«

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 3:49:19 AM UTC, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-01-09 18:39:30 -0800, Robert Coe <> said:
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 10:16:48 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
>
> > wrote:
>
> > : On 2013-01-09 08:48:28 -0800, Tony Cooper <> said:
>
> > :
>
> > : > http://www.pbase.com/shootin/street_photography
>
> > : >
>
> > : >
>
> > : > SavageDuck - "Cowboy Hat Man" is just kinda flat. The Duck should've
>
> > : > waited until the "Man on a Bench" turned a bit to the camera. A
>
> > : > profile could've worked. The "Juggler" is a good catch, but I'd bring
>
> > : > out the yellow of the object in the air. The image needs one of the
>
> > : > three objects up in the air, and the one that is kinda gets lost in
>
> > : > the background.
>
> > :
>
> > : Moments in time captured, and timing is everything for many street
>
> > : captures.
>
> > :
>
> > : At the farmers' market in Paso Robles, it was quite early and even
>
> > : though I got few shots there, the guy in the hat seemed to be better
>
> > : than the crazy woman riding a mobility scooter, who kept yelling,
>
> > : "Why are you taking pictures?" at me.
>
> > : < https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...NC_5407-Ew.jpg >
>
> >
>
> > I believe the best defense is to listen attentively to her question and then
>
> > reply sympathetically in the imaginary language of your choice.
>
> >
>
> > Bob
>
>
>
> As I was shooting, I just said, "because, that's what I do" and walked on.

I would have said I was thinking of nominating you for Americans next top model.

On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
: On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
: > : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
: > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
: > : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : <snip>
: > : > : >
: > : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
: > : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
: > : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
: > : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
: > : > : >
: > : > :
: > : > : Thanks for your comment.
: > : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
: > : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
: > : > : was better than no image.
: > : >
: > : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether
: > : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a
: > : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light,
: > : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye;
: > : > loss of sharpness isn't.
: > : >
: > :
: > : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make.
: > : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their
: > : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
: > : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate.
: >
: > You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license.
: > But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which
: > I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on
: > the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate.
: >
:
: Yes it can.
: However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
: with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
: rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.

I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in
camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image
in post.

Bob

"Robert Coe" <> wrote in message
news:...

> I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in
> camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW
> image in post.

NR is correction for the medium so is just removing what was added by
electronic noise. That's just a practical issue. I'm puzzled why someone
would want to over-intellectualise it.

The limits codified by film journalists are a good benchmark.

Dodging and burning like Ansel Adams to the point where you get a different
look and feel to the negative is art. Editing out an object you were too
lazy to walk over to and move may be legitimate if the scene is
representative of default reality. But this is getting into a grey zone.

A lot of time would be saved if a common system could be developed but that
would interfere with all the arguing wouldn't it?

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
> : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
> : > : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> : > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
> : > : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
> : > : > :
> : > : > : <snip>
> : > : > : >
> : > : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but not much
> : > : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on that much
> : > : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for all comments
> : > : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
> : > : > : >
> : > : > :
> : > : > : Thanks for your comment.
> : > : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain, but shooting
> : > : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and shutter speed. It
> : > : > : was better than no image.
> : > : >
> : > : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The question is whether
> : > : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction at the cost of a
> : > : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual tradeoff in low light,
> : > : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive to the human eye;
> : > : > loss of sharpness isn't.
> : > : >
> : > :
> : > : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to make.
> : > : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation of their
> : > : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
> : > : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the mandate.
> : >
> : > You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's artistic license.
> : > But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in RAW, which
> : > I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is homing in on
> : > the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the mandate.
> : >
> :
> : Yes it can.
> : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
> : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
> : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.
>
> I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set NR in
> camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a RAW image
> in post.
>
True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.


--
PeterN

On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <> said:
>
>> On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter <> wrote:
>>> : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>> : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter <>
>>> wrote:
>>> : > : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>> : > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
>>> <> wrote:
>>> : > : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>> : > : > :
>>> : > : > : <snip>
>>> : > : > : >
>>> : > : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but
>>> not much
>>> : > : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on
>>> that much
>>> : > : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for
>>> all comments
>>> : > : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
>>> : > : > : >
>>> : > : > :
>>> : > : > : Thanks for your comment.
>>> : > : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
>>> but shooting
>>> : > : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and
>>> shutter speed. It
>>> : > : > : was better than no image.
>>> : > : >
>>> : > : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
>>> question is whether
>>> : > : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction
>>> at the cost of a
>>> : > : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual
>>> tradeoff in low light,
>>> : > : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive
>>> to the human eye;
>>> : > : > loss of sharpness isn't.
>>> : > : >
>>> : > :
>>> : > : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to
>>> make.
>>> : > : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation
>>> of their
>>> : > : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
>>> : > : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the
>>> mandate.
>>> : >
>>> : > You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
>>> artistic license.
>>> : > But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in
>>> RAW, which
>>> : > I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is
>>> homing in on
>>> : > the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the
>>> mandate.
>>> : >
>>> :
>>> : Yes it can.
>>> : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of shooting
>>> : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my frame
>>> : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.
>>>
>>> I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set
>>> NR in
>>> camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a
>>> RAW image
>>> in post.
>>>
>> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.
>
> So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
> photographs.
>

Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect!


--
PeterN

Old habits are hard to break

On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter <> said:
>
>> On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>>>> : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter <>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> : > : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>>>> : > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>> : > : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>> : > : > :
>>>>> : > : > : <snip>
>>>>> : > : > : >
>>>>> : > : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach, but
>>>>> not much
>>>>> : > : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on
>>>>> that much
>>>>> : > : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for
>>>>> all comments
>>>>> : > : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
>>>>> : > : > : >
>>>>> : > : > :
>>>>> : > : > : Thanks for your comment.
>>>>> : > : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
>>>>> but shooting
>>>>> : > : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and
>>>>> shutter speed. It
>>>>> : > : > : was better than no image.
>>>>> : > : >
>>>>> : > : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
>>>>> question is whether
>>>>> : > : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction
>>>>> at the cost of a
>>>>> : > : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual
>>>>> tradeoff in low light,
>>>>> : > : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive
>>>>> to the human eye;
>>>>> : > : > loss of sharpness isn't.
>>>>> : > : >
>>>>> : > :
>>>>> : > : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to
>>>>> make.
>>>>> : > : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for evaluation
>>>>> of their
>>>>> : > : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
>>>>> : > : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the
>>>>> mandate.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> : > You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
>>>>> artistic license.
>>>>> : > But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in
>>>>> RAW, which
>>>>> : > I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is
>>>>> homing in on
>>>>> : > the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the
>>>>> mandate.
>>>>> : >
>>>>> :
>>>>> : Yes it can.
>>>>> : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of
>>>>> shooting
>>>>> : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my
>>>>> frame
>>>>> : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.
>>>>>
>>>>> I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set
>>>>> NR in
>>>>> camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a
>>>>> RAW image
>>>>> in post.
>>>>>
>>>> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.
>>>
>>> So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
>>> photographs.
>>>
>>
>> Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect!
>
> Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.
>

Has email made the facts obsolete?

--
PeterN

On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter <> said:
>
>> On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/10/2013 9:06 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 22:18:18 -0500, Peter <>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> : On 1/9/2013 10:04 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>>>>>> : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:54:31 -0500, Peter
>>>>>>> <>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> : > : On 1/9/2013 9:33 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
>>>>>>> : > : > On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 21:18:06 -0500, Peter
>>>>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>>>> : > : > : On 1/9/2013 11:48 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
>>>>>>> : > : > :
>>>>>>> : > : > : <snip>
>>>>>>> : > : > : >
>>>>>>> : > : > : > Peter Newman - "Almost Off" is very much South Beach,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> not much
>>>>>>> : > : > : > "Street". I like "Pick a Winner", but I'm not keen on
>>>>>>> that much
>>>>>>> : > : > : > grain. Good composition and subject choice. Ditto for
>>>>>>> all comments
>>>>>>> : > : > : > when looking at "The Loser".
>>>>>>> : > : > : >
>>>>>>> : > : > :
>>>>>>> : > : > : Thanks for your comment.
>>>>>>> : > : > : Unfortunately, I too would have liked a little less grain,
>>>>>>> but shooting
>>>>>>> : > : > : conditions prevailed. Look at the ISO, aperature and
>>>>>>> shutter speed. It
>>>>>>> : > : > : was better than no image.
>>>>>>> : > : >
>>>>>>> : > : > Fair enough, but that's not really the issue, is it? The
>>>>>>> question is whether
>>>>>>> : > : > accepting the grain is better than applying noise reduction
>>>>>>> at the cost of a
>>>>>>> : > : > corresponding reduction in sharpness. That's the usual
>>>>>>> tradeoff in low light,
>>>>>>> : > : > high-ISO digital photography. And grain is counter-intuitive
>>>>>>> to the human eye;
>>>>>>> : > : > loss of sharpness isn't.
>>>>>>> : > : >
>>>>>>> : > :
>>>>>>> : > : You are right. but, that is a decision for the photographer to
>>>>>>> make.
>>>>>>> : > : Having made it, I submitted the images to the SI for
>>>>>>> evaluation
>>>>>>> of their
>>>>>>> : > : comments. In this case the mandate also specified only minor
>>>>>>> : > : photoshopping. I felt that use of NR wold have violated the
>>>>>>> mandate.
>>>>>>> : >
>>>>>>> : > You're right, almost by definition, about the photographer's
>>>>>>> artistic license.
>>>>>>> : > But NR can be preset in any modern camera. Assuming you shoot in
>>>>>>> RAW, which
>>>>>>> : > I'm sure you do, all you're doing when you play with the NR is
>>>>>>> homing in on
>>>>>>> : > the right initial setting. I can't imagine how that violates the
>>>>>>> mandate.
>>>>>>> : >
>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>> : Yes it can.
>>>>>>> : However, I usually do my NR in post. One of the drawbacks of
>>>>>>> shooting
>>>>>>> : with large files is that any in camera processing slows down my
>>>>>>> frame
>>>>>>> : rate. Not asking for sympathy, just explaining my choices.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I quite understand, but really that was my point. Since you can set
>>>>>>> NR in
>>>>>>> camera, it can hardly be overprocessing to tweak the NR level of a
>>>>>>> RAW image
>>>>>>> in post.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to noisy
>>>>> photographs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect!
>>>
>>> Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.
>>>
>>
>> Has email made the facts obsolete?
>
> No! The Mayan calendar has.
>

Then we no longer exist and nothing matters


--
PeterN

On 1/12/2013 2:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-01-12 10:44:59 -0800, Peter <> said:
>
>> On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <> said:
>
> << Le Snip >>
>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to
>>>>>>> noisy
>>>>>>> photographs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect!
>>>>>
>>>>> Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Has email made the facts obsolete?
>>>
>>> No! The Mayan calendar has.
>>>
>>
>> Then we no longer exist and nothing matters
>
> So you too can see into the future?
> I have a similar take on that sort of thing when the clock finally winds
> down.
>

No! Into the past. It already happened. This group is but a figment of
my imagination, since nothing exists anymore. (if it ever did.)

--
PeterN

On 1/13/2013 6:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-01-13 15:01:44 -0800, Peter <> said:
>
>> On 1/12/2013 2:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2013-01-12 10:44:59 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>
>>> << Le Snip >>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to
>>>>>>>>> noisy
>>>>>>>>> photographs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has email made the facts obsolete?
>>>>>
>>>>> No! The Mayan calendar has.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then we no longer exist and nothing matters
>>>
>>> So you too can see into the future?
>>> I have a similar take on that sort of thing when the clock finally winds
>>> down.
>>>
>>
>> No! Into the past. It already happened. This group is but a figment of
>> my imagination, since nothing exists anymore. (if it ever did.)
>
> ...however, since the existence of this group is dependent on your
> imagination, we are able to ascertain that your imagination and its
> related figments exist.
> In the future neither of us, and your imagination will exist. As a
> result the Usenet photogroups will be gone never to reappear in that
> figment of your imagination.
>

Unless I continue it after my reincarnation.

--
PeterN

On 1/13/2013 8:48 PM, Savageduck wrote:
> On 2013-01-13 17:32:10 -0800, Peter <> said:
>
>> On 1/13/2013 6:09 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2013-01-13 15:01:44 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>
>>>> On 1/12/2013 2:31 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>> On 2013-01-12 10:44:59 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/11/2013 1:25 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 10:18:57 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/11/2013 1:07 PM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 09:30:02 -0800, Peter <> said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 1/11/2013 10:38 AM, Savageduck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2013-01-11 07:24:26 -0800, Peter <>
>>>>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>
>>>>> << Le Snip >>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> True. I was too focused on other issues, that I didn't think.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So, betting on the ponies can disrupt your thinking, leading to
>>>>>>>>>>> noisy
>>>>>>>>>>> photographs.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now you sound like a cop, questioning a suspect!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just the facts ma... ...er, sir.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has email made the facts obsolete?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No! The Mayan calendar has.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then we no longer exist and nothing matters
>>>>>
>>>>> So you too can see into the future?
>>>>> I have a similar take on that sort of thing when the clock finally
>>>>> winds
>>>>> down.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No! Into the past. It already happened. This group is but a figment of
>>>> my imagination, since nothing exists anymore. (if it ever did.)
>>>
>>> ...however, since the existence of this group is dependent on your
>>> imagination, we are able to ascertain that your imagination and its
>>> related figments exist.
>>> In the future neither of us, and your imagination will exist. As a
>>> result the Usenet photogroups will be gone never to reappear in that
>>> figment of your imagination.
>>>
>>
>> Unless I continue it after my reincarnation.
>
> So, you are a Buddhist-Christian then?
>

No! A Descatian: (Cogito ergo sum )

--
PeterN