Nora

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Sandman, Aug 18, 2013.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Blog post:
    <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Nora12?lang=en>


    My and my family went to the small town of Nora, Sweden to go on a
    real steam train. Very beautiful!

    Machinery
    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201279.jpg>
    NIKON D3S, 50.0 mm, f/1.4, 1/1000 sec., ISO 200




    Steam
    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201280.jpg>
    NIKON D3S, 50.0 mm, f/1.4, 1/6400 sec., ISO 200




    Old timer
    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201281.jpg>
    NIKON D3S, 28.0 mm, f/2.5, 1/1000 sec., ISO 320




    Fountain
    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201282.jpg>
    NIKON D3S, 120.0 mm, f/4.0, 1/1600 sec., ISO 320




    Water drops
    <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201283.jpg>
    NIKON D3S, 120.0 mm, f/4.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 1000






    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 18, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sandman

    Robert Coe Guest

    On 18 Aug 2013 13:03:57 GMT, Sandman <> wrote:
    : Blog post:
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Nora12?lang=en>
    :
    :
    : My and my family went to the small town of Nora, Sweden to go on a
    : real steam train. Very beautiful!
    :
    : Machinery
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201279.jpg>
    : NIKON D3S, 50.0 mm, f/1.4, 1/1000 sec., ISO 200
    :
    :
    :
    :
    : Steam
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201280.jpg>
    : NIKON D3S, 50.0 mm, f/1.4, 1/6400 sec., ISO 200
    :
    :
    :
    :
    : Old timer
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201281.jpg>
    : NIKON D3S, 28.0 mm, f/2.5, 1/1000 sec., ISO 320
    :
    :
    :
    :
    : Fountain
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201282.jpg>
    : NIKON D3S, 120.0 mm, f/4.0, 1/1600 sec., ISO 320
    :
    :
    :
    :
    : Water drops
    : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201283.jpg>
    : NIKON D3S, 120.0 mm, f/4.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 1000

    Nice shots. I'm a little puzzled, though, by your insistence on such wide
    apertures at the inevitable cost in depth of field. (You certainly had plenty
    of latitude in the shutter speed.) This is particularly noticeable in the
    first picture, where the manufacturer's nameplate could have been sharper.

    In the fourth picture I might have tried to show a little more of the fountain
    at which the girl was looking. But I guess it would have resulted in an
    awkwardly wide image.

    Note that I've not criticized the blown-highlight background in the third
    picture. Somebody probably will, but I won't. ;^)

    Bob
    Robert Coe, Aug 18, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Sandman

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Sun, 18 Aug 2013 17:06:47 -0400, Robert Coe <> wrote:

    >On 18 Aug 2013 13:03:57 GMT, Sandman <> wrote:
    >: Blog post:
    >: <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Nora12?lang=en>
    >:
    >:
    >: My and my family went to the small town of Nora, Sweden to go on a
    >: real steam train. Very beautiful!
    >:
    >: Machinery
    >: <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201279.jpg>
    >: NIKON D3S, 50.0 mm, f/1.4, 1/1000 sec., ISO 200
    >:
    >:
    >:
    >:
    >: Steam
    >: <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201280.jpg>
    >: NIKON D3S, 50.0 mm, f/1.4, 1/6400 sec., ISO 200
    >:
    >:
    >:
    >:
    >: Old timer
    >: <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201281.jpg>
    >: NIKON D3S, 28.0 mm, f/2.5, 1/1000 sec., ISO 320
    >:
    >:
    >:
    >:
    >: Fountain
    >: <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201282.jpg>
    >: NIKON D3S, 120.0 mm, f/4.0, 1/1600 sec., ISO 320
    >:
    >:
    >:
    >:
    >: Water drops
    >: <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201283.jpg>
    >: NIKON D3S, 120.0 mm, f/4.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 1000
    >
    >Nice shots. I'm a little puzzled, though, by your insistence on such wide
    >apertures at the inevitable cost in depth of field. (You certainly had plenty
    >of latitude in the shutter speed.) This is particularly noticeable in the
    >first picture, where the manufacturer's nameplate could have been sharper.
    >
    >In the fourth picture I might have tried to show a little more of the fountain
    >at which the girl was looking. But I guess it would have resulted in an
    >awkwardly wide image.


    Agreed. It's a difficult choice, though. I'd want the water drops to
    show what the girl is looking at, but there's not enough of the statue
    in the image.

    >Note that I've not criticized the blown-highlight background in the third
    >picture. Somebody probably will, but I won't. ;^)
    >

    The top of that image really detracts because the lower part of the
    image is good. The smoke from the front of the engine is weird. The
    problem with the image is that the top left wedge demands attention
    and takes it away from what is good.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Aug 19, 2013
    #3
  4. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Robert Coe <> wrote:

    > : Machinery
    > : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201279.jpg>
    > : NIKON D3S, 50.0 mm, f/1.4, 1/1000 sec., ISO 200
    > :
    > : Steam
    > : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201280.jpg>
    > : NIKON D3S, 50.0 mm, f/1.4, 1/6400 sec., ISO 200
    > :
    > : Old timer
    > : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201281.jpg>
    > : NIKON D3S, 28.0 mm, f/2.5, 1/1000 sec., ISO 320
    > :
    > : Fountain
    > : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201282.jpg>
    > : NIKON D3S, 120.0 mm, f/4.0, 1/1600 sec., ISO 320
    > :
    > : Water drops
    > : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201283.jpg>
    > : NIKON D3S, 120.0 mm, f/4.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 1000
    >
    > Nice shots. I'm a little puzzled, though, by your insistence on such wide
    > apertures at the inevitable cost in depth of field. (You certainly had plenty
    > of latitude in the shutter speed.) This is particularly noticeable in the
    > first picture, where the manufacturer's nameplate could have been sharper.


    I know what you mean. I am a sucker for short focal planes, and it
    sometimes gets ahead of me and I stick my aperture as large as possible
    and just adjust the shutter. I'm not that bothered with the nameplate
    myself, but I know lots of images I've taken where the short depth of
    field more or less ruined the shot.

    > In the fourth picture I might have tried to show a little more of the fountain
    > at which the girl was looking. But I guess it would have resulted in an
    > awkwardly wide image.


    I had a wider version of this, but it was neither here nor there. This
    one just felt better. :)

    > Note that I've not criticized the blown-highlight background in the third
    > picture. Somebody probably will, but I won't. ;^)


    Haha, yeah that sucked. I had this perfect shot of the engine from
    another angle, but it was out of focus... :/


    Thanks for your comments, though :)



    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 19, 2013
    #4
  5. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <2013081817052646882-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >> : Machinery
    > >> : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201279.jpg>
    > >> : NIKON D3S, 50.0 mm, f/1.4, 1/1000 sec., ISO 200
    > >> :
    > >> : Steam
    > >> : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201280.jpg>
    > >> : NIKON D3S, 50.0 mm, f/1.4, 1/6400 sec., ISO 200
    > >> :
    > >> : Old timer
    > >> : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201281.jpg>
    > >> : NIKON D3S, 28.0 mm, f/2.5, 1/1000 sec., ISO 320
    > >> :
    > >> : Fountain
    > >> : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201282.jpg>
    > >> : NIKON D3S, 120.0 mm, f/4.0, 1/1600 sec., ISO 320
    > >> :
    > >> : Water drops
    > >> : <http://jonaseklundh.se/aimg201283.jpg>
    > >> : NIKON D3S, 120.0 mm, f/4.0, 1/8000 sec., ISO 1000


    <snip>

    > Yup! I agree, nice shots with some issues. I know that Jonas favors
    > shooting manual exposure, and I don't think he got everything quite
    > right here.


    Certainly not. #1 is a good example. I'm not as bothered with it as Rob,
    but I can certainly understand and agree with his points. :)

    > I agree with Bob that for some of these the decision to shoot with wide
    > apertures was not the best of choices. I can see no need to have shot
    > the first one wide open. I would have wanted more defined detail, not
    > the shallow DoF shown. The same applies to #2, there seems to be little
    > point to the shallow DoF.


    Huh, yeah maybe. I felt that the DOF separated the train slightly form
    the background, but maybe not enough. Maybe it becomes a strange middle
    way that's not working as clearly as it could.

    > #3 is a great shot with the exception of the blown upper left. The DoF
    > is much better with this shot as he didn't push the lens wide open to
    > f/1.8, but here going to f/4-/f6.3 might have been better. Otherwise,
    > here is where an ND Grad would have been nice to have handy.


    Indeed. But the horizon is hidden far behind and the grad would have
    probably affected the engine as well, don't you think? ND grad's are so
    cumbersome to work with as well (at least on a casual family trip as
    this one). I've never seen a circular one that would fit on the lens
    directly, so I haven't used them much. I usually go with a polarizing
    filter, but that's not exactly the same effect.

    > #4 is a great capture with compositional needs. It needs to either show
    > the full context of the fountain, or it needs to be cropped to isolate
    > the girl. As it is one asks, is it a shot of the fountain, the girl
    > relative to the entire fountain, or just the girl. In my mind the girl
    > is the subject, so make her the subject.


    Well, tastes differ I suppose. I dislike putting subject in the center,
    especially people. While I can certainly agree that the composition
    could be improved, I rarely end up improving it by centering more on one
    specific thing. Showing more of the fountain would have been good,
    though.

    > #5 seems to be just an exercise shot. The water drops have been
    > captured, but I am not particularly taken with this shot.


    :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 19, 2013
    #5
  6. Sandman

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Sunday, 18 August 2013 14:03:57 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
    > Blog post:
    >
    > <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Nora12?lang=en>
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > My and my family went to the small town of Nora, Sweden to go on a
    >
    > real steam train. Very beautiful!


    Surely it should be, My family and I.................

    Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the queen do ;-)
    Whisky-dave, Aug 19, 2013
    #6
  7. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    Whisky-dave <> wrote:

    > On Sunday, 18 August 2013 14:03:57 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
    > > Blog post:
    > >
    > > <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Nora12?lang=en>
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > My and my family went to the small town of Nora, Sweden to go on a
    > >
    > > real steam train. Very beautiful!

    >
    > Surely it should be, My family and I.................
    >
    > Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the queen do
    > ;-)


    Haha, drunk Dave tries to make a spelling flame! That's HILARIOUS!

    And, as usual when making a spelling flame, you messed up the grammar:

    "like what me and the queen do".

    Ironic. :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 19, 2013
    #7
  8. Sandman

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 15:10:53 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sunday, 18 August 2013 14:03:57 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
    >> > Blog post:
    >> >
    >> > <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Nora12?lang=en>
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > My and my family went to the small town of Nora, Sweden to go on a
    >> >
    >> > real steam train. Very beautiful!

    >>
    >> Surely it should be, My family and I.................
    >>
    >> Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the queen do
    >> ;-)

    >
    >Haha, drunk Dave tries to make a spelling flame! That's HILARIOUS!
    >
    >And, as usual when making a spelling flame, you messed up the grammar:
    >
    > "like what me and the queen do".
    >
    >Ironic. :)


    We need to export some irony meters to Sweden.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Aug 19, 2013
    #8
  9. Sandman

    sid Guest

    Sandman wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Whisky-dave <> wrote:


    >> >
    >> > My and my family went to the small town of Nora, Sweden to go on a
    >> >
    >> > real steam train. Very beautiful!

    >>
    >> Surely it should be, My family and I.................
    >>
    >> Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the queen
    >> do ;-)

    >
    > Haha, drunk Dave tries to make a spelling flame! That's HILARIOUS!
    >
    > And, as usual when making a spelling flame, you messed up the grammar:
    >
    > "like what me and the queen do".
    >
    > Ironic. :)


    The trouble with setting your self up as an English expert is that as a non
    native English speaker you just do not "get" the jist, not for the first
    time, of what is being said to you.
    For starters it was not a spelling flame but a grammar flame and secondly
    Dave wrote perfectly correctly for the meaning he was conveying.


    --
    sid
    sid, Aug 19, 2013
    #9
  10. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    sid <> wrote:

    > >> Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the queen
    > >> do ;-)

    > >
    > > Haha, drunk Dave tries to make a spelling flame! That's HILARIOUS!
    > >
    > > And, as usual when making a spelling flame, you messed up the grammar:
    > >
    > > "like what me and the queen do".
    > >
    > > Ironic. :)

    >
    > The trouble with setting your self up as an English expert is that as a non
    > native English speaker you just do not "get" the jist, not for the first
    > time, of what is being said to you.
    > For starters it was not a spelling flame but a grammar flame and secondly
    > Dave wrote perfectly correctly for the meaning he was conveying.


    Not only have I set myself up as an "expert" of anything, but you're
    also incorrect. Removing non-qualifying parts of the sentence:

    "you don't speak English like what I do"

    Is not a properly formatted English sentence. "What" is a relative
    pronoun here that does not relate to anything else in the sentence as
    constructed. "Speak" is a verb, and is referenced with an adverb, like
    "how".

    "you don't speak English like I do"
    "you don't speak English how I do"
    "you don't speak English the way I do"

    Are all correct. And thus the correct version would be:

    "You don't speak proper English like me and the Queen"

    No adverb or pronoun is even needed. But if you insist:

    "You don't speak proper English like how me and the Queen does it"

    Also note the punctuation and capitalisation:

    Drunk Dave:
    "Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the
    queen do"

    Actual English:
    "Nice pics. Pity you don't speak proper English like me and the
    Queen"

    I'm not an expert, but I'm not stupid either. There is a middle road :)



    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 19, 2013
    #10
  11. Sandman

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 18:26:35 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

    >In article <>,
    > sid <> wrote:
    >
    >> >> Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the queen
    >> >> do ;-)
    >> >
    >> > Haha, drunk Dave tries to make a spelling flame! That's HILARIOUS!
    >> >
    >> > And, as usual when making a spelling flame, you messed up the grammar:
    >> >
    >> > "like what me and the queen do".
    >> >
    >> > Ironic. :)

    >>
    >> The trouble with setting your self up as an English expert is that as a non
    >> native English speaker you just do not "get" the jist, not for the first
    >> time, of what is being said to you.
    >> For starters it was not a spelling flame but a grammar flame and secondly
    >> Dave wrote perfectly correctly for the meaning he was conveying.

    >
    >Not only have I set myself up as an "expert" of anything, but you're
    >also incorrect. Removing non-qualifying parts of the sentence:
    >
    > "you don't speak English like what I do"
    >
    >Is not a properly formatted English sentence. "What" is a relative
    >pronoun here that does not relate to anything else in the sentence as
    >constructed. "Speak" is a verb, and is referenced with an adverb, like
    >"how".
    >
    > "you don't speak English like I do"
    > "you don't speak English how I do"
    > "you don't speak English the way I do"
    >
    >Are all correct. And thus the correct version would be:
    >
    > "You don't speak proper English like me and the Queen"
    >
    >No adverb or pronoun is even needed. But if you insist:
    >
    > "You don't speak proper English like how me and the Queen does it"


    My God. "Like how"? "Like me"? "Does it"?

    "Like", in that context, is acceptable only in very informal speech.
    "As" would be used in "proper" English.

    What I would insist on is "You don't speak proper English as the Queen
    and I do". Some might dislike "do" at the end of the sentence, but
    I've never liked "as do the Queen and I". It sounds pompous.

    The use of "me" or "I" is easily determined by dropping the words "and
    the Queen".
    >
    >Also note the punctuation and capitalisation:
    >
    > Drunk Dave:
    > "Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the
    > queen do"
    >
    > Actual English:
    > "Nice pics. Pity you don't speak proper English like me and the
    > Queen"


    If you are going to be that informal and use "pics", then a comma
    instead of a full stop and lowercase "pity" is OK. Normally, we put
    the Queen first and make that "the Queen and I".


    >I'm not an expert, but I'm not stupid either. There is a middle road :)


    He still doesn't "get it". Nohow. The sentence was written as
    sarcastic commentary with the structure and grammar fully intended as
    it appears.
    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Aug 19, 2013
    #11
  12. On Monday, 19 August 2013 17:45:08 UTC+1, Tony Cooper wrote:

    > He still doesn't "get it". Nohow. The sentence was written as
    > sarcastic commentary with the structure and grammar fully intended as
    > it appears.


    Usenet is the perfect medium for international mis-communication.
    pensive hamster, Aug 19, 2013
    #12
  13. On Monday, 19 August 2013 14:10:53 UTC+1, Sandman wrote:
    [...]
    > > > <http://jonaseklundh.se/pages/Nora12?lang=en>


    > > > My and my family went to the small town of Nora, Sweden to go on a
    > > > real steam train. Very beautiful!

    > >
    > > Surely it should be, My family and I.................
    > >
    > > Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the queen do
    > > ;-)

    >
    > Haha, drunk Dave tries to make a spelling flame! That's HILARIOUS!
    >
    > And, as usual when making a spelling flame, you messed up the grammar:
    >
    > "like what me and the queen do".
    >
    > Ironic. :)


    Its not a spelling flame.

    He's taking the mickey out of the UK Queen, who quite often
    says, in official speeches,'My family and I ...' or 'My husband and I ...'
    and contrasting it with (a stereotype) of lower class speech, which
    would be something like 'like wot me and the missus does'.

    Call us class-obsessed if you like, but spelling flamers, never!
    pensive hamster, Aug 19, 2013
    #13
  14. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <201308190941196752-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >>>> Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the queen
    > >>>> do ;-)
    > >>>
    > >>> Haha, drunk Dave tries to make a spelling flame! That's HILARIOUS!
    > >>>
    > >>> And, as usual when making a spelling flame, you messed up the grammar:
    > >>>
    > >>> "like what me and the queen do".
    > >>>
    > >>> Ironic. :)
    > >>
    > >> The trouble with setting your self up as an English expert is that as a non
    > >> native English speaker you just do not "get" the jist, not for the first
    > >> time, of what is being said to you.
    > >> For starters it was not a spelling flame but a grammar flame and secondly
    > >> Dave wrote perfectly correctly for the meaning he was conveying.

    > >
    > > Not only have I set myself up as an "expert" of anything, but you're
    > > also incorrect. Removing non-qualifying parts of the sentence:
    > >
    > > "you don't speak English like what I do"
    > >
    > > Is not a properly formatted English sentence. "What" is a relative
    > > pronoun here that does not relate to anything else in the sentence as
    > > constructed. "Speak" is a verb, and is referenced with an adverb, like
    > > "how".
    > >
    > > "you don't speak English like I do"
    > > "you don't speak English how I do"
    > > "you don't speak English the way I do"
    > >
    > > Are all correct. And thus the correct version would be:
    > >
    > > "You don't speak proper English like me and the Queen"
    > >
    > > No adverb or pronoun is even needed. But if you insist:
    > >
    > > "You don't speak proper English like how me and the Queen does it"
    > >
    > > Also note the punctuation and capitalisation:
    > >
    > > Drunk Dave:
    > > "Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the
    > > queen do"
    > >
    > > Actual English:
    > > "Nice pics. Pity you don't speak proper English like me and the
    > > Queen"
    > >
    > > I'm not an expert, but I'm not stupid either. There is a middle road :)

    >
    > That was an obvious joke and play on words by Dave.
    > ...and what is obvious is you didn't get the joke.


    Uh, Drunk Dave can't write a proper English sentence to save his life.
    Surely you've read his posts? They are a mess, and you need some form of
    decoding key in order to understand them.

    The spelling and grammar mistakes he makes are NOT intentional, or he
    does it in every single post he ever makes.

    I sincerely think he's drunk when he posts. :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 19, 2013
    #14
  15. Sandman

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 19:31:51 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

    >In article <201308190941196752-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> >>>> Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the queen
    >> >>>> do ;-)
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Haha, drunk Dave tries to make a spelling flame! That's HILARIOUS!
    >> >>>
    >> >>> And, as usual when making a spelling flame, you messed up the grammar:
    >> >>>
    >> >>> "like what me and the queen do".
    >> >>>
    >> >>> Ironic. :)
    >> >>
    >> >> The trouble with setting your self up as an English expert is that as a non
    >> >> native English speaker you just do not "get" the jist, not for the first
    >> >> time, of what is being said to you.
    >> >> For starters it was not a spelling flame but a grammar flame and secondly
    >> >> Dave wrote perfectly correctly for the meaning he was conveying.
    >> >
    >> > Not only have I set myself up as an "expert" of anything, but you're
    >> > also incorrect. Removing non-qualifying parts of the sentence:
    >> >
    >> > "you don't speak English like what I do"
    >> >
    >> > Is not a properly formatted English sentence. "What" is a relative
    >> > pronoun here that does not relate to anything else in the sentence as
    >> > constructed. "Speak" is a verb, and is referenced with an adverb, like
    >> > "how".
    >> >
    >> > "you don't speak English like I do"
    >> > "you don't speak English how I do"
    >> > "you don't speak English the way I do"
    >> >
    >> > Are all correct. And thus the correct version would be:
    >> >
    >> > "You don't speak proper English like me and the Queen"
    >> >
    >> > No adverb or pronoun is even needed. But if you insist:
    >> >
    >> > "You don't speak proper English like how me and the Queen does it"
    >> >
    >> > Also note the punctuation and capitalisation:
    >> >
    >> > Drunk Dave:
    >> > "Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the
    >> > queen do"
    >> >
    >> > Actual English:
    >> > "Nice pics. Pity you don't speak proper English like me and the
    >> > Queen"
    >> >
    >> > I'm not an expert, but I'm not stupid either. There is a middle road :)

    >>
    >> That was an obvious joke and play on words by Dave.
    >> ...and what is obvious is you didn't get the joke.

    >
    >Uh, Drunk Dave can't write a proper English sentence to save his life.
    >Surely you've read his posts? They are a mess, and you need some form of
    >decoding key in order to understand them.
    >
    >The spelling and grammar mistakes he makes are NOT intentional, or he
    >does it in every single post he ever makes.
    >
    >I sincerely think he's drunk when he posts. :)


    We've been edumacated. While Dave does make mistakes, this was
    obviously not one of them. Jonas' "corrections", though, were rife
    with errors.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Aug 19, 2013
    #15
  16. Sandman

    sid Guest

    Sandman wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > sid <> wrote:
    >
    >> >> Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the
    >> >> queen do ;-)
    >> >
    >> > Haha, drunk Dave tries to make a spelling flame! That's HILARIOUS!
    >> >
    >> > And, as usual when making a spelling flame, you messed up the grammar:
    >> >
    >> > "like what me and the queen do".
    >> >
    >> > Ironic. :)

    >>
    >> The trouble with setting your self up as an English expert is that as a
    >> non native English speaker you just do not "get" the jist, not for the
    >> first time, of what is being said to you.
    >> For starters it was not a spelling flame but a grammar flame and secondly
    >> Dave wrote perfectly correctly for the meaning he was conveying.

    >
    > Not only have I set myself up as an "expert" of anything, but you're
    > also incorrect. Removing non-qualifying parts of the sentence:
    >
    > "you don't speak English like what I do"
    >
    > Is not a properly formatted English sentence. "What" is a relative
    > pronoun here that does not relate to anything else in the sentence as
    > constructed. "Speak" is a verb, and is referenced with an adverb, like
    > "how".
    >
    > "you don't speak English like I do"
    > "you don't speak English how I do"
    > "you don't speak English the way I do"
    >
    > Are all correct. And thus the correct version would be:
    >
    > "You don't speak proper English like me and the Queen"
    >
    > No adverb or pronoun is even needed. But if you insist:
    >
    > "You don't speak proper English like how me and the Queen does it"
    >
    > Also note the punctuation and capitalisation:
    >
    > Drunk Dave:
    > "Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the
    > queen do"
    >
    > Actual English:
    > "Nice pics. Pity you don't speak proper English like me and the
    > Queen"
    >
    > I'm not an expert, but I'm not stupid either. There is a middle road :)


    See, you're doing it again. Preaching to the converted. I am, as is Dave, a
    native English speaker. I'm telling you that you has misinterpreted Daves
    post. It is a joke sentance. It is meant to be gramatically incorrect. Face
    facts for once and admit you didn't see the joke and stop trying to explain
    to poeple what it is they mean when they write something you don't
    understand.

    --
    sid
    sid, Aug 19, 2013
    #16
  17. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <2013081911354330337-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > > The spelling and grammar mistakes he makes are NOT intentional, or he
    > > does it in every single post he ever makes.

    >
    > To anybody who has read his posts that is obvious. However, in the case
    > of the post under discussion, his play on words, sending up upper class
    > sensitivities was on target and not intended to be taken seriously.
    > This was obvious to any English speaker grasping the context of what he
    > wrote.


    Content perhaps, not context. The context was what I wrote.

    Even if he intentionally made a joke (which I *highly* doubt given his
    poor spelling and grammar record), that doesn't change the very fact
    that the sentence is grammatically invalid, even if intentional, which I
    correctly pointed out.

    > It was written with humor, and it is obvious that you didn't get the
    > joke then, and don't get it now.


    Me not getting a supposed joke doesn't make the sentence valid, however.
    Anyone making a grammar flame while at the same time misusing grammar,
    intentional or not, sort of nukes themselves.

    All the humor in the world can't make me feel bad for laughing at this
    sentence from drunk Dave:

    "Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the
    queen do"

    Even if considering the expression "what me and the missus do", it still
    isn't even properly adapted to this context. Even Pensive Hamster
    agrees, when he tried to retcon his quote:

    "He's taking the mickey out of the UK Queen, who quite often
    says, in official speeches,'My family and I ...' or 'My husband and
    I ...' and contrasting it with (a stereotype) of lower class
    speech, which would be something like 'like wot me and the missus
    does'."

    Here's the difference, for comparison:

    "Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the
    queen do"

    "like wot me and the missus does"

    The Hamster choose not to put his quote in the same context because,
    well, he can't. It's grammatically broken.

    I have no problem with being wrong, or even missing a specific reference
    if that was the case. But as you can probably see by now, that doesn't
    help drunk Dave :)


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 19, 2013
    #17
  18. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    In article <>,
    sid <> wrote:

    > > Also note the punctuation and capitalisation:
    > >
    > > Drunk Dave:
    > > "Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the
    > > queen do"
    > >
    > > Actual English:
    > > "Nice pics. Pity you don't speak proper English like me and the
    > > Queen"
    > >
    > > I'm not an expert, but I'm not stupid either. There is a middle road :)

    >
    > See, you're doing it again. Preaching to the converted. I am, as is Dave, a
    > native English speaker.


    So it should be clear to you that even considering the *possibility*
    that Dave could actually conjure up an actual joke in his post, it is
    still incorrectly written and ironically ridden with grammatical and
    structural errors when writing it as a grammar flame.

    For the record, the supposed missed reference here (the "like what me
    and the X does" quote) is somehow completely lost to the internet. I
    have no problem having missed a cultural reference (not even sure if I
    could, Dave seems to be posting from the US, so any UK cultural
    references should be off the radar anyway), I'm beginning to get some
    doubts about the veracity of this as a cultural reference.

    Not calling Pensive Hamster a liar, but it would be nice to get some
    form of context for the supposed reference, where this butchered English
    makes sense:

    "pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the queen do"

    And doesn't use "does" as Pensive Hamster had to do in his quote of the
    presumed reference. See - even when using cultural expressions, some
    basic rules often apply.


    --
    Sandman[.net]
    Sandman, Aug 19, 2013
    #18
  19. Sandman

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:39:40 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

    >In article <2013081911354330337-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >> > The spelling and grammar mistakes he makes are NOT intentional, or he
    >> > does it in every single post he ever makes.

    >>
    >> To anybody who has read his posts that is obvious. However, in the case
    >> of the post under discussion, his play on words, sending up upper class
    >> sensitivities was on target and not intended to be taken seriously.
    >> This was obvious to any English speaker grasping the context of what he
    >> wrote.

    >
    >Content perhaps, not context. The context was what I wrote.
    >
    >Even if he intentionally made a joke (which I *highly* doubt given his
    >poor spelling and grammar record), that doesn't change the very fact
    >that the sentence is grammatically invalid, even if intentional, which I
    >correctly pointed out.
    >
    >> It was written with humor, and it is obvious that you didn't get the
    >> joke then, and don't get it now.

    >
    >Me not getting a supposed joke doesn't make the sentence valid, however.
    >Anyone making a grammar flame while at the same time misusing grammar,
    >intentional or not, sort of nukes themselves.
    >
    >All the humor in the world can't make me feel bad for laughing at this
    >sentence from drunk Dave:
    >
    > "Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the
    > queen do"
    >
    >Even if considering the expression "what me and the missus do", it still
    >isn't even properly adapted to this context. Even Pensive Hamster
    >agrees, when he tried to retcon his quote:
    >
    > "He's taking the mickey out of the UK Queen, who quite often
    > says, in official speeches,'My family and I ...' or 'My husband and
    > I ...' and contrasting it with (a stereotype) of lower class
    > speech, which would be something like 'like wot me and the missus
    > does'."
    >
    >Here's the difference, for comparison:
    >
    > "Nice pics pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the
    > queen do"
    >
    > "like wot me and the missus does"
    >
    >The Hamster choose not to put his quote in the same context because,
    >well, he can't. It's grammatically broken.
    >
    >I have no problem with being wrong, or even missing a specific reference
    >if that was the case. But as you can probably see by now, that doesn't
    >help drunk Dave :)


    He's nearing China now with the depth of that hole he's digging.

    He wants a parody sentence to be grammatically correct, but corrects
    it ungrammatically. His errors were unintentional, but Dave's were
    intentional.

    The parody is *in* the errors.

    For Jonas to miss the intent is no big deal. Non-native speakers
    often miss things like this. His defense, though, is laughable. He
    doesn't admit to error, and conditions his response with "highly
    doubt" and "if".

    Even here, in his latest post, he uses "choose" for "chose" and then
    says Dave is the one writing broken sentences.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Aug 19, 2013
    #19
  20. Sandman

    Tony Cooper Guest

    On Mon, 19 Aug 2013 22:53:36 +0200, Sandman <> wrote:

    >
    >For the record, the supposed missed reference here (the "like what me
    >and the X does" quote) is somehow completely lost to the internet. I
    >have no problem having missed a cultural reference (not even sure if I
    >could, Dave seems to be posting from the US, so any UK cultural
    >references should be off the radar anyway), I'm beginning to get some
    >doubts about the veracity of this as a cultural reference.
    >
    >Not calling Pensive Hamster a liar, but it would be nice to get some
    >form of context for the supposed reference, where this butchered English
    >makes sense:
    >
    > "pity you don't speak proper english like what me and the queen do"
    >
    >And doesn't use "does" as Pensive Hamster had to do in his quote of the
    >presumed reference. See - even when using cultural expressions, some
    >basic rules often apply.


    Jonas' ability to research is evidently not all that great. Dave's
    posts have contained British spelling conventions (colour), comments
    that he spent (x)£s buying a printer, and references to the
    "never-never" and "hire purchase". It doesn't take a genius to
    suspect that he is not posting from the US and he is fully aware of UK
    cultural references.

    Just another shovel full of dirt from the hole Jonas is digging.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando FL
    Tony Cooper, Aug 19, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.

Share This Page