Photoshop How To Use: rec.photo.digital - 25 new messages in 10 topics

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

rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Polarizing Filters and Olympus E500
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/00b4d33651a56602?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 5:44 am
From: jason colms

On Mon, 18 May 2009 05:13:03 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:

>On 2009-05-18 03:15:42 -0700, jason colms <jcolms@whatplace.net> said:
>
>> On Mon, 18 May 2009 01:15:19 -0700, Savageduck
>> <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
>>
>>> If you would at least not take a contrary belligerent stance on all
>>> issues, particularly those where your opinion is based on ignorance,
>>> you might actually have a reasonable and valuable interaction with some
>>> of the members of these groups.
>>
>> You are right, I'm an internet-life troll that doesn't even own cameras
>> nor has any real photography and equipment
>> experience? Zip, nada, none.
>>
>> I'm just that hopelessly psychotic. It's difficult to tell from this
>> side of the monitor, but it's
>> becoming more clear now.
>>
>> I should go buy a real camera some day. Even if it's a barbie camera from the
>> impulse-shelves at my grocery store. I need to tell my mommy to pick one up for
>> me the next time she yells down to the basement to tell me that she's
>> headed out for my next case of twinkies and boxes of cocoa-puffs cereal.
>
>I guess we will just have to keep pulling off the socks
>
>Now, to put it nicely, go away.

Thanks again for implicating yourself as 100% troll. Only authentic
internet trolls edit quoted text to see if they can get attention for it.
How very desperate (and psychotic) you be.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 6:02 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-18 05:44:15 -0700, jason colms <jcolms@whatplace.net> said:
>>
>
> Thanks again for implicating yourself as 100% troll. Only authentic
> internet trolls edit quoted text to see if they can get attention for it.
> How very desperate (and psychotic) you be.

Enough of this crap, you are going to continue doing what you do, to
provoke any response.

So those of us who recognize you, will continue to do what we do
whenever we detect your presence.

...and as far as camera ownership goes many of us have posted links to
some of what we have produced with cameras ranging from P&S to DSLR,
some of the stuff is questionable in quality, much of it is pretty
good, however we still have no evidence that you have ever even sat in
a photo-booth, let alone taken any photograph with a borrowed or owned
camera of any type.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 6:28 am
From: "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu

jason colms wrote:
>
(nothing of importance)

I tested four different circular polarizers, different
prices. All four worked fine as polarizers, though there
were minor differences.

However, only the very most expensive (and these were
77 mm dia ones!) one, a B + W, was adequate in optical quality for
a 300mm f/5.6 lens. The others were obviously of very very inferior
optical quality: it was impossible to get clear, non-blurred
photos wide open. All the non-super expensive ones were
noticeably bad. Not just less than perfect, I mean actually bad,
totally unacceptable. All worked just fine if the entrance pupil
of the lens was 1/4 or less in size.

Doug McDonald

==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's just wrong
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/06e32c9cd78fc6f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 5:50 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
wrote:

> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>
> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>
If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for you?

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 5:54 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/18/09 6:25 AM, in article
BoqdnaGzt_s22IzXnZ2dnUVZ_g9i4p2d@giganews.com, "Ron Hunter"
<rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> Bob Williams wrote:
>> Bowser wrote:
>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>
>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>
>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>> pedophiles in the town.
>> Bob Williams
>
> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
> in this sculpture....
"Homosexuality"?!? I don't know what you see, but that is clearly a girl
holding a younger boy (little brother?) up to get a drink from the fountain.

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 5:59 am
From: George Kerby

On 5/18/09 6:59 AM, in article 4a114dbb@news.x-privat.org, "Atheist
Chaplain" <abused@cia.gov> wrote:

> "Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:RHaQl.35820$0S.6714@newsfe22.iad...
>> Bowser wrote:
>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front
>>> of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>
>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>
>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>> pedophiles in the town.
>> Bob Williams
>
> so why do you think "paedophiles" when you see an innocent statue of a girl
> helping a younger child to get a drink ??
>
> political correctness now has everyone jumping at shadows.........

Ain't it a wonderful world that the "Culturally Diverse" have created?

Miss California is asked her OPINION about gay marriage by a flamer and
before she gives it, she apologized in advance that she did not mean to hurt
anyone's "feelings", and she gets lambasted everywhere. Did the womens'
groups come to her side? Hell no! They were too "P.C."...

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 6:02 am
From: floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)

George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/18/09 6:25 AM, in article
>BoqdnaGzt_s22IzXnZ2dnUVZ_g9i4p2d@giganews.com, "Ron Hunter"
><rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>> Bowser wrote:
>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>
>>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>>> pedophiles in the town.
>>> Bob Williams
>>
>> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
>> in this sculpture....
>"Homosexuality"?!? I don't know what you see, but that is clearly a girl
>holding a younger boy (little brother?) up to get a drink from the fountain.

I don't think that is what it is. It appears to me to
be a pair of young girls, who are definitely not
sisters. Look at the design of that water fountain.
It's old, from the 1930s.

There's just an enormous bit of symbolism in that statue,
and not a bit of it has to do with sexuality.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 6:07 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-18 05:54:21 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> said:

>
>
>
> On 5/18/09 6:25 AM, in article
> BoqdnaGzt_s22IzXnZ2dnUVZ_g9i4p2d@giganews.com, "Ron Hunter"
> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Bob Williams wrote:
>>> Bowser wrote:
>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>
>>> To celebrate diversity, the sculptor has made a concession to the
>>> pedophiles in the town.
>>> Bob Williams
>>
>> I wonder what a 'shrink' would say about people that see homosexuality
>> in this sculpture....
> "Homosexuality"?!? I don't know what you see, but that is clearly a girl
> holding a younger boy (little brother?) up to get a drink from the fountain.

Naah! It's a public service demonstration of the Heimlich Maneuver in action.
--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 6:45 am
From: Bowser

George Kerby wrote:
>
>
> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
> wrote:
>
>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>
>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>
> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for you?
>

When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
and see what happened. And look what happened!

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 6:57 am
From: Savageduck

On 2009-05-18 06:45:07 -0700, Bowser <over@the.rainbow> said:

> George Kerby wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 5/17/09 7:02 PM, in article
>> 4a10a66b$0$4916$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com, "Bowser" <up@gone.now>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in front of
>>> the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>
>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>>
>> If it were in NORTH Carolina, would it take on another connotation for you?
>>
>
> When I posted this image, I did so to see what type of reaction it
> provoked. I offered no opinion of my own. None. Despite that, a number
> of posters have injected many meanings, and have assumed that I offered
> some meaning in my original post. I did not. I posted merely to provoke
> and see what happened. And look what happened!

Aaaah! The very definition of a successful and worthy troll :-)

You know, you are not supposed to admit that sort of thing.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:43 am
From: ray

On Mon, 18 May 2009 06:24:28 -0500, Ron Hunter wrote:

> Paul Heslop wrote:
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:02:43 -0400, Bowser wrote:
>>>
>>>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>>>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>>> You're right - it's just you.
>>
>> obviously not :O)
>
> 'Wrong' is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty. I see nothing wrong
> in the picture. Perhaps it is your mindset, when you viewed the image.

OP did not ask if there was anything wrong with the picture - asked if
there was something wrong with the statue. The answer is no - art is
different things to different people - there is no 'right' or 'wrong' art.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: May I know where to find these programs?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/db6cd71e48b688fe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 5:53 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a10f34f$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> nospam wrote:
>> In article <853s051ucdccmqjt04ktrms2ql7htr01bg@4ax.com>, Paul Tallison
>> <pt@antispam.org> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Compare it in Photoshop and Photoline on a simple 15x15 pixel
>>>>> image, rotate it on any multiple of 90 degrees. The 15x15 pixel image
>>>>> in
>>>>> Photoshop ends up being 8x8 pixels after just one rotation,
>>>> uh, no it doesn't. maybe cut back on the hallucinogens.
>>> You mean that, after all these years, the adobe con-artist cartel
>>> FINALLY
>>> fixed their lame-assed program? Wow.
>>
>> it was never broken. the *only* way a 15x15 image will become 8x8 is
>> if it is deliberately resized to 8x8.
>>
>>> But it still won't save, load, and resave JPG data losslessly.
>>
>> who gives a fuck? shoot raw, save in .psd. export as jpeg when a jpeg
>> is needed.
>
> Which is what sane people do...

You don't have to be sane do you? :-0

Now you're starting to worry me. :)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: re-launch same DSLR, different name for idiots
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d37cad4ce10bb478?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 6:05 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Bertram Paul" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
news:5sidne6fOftCHo3XnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@novis.pt...
> Seems Sony stays lazy and more or less re-launches the A200, 300 and 350
> with a "starter" menu.
> As if the older ones were so difficult?
>
> http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/consumer/digital_imaging/digital_cameras/dslr/release/40522.html
>
> Tomorrow more news, but if this is all, I fear for the job of the idiot
> who came up with this crap.
>
> I know a good name for the SLR's: Sony Simple SLR

Yes it could be the S.S series.

Has a cetain ring to it :)

All they need not is a little perhaps black on red symbol a bit like the
Buddhist sysmbol.

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://k53.pbase.com/o6/93/329493/1/77738264.jZr83gOU.BaliApr07436.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.pbase.com/bmcmorrow/image/77738264&h=402&w=600&sz=151&tbnid=pPNXkHn-iU8C0M::&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbudist%2Bsymbol&usg=__LrtcKH6lv1MG_oNjVcRzpoq35YI=&ei=Vl0RSvu3Ed6TjAejmvW-Bg&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image

>
> --
> ---
> Bertram Paul
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:23 am
From: Alan Browne

Scott wrote:
> "Bertram Paul" <dont@mail.me> wrote in message
> news:5sidne6fOftCHo3XnZ2dnUVZ8uKdnZ2d@novis.pt...
>> Seems Sony stays lazy and more or less re-launches the A200, 300 and
>> 350 with a "starter" menu.
>> As if the older ones were so difficult?
>>
>> http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/consumer/digital_imaging/digital_cameras/dslr/release/40522.html
>>
>>
>> Tomorrow more news, but if this is all, I fear for the job of the
>> idiot who came up with this crap.
>>
>> I know a good name for the SLR's: Sony Simple SLR
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> Bertram Paul
>
>
>
> To be honest, I don't find their Sony products very well engineered or
> very well thought out. So, I stay away from them personally. Same goes
> for Samsung. Look nice, but that's about it.

Go drive a Sony a900. They made a couple niggling errors, but overall
it is a finely thought out camera. Of course it shows its Minolta genes.

> The problem now-a-day is you have bean counters calling the shots, when
> really engineers need to call the shots.

Engineers need to deliver what's asked of them by marketing and
marketing need to dampen their expectations that engineers can deliver
miracles in features and performance over cost.

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: grim news for photographers tourism and rights
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/f739094ebddaa70e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 6:17 am
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 18 May 2009 11:43:43 +0100, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:

>> The law involved is explained in the link to the article: "However, a
>> man claiming to be the girl's father pursued the Greek photographer
>> and asked police officers to arrest him. Antoniou has since been
>> charged under the Public Order Act of 1986, articles 5 and 6 for
>> 'public harassment,' and causing 'alarm or distress."
>
>Was this person that claimed to be her father her father.

That's standard newspaper practice: using "alleged" or "claiming to
be" when they don't know for sure. The man said he was the father,
but the newspaper couldn't verify this, so they used "claiming to be".
It's not really indicative of anything shady. It protects them if the
man is just the partner of the mother and the real - biological -
father makes a fuss about someone else being identified as the father.

Newspapers are silly this way. They'll write "The alleged thief was
arrested..." even if there are 100 witnesses and the act was caught on
film. Their reasoning is that the person is not a thief until he is
convicted in court.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ford, The Survivor
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6854901652467a29?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 6:23 am
From: "David J. Littleboy"

"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote:
> On 2009-05-18 00:58:38 -0700, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> said:
>>
>> Lots of excellent pics of cars (especially the brick reflection one). The
>> first of the offending pics was the front of a Jag (it's a Ford<g>!), but
>> it
>> did take an age to download so I didn't click the others.
>
> I thought you were getting reasonable download speeds to Japan from SF?

Not from your server, apparently...

> Anyway the point was the Model A Fords were available in colors other than
> black.

Sorry; I didn't intend to argue. I didn't realize that the A was available
in colors and thought maybe some overenergetic "restorers" had gotten out of
hand...

--
David J. Littleboy
Who only drove for one year in the US and has never driven in Japan...
Tokyo, Japan

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:08 am
From: Alan Browne

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>> A really good speed checker is http://www.speedtest.net/ as you can select
>> where you dl from / ul to during the test.
>>
>> From San Francisco to Montreal I get: 6.93 Mb /s (about 860 kB /s ) DL and
>> about 0.75 Mb/s up.
>
> From Yokohama to Tokyo I get 51.4 Mb/s down, 50.2 Mb/s up. Zippy.
> From SF to Tokyo I get 7.7 down, 8.66 up. Not bad.
> From Portland Maine to Tokyo I get 2.1 down, 2.3 up.
>

I can get 50 Mb/s here and 100 next year. Price isn't worth it though
(for me anyway).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Printing small photos
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/5e1f880b355f1fef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 6:48 am
From: me@mine.net

On Mon, 18 May 2009 03:55:26 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Bill Wittmer"
<wr.wittmer1@nospamverizon.net> wrote:

>I am working on a project for the family and would like to print out small
>photos ranging from 1"x1", 1"x2", 2"x3", etc. Can anyone recommend good
>software, free or pay, which will allow me to print out phots in various
>sizes with little trouble.

Qimage, http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:41 am
From: ray

On Mon, 18 May 2009 03:55:26 +0000, Bill Wittmer wrote:

> I am working on a project for the family and would like to print out
> small photos ranging from 1"x1", 1"x2", 2"x3", etc. Can anyone
> recommend good software, free or pay, which will allow me to print out
> phots in various sizes with little trouble.
>
> Regards,
> Bill

You can easily insert them into a word processing document, size them how
you want and print as many as will fit on the page.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Ultimate Photo-Bag
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/d379eb3ce3f36aff?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:02 am
From: Alan Browne

Joe Makowiec wrote:
> On 17 May 2009 in rec.photo.digital, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> I really don't think terms like sister/brother/cousin/uncle/aunt are
>> used the same in Appalachia as we use them... I saw a side splitting
>> video of a guy from Arkansas, singing, trying to explain his family
>> tree.
>
> This one?
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=I+am+my+own+grandpa

That's it!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photos of Scripta
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/876346bf4c08d3ef?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:05 am
From: tony cooper

On Mon, 18 May 2009 19:41:13 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Miguel wrote:
>> Hello, recently I did these photos:
>>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043780/
>
>Potentially interesting, but the motion blurring does nothing for it.
>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043786/
>
>Not as soft, but still a bit too soft, & the background's obtrusive.
>
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3527043790/
>
>Much better for sharpness, but I still hate the fake marble background.
>
>> Your comments about photography always are interesting.
>
>Well, my comments haven't been very nice, but hopefully you'll find them
>useful anyway.
>
>Put your turtle in a pond or something & try again. ;^)

You want to critique my shots of a Florida Softshell turtle?

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/softshell1.jpg
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/softshell2.jpg
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:06 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
news:2009051507484311272-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
> On 2009-05-15 05:43:02 -0700, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
> said:
>
>>
>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> news:WCXjmsKG8CDKFAYc@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <guh5vu$koo$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>
>>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>>> They are aren;t they.
>>>
>>> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>>
>> Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged with firing
>> a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
>
> Because that is criminal and stupid!!

What's stupid, I know it was a criminal act, but what is stupid about firing
a
gun in to the air, he had NO target.
Or is it that for a gun to be used properly you needn a target.

>> I guess every gun fired is being used properly then.
>
> No.

That's what I thought.

>>
>> we British aren't found of friendly fire either ;-)
>
> When you are on the receiving end, you might "find" no fire friendly.

yes and that goes for knives too.

>>>>
>>>> How about you tell me one case where a gun has jumped out of a locked
>>>> draw
>>>> to save a life or protect an innocent person(s ).
>>>> or even one isnstance where a gun has done anythinjg by itself .
>>>
>>> Ditto knives, baseball bats, clubs, chemicals etc
>>
>> Chemicals can do all sorts of things al by themselves if left
>> unattended.
>>
>>> It is not the object but the user.
>>
>> So long as the user and the object never come together then I have no
>> problem
>> there can be as many guns as they want.
>> Tell you what I'll buy you any gun you like provided you let me post it
>> to
>> Hadley delta mountion on the moon, but you pay Post and packing. ;-)
>
> Now this is just a silly attempt at humor.

Why.
It was just that I was listening to a track with that name in the title,
I could have suggested that any gun you buy would be totally safe
provided no one ever held it.

>>> What is different is the state of mind and perception of the user.
>>
>> And minds can get in quite a state, how many states are there in the USA
>> ;-)
>
> More sillyness.

So you know the state of mind of anyone that owns a gun now or in the
future.

>> If someone looks at them in the wrong way they know they can argue with
>> them
>> and cause a fit. But they know they have a knife they can use to defend
>> themselves
>> from looks, words, even whole sentences if there attacker manages to get
>> a
>> whole sentence out that is.
>
> If you check statistics, you will find knife attacks and beating with
> blunt objects, all of which result in mutilation and/or death, are
> actually more prevalent in the USA are than firearm related death and/or
> injury.

So the more knives and blunt objects there are the more the attacks will
happen is that it ?

> As a Law Enforcement Officer I am fully aware of the danger of having
> knife wielding individual approach closer than 15-20 feet.

And what's the distance for a gun wielding individual ?

> attacks come without warning and are quick and deadly.
Snipers their choice of weapon is .......
I'm guessing a knife isn;t top of the list unless they are army[1] trained
and need a silent kill.

> In pat down searches knives are considered deadly weapons and individuals
> can, in California at least be charged with possession of a deadly weapon.

Well that makes sense, but are knives really more deadly a weapon than
guns that's my point.

> In the case of a knife being used as a defensive weapon in a purely
> physical altercation, the knife wielder would be guilty of assault/battery
> with a deadly weapon.

But are guns considered a deadly weapon.

> In one case I investigated, one individual stabbed and mutilated three
> victims in a matter of seconds. The injuries ranged from a puntured lung,
> a through & through stabbing of a hand, clipping a piece off a tongue, and
> traumatic amputation of a nose.

I'm not exactly in favour of giving knives to anyone and everyone either.
but are you saying if the attacker would have had a gun then the resultant
carnage
would have been less severe.

But how come someone didn't shoot him in 'self defence' ?
It just seems that the intelligent and armed that choose weapons only for
defence
are rarely about when such an incident happens.

>That attacker was a
> youngster out having fun, and is currently in State prison serving a 12
> year sentence.

Not sure what the sentence would be here(UK) but I guess nothing like 12
years.
up to a year then most likely released on parole and a deferred sentence on
condition of psychiatric help.

>All those victims did to provoke this attack was to try to have an
>offensive individual leave their pizza parlor.

Well at least he won't return for sometime unlike here in the UK,
victims get little protection.

[1] I'm not aware the police have been trained in the art of knife combat.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:38 am
From: Chris Malcolm

In rec.photo.digital whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1{REMOVESPAM}@me.com> wrote in message
> news:2009051507484311272-savageduck1REMOVESPAM@mecom...
>> On 2009-05-15 05:43:02 -0700, "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear>
>> said:
>>
>>>
>>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>> news:WCXjmsKG8CDKFAYc@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>> In message <guh5vu$koo$1@qmul>, whisky-dave <whisky-
>>>> dave@final.front.ear> writes
>>>>>
>>>>> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:3qCdnbHf-b6opJbXnZ2dnUVZ_gqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, if you believe guns are dangerous,
>>>>> They are aren;t they.
>>>>
>>>> If used properly they should only hit the intended target.....
>>>
>>> Then why did my ex-flatmates brother get arrested and charged with firing
>>> a gun in to the air in LA on independence day.
>>
>> Because that is criminal and stupid!!

> What's stupid, I know it was a criminal act, but what is stupid about firing
> a
> gun in to the air, he had NO target.

The terminal velocity of a lead bullet falling out of the sky is
sufficient to cause injury. In a civilised society people who knew so
little about guns as not to know that wouldn't be allowed to have
them.

--
Chris Malcolm

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:40 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:Mz11KsCOmxDKFApF@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <fq8t05917pf23f5no3si0m8ehitdhi82hk@4ax.com>, Mike
> <rubbish@live.com> writes
>>On 16 May 2009 10:06:16 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>If it gets to the stage where only fear of being shot will stop
>>>widespread theft and assault of shop owners and the general public it
>>>sounds like something has gone badly wrong with the society.
>>
>>Exactly, controlling crime by guns is a wild west aberration of
>>American thinking.
>
> This is true. It is also part of their culture of gun ownership which
> was not the same as in the UK. Gun owners in the UK did not own guns
> for self defence or even think in those terms.

Yes that's an important point it's a hobby and probably equal to that of
sports cars
in the terms of harm it can cause, and of course the use or replicas hasn't
reared it's
head yet. But there are a few that get guns for 'self defence' only the drug
dealers
in hackney ;-) But one must ask what are they defending themselves against.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 18 2009 7:40 am
From: "whisky-dave"

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:lLWdnTsUL9rFqZLXnZ2dnUVZ_vxi4p2d@giganews.com...

> Just curious, do you include suicides in this category? Certainly not an
> accident, but the person harming himself is usually independent of method,
> as a choice of methods is readily available. And ask any police officer,
> MANY single car accidents are really suicides.

We than have knives that are used to slash wrist but if you look at these
as suicide attemps you'll find that in women most of these attempts
are crys for help and are not intented as serious life ending attempts.
While men tend to use more agressive methods of suicide which are far more
likely to end in thier death.
But in all of thses cases there is little risk to others, other than those
that
speed down the motorway in an attempt to end it all.

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

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