rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* |GG| Opinions: Can I use my old Nikon lenses on a new Nikon digital camera? -
2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/46cacbbe3be835c7?hl=en
* End of an era - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d3123b0af4291a9?hl=en
* Film X Digital - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0322663bf5744fd4?hl=en
* Etymology of "Sinister - 6 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/228738f2652129f2?hl=en
* Palestinians Under Attack - 13 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
* Your camera takes really nice pictures - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c1f1ab7c703e40b?hl=en
* GONE FLYING WITH THE SUPERIOR D300 !!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ef07b8822660449c?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: |GG| Opinions: Can I use my old Nikon lenses on a new Nikon digital
camera?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/46cacbbe3be835c7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 11:13 pm
From: Blinky the Shark
Paul Furman wrote:
> Jürgen Exner wrote:
>> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>> If the lens won't meter on the camera, that means you can't even look
>>> at the meter & adjust, you'll just have to guess. That's doable with
>>> trial & error looking at the LCD on back but pretty crummy.
>>
>> Or check the exposure histogram. You need to learn how to read them and
>> they don't help with snap shots, but it won't get more precise than
>> that.
>
> After a while of using an in-camera meter, it gets tedious to go back. But
> I never used an 'external' light meter so what do I know <g>.
>
>
>> BTW: what on earth is that |GG| in the subject line for?
>
> Sorry, that's my google groups filter. It marks messages as read in
> thunderbird but I can see them in the thread if someone replies. A lot of
> discount tennis shoe spam goes away with that. I try to remember to delete
> in the title.
Filter on string googlegroups in the Message-ID header, and that kind of
make-work isn't nececssary.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups -
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 1:45 am
From: ASAAR
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:07:04 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:
>> BTW: what on earth is that |GG| in the subject line for?
>
> Sorry, that's my google groups filter. It marks messages as read in
> thunderbird but I can see them in the thread if someone replies. A lot
> of discount tennis shoe spam goes away with that. I try to remember to
> delete in the title.
It does more than just mark messages. It splits threads, making
it more difficult to review previous replies in what should have
been the same thread. Are you saying that you occasionally forget
to remove the "|GG|" before posting your replies?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: End of an era
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d3123b0af4291a9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 12:48 am
From: Ron Hunter
Ockham's Razor wrote:
> In article <tPGdnYkYCtk1R-TUnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote:
>
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:NqudneuRxc9T4OTUnZ2dnUVZ_s_inZ2d@giganews.com...
>>
>>
>>> Auto-focus, in a good camera, is very good indeed. Even P&S cameras do
>>> the job much faster than most people could do it manually. Still, when
>>> you want to focus on something farther away, or closer in, than the
>>> auto-focus wants to lock onto, one needs to either manually focus, or
>>> 'cheat' the auto-focus. The same applies to aperture settings. I suspect
>>> that most DSLR users just set their camera to 'auto' until they encounter
>>> a situation that requires human intervention.
>> Sure. I'll bet the same was true of many if not most 35mm SLR users, and not
>> just "until they encounter a situation (etc.)."
>
> I am using a Nikon D50 (yes, I know it is old technology) and use it in
> "P" mode which allows me to customize a few settings like ISO but
> otherwise the camera functions in Auto.
>
> If one got into a "human intervention" situation wouldn't it require you
> to get out the old exposure meter?
>
Not always, but that can always be used, just to check if there is a
better setting than what the camera suggests. I have always used
auto-focus since my eyes have always had a problem with focusing a
camera through the optical viewfinder, unless I was using one of the SLR
cameras with the split image focusing system. With all the auto-focus
options, these days, the camera can often do a better job, and do it
quicker, but NOT always.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Film X Digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0322663bf5744fd4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 12:53 am
From: Ron Hunter
Duram wrote:
> that was my question too?
> why 5mp and not 21mp?
>
>
>
> "Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:0Jhel.61342$Nv1.9700@newsfe03.iad...
>> Duram wrote:
>>> Now I think officially film is death, look
>>> http://www.robertphotoblog.com/2009/official-portrait-president-obama/
>>> and download the 14mb Obama's portrait see EXIF data.
>>> http://change.gov/page/-/officialportrait.jpg
>>>
>>> Why use film if digital works very fine and can be copied all over the
>>> world in seconds without loss.
>>>
>>>
>> IMHO, the official portrait is technically not very good.
>> The DOF is so shallow that the poor guy's right ear is a blur.
>> So are the lapels and shoulders of his coat.
>> The left side of Obama's face is way too dark.
>> That type of lighting may be fine for Caucasian skin but it darkens brown
>> skin too much.
>> I know that these things are subjective, but that is my take on it.
>> Bob Williams
>> Also why use a 21MP camera and then post a 5MP image?
>>
>
>
Why a 21mp camera? The stars, and stripes are plainly visible on the
flag pin, so that is more than good enough. Even the tiny black spots
on his face are clear. Would more pixels really be worth the trouble,
or would they just make a larger file?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Etymology of "Sinister
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/228738f2652129f2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 12:57 am
From: Ron Hunter
HEMI - Powered wrote:
> Take a gander at these for the root of the word "sinister".
>
> http://www.dpjs.co.uk/moon.html
> http://www.yourdictionary.com/sinister
>
> Quite a number of countries, regions, religions, races, and ethnic
> groups have some varient of "sinister" from it's probably Latin
> origins. These groups/countries view being left handed as somehow
> evil, which goes right along with similar views by the same
> groups/countries that one should never eat with the left hand, as
> it is "unclean". This latter particularly goes back to Biblical
> Times in what is now the Middle East and Palestine because of the
> fundamental problem that there was no toilet paper nor any eating
> utensils.
>
A good point, but certainly not a functional reason for preferring one
hand over the other.
> It is also curious that for as long as Anthropologists have kept
> statistics, the percentage of left handed people has remained close
> to 11%. Myths abound, including the out-moded notion that
> attempting to change a child's handedness results in stunted or
> retarded development. And, as the final insult to those whose
> dominant hand is their "sinister" or "unclean" one, nearly ALL
> orgainizations and apparatuses are designed around being right-
> handed. Even the military which once forced soldiers to fire their
> rifles right-handed still prefers that method, even though they no
> longer require it.
>
The reason the military recommends that everyone fire a rifle
right-handed is that the cartridge ejects to the right, and getting hot
brass in the face isn't conducive to accuracy. I shoot either way, but
will use an automatic rifle right-handed to avoid the flying brass.
> So, you can imagine my surprise when I saw that President Obama not
> only signs things like Executive Orders with his left hand, but
> even uses the over-the-top writing style that traces it's origins
> to the pen-and-ink days where penmanship students needed to keep
> their hand from smearing the ink as then moved across the paper.
>
I noticed that right away.
> Draw your own conclusions from this, of course. And, Happy TGIF!
>
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 12:59 am
From: Ron Hunter
tony cooper wrote:
> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:06:26 -0600, "HEMI - Powered"
> <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>
>> So, you can imagine my surprise when I saw that President Obama not
>> only signs things like Executive Orders with his left hand, but
>> even uses the over-the-top writing style that traces it's origins
>> to the pen-and-ink days where penmanship students needed to keep
>> their hand from smearing the ink as then moved across the paper.
>>
>> Draw your own conclusions from this, of course. And, Happy TGIF!
>
> Wrong again, Jerry. The over-the-top writing position of the
> left-hander caused *more* smearing, not less. That's the natural way
> we left-handers start writing. I know, because I'm left-handed, I
> started writing that way, and I learned to write with a stick pen at a
> school desks with built-in inkwells.
>
> The over-the-top style drags the hand or the cuff or the arm over the
> fresh, wet ink of the previous lines. Not so much the line being
> written, but the lines above it.
>
> The other problem of the over-the-top style is that the pen nibs
> punctured and tore the paper and caused ink to splatter because the
> nibs were held too vertical.
>
> I don't write that way anymore. I print everything except my
> signature, and that's illegible.
>
> What is odd about Obama is that he wears his wrist-watch on his left
> hand. Most left-handers wear their wrist-watch on their right hand.
>
Wonder which way his belt goes through the belt-loops....
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 1:02 am
From: Ron Hunter
C J Campbell wrote:
> On 2009-01-23 08:25:12 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
>
>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:52:44 -0800, C J Campbell
>> <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2009-01-23 06:13:10 -0800, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> said:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:06:26 -0600, "HEMI - Powered"
>>>> <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, you can imagine my surprise when I saw that President Obama not
>>>>> only signs things like Executive Orders with his left hand, but
>>>>> even uses the over-the-top writing style that traces it's origins
>>>>> to the pen-and-ink days where penmanship students needed to keep
>>>>> their hand from smearing the ink as then moved across the paper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Draw your own conclusions from this, of course. And, Happy TGIF!
>>>> Wrong again, Jerry. The over-the-top writing position of the
>>>> left-hander caused *more* smearing, not less. That's the natural way
>>>> we left-handers start writing. I know, because I'm left-handed, I
>>>> started writing that way, and I learned to write with a stick pen at a
>>>> school desks with built-in inkwells.
>>>>
>>>> The over-the-top style drags the hand or the cuff or the arm over the
>>>> fresh, wet ink of the previous lines. Not so much the line being
>>>> written, but the lines above it.
>>>>
>>>> The other problem of the over-the-top style is that the pen nibs
>>>> punctured and tore the paper and caused ink to splatter because the
>>>> nibs were held too vertical.
>>>>
>>>> I don't write that way anymore. I print everything except my
>>>> signature, and that's illegible.
>>>>
>>>> What is odd about Obama is that he wears his wrist-watch on his left
>>>> hand. Most left-handers wear their wrist-watch on their right hand.
>>> I wear my wristwatch on my left wrist, not my hand. :-) So do most
>>> other southpaws I know. It is too hard to change the time and date and
>>> work the stopwatch buttons if the watch is on the right wrist.
>> That's different from my experience. It's almost a parlor trick to be
>> able to recognize the left-hander by noticing the wrist-watch on the
>> right wrist. Also, I can't imagine changing the date or the time
>> without taking the wrist-watch off. My regular watch - a Rolex -
>> doesn't have stopwatch buttons, but the watch I wear when scuba diving
>> does and I wear it on my right wrist.
>>
>> Pilots may be different. Some of them wear their watch with the dial
>> on the underside of the wrist so they can see the face without turning
>> the wrist. My flight instructor did so.
>>
>>
>>> Military men who used swords and maces hated left-handed people. Boxers
>>> still do.
>> Castles were designed for the right-handed. The stairs curved to
>> enable the right-handed defender to advance sword-first.
>>
>>> The reason the military still encourages people to shoot right handed
>>> is because of problems with shells being ejected from the breech.
>> If you've served in the military, and been on the rifle range, you'll
>> know that "encouraged" is not a strong enough word. Range officers
>> and non-coms would cuss out their grandmothers for the slightest
>> thing. I think that a full and complete knowledge of all possible
>> forms of profanity and insults is a requirement for that job.
>>
>> Of course, that's the "old" Army.
>
> Haha. I was Air Force, and an officer at that. We were never allowed
> near a rifle. I think if I had picked up an M-16 that some kindly NCO
> would have immediately thrown me to the ground, yelling "Don't EVER
> touch that, sir!" Or something like that.
>
> No, we had .38 specials and we all had to qualify both left and right
> handed with them. Not even a Colt .45. Sheesh.
>
Hummm. I was in the Air Force, and we DID train with rifles, (M-16s).
I guess it is better that officers were restricted to sidearms.
Wouldn't want them to hurt themselves.... Grin.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:16 am
From: "HEMI - Powered"
Ron Hunter added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...
>> Quite a number of countries, regions, religions, races, and
>> ethnic groups have some varient of "sinister" from it's
>> probably Latin origins. These groups/countries view being left
>> handed as somehow evil, which goes right along with similar
>> views by the same groups/countries that one should never eat
>> with the left hand, as it is "unclean". This latter
>> particularly goes back to Biblical Times in what is now the
>> Middle East and Palestine because of the fundamental problem
>> that there was no toilet paper nor any eating utensils.
>>
> A good point, but certainly not a functional reason for
> preferring one hand over the other.
I don't know if there IS a functional reason for being LEFT-handed.
Quite the opposite - since most things are designed for right-
handed people, lefties have always had to either adapt or push for
companies to create versions of their products for them.
>> It is also curious that for as long as Anthropologists have
>> kept statistics, the percentage of left handed people has
>> remained close to 11%. Myths abound, including the out-moded
>> notion that attempting to change a child's handedness results
>> in stunted or retarded development. And, as the final insult to
>> those whose dominant hand is their "sinister" or "unclean" one,
>> nearly ALL orgainizations and apparatuses are designed around
>> being right- handed. Even the military which once forced
>> soldiers to fire their rifles right-handed still prefers that
>> method, even though they no longer require it.
>
> The reason the military recommends that everyone fire a rifle
> right-handed is that the cartridge ejects to the right, and
> getting hot brass in the face isn't conducive to accuracy. I
> shoot either way, but will use an automatic rifle right-handed
> to avoid the flying brass.
Yes, EXACTLY. I saw this happen to my fellow Army Basic Trainees
trying to fire an M-16 left-handed. As a perverse joke, the Drill
Sergeants didn't tell the recruits that brass would go down their
shirts.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:20 am
From: "HEMI - Powered"
Savageduck added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...
>> Modern militaries train soldiers to be both left and right
>> handed with a rifle. Especially for urban warfare.
>
> If you go back to the days of the Mauser '98, SMLE or
> Springfield '03 you will find these are all right handed, bolt
> action rifles. Firing any of these left handed is not efficient
> and reduced rate of fire. The early (and most current) automatic
> rifles ( FN-FAL, M-14, M-16 AK-47) have right handed charging,
> or bolt actuator handles, with ejection to the right. Many have
> right handed safeties and fire selector switches. Only recently
> do we find combat weapons easily adapted for left hand use.
>
> Sport shooters (target & hunters) have always had access to left
> handed bolt action rifles.
Yes to both your points. The military up until now hasn't had the
luxury of building left-handed rifles or anything else for a sound
military reason - on the battlefield, soldiers might need to use
another's weapons or tools and MUST be able to use whatever is
available. Sporting goods makers can charge a premium to creat
left-handed versions for those who want them.
In the days prior to about Viet Nam, the military was SO insistant
about being right-handed that lefties suffered not only indignities
but outright abuse from their instructors. Again, I think this is
for GOOD military reasons.
> Certainly training for left and right handed use of weapons,
> especially for urban warfare is practical.
> I can speak from personal experience of Law enforcement
> training, where training and qualifying is maintained for
> "strong" & "weak" hands. This is vital for weapon retention
> techniques and weapon use when "strong" side injured.
> Double action revolvers are easy for right and left handers to
> shoot, but are best suited for right hand use when it comes to
> loading/reloading.
> Various semi-autos are ambidextrous friendly but also pose
> problems for lefties. Glocks for example when used left handed
> had a tendancy to have the magazine drop from the pistol grip
> due to the pressure of the left hand gripping the pistol,
> depressing the magazine release button. The great majority of
> semi-auto pistols eject to the right and have safeties on the
> left side (the Glock has no safety in the traditional sense.)
> Today there are many handguns which have custom or standard
> fitted ambidextrous safeties, however I have yet to find one
> which has a slide release for the lefty.
> My Kimber .45 Custom Pro CDP has an ambidextrous, thumb actuated
> safety, but the magazine and slide releases are best used by a
> right hander.
>
> Here is the left side of my Kimber http://snipr.com/3p558-py5c4w
> and the right http://snipr.com/3p55d-pkqw5l
>
Do you have an opinion as to why a) so many people, over 1/10 the
population, is still left-handed and b) why there are not modern
methods being developed to allow more people to be the overwhelming
norm, right-handed? If nothing else, the savings to society would
be overwhelming if left and right-handed devices were no longer
required.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas
Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:22 am
From: "HEMI - Powered"
Savageduck added these comments in the current discussion du jour
...
>> I fired right-handed in practice to avoid the wrath of the
>> range officer, but shot left-handed to qualify as Marksman.
>
> ...and that makes perfect sense.
>
> It also dates you as a little older than me. Another refugee of
> the 60's having graduated from high School in 1966 and the
> Selective Service blessing me with a draft number of 54.
I was a HS Class of 1965 man but didn't get drafted until 1970 after
I'd complete college. My draft lottery that year was in the 130s.
They only reached about 180 in 1970 but that hardly made a difference
to me!
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 2:51 am
From: Chris H
In message <Xns9B9850D1070C3ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI - Powered
<none@none.supernews> writes
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>We have an extremely good military designed for 21 century
>>>conflicts. Come over to uk.current-events.terrorisum where we
>>>can discuss it.
>>
>> Clearly there is no national elitism going on in that little
>> corner of cyberspace.....
>
>The Brits do have a capable intelligence network and a reasonable
>version of our Homeland Security for their airports, sea ports, and
>cities but NOT a strategic navy, air force, or ground army capable
>of a quick reaction battle in a foreign land
Like the Falklands?
> much less something as
>large as Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
I doubt we would ever need to do something that large and even the US
could not do it alone.
>>>Actually the UK forces are essential to the US who screwed up
>>>in both Iraq and Afghanistan in fact the New 2007 US manuals on
>>>counter terrorism are virtually eh British manuals with US
>>>covers on them.
>>
>> If you can do something better and are willing to help us out,
>> we are more than willing and happy to make use of it. We
>> aren't so arrogant as you are to actually believe that our fecal
>> matter doesn't emit oderous compounds.
>>
>UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan were so small as to be
>inconsequential.
US stupidity that size is everything. :-)
> Witness where they were deployed, just as the
>French and Germans were, in places with little likelihood of battle
>casualties nor any ability to inflict casualties on the enemy.
I assume you have not seen a TV in the last 2 years? The Brits in
Afghanistan are doing the majority of the ground fighting
In fact the Brits opened up large areas of Afghanistan the US never got
into. 0ver 60% of Afghanistan was never out of Taliban control until
the Brits wen back in during 2007
Most of the US did not leave their fire bases even in the day. It was
just like the Russians US control in Afghanistan was basically day time
Kabul
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 2 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 3:07 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:49:22 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <497983dc$0$1622$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, Ray Fischer
><rfischer@sonic.net> writes
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>>You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>>
>>>You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>>
>> The West Bank was legally won in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. It is
>> just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>> Stephen Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>>
>>So clearly you DID say that and you are just lying your ass off.
>
>Given the amount of Israeli propaganda Stephen is pushing in just this
>news group it is clear he is employed full time to push propaganda.
That's funny. The evidence would suggest that you are just a paid
shill for Hamas.
Oh, you're not? Then why your constant anti-Israel statements like
"Israel must go" and comments that Israel should never have been
created? Also, why do you constantly dismiss the crimes committed by
Palestinians as just being "Israeli propaganda?"
>
>The Israelis have been doing a LOT of that. The Channel 4 (UK TV)
>documentary last night showed proof that Israel is pumping out masses of
>"propaganda" much of it downright lies and is using utube and people on
>NG's and forums to do this.
There we have it. A TV show from the UK is the final authority.
>We can safely assume that Stephen is as most sane people thought part of
>the Israeli propaganda machine and never going to tell the truth.
To the contrary. I'm just an observer with no ties to Israel
whatsoever. I'm not even Jewish.
>
>This tactic has backfired on Israel as the Press don't like being
>consistently lied to and stopped from getting at the truth. Now the
>worlds media are getting into Gaza you can expect many more TV programs
>on the Israeli war crimes in Gaza and how the Israelis tried to
>manipulate the media. At the end of it no one is ever going to trust
>anything any Israeli or probably even any Jewish source says.
You really need to get out more and stop relying on what the boob tube
spoon-feeds you as being unbiased truth.
>
>The whole thing will have been VERY counter productive for Israel
>
>I think we can expect Israeli War Crime trials and sanctions against
>Israel .
Just as soon as the same happens to Hamas and Hezbollah.
== 3 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:00 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 23 Jan 2009 18:01:37 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 23 Jan 2009 08:22:56 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>
>>>>>Not in the slightest. Most of us in this forum would support Ray in most
>>>>>of his comments and posts.
>>>>
>>>>Nonsense. His typical post is along the lines of, "You're an idiot,
>>>
>>>Your typical post is to deny, to accuse people of doing what you're
>>>doing, to call people anti-semites, and to lie your ass off in order
>>>to rationalize your murderous hatred of Muslims and Arabs.
>>
>>Ray, you are so blind. Even in the above mini-lecture you do exactly
>>what I've pointed out: falsely accusing others of lying, ignorant
>
> The West Bank was legally won in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. It is
> just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
> Stephen Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>
> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
> Stephen Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
>
>So, as is clearly seen in the above quotes, you're a liar who will
>flasely accuse others for pointing out that you're a liar.
Addressed in another post. To summarize, you apparently don't know
the difference between a territory and a fully-annexed part of a
country.
== 4 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:01 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 11:09:35 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <rk5jn4d4l35vm534blvepq2og1t5omofif@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 09:06:27 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>On the other hand you seem to be a self righteous bigot spewing
>>>>>propaganda and lies
>>>>
>>>>Only propaganda and lies according to your bigoted anti-Israel
>>>>worldview.
>>>
>>>Actually there was a documentary on last night about the Israeli
>>>behaviour over Gaza
>>
>>On the BBC?
>Not the BBC. I note there was an Israeli smear campaign against the BBC
>just as they managed to get an independent news team into Gaza
>
>>Or some other network which admits to its biased
>>reporting?
>
>Nope. This is a production team known for it's impartiality and good
>handling of this sort of reporting. If they are wrong it will be the
>first time in 30 years
>
>>>It bears out all ray and I have been saying about Israeli war crimes and
>>>propaganda. They are trying to completely control the world press in
>>>reporting the facts.
>>
>>Ah, yes, the Jews wanting to control everything .... the world has
>>heard that before.
>
>No it was a factual point about the Israeli official media
>control/support office. They simple factually reported what they were
>doing. Continual texts and calls to all registered journalists.
>Continual checks on them by the police and military, staged press
>briefings. Large abouts of background propaganda heaped on them.
>Complete restrictions on seeing anything near Gaza and control of their
>movements.
>
>They asked all the international reporters and they said that they had
>had less oppressive control in China! They all felt that the Israelis
>were using propaganda, much that had already shown to be false.
>
>The Israelis did finally admit ion camera some of it might be
>"misleading" and even "false". They also refused to comment on much of
>it where there was not room to duck and dive.
>
>>>They have distorted and lied repeatedly so that now 90% of the worlds
>>>press would not trust the Israelis if they said it was daylight and had
>>>video of it.
>>>
>>>The Utube videos of Hamas using UN schools to launch missiles are FAKE
>>>It is video of a different school taken in 2005!
>>>
>>>The IDF claiming the Washington Post and NY Times supported their cliams
>>>was repudiated by the editors of both newspapers who are furious that
>>>they have been misrepresented. In fact they said their stories disproved
>>>the Israeli versions. Even the official Israeli spokesman has been
>>>caught lying more than once
>>>
>>>The Press core have been saying the amount of Israeli propaganda has
>>>been enormous.
>>
>>Propaganda to some is factual reporting to others.
>
>That is not correct.
>
>> You choose which
>>side's propaganda you wish to believe.
>
>Neither you dismantle BOTH sets of propaganda to get at the truth. The
>problem is as Israel has tried to shut down ANY reporting inside Gaza
>the only propaganda there is to dismantle is the Israeli propaganda.
>There is little Hamas stuff to disect and check
>
>The problem is the Israeli stuff has been shown to be false. No one has
>been able to check much of the Hamas stuff.
>
>>>The net result is that Israel is seen as having committed war crimes and
>>>tried to lie about it and smear the UN and Red cross (and others) as
>>>well.
>>>
>>>It has completely destroyed any trust any one had in Israel. The
>>>Israeli actions have backfired completely and the backlash will be
>>>enormous.
>>>
>>>The Press have now started to get into Gaza and found it is worse that
>>>it they thought for civilian casualties and other war crimes.
>>>
>>>Israel is little different to Pol Pot's killing fields. Iseal is lilely
>>>to face sanctions and war crimes trials just at the point where the US
>>>will stop supporting them. The Sanctions could be the end of Israel
>>
>>
>>If you weren't so biased,
>
>I want factual reporting from Gaza not just Israeli propaganda and what
>are now clearly lies.
>
>> you'd see that what you wrote just reflects
>>your passionate belief that Israel has no right to exist regardless of
>>what spin either side puts on the events.
>
>I made no comment on that about the reporting. It is YOU and Israeli
>supporter who is, as usual trying to spin things and put words in my
>mouth,
>
>
>>>There is no way Israel will be seen as a European country by Europe.
>>
>>Why would Israel want to be seen as a European country?
>
>Survival.
>
>> They are a
>>democracy,
>
>They have committed many war crimes and have no support from any
>neighbour on a 1000 mile radius due to their own actions
>
>> and I doubt they would want to adopt the socialist-leaning
>>characteristics of many European nations.
>
>Much of Israel is socialist... what is a Kibbutz if not a socialist
>concept?
Really, Chris, what you say would have more credibility if you didn't
come from the foundation that you don't believe Israel has the right
to exist.
== 5 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:06 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:58:17 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <mbbjn4tpqnevs7rpvtei72pef1l994uahp@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>On 23 Jan 2009 09:52:07 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Jan 23, 12:43 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>> Twibil <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >On Jan 23, 12:19 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> You accuse people of being anti-semitic and nazis for daring to
>>>>> >> criticize Iraeli war crimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> >Er, only problem is that you just undercut anything else you might say
>>>>> >by labeling Israeli actions as "war crimes".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not the only one. Amnesty International and the United Nations
>>>>> are doing likewise.
>>>>
>>>>When Amnesty International and the UN begin loudly calling attention
>>>>to the actions by Hamas that invited the Israeli retaliation,
>>>
>>>Such as violating the cease fire? No, actually, that was Israel.
>>>Human rights violations? Israel again.
>>>Violating UN resolutions and international law? Israel again.
>>>Imposing an oppressive police state? Israel again.
>>>
>>>>Fact is; if the Palistinians stopped shooting tomorrow morning there
>>>>would be peace in the middle east.
>>>
>>>In fact Palestinians in the West Bank have not attacked Israel in over
>>>a year and nothing has changed. They're still subject to Israeli
>>>military checkpoints, still have their land taken, still are kept
>>>separate from Jews.
>>>
>>>> If the Israelis stopped shooting
>>>>back tomorrow there would be no Israel -or Israelis- in a month.
>>>
>>>Good propaganda in that it is a complete lie that demonizs the victims.
>>>
>>>>Until something in that equation changes,
>>>
>>>Until people like you stop excusing Israeli war crimes nothing will change
>>>and people will keep dying.
>>
>>
>>The above would be points of valid discussion; but when you end it
>>with the line "Until people 'like you' stop excusing Israeli war
>>crimes" you show it to nothing but bigoted propaganda and spinning of
>>the facts.
>
>
>The facts are Israel has committed war crimes and lied about it.
Not a fact until proven in a court of law. News shows on TV, even
those you believe to be impartial, don't mean a thing. You are just
giving your opinion and presenting it as fact.
Again, you would have more credibility if you didn't come from the
premise that Israel has no right to exist and if you didn't excuse the
crimes against humanity committed by the Palestinians. When they
target and murder innocent people, you call them "freedom fighters."
When Israeli airstrikes kill innocent people, regardless of what the
target might be, you call them war criminals. Your bias couldn't be
more obvious.
== 6 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:09 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 07:12:14 -0600, "HEMI - Powered"
<none@none.supernews> wrote:
>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>
>> The facts are Israel has committed war crimes and lied about it.
>
>When are you going to back up these absurd accusations with FACTS,
>Chris? And, before you continue to throw stones out of your glass
>house, best determine that YOUR country has not now, nor ever has in
>it's storied past, committed war crimes or crimes against humans.
>Think hard to the days when The Sun Never Sets on The British Empire,
>then think to WWI and WWII, and especially delve into actions of the
>British Army specifically against the Jews attempting to establish a
>Homeland in the New State of Israel, circa 1947.
>
>I know of NO country or group that is completely free of these
>unsavory activities. Even our new President, Barack Obama, wrote in
>some key loopholes to his Executive Order outlawing agressive
>interrogations/torture that sound ominously similar to the same
>rationalization that former President Bush used.
>
>And, please think about how YOU would feel is some terrrorist
>militant group had killed or maimed for life YOUR friends and
>relatives and YOU captured a suspected perpetrator. How would YOU
>conduct yourself, would you be humane or would you do WHATEVER is
>necessary to obtain intelligence to STOP the violence against those
>you love.
>
>In this entire discussion, you sound like the typical hypocrit that
>finds it all too easy to hate the Israelis yet strangly silent about
>your own countries inhumane past.
Very well said, but I fear will fall on deaf ears.
Yes, according to news reports, even our own
"let's-dialogue-with-our-enemies-so-they'll-like-us" new president
Barak the Magnificant just permitted an airstrike on Pakistan that
killed 10 suspected terrorists. Is he now a war criminal also?
== 7 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:14 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:52:09 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <Xns9B9C5319FF98ReplyScoreID@216.168.3.30>, HEMI - Powered
><none@none.supernews> writes
>>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>
>>> The facts are Israel has committed war crimes and lied about it.
>>
>>When are you going to back up these absurd accusations with FACTS,
>>Chris?
>
>The UN, Red Cross and BBC all have evidence and the Israelis have
>admitted it.
That's what you keep saying. We can discount the BBC as a reliable
source, of course. As to the other two, where is that evidence? Why
isn't it on the front page of every news source regardless of
political spin? Why is it that the most vocal anti-Israel spokesmen
like yourself the only ones who seem to be demanding that Israel be
tried for supposed war crimes? Why hasn't the UN called a special
session to condemn Israel for these "crimes?"
== 8 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:19 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 23 Jan 2009 18:02:25 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 23 Jan 2009 08:43:31 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Twibil <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Jan 23, 12:19 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You accuse people of being anti-semitic and nazis for daring to
>>>>> criticize Iraeli war crimes.
>>>>
>>>>Er, only problem is that you just undercut anything else you might say
>>>>by labeling Israeli actions as "war crimes".
>>>
>>>I'm not the only one. Amnesty International and the United Nations
>>>are doing likewise.
>>
>>You mean the same United Nations whose troops have been caught raping
>>civilians and running the openly corrupt oil for food program ?
>
> The West Bank was legally won in the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. It is
> just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
> Stephen Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>
> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
> Stephen Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
You think that is a "gotcha," but as explained elsewhere just reflects
your lack of understanding between a territory and an part of a
country's actual boundaries.
Ie, mincing words like "part of" does not make one a liar.
== 9 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:20 am
From: Chris Malcolm
HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
> J. Clarke added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>> Dawwin does not dispute God he just lays out the evidence that
>>> shows the development of the species after god started it
>>
>> I don't mean to be sidetracking the conversation, but Darwin
>> started out intending to become a minister (that's a person who
>> stands up in front of a church and preaches, not a government
>> official) and what he learned on the voyage of the Beagle turned
>> him off of religion entirely, so it can have that effect even
>> with people who are already dedicated to their religion.
> Darwin's two books on evolution are ENTIRELY consistent with
> Creationism.
Darwin certainly didn't think so!
--
Chris Malcolm
== 10 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:22 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 06:24:12 -0600, "HEMI - Powered"
<none@none.supernews> wrote:
>
>This NG most likely has a large contingent of normal thinking
>conservatives just as our states and the entire country has but
>like many conservatives, I believe that they are generally loathe
>to make it known because Liberals universally attack what they do
>not understand.
>
I clipped all but the above merely to emphasize that what you said in
that parapraph speaks volumes. Truer words were never spoken.
== 11 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:23 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 23 Jan 2009 18:03:34 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 23 Jan 2009 08:27:32 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:01:54 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 21 Jan 2009 05:04:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.giganews> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Such revisionist thinking, and even more so, the Liberal bias on
>>>>>>>>>>our college campuses, perverts the very notions of freedom of
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Fascists hate liberalism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>In your self-rightous bigotry you miss the truth that Facism *is*
>>>>>>>>liberalism taken to its extreme.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>An outright lie, but just what I'd expect from a lying, bigoted
>>>>>>>asshole like you. I stated a fact. You don't like the fact because
>>>>>>>it shows that you are a fascist?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Oh, Ray, what other response could have been expected from you?
>>>>>
>>>>>Changing the subject now?
>>>>
>>>>No, just making an astute observation.
>>>
>>>ANybody who thinks that fascism and liberalism are the same thing is a
>>>dishonest idiot.
>>
>>You're not paying attention.
>
>You're not telling the truth.
Again, you're not paying attention, and you're trying to substitute
personal attacks for understanding. Nobody is fooled except for
those who agree with your ideological position.
== 12 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:28 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 23 Jan 2009 18:04:17 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 23 Jan 2009 08:29:28 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:03:46 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>National socialism is NOT THE SAME as socialism, you stupid asshole.
>>>>>>>Sheesh, take a introductory course in political science. Learn something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I've taken several courses in political science and aced all of them,
>>>>>
>>>>>Now we know, without a doubt, that you're a liar.
>>>>
>>>>How so?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> German Nationalsozialismus , also called Nazism or Naziism
>>>>> totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi
>>>>> Party in Germany. In its intense nationalism, mass appeal, and
>>>>> dictatorial rule, National Socialism shared many elements with
>>>>> Italian fascism. However, Nazism was far more extreme both in its
>>>>> ideas and in its practice. In almost every respect it was an
>>>>> anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will
>>>>> of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a
>>>>> people and a nation, as well as a vision of annihilation of all
>>>>> enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.
>>>>> Encyclopedia Brittanica
>>>>
>>>>Yes, and your point is?
>>>
>>>That you're a liar. Pay attention.
>>>
>>>>It's interesting that the cult of Obama-ism and his rise from nowhere
>>>
>>>And there is more of that political bigotry that has corrupted the
>>>right wing. You extremists have nothing but hatred to offer.
>>
>>Ray, every time you write such nonsense to try to stereotype those who
>
>Stereotypes like "cult of Obama-ism", hypocrite?
There is very much a cult of "Obama-ism." How else would someone
with as little experience as he has get elected to the most powerful
position in the free world? How else do you explain the millions of
starry-eyed people who think he is "the one" who will save them from
their troubles? How else do you explain feelings like the woman
captured on tape in ecstacy because Obama's election means she will no
longer have to pay for her mortgage or pay to put gasoline in her car?
== 13 of 13 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:29 am
From: Chris Malcolm
HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
> The only people stupider/more ignorant than atheists are agnostics.
> By definition, if you believe there is no God, then WHO do you
> suppose "revealed" this to you?
This is the wittiest and most entertaining example of the logical
fallacy of peitito principii I've ever seen!
But I ought to warn you that using such irony in newsgroup runs the
serious risk of being read by people silly enough to think you were
being serious.
--
Chris Malcolm
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Your camera takes really nice pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c1f1ab7c703e40b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 3:38 am
From: "Alan Smithee"
"C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009012321244616807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom...
> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
Isn't it normally your cooking pots cook really good food?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:15 am
From: Neil Ellwood
On Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:24:46 -0800, C J Campbell wrote:
> Heh, heh. At last a comeback for that one:
>
> http://www.gocomics.com/wtduck/2009/01/06/
Re: subject line.
My camera does not take nice pictures, I am in control of my camera, I
take nice pictures.
--
Neil
reverse ra and delete l
Linux user 335851
==============================================================================
TOPIC: GONE FLYING WITH THE SUPERIOR D300 !!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ef07b8822660449c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 24 2009 4:09 am
From: Noons
Focus wrote,on my timestamp of 24/01/2009 1:17 AM:
>>
>> Kindly remove aus.photo from your cross-posting.
>
> Why? They don't understand English down under? Is aus.photo not about
> photography?
That was not a quizz, it was a request.
==============================================================================
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