Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Nikon D40x Versus Canon Rebel XTi 400D?

Reply
Thread Tools

Nikon D40x Versus Canon Rebel XTi 400D?

 
 
Chris Savage
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2007
On 2007-11-16, Pat <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Nov 16, 11:32 am, Chris Savage <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>> On 2007-11-16, Jürgen Exner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Chris Savage wrote:
>> >> On 2007-11-15, Jürgen Exner <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >>> wilson granger ((E-Mail Removed)) wrote:

>>
>> >>>> Some (many? most? all?) of the dSLR advocates in these newsgroups
>> >>>> [...]

>>
>> >>> Thank you very much for the deep insight you are offering in your
>> >>> very first posting ever to this NG. You surely must have a lot of
>> >>> experience.

>>
>> >> I can conceive of no correlation between usenet activity and
>> >> photographic experience. Surely you could see more to criticise in its
>> >> post than that?

>>

>
> There is a correlation between knowledge and activity. The people who
> know quite a bit about photography answer specific questions within
> their field/knowledge and will provide follow-up if needed. Then they
> stay quiet until the next question comes along. They don't tend to
> get involved in more general conversations or flame wars.
>


While not disagreeing with anything you say, I still see no reason to
correlate someone's wisdom with their usenet activity. Especially when,
as in the case that started this off, the poster is clearly trolling (and
has been for months). The bullshit stinks enough to preclude any
research into the poster's history.

One reason I post under a semi-assumed name is to avoid casual googling
on my net activity. I find the behaviour rather creepy tbh.

(There are no prizes or kudos for anyone coming up with my real name, it's
not like I hide it very well.)

> If some asks "How do I shoot an outside performance in a rainstorm"
> they will answer that. If someone asks "what's better Nikon or Canon"
> they move on to the next question.


And if someone answers either question under a fresh nym with some
fact-free tirade on a tired old theme it's no measure of their
uselessness that it's their first post under that identity.


--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
acl
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2007
On Nov 16, 8:44 pm, Pat <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> There is a correlation between knowledge and activity. The people who
> know quite a bit about photography answer specific questions within
> their field/knowledge and will provide follow-up if needed. Then they
> stay quiet until the next question comes along. They don't tend to
> get involved in more general conversations or flame wars.
>
> If some asks "How do I shoot an outside performance in a rainstorm"
> they will answer that. If someone asks "what's better Nikon or Canon"
> they move on to the next question.


I certainly see your point. But suppose you do explain how to shoot an
outside performance in a rainstorm, and someone else also responds and
says "no, you're wrong: the way to do it is by performing three
backflips before each shot, then you don't need to worry about
exposure, focusing, rain, timing or anything else" (sorry, I don't
actually know what is important for a shot during a snowstorm, but you
get the idea). You respond in a civil way, but he keeps coming back
with the same sort of thing. Wouldn't you get a bit frustrated?

Note that a lot of the stuff that gets posted on "technical" matters
is worse than the analogy I used above, it's just that it doesn't look
so stupid because it's not so familiar from everyday life...
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Jürgen Exner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2007
acl wrote:
> On Nov 16, 8:44 pm, Pat <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I certainly see your point. But suppose you do explain how to shoot an
> outside performance in a rainstorm, and someone else also responds and
> says "no, you're wrong: the way to do it is by performing three
> backflips before each shot, then you don't need to worry about
> exposure, focusing, rain, timing or anything else" (sorry, I don't
> actually know what is important for a shot during a snowstorm, but you
> get the idea). You respond in a civil way, but he keeps coming back
> with the same sort of thing. Wouldn't you get a bit frustrated?
>
> Note that a lot of the stuff that gets posted on "technical" matters
> is worse than the analogy I used above, it's just that it doesn't look
> so stupid because it's not so familiar from everyday life...


Quite right. It may take a few more posts to recognize those idiots ('cuse
my language) for what they are. And by that time they have changed to a
different name already, because every sane person has filtered them in the
meantime.
And that brings me back to my original point (which obviously I didn't
explain too well). I don't 'trust' first-time posters because experience
shows that the majority of trolls fall into that category just out of
necessity. Otherwise it would be too easy to filter them.

In my experience there are three groups of posters:
- long history and respectable: good
- long history and for one reason or the other 'incompatible': no problem,
easy to filter
- no history: jerks and trolls
Yes, occasionally this is certainly unjust to the lurker or newbie with a
lot of subject matter but limited Usenet experience. But in my experience
this is a tiny minority and if he sticks to it he will very soon graduate
into category one or two.

jue




 
Reply With Quote
 
replyingtoidiots
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2007
On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:59:16 GMT, "Jürgen Exner" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>acl wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 8:44 pm, Pat <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I certainly see your point. But suppose you do explain how to shoot an
>> outside performance in a rainstorm, and someone else also responds and
>> says "no, you're wrong: the way to do it is by performing three
>> backflips before each shot, then you don't need to worry about
>> exposure, focusing, rain, timing or anything else" (sorry, I don't
>> actually know what is important for a shot during a snowstorm, but you
>> get the idea). You respond in a civil way, but he keeps coming back
>> with the same sort of thing. Wouldn't you get a bit frustrated?
>>
>> Note that a lot of the stuff that gets posted on "technical" matters
>> is worse than the analogy I used above, it's just that it doesn't look
>> so stupid because it's not so familiar from everyday life...

>
>Quite right. It may take a few more posts to recognize those idiots ('cuse
>my language) for what they are. And by that time they have changed to a
>different name already, because every sane person has filtered them in the
>meantime.
>And that brings me back to my original point (which obviously I didn't
>explain too well). I don't 'trust' first-time posters because experience
>shows that the majority of trolls fall into that category just out of
>necessity. Otherwise it would be too easy to filter them.
>
>In my experience there are three groups of posters:
>- long history and respectable: good
>- long history and for one reason or the other 'incompatible': no problem,
>easy to filter
>- no history: jerks and trolls
>Yes, occasionally this is certainly unjust to the lurker or newbie with a
>lot of subject matter but limited Usenet experience. But in my experience
>this is a tiny minority and if he sticks to it he will very soon graduate
>into category one or two.
>
>jue
>
>
>


All that, just to evade the truth of what was stated, which prompted their
meaningless red-herring reaction (now visible for the whole world to witness).
There's a name for what all of you just engaged in, it's called "displacement
activity". When confronted with a flight or fight scenario. They preen or mumble
or scratch and peck at the ground when neither instinctive fight or flight
response is possible.

Enjoy your scratching in the ground looking for more red-herrings.

p.s. thanks for revealing the limits of your abilities to think and reason. That
was fun.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Jürgen Exner
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-17-2007
replyingtoidiots wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:59:16 GMT, "Jürgen Exner"
>> In my experience there are three groups of posters:

[...]
>> - no history: jerks and trolls

>
> All that, just to evade the truth of what was stated, which prompted
> their meaningless red-herring reaction (now visible for the whole

[...]
> Enjoy your scratching in the ground looking for more red-herrings.


Dear replyingtoidiots

Thank you for proving my point.

jue


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sharpness issues with Canon 50mm f/1.8 and Canon Rebel XTi shaji Digital Photography 23 08-15-2007 02:06 PM
Nikon D40x versus D80 Sosumi Digital Photography 5 08-03-2007 06:55 PM
Rebel XTi vs d40x Strelzj Digital Photography 12 06-18-2007 04:48 AM
Canon 350D/Rebel XT and 400D/Rebel XTi comparison and review Wayne J. Cosshall Digital Photography 3 10-20-2006 04:29 AM
Images; Sony A100 ver Nikon D80 ver Canon Rebel XTi ver Canon 30D Rich Digital Photography 0 10-13-2006 06:45 PM



Advertisments