--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm

== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:38 am
From: Zapanaz

HEMI-Powered hunched over a computer, typing feverishly;
Thunder crashed, HEMI-Powered laughed madly, then wrote:

>What "rights"? Show me where the right to dork your partner is
>condoned by the people of the United States, besides which there is
>a far bigger law involved here - that of God Almighty who says that
>marriage is a union of one man and one woman and that the actions
>of queers is an abomination. Last time I looked, religious law
>trumped non-existant civil law.

Last time you looked, were you living in the middle ages or something?

' Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach
actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence
that act of the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a
wall of separation between Church & State. '

- Thomas Jefferson

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
David Lynch:

"I sort of go by a duck when I work on a film because if you study a duck, you'll see
certain things. You'll see a bill, and the bill is a certain texture and a certain length.
Then you'll see a head, and the features on the head are a certain texture and it's
a certain shape and it goes into the neck. The texture of the bill for instance is very
smooth and it has quite precise detail in it and it reminds you somewhat of the legs.
The legs are a little bit bigger and a little more rubbery but it's enough so that your
eye goes back and forth. Now, the body being so big, it can be softer and the texture
is not so detailed, it's just kind of a cloud. And the key to the whole duck is the eye and
where the eye is placed. And it has to be placed in the head and it's the most detailed,
and it's like a little jewel. And if it was fixed, sitting on the bill, it would be two things that
were too busy, battling, they would not do so well. And if it was sitting in the middle of the body,
it would get lost. But it's so perfectly placed to show off a jewel right in the middle of the head like that,
next to this S-curve with the bill sitting out in front, but with enough distance so that the eye is very very
very well secluded and set out. So when you're working on a film, a lot of times you can get the bill and
the legs and the body and everything, but this eye of the duck is a certain scene, this jewel, that if it's
there, it's absolutely beautiful. It's just fantastic." "Film exists because we can go and have experiences
that would be pretty dangerous or strange for us in real life. We can go into a room and walk
into a dream. If we didn't want to upset anyone, we would make films about sewing, but
even that could be dangerous. But I think finally, in a film, it is how the balance is and
the feelings are. But I think there has to be those contrasts and strong things withing a
film for the total experience."

:: Currently listening to A Day in the Life, 1967, by The Beatles, from "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"

== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:38 am
From: zzpat

Jenn wrote:
>
>
> We're gay just to piss you off, and I see that it worked.
>
You piss off most Christians, but not me.

--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm

== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:39 am
From: BoringRepliesInc

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 08:52:46 -0800 (PST), SilentOtto <silentotto@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Nov 7, 7:14 am, Thanatos <atro...@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <4e7d186a-303a-43ea-a4cc-1b88948df...@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> SilentOtto <silento...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 6, 9:31 pm, ArchdeaconMa...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > I agree. I don't see why disease-carrying psychotic homosexuals, who
>> > > engage in suicidally-risky behavior that causes rampant disease
>> > > outbreaks
>>
>> > Name ONE thing gays do that heterosexuals don't do.
>>
>> They have sex with members of the same gender.
>
>Cute...
>
>Now name a sex act that homosexuals do that straight people don't.
>
>Don't bother...
>
>I already know you can't.
>
>Heh heh...
>
>Rightards...

In case they try to refute this from another insecure's small-minded angle ...

"The ONLY unnatural sex-act is one that you cannot perform."

Think about it. :-)

== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:44 am
From: tony cooper

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 17:06:31 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:

>In message <bap8h4psl1mh6hvulfqjk9modgqorv364o@4ax.com>, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> writes
>>On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 07:10:47 -0800, Jürgen Exner
>><jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Caesar Romano <Spam@uce.gov> wrote:
>>>>At one time, anything other than "missionary position"
>>>>between a husband and wife was publicly (not necessarily privately)
>>>>considered at the limit of propriety if not outright perverse.
>>>>
>>>>That's certainly is not (for good or worse) the case today.
>>>
>>>Don't be so sure about that. I seem to recall (sorry, don't have a
>>>source) that many common-place practices are still outlawed in the US
>>>mid-west and have been used as pretext for divorce.
>>
>>You are probably thinking of "blue laws". There have been many US laws
>>passed over the course of time that were passed to cover morality in
>>some way. Many of them were tied to religious beliefs. Most common
>>are laws pertaining to what is not allowed on the Sabbath.
>
>Do you mean a Sabbath which can be a Friday, Saturday or Sunday
>or do you mean on of those days in particular?
>
It's not what I mean that counts. It's what is defined as the Sabbath
in the law. As far as I'm personally concerned, the Sabbath is
whatever day you or your religion says it is. In the case of civil
law, the Sabbath is either defined as being a particular day of the
week or understood to be a particular day of the week by prevailing
local convention.

>Don't you hate it when some else's religious law impinges on civil law
>and God's law?

I recognize civil law, but I only recognize the rights of others to
declare that there is a God and that He has laws that they should
follow. I respect that they do so, but I will only respect them if
they recognize that I don't agree.

>Morality is a movable feast and impossible to legislate for.

Unfortunately, morality is often the subject of US legislation. Some
of it beneficial, and some of it not. Several states have, or are in
the process of passing, legislation on morality as it applies to who
can get married. Whether or not this is beneficial depends on
personal viewpoint. Mine is that such legislation is not beneficial.

>>Occasionally, someone will find some out-dated law still on the books
>>and attempt to enforce it. The cases are invariably thrown out of
>>court. Once ruled against, the law no longer pertains under our
>>system of precedence. Even so, the appropriate governmental body will
>>usually formally repeal the law.
>
>That's good. BTW what is the criteria for repealing these laws?
>

That would depend on the law and the governing body. The criteria are
different according to the nature of the body that is in a position to
repeal the law. The usual criterion is that the law is discovered to
be in conflict with something that the body wants to see allowable.

For example, a town might have an old law on the books that says that
only unmarried females can be hired as teachers. (There were laws on
this subject) The town may have been hiring married females as
teachers for years, but the old law was discovered. The town would
then formally repeal or amend the law.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:54 am
From: glenzabr@nospam.xmission.com (GMAN)

In article <1633568b-d603-4666-b901-39c9e314cdab@v22g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, testtest505050@googlemail.com wrote:
>Gay California street party
>Photos WARNING The report you are about to view of the 2008 "Up Your
>Alley" Fair in San Francisco contains newsworthy images of people
>engaged in extreme sexual behavior in public.
>
>http://www.zombietime.com/up_your_alley_2008/part_1_full/index.php
>
>

Pretty sick Mother FU%^ers!!!

== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:54 am
From: zzpat

For Europeans wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:23 pm, zzpat <zzpatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> MissBin...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Thousands took to the streets of Los Angeles and San Francisco on
>>>> Wednesday evening to protest California's passage of Proposition 8, a
>>>> ban on gay marriage.
>>>>
>> Whenever the majority thinks it has the right to take rights away from a
>> minority we know we've stopped being Americans.
>>
>
> Were you ever an American? Speak for yourself.
>

If the majority rules than a majority of black people voting with a
majority of Hispanic people (and other minorities) can take the right
to marry away from white people. It's idiocy like this that makes us
all look bad.

--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm

== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:59 am
From: zzpat

Jürgen Exner wrote:
>
>
>> marriage is a union of one man and one woman and that the actions
>> of queers is an abomination. Last time I looked, religious law
>> trumped non-existant civil law.
>>
>
> Last time I looked this applies only in theocracies and inside of
> religious orders. Most society have overcome religious pre-eminence a
> long time ago in the 17th and 18th century.
>
>
Bible thumpers seldom have a clue what their own bible says. Jesus
Christ said nothing about homosexuality being wrong. They simply make up
this belief and then demand that others follow their heresy.

--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.tripod.com/cvb/

Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: P & S cameras
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/070ba95970b289dc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:01 am
From:

I own a P&S and an SLR, each has its uses. Recently I could'nt help but see
all these threads that revolve around the question of which type of camera
is "better". Personally I do not see that this is a question that has any
sense as the two types of camera are designed for different uses. Anyway,
has anyone any idea why the pro P&S posters tend to be so bizarre and quite
frankly not quite right in the head, as witnessed by their somewhat
hysterical postings. I am amazed at the emotion, derision, contempt and
even hatred they are able to put in their postings. Its creepy and
fascinating at the same time.
Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And no
comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:09 am
From: AnthonyEvans

On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:01:25 -0000, <michaelk@fromCardiff.com> wrote:

>I own a P&S and an SLR, each has its uses. Recently I could'nt help but see
>all these threads that revolve around the question of which type of camera
>is "better". Personally I do not see that this is a question that has any
>sense as the two types of camera are designed for different uses. Anyway,
>has anyone any idea why the pro P&S posters tend to be so bizarre and quite
>frankly not quite right in the head, as witnessed by their somewhat
>hysterical postings. I am amazed at the emotion, derision, contempt and
>even hatred they are able to put in their postings. Its creepy and
>fascinating at the same time.
>Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And no
>comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
>

I see. The facts about P&S cameras are so contrary to your own beliefs, drummed
into your mind by the less intelligent (a brainwashing, if you will), that you
misread these facts as "bizarre". Do try to read FACTS without all your
projected hysteria, would you? That's a good boy.

1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.

6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.

7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)

9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.

11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.

13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.

14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.

15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)

16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.

17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.

19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.

21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.

22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.

23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.

24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.

25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:36 am
From: SMS

michaelk@fromCardiff.com wrote:

> Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And no
> comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!

I've seen this sort of behavior when people desperately try to defend a
bad purchasing decision that they've made, against all facts and logic.
They don't want to believe that they've been "taken" so they launch into
these tirades of incorrect information that they really do know to be
false. They may be trying to draw others into making the same mistakes,
as a way of validating their decisions. You see this more in the
automotive newsgroups and forums, or the Apple newsgroups and forums;
there's apparently only one individual in rec.photo.digital with this
problem, which is a pretty good thing!

The constantly changing e-mail addresses are often used to create
sock-puppets, though in this case he doesn't deny that he's doing this,
so it's probably being done to get around everyone's kill-files. Above
all these people seek attention. It doesn't matter that they're made to
look foolish--simply getting a response is all they desire.

You're right of course that each type of camera has its uses. I have one
D-SLR, and we have four P&S cameras in the house. The core problem with
our troll seems to be a keen lack of understanding of the pros and cons
of each type of camera.

It's not clear if he really owns anything at all, but if his claims of
teleconverters is true, he is apparently trying to convert a P&S to the
functionality, at least in zoom range, of a D-SLR with these kludges.
When the cheapest D-SLR was $1500, this sort of kludge at least made a
bit of sense for the person with little money that needed extreme
wide-angle or long range telephoto, even though all the experts agree
that using these devices results in sub-standard shots, not to mention
the other issues such as shutter and auto-focus lag, and poor low light
capability.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:44 am
From: Carlisle Browne

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:36:47 -0800, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

>I've seen this sort of behavior when people desperately try to defend a
>bad purchasing decision that they've made

Yes, like those that are desperately trying to defend their $10,000 DSLR +
overpriced lens purchases. Then someone comes along and proves them all wrong.
All that money and supposedly-superior thinking, all gone to waste.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:51 am
From: nospam

In article <6u29h4l4juomtijv1encacl1rpreiqg967@4ax.com>, Carlisle
Browne <cbrowne@gmail.com> wrote:

> >I've seen this sort of behavior when people desperately try to defend a
> >bad purchasing decision that they've made
>
> Yes, like those that are desperately trying to defend their $10,000 DSLR +
> overpriced lens purchases.

the most expensive dslr (not counting medium format which is expensive
no matter what you get) is $8000 -- the canon eos-1ds. the most
popular dslrs are $500-$1000.

> Then someone comes along and proves them all wrong.
> All that money and supposedly-superior thinking, all gone to waste.

yep, that's what i just did.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 11:00 am
From: DaveD

On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 10:51:00 -0800, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>In article <6u29h4l4juomtijv1encacl1rpreiqg967@4ax.com>, Carlisle
>Browne <cbrowne@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >I've seen this sort of behavior when people desperately try to defend a
>> >bad purchasing decision that they've made
>>
>> Yes, like those that are desperately trying to defend their $10,000 DSLR +
>> overpriced lens purchases.
>
>the most expensive dslr (not counting medium format which is expensive
>no matter what you get) is $8000 -- the canon eos-1ds. the most
>popular dslrs are $500-$1000.
>
>> Then someone comes along and proves them all wrong.
>> All that money and supposedly-superior thinking, all gone to waste.
>
>yep, that's what i just did.

You left out the cost of all those lenses that would be needed to have the
equivalent focal-length reach of an inexpensive (<$500) super-zoom P&S camera,
not to mention that the aperture available at those longer focal-lengths that
can *never* be attained by the DLSR fan-troll.

Yep, you missed the "prove" point.

Try again.

Read this again, this might enlighten your ignorance:

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obama Getting Acceptance Speech Ready!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/8391501958e1a07c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 7 2008 10:47 am
From: "jimkramer"

"Allen" <allent@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:K-2dne3f7d9J_InUnZ2dnUVZ_tninZ2d@giganews.com...
> Xxxxx wrote:
>> ...and a damn fine speech it was!
> It will be wonderful to have a person who can speak in the White House
> again, although David Letterman is going to have to find a replacement for
> his "Great Moments in Presidential Speeches" segment.
> Allen

The Bush footage could easily be stretched out for at least another 4
presidential terms.
-Jim

==============================================================================

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

Photoshop How To Use

Categories

Blog Archive

About Me

Friday, November 7, 2008

26 new messages in 4 topics - digest

0 comments:

Live Traffic