rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Palestinians Under Attack - 9 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
* Your camera takes really nice pictures - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c1f1ab7c703e40b?hl=en
* Adobe gone crazy? - 9 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
* Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
* Got <140 bit DR Image? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/00d043919be94bfd?hl=en
* Freeware to mix photos & music & video to create a DVD slide show - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/36fb5056ac2af2c5?hl=en
* camera for diving ? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f5f0b7143efb2882?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 11:48 pm
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>On 29 Jan 2009 07:06:40 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>On 28 Jan 2009 07:00:18 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>On 27 Jan 2009 03:40:05 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:24:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On 25 Jan 2009 03:43:31 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:37:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 18:09:14 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 08:37:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:15:08 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then you need to get a life and learn to do independent research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have. Including going to the ME. My parents have travelled in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Israel and Palestine. Your experience is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like you were more on a sight seeing tour than a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>finding mission as your thesis is ludicrous at best.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My "experience" is precisely this: I think that ALL/ANY sovereign
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nations have the RIGHT to defend themselves against unwarranted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attacks without resorting to bullshit arbitration by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>international community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No you don't. You totally reject the Palestinian's right to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>anything of the sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Palestinians are NOT a sovereign nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How convenient doe you to make such an excuse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Excuse? That's simply a fact that cannot be disputed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>And WHY aren't they a nation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because Israel doesn't allow it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Israel is still illegally expanding settlements in the West Bank and
>>>>>>>>>>>>refuses to withdraw.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Why is it illegal?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If you think wikipedia is a reliable source, you are a fool.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Translation: Any source that isn't pro-Israel must be biased.
>>>>>>>>But I notice no denial or refutaton from you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No translation needed. Virtually nobody considers Wikipedia to be a
>>>>>>>trustworthy source.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
>>>>>> Attacking the Person
>>>>>> (argumentum ad hominem)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Definition:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument
>>>>>> itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character,
>>>>>> nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be
>>>>>> pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome.
>>>>>> Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the
>>>>>> company he keeps.
>>>>>> There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument
>>>>>> attacks the person who made the assertion.
>>>>>> ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the
>>>>>> author points to the relationship between the person making the
>>>>>> assertion and the person's circumstances.
>>>>>> ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a
>>>>>> person does not practise what he
>>>>>> preaches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They captured that land from Jordan during the
>>>>>>>>>>>1967 Arab-Israeli war when they won that war of Arab aggression. They
>>>>>>>>>>>have every right to it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Just like the nazis had every right to Poland.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Poland never started multiple wars against Germany for the purpose of
>>>>>>>>>removing them from Europe, knucklehead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>And until the Zionists started using terrorism to drive out
>>>>>>>>Palestinians, neither did the Arabs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Again, you are ignoring history,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Evidence? What "history" do you believe is being ignored?
>>>>>
>>>>>You tell me.
>>>>
>>>>You make an accusation you can't even justify.
>>>>
>>>>That makes you a stupid liar.
>>>
>>>Ray, you've already demonstrated that you view any source that
>>>supports Israel's right to exist as propaganda.
>>
>>And now you're lying your bigoted ass off again. You lie, you get
>>challenged, you come up with some new lie.
>>
>>It's a sickness with you.
>
>Those aren't lies.
You admitted that your statements are lies.
As you've said, I provided proof in other posts.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 3:24 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 30 Jan 2009 06:06:18 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 29 Jan 2009 06:58:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>You don't understand subtle meanings, so you shout "lies!"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I understand how evil sleazebags try to claim that black is white,
>>>>>>>>>freedom is death, and outright lies are really just "subtle meanings".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You have little understanding of the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I understand that you're a shameless liar. Proof is provided above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Not proof at all, Ray.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here it is again, liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> The West Bank [...] is just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>>>>> Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>>>> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>>>>> Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Again you ignore what I've said about that in your childish attempt at
>>>>"gotcha."
>>>
>>>Did you say that the West Bank is part of Israel? Yes or no?
>>
>>The answer is both, dummy.
>
>And that makes you a liar.
No, it makes you a fool who would rather take individual sentences out
of context than actually understand their meaning.
Surely you know that you can take ANYONE's words out of context and
make a case that they are lying or contradicting themselves or saying
something other than what they really said. It's the oldest trick in
the book when you can't refute what they've actually said.
>
>>Yes in that it is a territory captured during a war of self-defense.
>
>You must be insane to lie about words of yours which are still quoted
>just above.
Typical Ray, trying to make the argument about the person delivering
the message than about the subject itself.
So, here's another opportunity to redeem yourself. Answer the
questions I've asked you that you've so sleazily clipped away.
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 3:34 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 31 Jan 2009 07:43:27 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Even when you condemn yourself with your own words
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>These are YOUR words, liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The West Bank [...] 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>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Ray, when will you learn that your taking words out of context,
>>>>>
>>>>>Explain the context that justifies your statements.
>>>>
>>>>I did so, abundantly.
>>>
>>>And the lying coward runs away again.
>>>
>>>Nobody is surprised.
>>
>>Why should anybody be surprised?
>
>Given your history of lies, evasions, and cowardice nobody should be
>surprised.
>
>This is from Amnesty International
>
> Hours before Israel announced a ceasefire, an Amnesty International
> fact finding mission gained access to Gaza. Their initial reports are
> disturbing: the team found first hand evidence of war crimes, serious
> violations of international law and possible crimes against humanity
> by all parties to the conflict.
>
> AI researchers continue investigating attacks against southern Israel
> and are currently documenting the true scale of devastation wrought on
> civilians in Gaza. The stories they report are harrowing.
>
> In the early afternoon of January 4th, three young paramedics walked
> through a field on a rescue mission to save a group of wounded men in
> a nearby orchard. A 12-year-old boy, standing by his house, assisted
> the operation by pointing to where the men could be found. An Israeli
> air strike on the area killed all four.
>
> The bodies of the four victims could not be retrieved for two days.
> Ambulance crews who tried to approach the site came under fire from
> Israeli forces.
And what is your point? That innocent people die during wars? That
isn't news.
What you haven't shown is that Israel deliberately targeted those or
any other civilians just because they were trying to kill civilians.
Why? Because there is no evidence of that. Typical one-sided
rubbish, describing the horror of the aftermath while ignoring the
entire story.
Let's see Amnesty International's evenhanded reports about the
aftermath of a typical Palestinian suicide bomb attack deliberately
against civilians in a crowded bus.
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 3:36 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 31 Jan 2009 07:43:49 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 29 Jan 2009 17:32:49 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 29 Jan 2009 06:52:58 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 28 Jan 2009 06:48:05 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:04:29 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 25 Jan 2009 01:10:26 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But what can you expect from someone who thinks FAUX News is a reliable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news source.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>State owned or not, the BBC has admitted to its liberal bias.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No they have not, liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Liar liar pants on fire, Ray.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>That's not evidennce, coward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>I know you have difficulty accepting evidence that doesn't support
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Ad hominems also are not evidence, liar.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Clipping and dodging is evidence,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>... that you have no facts to justify
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The fact that *you* clip and dodge is evidence of *someone else's*
>>>>>>>>lack of facts?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes. I snip at the first lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Finally you admit that you snip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Now you need to admit that what you snip are not lies,
>>>>>
>>>>>But that would be a lie.
>>>>
>>>>Unfortunately for you, the record shows otherwise.
>>>
>>>The record shows that you are a lying, hypocritical, bigoted coward.
>>
>>If you think so,
>
>Know so and proven so.
And yet again you sleazily clip away text instead of answering simple
questions while repeating a lie.
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 3:41 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 05:48:53 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" <none@none.gn>
wrote:
>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>jour ...
>
>>>>Hmmm. Let me see, the Palestinians from the PLO to Hamas have
>>>>steadfastly said they intend to utterly destroy Israel,
>>>
>>>And the Israelis have said that all of Palestine belongs to the
>>>Jews.
>>
>> And you even clip away much of Hemi's text before you post your
>> one-sided blathering.
>>
>> Ray = SLEAZE
>>
>> But I take it that by leaving in part of what he wrote that you
>> do indeed agree that they intend to utterly destroy Israel.
>> That's progress.
>>
>Stephen, one of the many euphemisms I HATE is "spin", which today
>means to tell a story to be most favorable to your side when in
>reality, it is really a LIE. Ray and some others attempt to spin the
>truth to make it sound more believable and more palitable to normal
>folk but succeed in neither.
Exactly. In self-righteous anger they somehow believe that lying
and personal attacks are justified because they *think* they have the
moral high ground. In their limited worldview, they truly think that
the end justifies the means. Lie, quote out of context, erase the
words of others, avoid questions and repeatedly bring home the false
accuation of "liar, liar." It's all so transparent. That's why I've
called Ray a Nazi, because he uses their tactics against the
opposition.
>
>Have a happy TGIF!
Thanks, and you also.
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 3:44 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:15:51 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>In message <Xns9BA34589122A3ReplyScoreID@216.196.97.131>, HEMI-Powered
><none@none.gn> writes
>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>jour ...
>>
>>>>>Hmmm. Let me see, the Palestinians from the PLO to Hamas have
>>>>>steadfastly said they intend to utterly destroy Israel,
>>>>
>>>>And the Israelis have said that all of Palestine belongs to the
>>>>Jews.
>>>
>>> And you even clip away much of Hemi's text before you post your
>>> one-sided blathering.
>>>
>>> Ray = SLEAZE
>>>
>>> But I take it that by leaving in part of what he wrote that you
>>> do indeed agree that they intend to utterly destroy Israel.
>>> That's progress.
>>>
>>Stephen, one of the many euphemisms I HATE is "spin", which today
>>means to tell a story to be most favorable to your side when in
>>reality, it is really a LIE. Ray and some others attempt to spin the
>>truth to make it sound more believable and more palitable to normal
>>folk but succeed in neither.
>
>Interesting comment I have just had to visit a company on a University
>science park. It appears yesterday (29th) the entire student body had a
>day of protest and got an official motion in the Students Union and
>University records in Favour of supporting the Gazans and calling for
>War crimes charges against Israel.
>
>There have also been protest marches in support of the Gazan's and anti
>Israel that have not been predominantly Islamic but a general cross
>section of the population including Jews who understand that criticising
>the state of Israel is not anti-sematic.
>
>It seems the spin of Stephen and Hemi just does not cut it in the real
>wolrd.
Since when have the protest marches of university students been the
"real world?" When have they ever been evidence of expertise on
world facts or foreign affairs?
Students tend to protest anything, particularly things that people can
whip up as being perceived as issues of social injustice. Where have
you been?
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 3:47 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 31 Jan 2009 07:44:57 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>jour ...
>>
>>>>>Hmmm. Let me see, the Palestinians from the PLO to Hamas have
>>>>>steadfastly said they intend to utterly destroy Israel,
>>>>
>>>>And the Israelis have said that all of Palestine belongs to the
>>>>Jews.
>>>
>>> And you even clip away much of Hemi's text before you post your
>>> one-sided blathering.
>>>
>>> Ray = SLEAZE
>>>
>>> But I take it that by leaving in part of what he wrote that you
>>> do indeed agree that they intend to utterly destroy Israel.
>>> That's progress.
>>>
>>Stephen, one of the many euphemisms I HATE is "spin",
>
>Then what do you call what you post?
I don't know what he calls it, but I know what *you* call it: just
another opportunity to clip away text and dodge questions.
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 3:50 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 31 Jan 2009 07:44:31 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>>>>Ray Fischer added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>>>...
>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>> No, that's another lie. The Palestinians have already accepted
>>>>> Israel's right to exist. Israel refuses to accept a Palestinian
>>>>> state.
>>>>
>>>>Hmmm. Let me see, the Palestinians from the PLO to Hamas have
>>>>steadfastly said they intend to utterly destroy Israel,
>>>
>>>And the Israelis have said that all of Palestine belongs to the Jews.
>>
>>And you even clip away much of Hemi's text
>
>I see no need to repeat the sleazy rantings of bigots.
That's because in your self-righteous bigotry you actually believe
that YOU are the judge of such things. All the while you shout to
the world, "I am the mighty Ray, a sleazy person who ignores what
people say while trying to shout everybody down with insults and lame
personal attacks."
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 4:01 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 31 Jan 2009 07:45:59 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 29 Jan 2009 17:35:03 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 29 Jan 2009 06:55:58 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 28 Jan 2009 06:49:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>There is no nation of Palestine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Because Israel refuses to allow it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They refused the partition that
>>>>>>>>would have created their own nation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Israel refused to give them the West Bank.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It would be nice to see a nation of Palestine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Israel refuses to allow it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Israel rightly refuses to allow any nation to be formed on its borders
>>>>>>unless that proposed nation first recognizes its own right to exist
>>>>>
>>>>>No, that's another lie. The Palestinians have already accepted
>>>>>Israel's right to exist. Israel refuses to accept a Palestinian
>>>>>state.
>>>>
>>>>Read the charters of Hamas and the PLO, bigot.
>>>
>>>Hamas has said that they will recognize Israel. The PLO is
>>>irrelevant.
>
>No response.
What response do you want? That I should believe the words of a
terrorist organization who has just taken a beating from the people
that they have clearly said they want to remove from the land?
>
>>>>>>>> But first they will
>>>>>>>>have to give up their insane and fanatical beliefs that the Jews have
>>>>>>>>no right to a state in that part of the world.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The Palestinians have no such belief, you evil, lying bigot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Just read the charters of Hamas and the PLO.
>>>>>
>>>>>And AGAIN you spew lies and then run away when challenged.
>>>>
>>>>And AGAIN you spew charges of lying
>>>
>>>Because you're a liar. You make claims with NO evidence.
>>
>>The evidence is in their own words.
>
>You don't quote their own words, bigot
>
>>No, instead you believe a statement to willing ears in the media where
>
>Are you calling Carter a liar?
The answer to that is in the words you sleazily clipped away, Ray.
>
>>>>>>You also don't know or ignore radical Muslim ideology that any land
>>>>>>that has ever been controlled by Islam remains Muslim land forever.
>>>>>
>>>>>And to illustrate what a rabid bigot you are ...
>>>>>
>>>>> "You also don't know or ignore radical [Jewish] ideology that any land
>>>>> that has ever been controlled by [Jews] remains [Jewish] land forever."
>>>>
>>>>Do you deny that bit of Muslim theology/ideology ?
>>>
>>>Do you deny that Jewish ideology?
>>
>>If you really want to compare the two, the Jews were there first.
>
>And again you lie your bigoted ass off.
Oh, really? Show me your evidence that the Palestinian Arabs or any
Muslims were there before the Jews were.
All of world history would find your answer to be lacking, so don't
even attempt to lie about that one. But you've already demonstrated
your ignorance about that part of the world by confusing Gaza with the
West Bank and by saying that Likud is the ruling party in Israel.
So answer my questions, Ray. Why do you keep dodging and evading?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Your camera takes really nice pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c1f1ab7c703e40b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 11:57 pm
From: "Pete D"
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:yRSgl.9805$8_3.925@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Pete D wrote:
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>> news:NOOgl.19252$Ws1.6032@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Pete D wrote:
>>>> "Neil Ellwood" <cral.elllwood2@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:w-mdnVD4mfTym-bUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>>>> 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.
>>>> So without a camera you can still take nice pictures? This I have to
>>>> see!!
>>> Clasp both hands together just right with a piece of film inside..
>>> proper technique can produce a pinhole between the middle fingers. It
>>> takes ninja skills to hold steady for the 2 minute exposure but
>>> masterpieces can be created this way by talented individuals.
>>
>> Did you know that you can make a pinhole lens for an SLR camera, in fact
>> you can make a pinhole zoom lens with a couple of cardboard tubes, fun
>> for all the family. Not sure how many keepers you will get though.
>
> Just crinkle a piece of foil over the opening & poke a pin in the middle.
>
How do you zoom that setup?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 12:00 am
From: ASAAR
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 17:07:41 -0800 (PST), Paul wrote:
>> Funny, years ago I was at my nephews wedding and I took a photo of his
>> brother, when my sister-inlaw saw the photo she made the comment that I
>> must have a really good camera. Nope, nothing about me taking a good
>> photo. I always laugh about that.
>>
>> --
>> Sheilahttp://swdalton.com
>
>
> Yes, as if anyone in the world would become Ansel Adams,
> if given his equipment, right? Right!
If everyone in the world had the same access to Ansel Adams' photo
equipment (or whatever photo gear they preferred) at the time that
he did, it might well have produced several comparably talented
photographers, not necessarily in the same field.
> Check out what a Nikon Coolpix s550 can do (all by itself!) :
It's not cooperating. I've told it countless times to "do your
thing" but there it sits, doing nothing but taking up space on my
table. My Coolpix P60 and Powershot S20 can do that too.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 12:01 am
From: "Jeff R."
Pete D wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>> Just crinkle a piece of foil over the opening & poke a pin in the
>> middle.
>>
> How do you zoom that setup?
Just move the foil closer or further away from the sensor.
Focus is automatic. :-)
--
Jeff R.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe gone crazy?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 12:57 am
From: Ron Hunter
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <6ugopdFer5rjU27@mid.individual.net>, ray says...
>
>> Never much needed to get to the pixel level - I can see how that might be
>> important for others. Again, I've not had any difficulty negotiating in
>> ufraw - may be just a case of what you're used to. I tend to just accept
>> layouts and adapt to them rather than try to figure out how they'd be
>> better laid out.
>
> You need the pixel level view mainly to check for noise and also to set
> the sharpness levels (how much sharpening to apply). Also for correcting
> chromatic aberrations.
About the only thing I use pixel level editing for is to clean up
red-eye correction. Sometimes fixing red-eye just needs pixel level
editing to make it look right.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 2:29 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <87bptoj64t.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson says...
> >100% is needed for noise and chromatic aberrations removal (or is UFRAW
> >not able to remove chromatic aberrations during RAW conversion?).
>
> It is not an editor. Please read the manual, please
> explore the program. And please stop making up
> fabricated problems.
If UFRAW does not do chromatic aberration removal during RAW conversion,
this is a big problem, because it can't be done this way in post-
processing.
Chromatic aberration removal during RAW conversion uses the individual
colour channel information, by stretching or shrinking a little bit the
individual colour channel images. That is the best way of addressing the
chromatic aberration issue. After RGB conversion you can't do this.
Regarding UFRAW not being an image editor, I already explained why all
image editing steps should be included in the RAW converter. Read my
other post. It substantially improves your workflow and documents what
settings and image processing steps you applied, so that in the future
if you need to do any additional image editing you can do so losslessly
by restarting from the RAW file.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 11:24 pm
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <87eiykl7w5.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson says...
>
>> The "feature" being discussed is 100% pixel viewing.
>> You seem to be confused. It provides exactly no
>> benefit,
>
>Wrong. It allows you to adjust precisely the denoise levels. It also
>allows you to precisely set the chromatic aberrations removal, if UFRAW
>allowed you to do so. Let's check...
>
>Aha, I have now found the gamma slider. It's in the tab with the colour
>space. By the way, what is linearity?
>.....
>Ok, I finished checking. It appears that UFRAW has no controls to
>correct for lens imperfections - vignetting, chromatic aberrations,
>geometric distortions. These controls need to be added.
It does have what is needed. It certainly does not need
that entire list!
>Also, the denoise/detail recovery should be a bit more sophisticated.
>There is just one denoise slider at the moment.
Read the documentation.
>No sharpening control at all - this needs to be added. People must have
>the option of not applying sharpening after RAW conversion.
They *do* have that option!
>Interesting that there is a separate tab for greyscale conversion, which
>the overwhelming majority of photographers do not need. How many B&W
>photos do you see on the web?
I use it fairly often, and *greatly* appreciate it.
Your limitations are not shared by others.
>On the initial tab four five interpolation modes (probably Bayer colour
>interpolation) are offered (AHD, VNG etc.). Changing between them shows
>no difference in the preview window at 50%. Perhaps a 100% view would
>show the difference, allowing you to chose the interpolation mode?
Read the documentation, and stop fabricating "problems"
that relate only to your ignorance.
>No contrast slider at all - unbelievable.
Mine has one.
>> but it is true that it would be trivial to add
>> and such a decision would indeed also be "purely
>> arbitrary". So why would UFRAW's maintainer bother with
>> it????
>
>If it is trivial, then just add it. Period. I explained on top why the
>100% view is needed.
No you didn't. You've explained that you don't know
what a raw conversion program is.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 2:50 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>But a RAW converter should incorporate as much image editing as
>possible, so that no further image editing steps are needed after RAW
>conversion.
Do you read what you write?
>Image processing after RAW conversion should be as limited as possible,
Obviously not.
>I *have* used the program and the criticism I made was constructive. But
Tell us another funny story...
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 2:52 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <87fxj0j98u.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson says...
>
>> So... you've never used UFRAW and don't have a clue how it
>> should be used, eh?
>
>Reading comprehension is not your strength? I wrote:
>> Ok, I downloaded and installed GIMP and UFRAW.
You should read what you write.
As I said, you haven't *used* it. Nothing I've seen
you write suggests otherwise.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 3:03 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> You are claiming a program you don't use and know
>> nothing about is not good because it does not include
>> useless options.
>
>i can say the same about you.
But it would just be more fabrication on your part.
>you don't use camera raw nor do you use a multi-stage sharpening
I shoot raw 100% of the time. I commonly use multi-stage sharpening.
>workflow and i doubt you've read any of a number of authors on the
Apparently I'm somewhat better informed on at least this topic
than you are.
>subject to form your opinion, so how is it that you know it's useless?
I actually do use the program we are discussing. A fact
that you should have realized some time back.
>> As I've noted before, 100% crop pixel viewing in UFRAW
>> would be totally useless. There is neither sharpening
>> nor artifacts to look at. And there is no valid reason
>> to add either the 100% crop or things to look at with
>> it.
>
>you can always turn them off if you don't want to use them. offering
>more options makes the tool *more* flexible, something i would think is
>desirable.
If there are only so many minutes in a day, why would
anyone put something useless at the top of the priority
list? You are...
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 3:05 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <87bptoj64t.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson says...
>
>> >100% is needed for noise and chromatic aberrations removal (or is UFRAW
>> >not able to remove chromatic aberrations during RAW conversion?).
>>
>> It is not an editor. Please read the manual, please
>> explore the program. And please stop making up
>> fabricated problems.
>
>If UFRAW does not do chromatic aberration removal during RAW conversion,
>this is a big problem, because it can't be done this way in post-
>processing.
>
>Chromatic aberration removal during RAW conversion uses the individual
>colour channel information, by stretching or shrinking a little bit the
>individual colour channel images. That is the best way of addressing the
>chromatic aberration issue. After RGB conversion you can't do this.
Not exactly an intelligent statement.
>Regarding UFRAW not being an image editor, I already explained why all
>image editing steps should be included in the RAW converter. Read my
And what you said indicated that you haven't got a clue.
>other post. It substantially improves your workflow and documents what
>settings and image processing steps you applied, so that in the future
>if you need to do any additional image editing you can do so losslessly
>by restarting from the RAW file.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 3:44 am
From: Alfred Molon
In article <87pri3ivl8.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson says...
> And what you said indicated that you haven't got a clue.
That's enough Floyd. Welcome to my killfile.
With an attitude like that it's no surprise UFRAW is what it is - it
will never improve. And no, it's not the users who are stupid.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0, E30 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 4:04 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <87pri3ivl8.fld@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson says...
>
>> And what you said indicated that you haven't got a clue.
>
>That's enough Floyd. Welcome to my killfile.
>
>With an attitude like that it's no surprise UFRAW is what it is - it
>will never improve. And no, it's not the users who are stupid.
You continue to post nonsensical commentary.
I'm a user of UFRAW, and you are right (you finally got
something right!) that I'm not stupid. Now, just how my
attitude towards your stupid comments makes any
difference about how UFRAW will continue to improve is
an interesting topic, but not exactly signficant.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 1:55 am
From: RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com
On 31 Jan 2009 07:41:01 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
> <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> wrote:
>>This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
>>does work!!
>
>So you think that your'e clever for being a slimy thief.
Yes, thank you, I do think I'm clever. Are you upset because you
wasted $700
Have a nice day!
Robin Hood
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Got <140 bit DR Image?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/00d043919be94bfd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 2:29 am
From: Vance
On Jan 29, 2:51 pm, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 12:43 pm, "Mr.T" <MrT@home> wrote:
>
> > "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:3e1fa2bf-f230-4a37-bccb-fc9f789990ae@s9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >And as you've suggested, a pair of 16 bit captures could also take
> > >full advantage of the 140 db worth of DR, or even up to 192 db should
> > >a given cmos imager offer as much.
>
> > No, I said extra scans are unnecessary *if* your sensor provides 140dB in
> > one scan. Simply use 2 or more A/D's.
>
> That's even better, because 12 bit ADCs are relatively dirt cheap, and
> 16 bit can't be all that much worse off. Fast terabyte media storage
> could get a little spendy.
>
>
>
> > > In other words, at 192 db of
> > >dynamic range (similar to the best human eye),
>
> > The best human eye cannot manage that range in one pass either. It can only
> > do so by adjusting the pupil diameter. But then the problem of the eyes
> > color accuracy at extreme sensitivities goes to hell in any case.
>
> I agree, the 140 db of the cmos imager would always far outperform the
> human eye, not to mention at < ten thousand fold faster response.
>
>
>
> > Just as it is now possible to record audio with more accuracy than human
> > hearing, it should be possible to record images with more accuracy than
> > human vision in the foreseeable future, IMO. The only thing missing at the
> > moment is suitable sensors AFAICT. Possibly not even that :-)
>
> > Of course you do realise such an image can never be printed with even the
> > slightest accuracy?
>
> > MrT.
>
> Image accuracy is always the eye candy that's in the eye of the
> beholder. I've called it observationology, and it's entirely
> subjective as well as in need of deductively interpreting no matter
> how good or bad the image technology is. If you can't deductively
> think and thus interpret for yourself, you're kind of screwed into
> accepting whatever others (your peers) have to say. Unlike most, I
> still like to think for myself, and I never saw one stinking image of
> anything looking WMD worthy, but then I'm not as smart as our SEC and
> Madoff either.
>
> ~ BG
Do you actually pictures?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Freeware to mix photos & music & video to create a DVD slide show
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/36fb5056ac2af2c5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 2:42 am
From: "Jerry"
<TruthSquad@hope.com> wrote in message
news:a747o4p4kdc3o3k3qv78g43ij2d51vdun0@4ax.com...
: On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:49:29 -0000, "Jerry"
: <mapson.scarts@btinternet.com.INVALID> wrote:
:
: >
: ><TruthSquad@hope.com> wrote in message
: >news:qep6o4la65sbmh6nofsnisr8pet6af73ea@4ax.com...
: ><snip>
: >:
: >: ROFLMAO!
: >:
: >
: >Yes, that's exactly what I'm doing, at your attempted trolling - I
see
: >that you have no answer for the facts that have been placed before
: >you - just face it, you are the typical Usenet w*nker, all hot air
and
: >no facts...
:
: What fact?
<snip further trolling>
That facts you don't like, the facts that blow your 'argument' out of
the water! If you actually stopped to think about what you implied
(about codecs or any other software code) you would see how utterly
stupid your comments are - what you imply would mean that, never mind
codecs, there could never any other (for example) word processing,
spread sheet, video editing or ever Operating System after the first
software writer(s) had protect their work... As the old saying goes -
there is always more than one way to skin a rabbit - in other words,
as long as the alternate software doesn't use protected code there is
nothing to stop someone else producing software that outputs the same
result, be that a letter, end of year accounts or a video file or
indeed a whole operating system. You can protect how you got
someplace, you can't stop others getting to the same place via a
different route (algorithm).
Basically, for all bluster you are the real buffoon here, no one else
and you know it, that is why you are so ready to turn on the abuse,
turn on the trolling, to be the big Usenet bully... Now take your own
advice, go take a hike, go find a clue - looser...
--
"You obviously couldn't get a clue if you rolled in clue
musk and performed the clue mating dance in the middle
of a field full of horny clues at the height of the
clue mating season!"
==============================================================================
TOPIC: camera for diving ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f5f0b7143efb2882?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 3:46 am
From: Antonio Huerta
I would like to dive and take casual pictures of the rocks and fishes.
What waterproofed camera should I get ? I do not want an expensive
one, because it is first of all for experimenting. And I would not be
sorry if I did not do much diving (thus would not be sorry for the
sunken cost... gee, pun not intended).
I am aware that there are Olympus mu kind of cameras which are
waterproofed, but I am not sure about their suitability for diving and
their image quality. I am also aware that there are housings for
"land" cameras. But I do not know about their suitability...
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 31 2009 4:00 am
From: 1hogrider
Antonio Huerta wrote:
> I would like to dive and take casual pictures of the rocks and fishes.
> What waterproofed camera should I get ? I do not want an expensive
> one, because it is first of all for experimenting. And I would not be
> sorry if I did not do much diving (thus would not be sorry for the
> sunken cost... gee, pun not intended).
>
> I am aware that there are Olympus mu kind of cameras which are
> waterproofed, but I am not sure about their suitability for diving and
> their image quality. I am also aware that there are housings for
> "land" cameras. But I do not know about their suitability...
>
>
Underwater cameras can be had for several hundred dollars all the way to
$10,000 and more. What I gather from you is you are leaning more
towards the "hundreds of dollars" range.
What depth are you planning on taking it? There are some very
inexpensive "snorkling depth" type cameras (15 ft or so). SeaLife makes
some fairly good yet relatively inexpensive camera systems.
I have a SeaLife DC310 and get fairly good results for a 3.1 MP camera.
They no longer make this camera but you may be able to get one on Ebay
from someone who is upgrading. I would recommend whatever camera you
get, also get an external strobe. Makes all the difference in the world
in color and detail.
You are correct that housings are made for regular land cameras so they
can be used underwater but you can be talking at least $1000 or more.
Ikelite makes such housings.
I dive with a friend who I think has an Olympus with the underwater
housing. He is happy with it but does not use an external strobe.
If you are interested, I can direct you to pictures I took with my
system and pictures he took.
==============================================================================
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