Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: D3 vs D700

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: D3 vs D700

 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.


HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
> >bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.

>
> Nothing of the sort.


absolutely true.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Mark Thomas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:50:28 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> in <020120091350287206%(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.

>> HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
>> bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.

>
> Nothing of the sort.
>


John obviously isn't aware of one of the net's practical jokes that
turned into something taken seriously by the gullible..

From Ken himself:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

> Caveat Lector! (reader beware!)
> This is my personal website. I do it all by myself...
> I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making
> mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.
> This site is purely my personal speech and opinion,
> and a way for me to goof around.
> While often inspired by actual products and events,
> just like any other good news organization, I like to
> make things up and stretch the truth...
> In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly
> stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector,

(John, is that you?)
> please treat this entire site as a work of fiction...
> This site is provided only for the entertainment of my
> personal friends, dogs, family and myself...
> Read this site at your own risk
> I started this site as a joke in 1999 after I took
> a community college class in webmaking...
> I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there
> are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright
> foolish and made-up things lurking...
> ...I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff
> I simply make up out of thin air...
> I love a good hoax... A hoax, like this site, is
> done as a goof simply for the heck of it by overactive
> minds as a practical joke.


Umm, any questions?
 
Reply With Quote
 
TheRealSteve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:56:01 -0800, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:50:28 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>in <020120091350287206%(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.

>>
>>HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
>>bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.

>
>Nothing of the sort.


While some of the things he has on his site seem like a valuable
resource (such as the article starting here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...ison/index.htm which made
the decision of the 50mm 1.4 vs. 50mm 1.8 easier for me) you have to
filter it. It's really for the photographer who "knows better" and
can tell when he's making stuff up for fun vs. when he's providing a
valuable resource. If you don't believe me, read it here for
yourself:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm

And if you're the type who believes *everything* you read on his site,
you shouldn't be reading it.

Steve
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> >HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
> >> >bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.
> >>
> >> Nothing of the sort.

> >
> >absolutely true.

>
> Forgive me for not just taking your word for it.


i'm not asking you to take my word, but that of ken himself:

<http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>

While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any
other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch
the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new
products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you
lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of
fiction.

....

I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that
there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
The Onion.

....

I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see their site. A
hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the heck of it by
overactive minds as a practical joke.

....

If you don't know me personally, then you can't possibly have any
idea of what I mean when you read my text.


he also disguises lies as truth. for instance, he claims that he
didn't flip the negative in the photo of the left-handed nikon f100.
that's correct, he didn't flip *the negative*, he flipped the jpeg. he
then goes on about the hand grip being made from an elephant penis.

<http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm#lefty>

the guy is a liar. there's no easy way to tell what's true from what's
not. he also likes to review products he sees for a couple of minutes
at a trade show (and sometimes not at all).

a far more credible resource is thom hogan, and while i don't always
agree with thom, he at least has well a reasoned basis for the
statements he makes. and most importantly, he doesn't get his jollies
by being the class clown.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I have a good BS detector, and don't have a problem seeing the
> differences. If you do, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading it.


i bet you've been fooled more than once by him.
 
Reply With Quote
 
TheRealSteve
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2009

On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:46:47 -0800, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 23:32:23 GMT, TheRealSteve <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>in <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>>
>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:56:01 -0800, John Navas
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 13:50:28 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>>in <020120091350287206%(E-Mail Removed)>:
>>>
>>>>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest.
>>>>
>>>>HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
>>>>bogus and nothing more than a practical joke.
>>>
>>>Nothing of the sort.

>>
>>While some of the things he has on his site seem like a valuable
>>resource (such as the article starting here:
>>http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/50-...ison/index.htm which made
>>the decision of the 50mm 1.4 vs. 50mm 1.8 easier for me) you have to
>>filter it. It's really for the photographer who "knows better" and
>>can tell when he's making stuff up for fun vs. when he's providing a
>>valuable resource. If you don't believe me, read it here for
>>yourself:
>>
>>http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm
>>
>>And if you're the type who believes *everything* you read on his site,
>>you shouldn't be reading it.

>
>I didn't say that. Here's what he says:
>
> While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any
> other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch
> the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new
> products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you
> lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of
> fiction.
>
>I have a good BS detector, and don't have a problem seeing the
>differences. If you do, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading it.


Well let's see... You said:
"My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest."

Someone else replied:
"HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
bogus and nothing more than a practical joke."

And then you replied:
"Nothing of the sort."

According to Ken Rockwell himself:
"I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that
there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The
Onion." and "I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see
their site. A hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the
heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke."

So apparently, according to Ken Rockwell himself, you are completely
wrong when you said "nothing of the sort" to someone else saying that
he "admits he makes stuff up and that a lot of his site is bogus and
nothing more than a practical joke."

You may think you have a good BS detector, but it's obvious you don't
if you needed this fact about Ken's site pointed out to you before
you'd believe it yourself.

Steve
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, TheRealSteve
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >I have a good BS detector, and don't have a problem seeing the
> >differences. If you do, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading it.

>
> Well let's see... You said:
> "My own take is that Ken is refreshing direct and honest."
>
> Someone else replied:
> "HAH. he even admits he makes up stuff and that a lot of his site is
> bogus and nothing more than a practical joke."
>
> And then you replied:
> "Nothing of the sort."
>
> According to Ken Rockwell himself:
> "I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
> deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
> things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
> legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that
> there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The
> Onion." and "I love a good hoax. Read The Museum of Hoaxes, or see
> their site. A hoax, like this site, is done as a goof simply for the
> heck of it by overactive minds as a practical joke."
>
> So apparently, according to Ken Rockwell himself, you are completely
> wrong when you said "nothing of the sort" to someone else saying that
> he "admits he makes stuff up and that a lot of his site is bogus and
> nothing more than a practical joke."
>
> You may think you have a good BS detector, but it's obvious you don't
> if you needed this fact about Ken's site pointed out to you before
> you'd believe it yourself.


i wonder if his bs detector gets pegged on his own posts.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >the guy is a liar. there's no easy way to tell what's true from what's
> >not.

>
> I disagree.


unless the lies are tagged as such (which they aren't), there's no easy
way to tell unless one is deeply familiar with the topic or they're
truly outrageous like the elephant penis one. most people are not
experts going in and read his site to learn and think what he says is
true.

> >a far more credible resource is thom hogan, and while i don't always
> >agree with thom, he at least has well a reasoned basis for the
> >statements he makes. and most importantly, he doesn't get his jollies
> >by being the class clown.

>
> Thom Hogan does some good stuff, but he's clearly got his own biases.


sure, but at least they're well formed arguments, not something idiotic
like tripods are no longer needed with digital.

> Regardless, what matters is whether something is true or false, not who
> says it, and thus far you've not presented anything that bears on the
> issue at hand, just guilt by association.


actually, i have.
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-03-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >> I have a good BS detector, and don't have a problem seeing the
> >> differences. If you do, then perhaps you shouldn't be reading it.

> >
> >i bet you've been fooled more than once by him.

>
> On what basis?


on the basis that it's unlikely you've caught every instance with 100%
accuracy.
 
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: Why buy 5D II Over D700? ASAAR Digital Photography 16 01-02-2009 01:06 AM
Re: Why buy 5D II Over D700? John McWilliams Digital Photography 20 12-31-2008 06:03 PM
Brandnew Nikon D700 for sale at just 3,600RM vinnyss Gaming 1 11-07-2008 04:21 AM
Re: Nikon Announces Another Must Have Camera, The D700!! Paul Furman Digital Photography 23 07-03-2008 12:05 PM
OFFICIAL: Nikon D700 and SB-900 Cynicor Digital Photography 8 07-01-2008 10:33 PM



Advertisments