Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 16 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/785f7679e18aa82a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:27 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>>>I just replied to you in another post that a strange side of
>>>being a liberal is vigorous defense of freedom of expression
>>>EXCEPT when the other person doesn't agree with the Liberal
>>>view of the world.
>>
>>I see you right-wingers doing exactly that. Who is it that's
>>been using the government to impose censorship of TV and radio
>>and books? So-called "conservatives".
>
> Ray, if you think he is a "right winger," how do you view
> yourself?

The Far Left Loons are trying to resurrect a failed idea from the
1950s/1960s called the Fairness Doctrine which required radio and
TV stations using FCC free frequencies to give opposing views equal
time. This made a little sense in the early days when only a few
stations existed but NO sense today. In today's warped view of
Liberal freedom of speech, if they can't get the courts to impose
censorship on ideas they don't agree with, they will try to remove
the sources of opposing ideas - conservative talk radio and TV.
Again, Liberalism turned Fascist.
>
>>>Then there's the strange circularity of political ideology
>>>where as one moves Left, eventually you get to Socialism,
>>>Marxism, and Communism but then the ideology wraps around and
>>>re-enters from the far right as Facsism and back to the left
>>>again as reactionary, neocon, and so on. I think the idea
>>>SHOULD be to stay somewhere just left or just right of center
>>>and not get so sidetracked as to be either a Far Left OR a Far
>>>Right Loon.
>
>>Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
>
> Liberty in your view would appear to be the freedom to shout
> down those who disagree with you, Ray. Freedom of speech is
> great unless what is said doesn't fit Ray's narrow worldview.
> Hmmmmmm...
>
Ray makes a wonderful poster boy to illustrate my point here about
Liberals being for freedom of speech UNTIL one dare's to dispute
their drivel.

--
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

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:29 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>Are you against liberty or do you defend liberty?
>
> Oh, and while you rant about liberty, what have you actually
> done to defend it? I served in the military, Ray, when did you
> do the same?
>
> Or maybe you just aren't aware that the liberty you speak of was
> won at the cost of thousands of deaths, beginning in the 1770's.
>
I also served in the military, the US Army. And, my father was a WWII
Marine who fought at Saipan, Tinian, and Iwo Jima. The thing about
liberty is that it MUST be defended VIGOROUSLY by all, else it will
soon be lost. Thus, the true cost of war's awful casualties often is
freedom itself, followed closely by national security.

--
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/3589f9dbd5f68fe9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:42 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 02 Feb 2009 01:07:34 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>jour ...
>>
>>> The sad thing is that liberalism isn't a bad thing. True
>>> liberalism, that is, where all ideas are given equal status and
>>> the best float to the top during the course of the political
>>> process. The problem is that modern liberalism not true
>>> liberalism. It is as you say, it talks the talk of liberty and
>>> freedom of speech, but God help you if in your exercise of free
>>> speech you disagree with the those liberals who think they have
>>> the moral high ground.
>>>
>>Without liberalism, social legislation in this country almost never
>>gets enacted, so I agree, liberalism isn't bad per se. But, just as
>>conservatism ran amok has been shown to be bad for our country
>>overall, so too is social engineering where the idea seems to be
>>that the government somehow can spend our money better than we can.
>
>Jesus was a liberal, as were the people who founded this country.

What propaganda are you listening to? Exactly how is it you think
that Jesus was a liberal? While he pointed out the hypocrisy of his
day, he was very much a conservative (if such a thing could be
compared to what that word means today.) He said that he came to
fulfill the law, not abolish it. He taught that we should take care
of the poor, not that the government should do that. In the famous
confrontation with the men who were about to stone a woman for
adultery, after pointing out their hypocrisy he charged that woman to
"go and sin no more." He constantly taught about submitting to a
higher authority. He was very clear about what it means to obey the
Ten Commandments, which in the minds of today's liberals is more like
the "Ten Suggestions."

Or perhaps you think that Jesus would be on the side of today's
liberals insisting on a woman's right to an abortion?

The founding fathers may have been liberals in comparison to the
king's government, because the very idea of self-governing was a very
liberal idea in that day. But they would be aghast at what the
liberals of today have been trying to do to the constitution they
hammered out. They were for very limited government control over our
lives, while today's liberals look to the government to do
everything... except for those things they don't agree with, of
course. The liberals of that day would be model conservatives of
today.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:42 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 01 Feb 2009 22:49:29 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>jour ...
>>
>>>>>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."
>>>
>>I get called a bigot all the time for telling the truth.
>
>Pretty much EVERY bigot thinks the same thing.

Well, you should certainly know about that, Ray.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:56 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"

Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

>>>Without liberalism, social legislation in this country almost
>>>never gets enacted, so I agree, liberalism isn't bad per se.
>>>But, just as conservatism ran amok has been shown to be bad for
>>>our country overall, so too is social engineering where the
>>>idea seems to be that the government somehow can spend our
>>>money better than we can.
>>
>>Jesus was a liberal, as were the people who founded this
>>country.
>
> Or perhaps you think that Jesus would be on the side of today's
> liberals insisting on a woman's right to an abortion?

I've always wondered why those so passionately in favor of
"choice" for the woman, why they always seem to "choose" death for
the innocent fetus? How come NO Far Left Loons ever CHOOSE life?!
Personally, I believe life begins at conception where a sperm cell
fertilizes an egg. As such, shouldn't even a one-cell fetus have
ALL the rights, freedoms, and protections of our Constitution?

Ever notice, too, how the kinds of "freedoms" that the ACLU
promotes and seemingly defends are always the kind that the
Liberals approve of and virtually never what Conservatives or
Evangelicals agree with? Strange, how these Bill of Rights freedoms
change depending on whose talking about them.

> The founding fathers may have been liberals in comparison to the
> king's government, because the very idea of self-governing was a
> very liberal idea in that day. But they would be aghast at what
> the liberals of today have been trying to do to the constitution
> they hammered out. They were for very limited government
> control over our lives, while today's liberals look to the
> government to do everything... except for those things they
> don't agree with, of course. The liberals of that day would be
> model conservatives of today.
>
One could rightly described the Founding Fathers as "radicals" and
"anarchists" since their aim was literally the violent overthrow of
the Crown in the Colonies. My HS American History teacher used to
point out that the difference between a rebellion and a revolution
is that a revolution is a rebellion that WON.

Now, as to the Founding Fathers and Constitution Framers political
views, I think we could safely say that they ran the gamut from
very liberal to very conservative and everything in between. The
very notion of the Bill of Rights was NOT, NOT, NOT to give power
to the central government but to protect the people FROM the
central government. This would SEEM to make them ACLU-style Loons
but the Framers ideas of freedoms, rights, and protections are what
people today call "traditional values" and NOT what the Far Left
Loons espouse.

Then, too, was the entire mess involving slavery which even caused
rancor during the First Continental Congress drafting the
Declaration of Independence. I think we'll stay away from that
debate for now ...

Through our long and storied history, we have seen the political
pendulum swing from liberal to conservative to centrist to liberal
and back again, MANY times not only for presidential elections and
Congressional races that coincided with them but also in mid-terms
where the party in power almost always lost seats in Congress. I
believe the American people throughout history have been extremely
fortunate to have had just the right mix of ideologies at the right
times during most of our most controversial foreign and domestic
policy debates.

As I've said, the fastest way for the Liberals to wind up back as
the MINORITY party again as soon as 2010 is to FORGET what their
oathes of office requires them to do and go back to the old ways of
arrogance that has precipitated so many political turnovers,
including that away from Reagan Conservatism starting in 2006. We
were ripe for a change, and we got it. Now, let us ALL hope that
the Left can govern as well as it talks and that it puts the
American people FIRST and NOT ideology.

--
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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:49 am
From: Chris H

In message <utldo4hoet3qkdthnbkq00l7voln69n1cr@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On 02 Feb 2009 01:07:34 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>>jour ...
>>>
>>>> The sad thing is that liberalism isn't a bad thing. True
>>>> liberalism, that is, where all ideas are given equal status and
>>>> the best float to the top during the course of the political
>>>> process. The problem is that modern liberalism not true
>>>> liberalism. It is as you say, it talks the talk of liberty and
>>>> freedom of speech, but God help you if in your exercise of free
>>>> speech you disagree with the those liberals who think they have
>>>> the moral high ground.
>>>>
>>>Without liberalism, social legislation in this country almost never
>>>gets enacted, so I agree, liberalism isn't bad per se. But, just as
>>>conservatism ran amok has been shown to be bad for our country
>>>overall, so too is social engineering where the idea seems to be
>>>that the government somehow can spend our money better than we can.
>>
>>Jesus was a liberal, as were the people who founded this country.
>
>What propaganda are you listening to? Exactly how is it you think
>that Jesus was a liberal?

HE was closer to Socialist.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/75383ce6b288a1df?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:45 am
From: Chris H

In message <k6kdo4p7pa3tmpd7ikmvobu1qr11ii9h8m@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On 01 Feb 2009 22:42:07 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>Not biased. After careful non-biased study it is the only sensible
>>>>arrangement. Remove the aggressors. Israelis behaviour from day 1 has
>>>>shown it does not deserve to keep the land it has taken from the
>>>>Palestinians
>>>
>>>Like I said, you are biased.
>>
>>So far you've accused everybody posting here who disagrees with of
>>being biased, as well as the UN, the BBC, and everybody else critical
>>of Israel.
>
>
>I have pointed out biased statements where they exist. Anyone who
>comes from the foundation that Israel has no right to exist, like
>Chris, is biased.

NOT biased I just disagree with you. The reason we disagree is because
you are biased. You can not look at the facts but only spout Israeli
propaganda.

>Anyone who dwells on the casualties caused by Israel while not showing
>equal outrage at what Palestinian militants have been doing to Israeli
>civilians for decades is biased. That would be you.

There is no equality. The Israelis have been killing Palestinian
civilians at an order of two magnitudes greater for the last 50 years.

The Israelis have committed many more war crimes than the Palestinians.
In all cases the Israelis started first. Including blowing up busses of
civilians

The only person showing Bias is you Stephen.

>Anyone who claims that Palestinians firing thousands of rockets at
>random into Israeli civilian areas is merely "fighting back" is
>biased. That is you, also.

What is biased about the FACT that the Palestinians started firing
rockets back after tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians were
killed. The rockets are a reaction to Israeli attacks

As for the "thousands" of rockets they are a very small amount compared
to the hundreds of thousands of munitions Israel is firing into a
densely populated area.

>Anyone who clips away volumes of text and dismisses any information
>that supports Israel, then lies about what was said, is biased. That
>would be you.... again.

Sorry you do not post any information. Almost EVERYTHING you post can be
traced back to an Israeli propaganda source.

>It's fine to criticize Israel. Just don't do it from that biased
>position and you will have more credibility.

Stephen, apart from with Hemi you have no credibility amongst the
members of this NG and if you were to come over to the counter terrorist
news groups you would have even less.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/387bff17b803f555?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:47 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 01 Feb 2009 22:51:15 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 01 Feb 2009 02:54:06 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:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Read the charters of Hamas and the PLO
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Hamas has said that they will recognize Israel. The PLO is
>>>>>>>>>irrelevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>No response.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What response do you want?
>>>>>
>>>>>An apology for being a lying bigot.
>>>>
>>>>Yes, Ray, I'm waiting.
>>>
>>>You're pretty stupid, aren't you?
>>
>>Not at all, Ray.
>>
>>>You spew evil lies about Arabs in order to justify human rights
>>>violations and when you're proven to be wrong you just act like a
>>>bigger asshole.
>>
>>Name one "evil lie" about Arabs I've "spewed."
>
>You claimed that Arabs and Palestinian don't recognize Israel's right
>to exist.

You're twisting again. I never said that all of them do.

>
>>Show where you have proven me wrong about anything.
>
> The West Bank [...] 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>

As pointed out to you many times, you take those things out of context
and then ignore all explanations and follow-up questions.

You have proven nothing.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1d5db52ba756e8f4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:53 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 01 Feb 2009 22:52:42 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 01 Feb 2009 02:54:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 31 Jan 2009 20:50:35 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:
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just read the Hamas charter or
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Choke on this, you lying bigot.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> JERUSALEM - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said Monday that
>>>>>>>>>>> Hamas - the Islamic militant group known for its suicide bombings
>>>>>>>>>>> and rocket attacks on Israel - is prepared to accept the Jewish
>>>>>>>>>>> state's right to "live as a neighbor next door in peace."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I'm not choking.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Because you have no shame, even whan you're caught lying your sleazy
>>>>>>>>>ass off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yet again you dodge and weave by clipping text making sleazy false
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And once again the bigot ignores the facts and goes off on another
>>>>>>>childish sleazefest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And even as you say that, you demonstrate your own childish sleaziness
>>>>>>by clipping away what others wrote.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have NO obligation to repeat your bigoted filth. If all you can do
>>>>>is whine that I won't worship your lies then you have lost the argument.
>>>>
>>>>What a fool you are.
>>>
>>>What a whiny little baby you are.
>>
>>Ooooh good one, Ray. To you the truth is "whining."
>
>There's another one of your many lies.

Funny that the liar still thinks the truth is whining.

>
>>>> It's not whining to point out what you do over
>>>
>>>You seem to think that I have some obligation to repost your bigotry.
>>
>>There is no bigotry in what I've posted.
>
>Unless your'e lying or you're stupid.

Then why don't you leave it all to show everyone that I'm lying or
stupid? No, you clip it away or quote selected parts because you
know it threatens your perception of the truth and reveals you to be a
self-righteous bigot.

>
>>>I don't.
>>
>>Right, because for you to actually answer any questions that are posed
>>to you and acknowledge facts that are presented would expose you to be
>>the bigot that you are.
>
>You're insane.

Typical dodge response. Call someone insane because YOU refuse to
answer direct questions.

>
>>I leave all your words in place because they just illustrate your
>>bigoted attitudes and history of Nazi-style hit and run insult
>>tactics.
>
>Like calling people nazis and anti-semites? Like you do?

I call you a nazi because you use nazi tactics, even in this post.

I call you an anti-semite when you make lying accusations that I hate
all Arabs and want to see all Palestinians dead. Sauce for the goose
is a bitch, isn't it Ray?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/632cc84438e1b7bf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:55 am
From: Stephen Bishop

On 01 Feb 2009 22:53:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:

>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 01 Feb 2009 02:56:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 31 Jan 2009 20:52:04 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>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,
>>>>>
>>>>>When somebody makes two statements that are mutually contradictory and
>>>>>claims that both of them are true, that people is insane or a liar.
>>>>
>>>>Ray, did you know that water is a liquid?
>>>
>>>Invalid analogy.
>>
>>It's a perfectly valid analogy.
>
>Nope.

Again, clipping it away does not make it invalid.

>
>>>>>> it makes you a fool
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't believe your lies, asshole.
>>>>
>>>>Your gay advances
>>>
>>>So, in addition to calling people anti-semites and terrorists and
>>>bigots, you also trot out the old "gay" accusation.
>>
>>You just don't know when you are being mocked, do you?
>
>LOL! Is that you're latest excuse?

You still don't know when you are being mocked.

Take a poll sometime. Most people who read your rants thinks you are
the very definition of a fool.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b7530985e0891bd0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:54 am
From: Chris H

Israelis pay £1.5m to family of shot film man

By Margaret Davis, Press Association
Monday, 2 February 2009

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israelis-pay-16315m-to-fam
ily-of-shot-film-man-1523032.html
http://tinyurl.com/byyust

The family of a film-maker shot by the Israeli army have accepted a
settlement said to be worth £1.5m from the country's government.

James Miller, 34, from Braunton, north Devon, died in May 2003 while
working on a documentary for the American HBO network about the impact
of terrorist action on children.

He was documenting the lives of Palestinian children in a refugee camp
in Rafah, Gaza.

Mr Miller's family said that the settlement was the nearest they could
get to an admission of guilt from Israel.

They issued a statement through a spokeswoman which said: "The family of
British film maker James Miller confirmed today that it accepted a
settlement from the Israeli government saying that after five and a half
years since his death this is the nearest they are likely to get to an
admission of guilt by the Israeli government."

The award-winning cameraman and documentary maker was shot at night by
an Israeli soldier despite carrying a white flag.

Mr Miller was trying ask the troops if it was safe to leave the area
when he was shot in the neck.

The serviceman who opened fire was cleared of misusing firearms in 2005,
but the following year an inquest in the UK found Mr Miller was
unlawfully killed.

No details of the settlement were given, although Israeli newspaper
Haaretz reported a sum of around £1.5 million was paid to the family.

Mr Miller's death preceded the killing of peace activist Tom Hurndall,
who was left in a coma after being shot in the head by an Israeli
soldier.

The 22-year-old from Tufnell Park, north London, was shepherding
children to safety in Rafah when he was hit.

He died at the Royal Hospital for Neuro-disability in Putney, London
nine months after being shot.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:56 am
From: Chris H

February 2, 2009
The Black Flag Is Waving
by Uri Avnery

Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/avnery/?articleid=14176

A Spanish judge has instituted a judicial inquiry against seven Israeli
political and military personalities on suspicion of war crimes and
crimes against humanity. The case: the 2002 dropping of a one-ton bomb
on the home of Hamas leader Salah Shehade. Apart from the intended
victim, 14 people, most of them children, were killed.

For those who have forgotten: the then commander of the Israeli air
force, Dan Halutz, was asked at the time what he feels when he drops a
bomb on a residential building. His unforgettable answer: "A slight bump
to the wing." When we in Gush Shalom accused him of a war crime, he
demanded that we be put on trial for high treason. He was joined by the
prime minister, Ariel Sharon, who accused us of wanting to "turn over
Israeli army officers to the enemy." The attorney general notified us
officially that he did not intend to open an investigation against those
responsible for the bombing.

I should be happy, therefore, that at long last somebody is ready to put
that action to a judicial test (even if he seems to have been thwarted
by political pressure). But I am sorry that this has happened in Spain,
not in Israel.

Israeli TV viewers have lately been exposed to a bizarre sight: army
officers appearing with their faces hidden, as usual for criminals when
the court prohibits their identification. Pedophiles, for example, or
attackers of old women.

On the orders of the military censors, this applies to all officers,
from battalion commanders down, who have been involved in the Gaza war.
Since the faces of brigade commanders and above are generally known, the
order does not apply to them.

Immediately after the cease-fire, the minister of defense, Ehud Barak,
promoted a special law that would give unlimited backing by the state to
all officers and soldiers who took part in the Gaza war and who might be
accused abroad of war crimes. This seems to confirm the Hebrew adage:
"On the head of the thief, the hat is burning."

I do not object to trials abroad. The main thing is that war criminals,
like pirates, should be brought to justice. It is not so important where
they are caught. (This rule was applied by the state of Israel when it
abducted Adolf Eichmann in Argentina and hanged him in Israel for
heinous crimes committed outside the territory of Israel and, indeed,
before the state even existed.)

But as an Israeli patriot, I would prefer suspected Israeli war
criminals to be put on trial in Israel. That is necessary for the
country, for all decent officers and soldiers of the Israeli army, for
the education of future generations of citizens and soldiers.

There is no need to rely on international law alone. There are Israeli
laws against war crimes. Enough to mention the immortal phrase coined by
Justice Binyamin Halevy, serving as a military judge, in the trial of
the border policemen who were responsible for the 1956 massacre in Kafr
Kassem, when dozens of children, women, and men were mown down for
violating a curfew they did not even know about.

The judge announced that even in wartime, there are orders over which
flies "the black flag of illegality." These are orders that are
"manifestly" illegal – that is to say, orders that every normal person
can tell are illegal, without having to consult a lawyer.

War criminals dishonor the army whose uniform they wear – whether they
are generals or common soldiers. As a combat soldier on the day the
Israeli Defense Army was officially created, I am ashamed of them and
demand that they be cast out and be put on trial in Israel.

My list of suspects includes politicians, soldiers, rabbis, and lawyers.

There is not the slightest doubt that in the Gaza war, crimes were
committed. The question is to what extent and by whom.

Example: the soldiers call on the residents of a house to leave it. A
woman
and her four children come out, waving white handkerchiefs. It is
absolutely clear that they are not armed fighters. A soldier in a nearby
tank stands up, points his rifle, and shoots them dead at short range.
According to testimonies that seem to be beyond doubt, this happened
more than once.

Another example: the shelling of the United Nations school full of
refugees, from which there was no shooting – as admitted by the army,
after the original pretexts were disproved.

These are "simple" cases. But the spectrum of cases is far wider. A
serious judicial investigation has to start right from the top: the
politicians and senior officers who decided on the war and confirmed its
plans must be investigated about their decisions. In Nuremberg it was
laid down that the starting of a war of aggression is a crime.

An objective investigation has to find out whether the decision to start
the war was justified, or if there existed another way of stopping the
launching of rockets against Israeli territory. Without doubt, no
country can or should tolerate the bombing of its towns and villages
from beyond the border. But could this be prevented by talking with the
Gaza authorities? Was our government's decision to boycott Hamas, the
winner of the democratic Palestinian elections, the real cause of this
war? Did the imposition of the blockade on a million and a half Gaza
Strip inhabitants contribute to the launching of the Qassams? In brief:
were the alternatives considered before it was decided to start a deadly
war?

The war plan included a massive attack on the civilian population of the
Strip. The real aims of a war can be understood less from the official
declarations of its initiators than from their actions. If in this war
some 1,300 men, women, and children were killed, the great majority of
whom were not fighters; if about 5,000 people were injured, most of them
children; if some 2,500 homes were partly or wholly destroyed; if the
infrastructure of life was totally demolished – all this clearly could
not have happened accidentally. It must have been a part of the war
plan.

The things said during the war by politicians and officers make it clear
that the plan had at least two aims, which might be considered war
crimes:
(1) To cause widespread killing and destruction, in order to "fix a
price tag," "to burn into their consciousness," "to reinforce
deterrence," and most of all – to get the population to rise up
against Hamas and overthrow their government. Clearly this affects
mainly the civilian population. (2) To avoid casualties to our army at
(literally) any price by destroying any building and killing any human
being in the area into which our troops were about to move, including
destroying homes over the heads of their inhabitants, preventing medical
teams from reaching the victims, and killing people indiscriminately. In
certain cases, inhabitants were warned that they must flee, but this was
mainly an alibi-action: there was nowhere to flee to, and often fire was
opened on people trying to escape.

An independent court will have to decide whether such a war plan is in
accordance with national and international law, or whether it was ab
initio a crime against humanity and a war crime.

This was a war of a regular army with huge capabilities against a
guerrilla force. In such a war, too, not everything is permissible.
Arguments like "The Hamas terrorists were hiding within the civilian
population" and "They used the population as human shields" may be
effective as propaganda but are irrelevant: that is true for every
guerrilla war. It must be taken into account when a decision to start
such a war is being considered.

In a democratic state, the military takes its orders from the political
establishment. Good. But that does not include "manifestly" illegal
orders, over which the black flag of illegality is waving. Since the
Nuremberg trials, there is no more room for the excuse that "I was only
obeying orders."

Therefore, the personal responsibility of all involved – from the
chief of staff, the front commander, and the division commander right
down to the last soldier – must be examined. From the statements of
soldiers one must deduce that many believed that their job was "to kill
as many Arabs as possible." Meaning: no distinction between fighters and
non-fighters. That is a completely illegal order, whether given
explicitly or by a wink and a nudge. The soldiers understood this to be
"the spirit of the commander."

Among those suspected of war crimes, the rabbis have a place of honor.

Those who incite to war crimes and call upon soldiers, directly or
indirectly, to commit war crimes may be guilty of a war crime
themselves.

When one speaks of "rabbis," one thinks of old men with long white
beards and big hats, who give tongue to venerable wisdom. But the rabbis
who accompanied the troops are a very different species.

In the last decades, the state-financed religious educational system has
churned out "rabbis" who are more like medieval Christian priests than
the Jewish sages of Poland or Morocco. This system indoctrinates its
pupils with a violent tribal cult, totally ethnocentric, which sees in
the whole of world history nothing but an endless story of Jewish
victimhood. This is a religion of a Chosen People, indifferent to
others, a religion without compassion for anyone who is not Jewish,
which glorifies the God-decreed genocide described in the Biblical book
of Joshua.

The products of this education are now the "rabbis" who instruct the
religious youths. With their encouragement, a systematic effort has been
made to take over the Israeli army from within. Kippa-wearing officers
have replaced the kibbutzniks, who not so long ago were dominant in the
army. Many of the lower and middle-ranking officers now belong to this
group.

The most outstanding example is the "chief army rabbi," Col. Avichai
Ronsky, who has declared that his job is to reinforce the "fighting
spirit" of the soldiers. He is a man of the extreme Right, not far from
the spirit of the late Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose party was outlawed in
Israel for its fascist ideology. Under the auspices of the army
rabbinate, religious-fascist brochures of the ultra-Right "rabbis" were
distributed to the soldiers.

This material includes political incitement, such as the statement that
the Jewish religion prohibits "giving up even one millimeter of Eretz
Israel," that the Palestinians, like the Biblical Philistines (from whom
the name Palestine derives), are a foreign people who invaded the
country, and that any compromise (such as indicated in the official
government program) is a mortal sin. The distribution of political
propaganda violates, of course, army law.

The rabbis openly called upon the soldiers to be cruel and merciless
toward the Arabs. To treat them mercifully, they stated, is a "terrible,
awful immorality." When such material is distributed to religious
soldiers going into war, it is easy to see why things happened the way
they did.

The planners of this war knew that the shadow of war crimes was hovering
over the planned operation. Witness: the attorney general (whose
official title is "legal adviser to the government") was a partner to
the planning. This week the chief army attorney, Col. Avichai
Mandelblut, disclosed that his officers were attached throughout the war
to all the commanders, from the chief of staff down to the division
commander.

All this together leads to the inescapable conclusion that the legal
advisers bear direct responsibility for the decisions taken and
implemented, from the massacre of the civilian police recruits at their
graduating ceremony to the shelling of the UN installations. Every
attorney who was a partner to the deliberations before an order was
given is responsible for its consequences, unless he can prove that he
objected to it.

The chief army attorney, who is supposed to give the army professional
and objective advice, speaks about "the monstrous enemy" and tries to
justify the actions of the army by saying that it was fighting against
"an unbridled enemy, who declared that he 'loves death' and finds
shelter behind the backs of women and children." Such language is,
perhaps, pardonable in a pep-talk of a war-drunk combat commander, like
the battalion chief who ordered his soldiers to commit suicide rather
than be captured, but totally unacceptable when it comes from the chief
legal officer of the army.

We must pursue all the legal processes in Israel and call for an
independent investigation and the indictment of suspected perpetrators.
We must demand this even if the chances of it happening are slim indeed.

If these efforts fail, nobody will be able to object to trials abroad,
either in an international court or in the courts of those nations that
respect human rights and international law.

Until then, the black flag will still be waving.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/c2fab188817ea6e4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 3:46 am
From: Chris H

In message <akkdo419rhrjued3c1okom4p6ck45nqfaj@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On 01 Feb 2009 22:42:44 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
>>>jour ...
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>>It's also common for students to be ultra-liberal,
>>
>>Only if you're so far to the right that you'd embarrasss Hitler.
>
>
>Hitler was an extreme left-winger, Mr. text clipper. What do you
>think National Socialism is?

It was right wing Fascism.

If I renamed the communist party the Republican Party it would still
be communist. "National Socialism" is not the same as "Socialism"

It is this sort of equivocation which removes any credibility you have
Stephen.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Maximum size SD card for my camera?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5210f5a494924fb2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 4:18 am
From: aquadiver

On Feb 2, 3:26 am, Jürgen Exner <jurge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Focus" <n...@nowhere.pt> wrote:
> >Shooting with one big card is just plain dumb; you're testing (tempting) the
> >odds.
>
> Oh please, how often do memory cards actually fail? How many actual
> cases do you know about? And no, "the grandfather of my friend's cousin
> third removed heard from a friend..." doesn't count.
>
> Yes, there are faked cards out there. Those you can test for before
> using them. And yes, sometimes people manage to break a pin while
> inserting them (which actually speaks for avoiding swapping cards). And
> yes, they have a maximum write cycle. I am still looking for someone
> exceeding that number. And yes, you can accidentally format them,
> accidentally delete the photos, corrupt the file system by removing the
> card while a write is in progress (another reason not to switch cards),
> but all of those are user error.
>
> All in all flash memory cards are pretty much the most reliable
> electronic gear imaginable. IMNSHO the risk if loosing photos because
> using a large card instead of several smaller cards is vastly
> exaggerated.
>
> jue

Indeed. I've even had a digital camera flood in its housing in
seawater, retrieved the card and found it, once dry to have every
photo I had taken in excellent condition. The camera, of course, was
ruined.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 5:10 am
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 02 Feb 2009 08:06:18 GMT, Daguerreotype type
<nospam@no.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:08:49 -0000, "Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>>....
>>Shooting with one big card is just plain dumb; you're testing (tempting) the
>>odds.
>
>I'm not a professional phtographer, I'm not even an amateur
>phtographer. Of course I'd really not like to lose photographs because
>of a SD card failing on me, but I'd also lioke to not have to swap
>cars all the time.
>
>Could people tell me how often they've personally had a SD or SDHC
>cards fail on their own, as opposed to getting lost or stepped on or
>something?

I've never had a card go bad. I still prefer to swap out smaller
cards (4 gig) because, if I would step on the card or otherwise
destroy the card, I'd lose one-half, one-third, or one-fourth of my
images and not all of them.

This "all the time"... How frequently would you fill a 4 gig or even
a 1 gig card before uploading the contents? How many shots do you
take in a day?

If you are not a professional, and not on a cruise or something where
you shoot several days without uploading, are you really going to have
to swap out "all the time"?

I don't think it's wrong to use large capacity cards, but I am curious
about the reasoning used.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 5:30 am
From: Gary Edstrom

On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:08:49 -0000, "Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote:

>In my backpack I have two compartments for my cards: one for the empty ones
>and one for the full ones.

I have just one 'wallet' for my cards. I store unused cards face up,
and used cards face down.

As far as fast vs. slow memory, all of my memory is still of the slow
variety. My last purchase of any flash memory was several years ago. I
have never run into any kind of problem with running out of processing
speed, but then, I am not a professional photographer. I can still take
about 24 pictures in burst mode before I have to give the camera a
'rest' to finish its processing, but I have only done burst mode a
couple of times.

Gary

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 5:49 am
From: cbj0129@bellsouth.net

Daguerreotype type wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:08:49 -0000, "Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote:
>> ....
>> Shooting with one big card is just plain dumb; you're testing (tempting) the
>> odds.
>
....
>
> Could people tell me how often they've personally had a SD or SDHC
> cards fail on their own, as opposed to getting lost or stepped on or
> something?

I have never had a card "fail". I probably have a dozen or more of
various sized cards. I have had occasional corruption and instances
where the write protect switch fell out. The instance of corruption
occurred while on vacation and all but 3 images were recoverable.
Reformatted the card and am still using it.

Larger cards are more useful if you shoot RAW with high mp cameras. My
D300 gets about 280 photos on an 8G card. I usually keep a 4G or 8G
card in the D300 so that I can shoot RAW if I need. In our cameras
which don't shoot RAW, I use 1G or 2G.

If your camera also shoots video, use the largest card you can afford.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Digital darkroom equipment questions
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ac5647b9e79d1666?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 4:45 am
From: Chris H

In message <GV5el.61041$Nv1.51697@newsfe03.iad>, Stefan Patric
<not@thisaddress.com> writes
>
>> If not a PC, then what (other than a Mac)?
>
>Macs are okay, but you need to spend lots of money to suitable for
>serious image processing and such.

The GOOD NEWS is that many "serious" MAC users are changing over to the
new Intel MACS. You can pick up a PPC G5 MAC for very little these are
very easy to add hard discs and memory to. They are a real bargain.
Also you may be able to pick up some Sw as part of the deal.

The good news is that MS Office for Mac is better than on the PC :-)

I run with 2 GB RAM a primary drive of 260GB, a Secondary drive of 500GB
and an external high speed fire ware 1TB Drive. They work with any
decent PC screen. I use a 22inch wide screen,

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D90 and 18-200mm lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8eaf53f0456b671c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 5:17 am
From: TheRealSteve

On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 12:44:38 -0500, "J. Clarke"
<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:

>TheRealSteve wrote:
>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:12:24 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:57:08 +0000, TheRealSteve wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 04:03:19 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:37:47 +0000, Focus wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "pawihte" <pawihte@news.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:gm2c45$eom$1@news.albasani.net...
>>>>>>> Is the Nikkor AF-S 18-200mm VR ED IF lens fully compatible with
>>>>>>> the D90? "Fully" meaning without any function crippled? Thanks
>>>>>>> in advance. Elaborations will be welcome.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have given this lens some serious thought, but I decided on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> 16-85 instead. Quality is more important to me than a long
>>>>>> range.
>>>>>> The 18-200 loses by a landslide and costs more.
>>>>>> Both will work with the D90. Almost all Nikon lenses after 1990
>>>>>> will work and even much older ones, some with restrictions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Based on everything I have read I would agree. You would also
>>>>> want to look at the Tokina 11-24? and the 70 to 200.
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, after you have all of those you may occasionally feel lazy
>>>>> and want to compromise and use an 18-200. But it would be luck
>>>>> to
>>>>> have that prize winning opportunity and not have the best lens
>>>>> with you to capture it.
>>>>
>>>> There's always comprimises. What if that prize winning
>>>> opportunity
>>>> would best be captured at 200mm but you had your 16-85 on?
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>
>>> That depends if you want to shoot sports or nature etc. But if you
>>> should mostly street and landscapes you will catch your shot with
>>> the 16-85 on an APC sensor body (24-122) and you would have time to
>>> change lenses if you feel you need to.
>>
>> Here you're rationalizing. If you shoot mostly street and
>> landscapes
>> then the 16-85 is also the wrong lens for you. And you're not going
>> to get that "prize winning" opportunity shooting streets and
>> landscapes that have been shot a million times before by everyone
>> else
>> with a digital camera.
>
>So where are you going to get them? You mean that Eisenstadt was a
>damned fool to have been out on V-J Day with a 50mm on a Leica
>shooting Times Square that has been shot millions of times before?
>(No prize on that one but the cover of Life was enough prize for most
>photographers in that era) I believe that you will be surprised at
>the number of Pulitzer Prize shots that were taken in very ordinary
>places that have, as you say, "been shot a million times before" and
>what made them prizeworthy was what was going on in those places, not
>the places themselves.

Oh, wait, I should have made it more clear and emphasized the YOU in
you're. I'm not saying that no one can take a prize winning photo of
streets and landscapes. Just that measekite isn't going to. For him
to take some kind of prize winning photo, it's probably going to have
to be an unexpected situation. Something like you're walking along
the Hudson River and a plane just happens to land out in the middle of
the river. And a shot like that might be better captured with a 200mm
lens than an 85mm.

Also, the people who do take prize winning landscapes probably aren't
using an 16-85mm either.

>> We're discussing do-it-all walkaround travel lenses and having a
>> prize-winning opportunity happen upon you. You don't know what
>> you'll
>> be shooting or what it is and it's certainly within the realm of
>> possibilities that this once in a lifetime shot will be captured
>> much
>> better at 200mm than 85mm and that if you're fumbling around
>> changing
>> lenses, you'll miss it.
>
>And it's also within the realm of possibility that you need to be
>using a lens faster than an 18-200 or wider than 18mm or there is some
>other circumstance that makes the 18-200 unsuitable. That's called

Exactly! Now you're getting the point. There's all kinds of
comprimises and the 16-85 makes a comprimise in zoom range that the
18-200 doesn't make as much. The 18-200 pays for that by having twice
the distortion and slightly less resolution. But it's also a slightly
faster lens than the 16-85. In terms of real photography and a single
do-it-all lens and not shooting test charts, the lesser zoom range is
the biggest comprimise.

>"luck". You don't plan your life around some nebulous "prize-winning
>opportunity", you shoot whatever it is that you like to shoot or get
>paid to shoot and if one of those shots is worthy of a prize so be it.

Correct. But I'm not the one who brought up the "prize winning
opportunity." I'm the one that only tried to point out that there's a
chance that a prize winning opportunity might be better shot at 200mm
than 85mm. And by your statement above that there are circumstances
that make the 18-200 unsuitable, then there's certainly more
circumstances that make the 16-85 unsuitable since it's a slower lens
at every focal length than the 18-200, it only goes 2mm wider at the
short end but is severely shorter at the long.

Steve

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 5:39 am
From: TheRealSteve

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:10:20 GMT, measekite <inkystinky@oem.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:40:53 +0000, TheRealSteve wrote:
>
>> The basic conclusion is that if you're shooting test charts and brick
>> walls or are going to print your shot at 20x30, the 16-85 would be
>> better. But for real world photography, it's not worth the extra cost
>
>What about 16x20 with moderate cropping?

The 18-200 is more than adequate for 16x20 with moderate cropping.
I've also printed shots taken at 200mm with the 18-200 and had them
blown up to 20x30 and have actually sold them for enough to pay for
the lens.

>> considering the loss of the long end.
>>
>> For me, I was considering the 16-85 only because in certain situations
>> it has less CA than the 18-200. But that wasn't enough reason for me to
>> sell the 18-200 and get the 16-85. Espcially since CA is correctable if
>> you have that prize winning shot and newer bodies even do it
>> automatically.
>
>I am saying to have both.

They're both the same type of lens so I don't see a reason to have
both. If I have the 16-85 on and I want a longer fl, I have to carry
a 2nd lens around. And if I am, it's not going to be the 18-200. I'm
going to change to my 80-200 f/2.8.

And if I have the 18-200 on, I don't see there ever being a reason for
me to carry and change to the 16-85mm when I have better alternatives
available. If I want super-high quality I'll switch to the 50mm f/1.8
and zoom with my feet. Or if I want wider, I'll switch to my 12-24mm.
Or if I want higher quality at the long end, I'll switch to my 80-200
f/2.8.

I guess the decision for boils down to this: If I'm carrying both the
16-85 and the 18-200, I see very few to none situations where I'd
bother to switch from the 18-200 to the 16-85. The real-world quality
just isn't that spectacularly different and some of the differences
where the 16-85 is better (CA, distortion) are correctable in software
if I happen to get a shot I love. But I can see plenty of times I may
want to switch from the 16-85 to the 18-200 just for the longer reach.
So the decision of which one to carry if I only want to carry one
becomes pretty clear.

Now if the 16-85 was spectacularly better than the 18-200, say it was
about the quality of the 17-55 AF-S DX f/2.8 but not the price or
weight, I can see my choice being different.

Steve

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anyone Recognize This Lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0e9822ab5626980d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 5:32 am
From: tmonego@wildblue.net

On Jan 29, 7:02 pm, "Alan Smithee" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> Anyone recognize what lens this is?http://patternassociates.com/rico/leica/misc/ouago3.jpg

90 Elmar f4 looks like a good idea, just the lens head on an adaptor,
which is also Leitz. Old Tessar design lens, would expect the newer
Canon 85s to be better. Leitz 90 f2.8s were there best 90s.

Tom

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Got <140 bit DR Image?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/00d043919be94bfd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 5:53 am
From: Bhogi

On 31 jan., 16:35, John Sheehy <J...@no.komm> wrote:
> Bhogi <bh...@siol.com> wrote innews:d4a248b5-b719-46ac-981d-b8368e9dca60@e1g2000pra.googlegroups.com:
>
> > No need for floating point. I don't think there's a dslr that can
> > collect more than 65000 electrons per pixel. Smaller pixels can hold
> > even less. All you need is a 16bit A/D at unity sensitvity (1 electron
> > = 1 numerically).
>
> The Canon 5D and 1D2 have a maximum of about 80,000, at "ISO 50".
>
> Pixel density has move higher, without well depth increasing with the newer
> models, so new FWCs are much lower. A breakthrough in well depth will be
> needed before FWCs start climbing again.

I stand corrected, we need 17bit A/D converters :)

Hm, that's strange. I was always under the impression that FWC was
independent of ISO and ISO was just a window to the sensor data,
capturing the highest values at low ISOs and lowest at high ISOs...
apart from ISO being a convenience for the user to help set "correct"
exposure times at different lighting conditions.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photos of Guppys
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad5f006dfb858982?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 5:59 am
From: Draco

On Feb 1, 11:22 pm, "Miguel" <responderalgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Hello:
>
> I did some first photos of Guppys
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3245465519/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3246296758/
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3245471907/
>
> Always It's interesting to know your opinions and appreciations.
>
> --
> Miguel M. Yalánhttp://mmyv.com

I have to agree with Doug's thoughts and comments on the images. Your
autofocus seems to have focused on the glass of the aquarium instead
of the guppy's. So the subject isn't in focus. Secondly, if you are
going to shoot through glass do so at an angle to reduce and/or
eliminate reflections of the flash. I did not go into flicker to see
what your settings were or the type of camera you used. If it was a PS
then that could be one reason you didn't get the images you saw. If
you used a DSLR then you should try using manual focus and an off
camera flash.

Good luck and keep shooting. Learn by doing than by only reading.

Draco

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 7:05 am
From: -hh

tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> [1950's]
> I suspect I could now match the entire productivity of both
> rooms with one off-the-shelf PC.

IMO, you probably could have done that with a PC from around ten years
ago.

I can recall working on a project in the early 1980s to replace an old
host mini being used for Analog-->Digital data collection. We
specc'ed out two candidate replacement systems. The one was IIRC an
HP-1000 host mini. The other was an Apple ][e with all of its
expansion slots filled.

-hh

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ray Fischer <----what a WACKO!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5fca289962198f84?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 2 2009 7:14 am
From: George Kerby

On 2/1/09 8:10 PM, in article gm5km0$iat$1@nntp.motzarella.org, "D-Mac"
<alienjones@y7mail.com> wrote:

> George Kerby wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/1/09 8:33 PM, in article gm3ca9$mqd$2@news.albasani.net, "D.Mac"
>> <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> wrote in message
>>> news:vd4ao49fe6k8v8ot9ibjf99ee9ntfma83c@4ax.com...
>>>> I wouldn't trust this guy with matches. He is a certifiable wacko!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ray might be an agro fellow but one with a clue about what he does.
>>> Unlike you... Hiding under a load of invented names, giving out
>>> information about theft of intellectual property. I'm surprised
>>> your provider hasn't cut your connection. Maybe it just due to the
>>> weekend.
>> Set your clock.
>
> Hey George.
> It's my computer, I'll do with it what I want to do and you can go to
> hell.
>
> Here's a thought you follow my demand you go the hell and I'll follow
> your demand I set my clock to what you want it to be.
Hey Sock,
I was first. Deal with it.
GK