«

John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 08:03:28 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-> wrote
> in <kX04l.10313$>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> This frankly comes across as bias.
>>
>> John, there is no bias nor any intentional connotations.
>
> With all due respect, David, all of us have biases, you (and me)
> included. It's a bit disingenuous to assert otherwise. The
> perception of bias is also important.
>
>> The responses of
>> others to your remarks seem to indicate that they don't think so
>> either.
>
> Some do; some don't. Claiming consensus for your point of view is
> also a bit disingenuous, and not terribly meaningful -- all you can
> really speak for is your own perception and opinion, and you seem
> unable or unwilling to acknowledge valid differences of perception
> and opinion.
>
>> Differences between the many variants of English will probably
>> prevent us from coming up with a mutually agreeable term.
>
> I'd say differences in bias and agenda prevent us from coming up with
> a mutually agreeable term, and think the stubbornness of dSLR fans is
> telling -- if they're not using the term in a derogatory way, and know
> it to be negative to at least some compact camera fans, why the
> stubbornness?
>
> It smacks of Southerners claiming the n-word and "boy" are commonly
> accepted, no need to change to "black" or "African American".
>
> I think this alone is ample evidence of some people here using "p&s"
> in a derogatory way. You disagree. We should leave it at that. And
> we can if you can resist the temptation to again assert authority.

I'm happy to discuss well-reasoned arguments with anyone, without agenda,
and I'm open to views which have the backing of scientific reason and
examples. I try not to have any intentional bias, and to state as fact
only that which I can verify for myself. Of course, I will not always
achieve that!

Having considered what you have said, I think that I will continue to use
the terms P&S and compact camera as they seem the least likely to be
misunderstood, although I do feel that small-sensor camera actually
describes them better. Any word can be used in a derogatory way if you
try hard enough!

David

John Navas wrote:
[]
> Surely you also consider the _perception_ of what you're trying to
> communicate -- that is, after all, the essence of communication.
> Isn't communication your objective? Calling your wife "fat" may be
> objective and scientifically accurate, but not likely to have a good
> result, now is it?

I do not consider my camera to have the same sensitivities as my wife.
Calling my camera "DSLR" or "P&S" is unlikely to influence the results it
produces.


> The point is that some can be used in a derogatory way without trying,
> as I'm sure you know. And as you should now know, I consider the term
> "P&S" to be derogatory when used to refer to a "bridge" camera like
> the Panasonic FZ8, unlike the term "compact camera". If you do that,
> knowing how I feel, and why, how could you really expect to have a
> good constructive relationship with me? Just like how you would feel
> if you perceived me to be insulting you.


Sorry, but only in the most exceptional circumstances would I consider not
calling a P&S a P&S. Even a DSLR can be a P&S camera - mine even has a
special position on the command-dial for it, marked in green, so it's easy
to find! In normal use of my DSLR and non-DLSR cameras, I regularly make
use of automatic exposure and automatic focussing. Does that make them
P&S? <G>

David

John Navas wrote:
[]
> If that's your choice, consciously and deliberately using a term that
> you know I feel is insulting to me (even though I don't insult your
> choices), then I don't see how we can possibly have a good
> relationship. Life is too short.

Please don't be silly, John. If I don't happen to like the word "bung"
and yet that's what everyone calls it, I'm not going to take offence.

David

In article <VmW3l.11288$>, Paul Furman
<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> The terms do evolve but 'SLR' would be completely meaningless used for
> the G1. I'd rather call it a digital rangefinder which is also wrong
> <g>. The distinction is interchangeable lens and that separates it from P&S.

but it's closer to an slr than it is to anything else.

In article <bap526->, savvo
<> wrote:

> > and the panasonic g1 is considered an slr even though it lacks a
> > mirror. it's more like an slr than it is any other category. the
> > terms evolve.
>
> Not by Panasonic or, well, anyone really.
>
> It's more like a compact because that's what it is.

no, it's more like an slr. the g1 is closer to something like a nikon
d40 than it is any compact camera. the main difference is that there's
an evf and no mirror. otherwise, it feels like a small dslr.

John Navas wrote:
[]
> Please don't be disingenuous and demeaning, David. Even though it
> shouldn't matter, I've explained and documented how and why that term
> is offensive.

John,

You know perfectly well that if I say P&S it simply refers to a type of
camera by a common nomenclature. I use a P&S camera, and the term is not
in the least offensive, so please don't take as such. Just translate it
when you read it to a term you see fit.

David

John Navas wrote:
[]
> p.s. Do you really not see how illogical it is to say you're open to
> "scientific reason", acknowledge that cameras like the FZ8 are really
> no more P&S than dSLRs, and then conclude that you'll continue to use
> the term P&S?? That's a big part of why it seems biased.

I'm simply not going to waste my time writing or your time reading "a
small-sensor camera which has a fixed lens" when P&S will do.

David

John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:19:06 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-> wrote
> in <_Ib4l.10645$> :
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>> []
>>> p.s. Do you really not see how illogical it is to say you're open
>>> to "scientific reason", acknowledge that cameras like the FZ8 are
>>> really no more P&S than dSLRs, and then conclude that you'll
>>> continue to use the term P&S?? That's a big part of why it seems
>>> biased.
>>
>> I'm simply not going to waste my time writing or your time reading "a
>> small-sensor camera which has a fixed lens" when P&S will do.
>
> I rest my case. I think your bias is clear, whether you honestly
> don't see it or not, and will take that into account in the future.

John, as you objected to "small-sensor", and said that "compact" was not
appropriate (IIRC), what would /you/ prefer your camera to be called?
Perhaps, when I reply specifically to you, I will remember to use that
term.

David

John Navas wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 20:17:01 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-> wrote
> in <1Hb4l.10644$> :
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>> []
>>> Please don't be disingenuous and demeaning, David. Even though it
>>> shouldn't matter, I've explained and documented how and why that
>>> term is offensive.
>>
>> You know perfectly well that if I say P&S it simply refers to a type
>> of camera by a common nomenclature.
>
> No more than you're wife knows you don't really mean any harm when you
> tell her those pants she picked make her look fat.
>
>> I use a P&S camera, and the term is not
>> in the least offensive,
>
> To you. As in the case of Vista, you don't seem to think the
> experiences of others are at all important. "No skin off my nose."

You refused to tell me of your experiences - "just Google" was your
response!

>> so please don't take as such. Just translate it
>> when you read it to a term you see fit.
>
> In other words, the negative connotation of your term is my problem.
> How nice.

I can't help you with problems like that, John. If the rest of the world
uses the term, you will have more than deal with it from many more people.

Don't take it personally, but I'm closing this topic now.

David

In article <>, John Navas
<> wrote:

> >If the rest of the world
> >uses the term, you will have more than deal with it from many more people.
>
> This is about you, not the rest of the world. That you repeatedly use
> the fallacies of Appeal to Common Practice and Appeal to Popularity does
> you no credit.

as mentioned before, the rest of the world generally refers to
non-dslrs as p&s cameras. that's just how it is.

if it's so derogatory, why do the companies who make the cameras call
them point and shoot?
<http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_digital_cseries.asp>

it's you who sees offense where there is none to be seen.

> >Don't take it personally, but I'm closing this topic now.
>
> Suit yourself. I can't say I'm surprised -- I've reluctantly come to
> the conclusion you're one of the more self-centered people I've come in
> contact with.

"with that insult you concede the debate."