Commenting On Unused Equipment

Com101 wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:38:40 -0500, tony cooper
> <> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:09:34 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
>>> news:hckq9v$59j$...
>>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>>> "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hckmcb$r80$...
>>>>>> IAE, FWIW: Until youse guys stop replying to and talking about the pest,
>>>>>> he'll continue.
>>>>> "IAE"?
>> "In any event". It's such a PITA to type out all those extra letters.
>
> It only shows a quality of laziness and rude inconsideration on your part.
> It shows that you don't care if anyone understands you, you don't care
> about anyone's needs but your own just so you can save yourself from
> pressing a few more required keys. Good communication takes effort, as well
> as knowing your audience. If at any time during your life you are
> misunderstood it is your fault. It is never the fault of the person with
> which you are trying to communicate. The basics of Communication 101.
>
> Eventually, people realize that you are only typing to see yourself type.
> Realizing you're a PITA to read. Reading your typing is too much effort,
> and the little to no useful information contained is simply not worth
> anyone's time and effort to try to decipher what you meant.
>
> Hopefully they will all add you to their filters. As I will do now.

*snort* Yeah, like the P&S troll would ever add anyone to his filters -
you live for the responses to your crap.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

Neil Harrington wrote:
> "Bob Larter" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Com101 wrote:
>>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:38:40 -0500, tony cooper
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 2 Nov 2009 00:09:34 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:hckq9v$59j$...
>>>>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>>>>> "John McWilliams" <> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:hckmcb$r80$...
>>>>>>>> IAE, FWIW: Until youse guys stop replying to and talking about the
>>>>>>>> pest, he'll continue.
>>>>>>> "IAE"?
>>>> "In any event". It's such a PITA to type out all those extra letters.
>>> It only shows a quality of laziness and rude inconsideration on your
>>> part.
>>> It shows that you don't care if anyone understands you, you don't care
>>> about anyone's needs but your own just so you can save yourself from
>>> pressing a few more required keys. Good communication takes effort, as
>>> well
>>> as knowing your audience. If at any time during your life you are
>>> misunderstood it is your fault. It is never the fault of the person with
>>> which you are trying to communicate. The basics of Communication 101.
>>>
>>> Eventually, people realize that you are only typing to see yourself type.
>>> Realizing you're a PITA to read. Reading your typing is too much effort,
>>> and the little to no useful information contained is simply not worth
>>> anyone's time and effort to try to decipher what you meant.
>>>
>>> Hopefully they will all add you to their filters. As I will do now.
>> *snort* Yeah, like the P&S troll would ever add anyone to his filters -
>> you live for the responses to your crap.
>
> Exactly. The reason the pest changes his name several times a day is to stay
> out of *other* people's killfiles.
>
> If there is such a thing as reincarnation, he will probably come back as a
> gnat.

More likely a dung beetle.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:54:04 +1000, Bob Larter <>
> wrote:
>
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> "Bob Larter" <> wrote in message
>>> news:4aed04c1$...
>>>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:30:03 +1000, Bob Larter <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm a well accomplished professional. 50,000 photos on some years is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> out of the question, >75% of that being of marketable quality.
>>>>>> And yet you can't show us a single one of them. Imagine that.
>>>>> On checking my "Scrapshots that beat DSLRs" folder, I find 14 images that
>>>>> I
>>>>> posted this year
>>>> ROTFL! - I saw most of those images, & they weren't all that good for P&S
>>>> shots, much less DSLR shots.
>>>>
>>>> PS: No, screwing with the follow-ups line won't work on me.
>>> I'm glad you pointed that out. I tend not to notice that sort of sleazy
>>> trick. This jerk seems determined to be as much of a pest as he can, in
>>> every way he can.
>> That trick is very common with net-kooks. The P&S troll is a classic
>> net-kook.
>
>
>
> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
> Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
> alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2005)
> Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a group where he'll stay on topic.

Hi kook! ;^)

Still trying to sucker me into posting to a non-existant group, I see. ;^)


--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 02:42:41 +1000, Bob Larter <>
wrote:

>Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:54:04 +1000, Bob Larter <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>> "Bob Larter" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:4aed04c1$...
>>>>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:30:03 +1000, Bob Larter <>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm a well accomplished professional. 50,000 photos on some years is
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> out of the question, >75% of that being of marketable quality.
>>>>>>> And yet you can't show us a single one of them. Imagine that.
>>>>>> On checking my "Scrapshots that beat DSLRs" folder, I find 14 images that
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> posted this year
>>>>> ROTFL! - I saw most of those images, & they weren't all that good for P&S
>>>>> shots, much less DSLR shots.
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: No, screwing with the follow-ups line won't work on me.
>>>> I'm glad you pointed that out. I tend not to notice that sort of sleazy
>>>> trick. This jerk seems determined to be as much of a pest as he can, in
>>>> every way he can.
>>> That trick is very common with net-kooks. The P&S troll is a classic
>>> net-kook.
>>
>>
>>
>> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
>> Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
>> alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2005)
>> Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a group where he'll stay on topic.
>
>Hi kook! ;^)
>
>Still trying to sucker me into posting to a non-existant group, I see. ;^)

<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>

"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."




Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a group where he'll stay on topic.

Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.

Pete D wrote:
> "Bob Larter" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:01:31 +1000, Bob Larter <>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 29, 3:19 pm, Curiouser and Curiouser <question...@anyisp.net>
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> That's about all you'd ever be good for..." absolutely must explicitly
>>>>>> mean that you have extensive first-hand experience with male strangers
>>>>>> giving you blowjobs.
>>>>> Or vice versa, of course.
>>>>>
>>>>>> In actuality, the answer to the OP's question is quite simple, and it
>>>>>> has actually already been provided elsewhere. Apparently you've
>>>>>> overlooked it, which isn't anyone's fault other than your own.
>>>>> I think he has overloaded and burned out. I'm not reading his posts any
>>>>> more, but the last ones I glanced at seemed to be just the same fatuous
>>>>> drivel pasted in over and over.
>>>> It is. In fact, he's spamming. I'll be interested to see what his NSP
>>>> has to say about it.
>>> Are you aware that you and others of your ilk have now proved yourselves
>>> beyond a shadow of all doubts to be nothing but inexperienced and
>>> ignorant
>>> trolls, again?
>>>
>>> Stay on topic, you ignorant and inexperienced know-nothing thread
>>> hijacking
>>> trolls. Catch-22. If you stayed on topic you wouldn't be a troll.
>>> Continue
>>> going off topic and you have precisely proved my point.
>>>
>>> Sucks to be as stupid as you, doesn't it.
>>>
>>> Read it again. Here it is again for your perusal. Can you answer it
>>> without
>>> your usual off-topic trolling? The challenge is on. (Guess who's going to
>>> win. Once a troll, always a troll. Asking a troll to not act like a troll
>>> is like asking a slug to not travel by use of its exuded slime layer
>>> discharge.)
>>>
>>>> I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative
>>>> comments
>>>> on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even
>>>> considered
>>>> as part of their camera gear.
>>>>
>>>> There have been outlandish claims being made. Mostly by dSLR proponents
>>>> over what can and cannot be done with the myriad P&S cameras available
>>>> for
>>>> the last decade. Yet, when pressed for clarity, you find out they've
>>>> never
>>>> even been near the cameras they are commenting on so strongly,
>>>> assuredly,
>>>> and adamantly with their self-appointed authoritative and seemingly (to
>>>> themselves) concrete stance. They will loudly and incessantly claim that
>>>> some camera does not have a feature, when in fact a large range of
>>>> cameras,
>>>> sometimes all of those styles of cameras do indeed have that feature or
>>>> capability. They would instantly know this if they would only go out and
>>>> test it for themselves with real cameras. But no, to them they have
>>>> imagined something about some equipment that they've never touched which
>>>> is
>>>> nothing but a total fabrication in their own minds. Believing their
>>>> imaginations as if it is some kind of fact. Like any psychotic religious
>>>> zealot would.
>>>>
>>>> What causes them to do this? I've never commented on nor given advice
>>>> about
>>>> anything in life other than that with which I have had first-hand
>>>> knowledge
>>>> and experience of my own in that field. If I haven't personally tested
>>>> something for myself, then I am in no position to make comments about
>>>> it.
>>>> Even reading about something doesn't mean what I am reading is true
>>>> representation of whatever might be in question. I MUST test things for
>>>> myself before I feel I can comment on anything with any sense of
>>>> authority
>>>> whatsoever. I also never strongly rely on some "credible"(?) 3rd-party's
>>>> review of photography equipment. I learned long ago after having
>>>> purchased
>>>> equipment that even those well-meaning reviewers failed to understand
>>>> how
>>>> to use a camera, a feature of that camera, or other equipment properly.
>>>> Or
>>>> their simplified testing methods to begin with had huge faults in them.
>>>> (GIGO) Which I only discovered later when my findings didn't match their
>>>> findings, and I started to wonder why. Their testing methods were to
>>>> blame.
>>>>
>>>> So what causes this need for people to pretend to be authorities on
>>>> things
>>>> that they have no real knowledge about?
>>>>
>>>> Are they just psychotic trolls? And I'm not using the term "psychotic"
>>>> pejoratively. I believe they really are psychotic if they can so
>>>> adamantly
>>>> believe what they say, when in fact, reality and genuine experience
>>>> proves
>>>> them out to be in complete error. If so, if that's all they are,
>>>> psychotic
>>>> trolls, they seem to be wall-to-wall in these newsgroups. Far more in
>>>> abundance than those who have genuine experience and knowledge about the
>>>> subjects at hand.
>>> We all wait with bated breath for your non-troll response. (Apostrophe
>>> left
>>> off of "bated" to see how many apostrophe-trolls are in abundance.)
>>>
>>> Since you failed to address or answer the question, there it is again.
>>> Any
>>> further off-topic trolling without addressing the question and you will
>>> prove, beyond all doubt, that you are nothing but an ignorant troll,
>>> again.
>>> It's just that simple.
>>>
>>> Sucks to be you, doesn't it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
>>> Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
>>> alt.kook.lionel-lauer
>>> Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a
>>> group where he'll stay on topic.
>> Looks like I've got a new fanboy. Aw, how cute.
>>
>>
> LOL, excellent.....

He'll have to join the queue though - he's only about the 35th net-kook
who thinks he can scare me off Usenet. ;^)

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

Bob Larter

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:45:12 +1000, Bob Larter <>
wrote:

>
>
>He'll have to join the queue though - he's only about the 35th net-kook
>who thinks he can scare me off Usenet. ;^)


Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."

<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>

"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."

Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.