Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > SPREADING WIDE FOR THE 40D!

Reply
Thread Tools

SPREADING WIDE FOR THE 40D!

 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2008
On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 11:47:54 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Jun 8, 2:02*pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> > focus on what "Rita" is or isn't as it is interesting that your
>> >posts from Orlando pass through a server in Germany;

>>
>> As do the posts of thousands of regular newsgroup followers. *The
>> server, news.individual.net, is one of the most reliable newsgroup
>> servers available. *It's through the Free University of Berlin, and
>> costs 10 euro per year to use. *

>
>Why would somebody in Florida pay in Euros?
>

new.individual.net was initially free. It's become so popular that
they added the annual fee about three years ago. At the time of my
last renewal, the only way to pay was in euros, and I paid through
ClickandBuy, a payment option that allows me to charge an amount to my
credit card in dollars and pays the bill in euros or whatever currency
is used in the country where I'm paying something. (The word
"euros"is not capitalized) I think that news.individual.net has not
set up something where they accept PayPal or American credit cards,
but my renewal is not due yet.

The world is bigger than Tennessee, Bret. We use servers based in
Germany, deal with people who use other units of currency, and
exchange messages with people all over the world.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2008
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:27:18 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:21:58 -0400, Alan Browne

>
>TC wrote>
>>>> I don't see how it makes a difference if her name is not "Rita"
>>>> because many people choose to protect their real identify from online
>>>> stalkers. Or, in fact, if "she" is not a she. (Though I see no reason
>>>> to doubt this)

>
>I neglected to reply to this point. Usually people use an obvious
>pseudonym rather than a plausible name. eg: "Rita" could use "Nikon
>Fan" (or some such).


If her name is not "Rita Berkowitz", she shows some imagination by
choosing that name over "Nikon Fan".

>>> Interesting how you snip so heavily; don't reply to the key point
>>> (bokeh);

>>
>> I initiated the comments in this thread on bokeh. I provided a link
>> to a study on bokeh. Your comments didn't add anything to what I
>> said, so there was no need to reply on that subject.

>
>Au contraire, I clarified the accent issue and that it is not an English
>word in the first place. That, in good netiquette would normally bring
>discussion or acknowledgment.


Why acknowledge what is generally known by anyone who knows what
"bokeh" is? It's not like you revealed anything new.

Mike Johnson claims to have to have been the first to use that
spelling http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...04-04-04.shtml ,
but since it's been around since the mid-90s, that's not news either.

At some time or other, all of us came across it as a new word. At
that time, most of us looked it up and became familiar with how it
came about. Some, though, don't seem to understand what the word
describes and misuse it to mean any visible detail in the background
of the primary subject of the image.

>My use of the word interesting is that some trolls have used that same
>server, yet few (almost none) of the regular posters to the various
>rec.photo.* ng's use it.


I have no idea who uses it in this group and who doesn't. I can't
imagine why it is of interest. What I notice is that trolls and
fly-bys usually come in from GoogleGroups.

>> Now, do you choose to explain what prompts you to use scare quotes
>> when writing "Rita""?

>
>As I said, to me quotes around a word in such context mean "so-called",
>eg: calling into question the word or meaning.


Nothing wrong with that, but then there's nothing wrong with learning
what the term is that you are more likely to see in publications.

>I've always believed "Rita" to be a pseudonym, and even possibly a past
>troll reincarnated with the intention of trolling these NG's. A good
>number of her posts are clearly trolls and they have that effect.
>

What difference would it make if it is a pseudonym? Would you feel
differently about her posts if that is her real name?


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2008
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:24:04 -0400, tony cooper
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>
>>Why would somebody in Florida pay in Euros?
>>

>new.individual.net


Argghh. That should be news.individual.net

> was initially free. It's become so popular that
>they added the annual fee about three years ago. At the time of my
>last renewal, the only way to pay was in euros, and I paid through
>ClickandBuy, a payment option that allows me to charge an amount to my
>credit card in dollars and pays the bill in euros or whatever currency
>is used in the country where I'm paying something. (The word
>"euros"is not capitalized) I think that news.individual.net has not


Argghh, again. That should be "has now set up..."


>set up something where they accept PayPal or American credit cards,
>but my renewal is not due yet.
>
>The world is bigger than Tennessee, Bret. We use servers based in
>Germany, deal with people who use other units of currency, and
>exchange messages with people all over the world.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2008
Now *I'm* laughing - I note the troll "her"self even appeared...
(Ooooh scary quotes!!!)

As the majority of this discussion has, understandably, turned to crap
and gone completely off-topic, I'll simply address a couple of points
that are notable here.

tony cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 07 Jun 2008 19:33:38 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>> And if he's really good, he'll help others make choices - gee, maybe the
>> Canon does run rings around other cameras for this work - if anyone can
>> show some countering images from other marques (links to other's images
>> are fine!), I'd be most interested. There was another guy who shot a
>> lot of images like this, in a similarly (somewhat controlled)
>> environment - I might try to find his stuff and see what he was shooting
>> with.

>
> That's a bullshit premise.


Why do you persist with the abuse and derision? As an educated (hehe)
person as yourself should know, it is the last resort of the defeated..

> If you want to compare the technical
> aspects and derived results of equipment, you go to a site that
> reviews equipment without bias by manufacturers, that tests under
> controlled conditions, and that approaches the comparisons in a
> scientific manner.


Sounds very reasonable. Now, I'll just leave a space here for you:





In that space when you reply, feel free to helpfully put a couple (or
even just one) of links showing the comparative behavior of at least two
camera makers. As you said, they should fairly, evenly and
scientifically test the camera/lens combo, showing the hit rate and
overall efficiency of their AF when tracking items moving at reasonable
speeds at relatively close distances. Any subject, and any telephoto
lens will do, I'm willing to make this as easy as possible...

I'll return when you do that. If you can't, maybe you should revise
your childish claim of "bullshit", and see if you can actually post some
useful information about that aspect of camera performance.

Then you may also wish to discuss the fact that (as *others* have also
pointed out) there seems to be just a tiny difference between what Bret
posts, (in fun), and what Rita posts (in fun). Can you tell us what
that difference is, or haven't you noticed? Sheesh. I'll fgive you a
hint - I think you will find that RB has now posted a comparable shot.
Why not pop over and take a look, and tell us what you think. And
compare it to Bret's:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/98168597/original.jpg

Any questions?

> You don't look to Canon users or Nikon users who produce their shots
> and say that the same shot would not have been possible with the
> oppo's equipment.


Can you STOP attributing stuff to me that I haven't said (second last
resort of the defeated?). *Bret* said that, and you already
acknowledged it was in fun...

*I* said that I am interested to know which camera performs better in
these conditions, and Bret's images were useful.

But like I said, post better information. I am quite incompetent at
finding this sort of stuff, so over to you - make a hero of yourself.

 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2008
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 07:56:37 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

>Now *I'm* laughing - I note the troll "her"self even appeared...
>(Ooooh scary quotes!!!)
>
>As the majority of this discussion has, understandably, turned to crap
>and gone completely off-topic, I'll simply address a couple of points
>that are notable here.
>
> > If you want to compare the technical
>> aspects and derived results of equipment, you go to a site that
>> reviews equipment without bias by manufacturers, that tests under
>> controlled conditions, and that approaches the comparisons in a
>> scientific manner.

>
>Sounds very reasonable. Now, I'll just leave a space here for you:
>

It's you that wants the comparison. Dig out your own sites.

>I'll return when you do that. If you can't, maybe you should revise
>your childish claim of "bullshit", and see if you can actually post some
>useful information about that aspect of camera performance.


The "bullshit premise" was, and remains, the premise that viable
comparative data is provided by users who show results from their
equipment. All we know from that is that some users can get good
photographs with their equipment, and some can't.

>Then you may also wish to discuss the fact that (as *others* have also
>pointed out) there seems to be just a tiny difference between what Bret
>posts, (in fun), and what Rita posts (in fun). Can you tell us what
>that difference is, or haven't you noticed? Sheesh. I'll fgive you a
>hint - I think you will find that RB has now posted a comparable shot.
>Why not pop over and take a look, and tell us what you think. And
>compare it to Bret's:


I think that Rita's effort is an embarrassment. I'm amazed she had
the chutzpah to link to it. However, put comparable all-Canon
equipment in her hand from that position, with that technique, and the
results would have been the same.
>
>> You don't look to Canon users or Nikon users who produce their shots
>> and say that the same shot would not have been possible with the
>> oppo's equipment.

>
>Can you STOP attributing stuff to me that I haven't said (second last
>resort of the defeated?). *Bret* said that, and you already
>acknowledged it was in fun...


WTF? I haven't attributed anything to anyone in that sentence.
"You", in this context, means "anyone".
>
>*I* said that I am interested to know which camera performs better in
>these conditions, and Bret's images were useful.


The conditions were not comparable. Only the subject was comparable.
>
>But like I said, post better information. I am quite incompetent at
>finding this sort of stuff,


You needn't try very hard to convince me.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-08-2008
tony cooper wrote:
> It's you that wants the comparison. Dig out your own sites.


You say go and look at stuff and then effectively admit that it doesn't
exist.

I knew it. Thanks for playing (or rather, avoiding).

plonk.
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2008
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 09:19:35 +1000, Mark Thomas
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> It's you that wants the comparison. Dig out your own sites.

>
>You say go and look at stuff and then effectively admit that it doesn't
>exist.


No, I said if you want the stuff, go look for it. I don't have any
need for it.

>
>I knew it. Thanks for playing (or rather, avoiding).
>
>plonk.


I wish you would.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2008
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:51:21 -0500, George Kerby
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>
>
>On 6/8/08 10:42 AM, in article http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed),
>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:47:15 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> The little war between "Rita" and Bret is most amusing

>>
>> Or, in fact, if "she" is not a she. (Though I see no reason
>> to doubt this)
>>

>You don't get around much do you?


>
>HINT:
>Look at the 'style' of the writing. Loaded with testosterone.


I don't find that to be a valid way to candle posters. Mark Thomas,
for example, writes in a style that I would associate with a female
with a hormonal problem due to periodic changes in the bodily
chemistry. You use "HINT", "HINT", which - to me - is the type of
game that females like to play. Yet, you both use traditionally male
first names.

>HINT:
>Look at the "name". (I ain't gonna do your work for you - Google is your
>friend)


She's a clairvoyant? Who lives in Quincy, Massachusetts and walks
down to Chesapeake Bay to take pictures?

Damn.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
Atheist Chaplain
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2008
"Rita Berkowitz" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I think that Rita's effort is an embarrassment. I'm amazed she had
>> the chutzpah to link to it. However, put comparable all-Canon
>> equipment in her hand from that position, with that technique, and the
>> results would have been the same.

>
> LOL! Not at all, actually I'm very proud of it.. It did what it was
> designed to do, bring the idiots out and get them swarming.
>
>
>
>
> Rita
> --


LOL nice back-pedal there Rita.

--
"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
Don Hirschberg


 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-09-2008
On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 16:35:25 -0400, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:27:18 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 13:21:58 -0400, Alan Browne
>>> TC wrote>
>>>>>> I don't see how it makes a difference if her name is not "Rita"
>>>>>> because many people choose to protect their real identify from online
>>>>>> stalkers. Or, in fact, if "she" is not a she. (Though I see no reason
>>>>>> to doubt this)
>>> I neglected to reply to this point. Usually people use an obvious
>>> pseudonym rather than a plausible name. eg: "Rita" could use "Nikon
>>> Fan" (or some such).

>>
>> If her name is not "Rita Berkowitz", she shows some imagination by
>> choosing that name over "Nikon Fan".

>
>Not the point and you know it.


There is no point. The idea of fretting over whether or not it is
that person's true name is entirely pointless in the first place.
Putting it in scare quotes as if it makes some difference is
pointless.

>> Mike Johnson claims to have to have been the first to use that
>> spelling http://www.luminous-landscape.com/co...04-04-04.shtml ,
>> but since it's been around since the mid-90s, that's not news either.
>>
>> At some time or other, all of us came across it as a new word. At
>> that time, most of us looked it up and became familiar with how it
>> came about. Some, though, don't seem to understand what the word
>> describes and misuse it to mean any visible detail in the background
>> of the primary subject of the image.

>
>That's not what was being discussed. Merely the so-called correct
>spelling in English.
>

What the hell? Who are you to decide what is being discussed? You
discuss what you want, and I'll discuss what I want. First you get
into a pouting snit because I didn't acknowledge that you added
something already known to anyone who knows the term, and then you
stick your lower lip out further and don't want anything else added to
the thread.

>>
>>> My use of the word interesting is that some trolls have used that same
>>> server, yet few (almost none) of the regular posters to the various
>>> rec.photo.* ng's use it.

>>
>> I have no idea who uses it in this group and who doesn't. I can't
>> imagine why it is of interest. What I notice is that trolls and
>> fly-bys usually come in from GoogleGroups.

>
>Not at all. They come via all manner of servers. The Google news group
>has become a vector mainly for spammers, however.


I thought you were discussing that trolls use German news server.
Make up your mind. Now you're saying that they use all manner of
servers.
>>
>> What difference would it make if it is a pseudonym? Would you feel
>> differently about her posts if that is her real name?

>
>Answered above.
>

Where? Where have you said that if the name used on the post is the
person's real name, or not the person's real name, determines how you
view the text written by that person?

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
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
Re: DSLR lenses not good wide open at wide angle? Dauphin de Viennois Digital Photography 2 07-16-2008 12:29 PM
SPREADING WIDE FOR THE 20D ! Annika1980 Digital Photography 4 03-12-2007 07:01 PM
Wide Screen not wide enough? michelebargeman@yahoo.com DVD Video 31 04-27-2006 08:50 PM
Not many "wide-angle" compacts but, heck, many are wide-angle anyway! JeffOYB@hotmail.com Digital Photography 10 01-09-2006 08:30 AM
char 8bit wide or 7bit wide in c++? Web Developer C++ 2 07-31-2003 08:09 AM



Advertisments