Re: P&S sellers getting desperate

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rich, Aug 15, 2009.

  1. Rich

    Rich Guest

    wrote:
    > On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:05:18 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >
    > >Wrongly spec'd is how I'd describe both these cameras. First one, with a
    > >huge high rez LCD, yet a dogcrap 1/2.33 sensor. Second one, seems to show
    > >the face of the typical P&S user on the front of it. Desperate times...
    > >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081303samsungst1000.asp
    > >
    > >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081302samsungst550st500.asp

    >
    > Desperate? ....
    >
    > The only thing I see desperate is someone who feels the need
    > to attack a purchase or preference in order to self justify their
    > own purchase or preference.
    >
    > Sounds to me like someone has some issues they need to deal with.


    I don't think anyone has to attack a P&S to justify using a DSLR, they
    are so far apart there is no reason to compare them directly. P&S's
    for the most part now are marketed to a group who...don't really care
    about image quality, the kind for whom the first recourse to take
    images is their camera phone. Which is why the P&S market will and is
    dying.
     
    Rich, Aug 15, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 01:41:05 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    > wrote:
    >> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 13:05:18 -0500, Rich <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Wrongly spec'd is how I'd describe both these cameras. First one, with a
    >> >huge high rez LCD, yet a dogcrap 1/2.33 sensor. Second one, seems to show
    >> >the face of the typical P&S user on the front of it. Desperate times...
    >> >
    >> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081303samsungst1000.asp
    >> >
    >> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081302samsungst550st500.asp

    >>
    >> Desperate? ....
    >>
    >> The only thing I see desperate is someone who feels the need
    >> to attack a purchase or preference in order to self justify their
    >> own purchase or preference.
    >>
    >> Sounds to me like someone has some issues they need to deal with.

    >
    >I don't think anyone has to attack a P&S to justify using a DSLR, they
    >are so far apart there is no reason to compare them directly. P&S's
    >for the most part now are marketed to a group who...don't really care
    >about image quality, the kind for whom the first recourse to take
    >images is their camera phone. Which is why the P&S market will and is
    >dying.


    You mean how a P&S camera even rivals the image quality from a
    medium-format Hasselblad, something that no DLSR can even begin to hope to
    do?

    http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

    Like that?

    Or how about a super-zoom P&S camera that easily surpasses a simple to make
    3x zoom lens on a contemporary DSLR in resolution and CA performance.

    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml

    Like that?
     
    Rich - Quit Trolling With Your Blatant Ignorance, Aug 15, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    > wrote:


    >> The only thing I see desperate is someone who feels the need
    >> to attack a purchase or preference in order to self justify their
    >> own purchase or preference.
    >>
    >> Sounds to me like someone has some issues they need to deal with.

    >
    >I don't think anyone has to attack a P&S to justify using a DSLR, they
    >are so far apart there is no reason to compare them directly. P&S's
    >for the most part now are marketed to a group who...don't really care
    >about image quality, the kind for whom the first recourse to take
    >images is their camera phone.


    Of course, you're also in that category, since you really don't care
    about image quality, preferring instead a much cheaper and smaller
    sensor than that available on a medium-format dSLR.

    > Which is why the P&S market will and is
    >dying.


    You're an idiot if you believe that.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Aug 15, 2009
    #3
  4. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich - Quit Trolling With Your Blatant Ignorance <> wrote:
    >You mean how a P&S camera even rivals the image quality from a
    >medium-format Hasselblad,


    Lay off the drugs, troll.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Aug 15, 2009
    #4
  5. Rich

    Twibil Guest

    On Aug 15, 2:36 am, Rich - Quit Trolling With Your Blatant Ignorance
    <> wrote:
    >
    > You mean how a P&S camera even rivals the image quality from a
    > medium-format Hasselblad,


    Yes, in the same sense that a flea "rivals" an elephant.

    (Hint: "rivals" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.)
     
    Twibil, Aug 16, 2009
    #5
  6. Rich

    Rich Guest

    Ray Fischer wrote:
    > Rich <> wrote:
    > > wrote:

    >
    > >> The only thing I see desperate is someone who feels the need
    > >> to attack a purchase or preference in order to self justify their
    > >> own purchase or preference.
    > >>
    > >> Sounds to me like someone has some issues they need to deal with.

    > >
    > >I don't think anyone has to attack a P&S to justify using a DSLR, they
    > >are so far apart there is no reason to compare them directly. P&S's
    > >for the most part now are marketed to a group who...don't really care
    > >about image quality, the kind for whom the first recourse to take
    > >images is their camera phone.

    >
    > Of course, you're also in that category, since you really don't care
    > about image quality, preferring instead a much cheaper and smaller
    > sensor than that available on a medium-format dSLR.
    >
    > > Which is why the P&S market will and is
    > >dying.

    >
    > You're an idiot if you believe that.
    >
    > --
    > Ray Fischer
    >


    Camera phones will kill P&S's at some point.
     
    Rich, Aug 16, 2009
    #6
  7. Rich

    Jim...(8-| Guest

    On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:20:24 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
    <> wrote:

    >On Aug 15, 2:36 am, Rich - Quit Trolling With Your Blatant Ignorance
    ><> wrote:
    >>
    >> You mean how a P&S camera even rivals the image quality from a
    >> medium-format Hasselblad,

    >
    >Yes, in the same sense that a flea "rivals" an elephant.
    >
    >(Hint: "rivals" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.)


    Maybe you'd better explain then as I and i'm sure others too are
    baffled.
    That luminance website shows two virtually identical photos side by
    side, one made by a lowly P&S and the other by a camera costing as
    much as a mortgage.
    We all know the law of physics will result in better low light
    performance with a larger sensor but how much of what is said here is
    just badge engineering like the car world uses to have people believe
    a Ferrari is a better car than a Hyundai.
     
    Jim...(8-|, Aug 16, 2009
    #7
  8. Rich

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >Ray Fischer wrote:
    >> Rich <> wrote:
    >> > wrote:


    >> >> The only thing I see desperate is someone who feels the need
    >> >> to attack a purchase or preference in order to self justify their
    >> >> own purchase or preference.
    >> >>
    >> >> Sounds to me like someone has some issues they need to deal with.
    >> >
    >> >I don't think anyone has to attack a P&S to justify using a DSLR, they
    >> >are so far apart there is no reason to compare them directly. P&S's
    >> >for the most part now are marketed to a group who...don't really care
    >> >about image quality, the kind for whom the first recourse to take
    >> >images is their camera phone.

    >>
    >> Of course, you're also in that category, since you really don't care
    >> about image quality, preferring instead a much cheaper and smaller
    >> sensor than that available on a medium-format dSLR.
    >>
    >> > Which is why the P&S market will and is
    >> >dying.

    >>
    >> You're an idiot if you believe that.

    >
    >Camera phones will kill P&S's at some point.


    After all, how hard can it be to fit a flash and a zoom lens into a
    small cell phone?

    And yes, that is sarcasm.

    --
    Ray Fischer
     
    Ray Fischer, Aug 16, 2009
    #8
  9. "Jim...(8-| " <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:20:24 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
    > <> wrote:


    >>On Aug 15, 2:36am, Rich - Quit Trolling With Your Blatant Ignorance
    >><> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> You mean how a P&S camera even rivals the image quality from a
    >>> medium-format Hasselblad,

    >>
    >>Yes, in the same sense that a flea "rivals" an elephant.
    >>
    >>(Hint: "rivals" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.)


    > Maybe you'd better explain then as I and i'm sure others too are
    > baffled.
    > That luminance website shows two virtually identical photos side by
    > side, one made by a lowly P&S and the other by a camera costing as
    > much as a mortgage.


    If you actually read that article you will find it explained. Clue:
    that article doesn't in fact show what most of those who love to cite
    it think it does. In this newsgroup it mostly shows that people don't
    bother to read what they cite :)

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 16, 2009
    #9
  10. Rich

    dj_nme Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <4a87abd7$0$1639$>, Ray Fischer
    > says...
    >> After all, how hard can it be to fit a flash and a zoom lens into a
    >> small cell phone?

    >
    > There are camera phones with a flash, but not with a zoom lens.



    There is always the add-on after-market one:
    http://mobile.brando.com/telescope_c0699d092?shop_by=category
    ;-)
     
    dj_nme, Aug 16, 2009
    #10
  11. Rich

    Twibil Guest

    On Aug 15, 11:19 pm, "Jim...(8-| " <> wrote:
    >
    > >> You mean how a P&S camera even rivals the image quality from a
    > >> medium-format Hasselblad,

    >
    > >Yes, in the same sense that a flea "rivals" an elephant.

    >
    > >(Hint: "rivals" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.)

    >
    > Maybe you'd better explain then as I and i'm sure others too are
    > baffled.


    Last year in the NFL, Detroit went 0 & 12 while Pittsburgh went 10 &
    2; yet they are "rivals" within the NFL. Both were competing for the
    Superbowl.

    "Rivals" is used by advertising wonks to mean "just as good as", when
    in fact all it really means is "competes with" with no implication of
    equality at all.

    > We all know the  law of physics will result in better low light
    > performance with a larger sensor but how much of what is said here is
    > just badge engineering like the car world uses to have people believe
    > a Ferrari is a better car than a Hyundai.


    I can help you with that, too. As a 65 year old guy who raced cars for
    a living for several years, and who still drives enthusiastically, I
    can state categorically that yes; Ferrari *does* build better cars
    than Hyundai.

    Not just *faster*, mind you; but "better".

    A *LOT* better.
     
    Twibil, Aug 16, 2009
    #11
  12. Rich

    Bob Larter Guest

    dj_nme wrote:
    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article <4a87abd7$0$1639$>, Ray Fischer says...
    >>> After all, how hard can it be to fit a flash and a zoom lens into a
    >>> small cell phone?

    >>
    >> There are camera phones with a flash, but not with a zoom lens.

    >
    >
    > There is always the add-on after-market one:
    > http://mobile.brando.com/telescope_c0699d092?shop_by=category
    > ;-)


    *boggle*

    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Bob Larter, Aug 17, 2009
    #12
  13. Rich

    Jim...(8-| Guest

    On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:45:49 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
    <> wrote:

    >On Aug 15, 11:19 pm, "Jim...(8-| " <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >> You mean how a P&S camera even rivals the image quality from a
    >> >> medium-format Hasselblad,

    >>
    >> >Yes, in the same sense that a flea "rivals" an elephant.

    >>
    >> >(Hint: "rivals" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.)

    >>
    >> Maybe you'd better explain then as I and i'm sure others too are
    >> baffled.

    >
    >Last year in the NFL, Detroit went 0 & 12 while Pittsburgh went 10 &
    >2; yet they are "rivals" within the NFL. Both were competing for the
    >Superbowl.
    >
    >"Rivals" is used by advertising wonks to mean "just as good as", when
    >in fact all it really means is "competes with" with no implication of
    >equality at all.


    Well I don't follow basketball at all but in any top competition any
    team can beat any other team.
    >
    >> We all know the  law of physics will result in better low light
    >> performance with a larger sensor but how much of what is said here is
    >> just badge engineering like the car world uses to have people believe
    >> a Ferrari is a better car than a Hyundai.

    >
    >I can help you with that, too. As a 65 year old guy who raced cars for
    >a living for several years, and who still drives enthusiastically, I
    >can state categorically that yes; Ferrari *does* build better cars
    >than Hyundai.
    >
    >Not just *faster*, mind you; but "better".
    >
    >A *LOT* better.


    What about it makes it better?
    Is it comfort?
    economy?
    reliability?
    prestige?
    performance?
    handling?

    Since road laws make the last two points almost totally meaningless I
    think there may be a parallel somewhere there with cameras.
     
    Jim...(8-|, Aug 17, 2009
    #13
  14. Rich

    Twibil Guest

    On Aug 16, 9:49 pm, "Jim...(8-| " <> wrote:
    >
    > >> We all know the  law of physics will result in better low light
    > >> performance with a larger sensor but how much of what is said here is
    > >> just badge engineering like the car world uses to have people believe
    > >> a Ferrari is a better car than a Hyundai.

    >
    > >I can help you with that, too. As a 65 year old guy who raced cars for
    > >a living for several years, and who still drives enthusiastically, I
    > >can state categorically that yes; Ferrari *does* build better cars
    > >than Hyundai.

    >
    > >Not just *faster*, mind you; but "better".

    >
    > >A *LOT* better.

    >
    > What about it makes it better?
    > Is it comfort?
    > economy?
    > reliability?
    > prestige?
    > performance?
    > handling?
    >
    > Since road laws make the last two points almost totally meaningless I
    > think there may be a parallel somewhere there with cameras.


    Son, nobody who's already decided that Hyundai builds cars that are
    just as good as Ferrari's, and thinks -as you do- that literally
    thousands of very knowledgeable car enthusiasts world-wide spend
    millions of dollars every year to buy Ferraris that are only "badge
    engineered" -and are really no better than a Hyundai- has a solid
    enough grip on reality to understand any explanation that might be
    proffered. (Or who, if he *did* understand them, would simply deny
    them anyway.)

    As well try to explain the merits of investment banking to someone who
    firmly believes that the pink fairy Snargfoodle is going to leave them
    a bag full of gold at any moment.
     
    Twibil, Aug 17, 2009
    #14
  15. On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:49:37 +1000, "Jim...(8-| " <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:45:49 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Aug 15, 11:19 pm, "Jim...(8-| " <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >> You mean how a P&S camera even rivals the image quality from a
    >>> >> medium-format Hasselblad,
    >>>
    >>> >Yes, in the same sense that a flea "rivals" an elephant.
    >>>
    >>> >(Hint: "rivals" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.)
    >>>
    >>> Maybe you'd better explain then as I and i'm sure others too are
    >>> baffled.

    >>
    >>Last year in the NFL, Detroit went 0 & 12 while Pittsburgh went 10 &
    >>2; yet they are "rivals" within the NFL. Both were competing for the
    >>Superbowl.
    >>
    >>"Rivals" is used by advertising wonks to mean "just as good as", when
    >>in fact all it really means is "competes with" with no implication of
    >>equality at all.

    >
    >Well I don't follow basketball at all but in any top competition any
    >team can beat any other team.
    >>
    >>> We all know the  law of physics will result in better low light
    >>> performance with a larger sensor but how much of what is said here is
    >>> just badge engineering like the car world uses to have people believe
    >>> a Ferrari is a better car than a Hyundai.

    >>
    >>I can help you with that, too. As a 65 year old guy who raced cars for
    >>a living for several years, and who still drives enthusiastically, I
    >>can state categorically that yes; Ferrari *does* build better cars
    >>than Hyundai.
    >>
    >>Not just *faster*, mind you; but "better".
    >>
    >>A *LOT* better.

    >
    >What about it makes it better?
    >Is it comfort?
    >economy?
    >reliability?
    >prestige?
    >performance?
    >handling?
    >
    >Since road laws make the last two points almost totally meaningless I
    >think there may be a parallel somewhere there with cameras.


    If you want to compare cars to dslr then you'll need a car where you have
    to change the tires (lens) every time that you want to drive a different
    speed, distance, area, or road.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then you'll have to run your car
    through a car-wash every time that you change tires because you most likely
    got dirt in the engine. If you don't, then you risk ruining your whole
    trip, not realizing it until you got back home and found out that your
    dirty engine destroyed everything you had to gather along the way that you
    thought you had safely stored in the trunk.

    If you want to compare cars to dslr then you'll have to keep your speed
    limit to under 25mph whenever you have to use headlights.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then you'll have to turn off your
    engine in any area deemed a "Quiet Zone". Or not enter those areas at all
    lest you be told to move your obnoxiously loud pile of junk, have your car
    confiscated, or be attacked by a dangerous animal that you drew to your
    attention thus ending your driving career altogether. There are thousands
    of "Quiet Zones" when it comes to cameras, far more than areas where you
    are allowed to operate your loud and obnoxious dslr.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then you'll have to get less mpg due
    to it being heavier than a Mack-truck when outfitted with enough tires to
    be comparable to smaller more efficient super-zoom-cars that can travel
    anywhere without having to ever stop to change any tires or clean the
    engine when you do change the tires, as you must.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then you'll have to spend at least
    30-50x's the amount of $ that you would for an economy car that can go just
    about as fast and travel over more terrain without having to change your
    tires that are more expensive than the car itself, getting dirt in your
    "must keep clean" engine, slow down, or stop altogether.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then the a similar car would lose a
    cross-country race in the very first day due to how many times you had to
    stop to change tires, clean the engine, your speed automatically limited to
    25mph whenever you turn on the headlights, not enter the 90% of regions
    deemed as "Quiet Zones" along the route, or plain ol' run out of gas from
    trying to move that much weight for very long distances. But boy, your
    expensive car sure does look good sitting there on the side of the road,
    looking all flashy like a real PRO, with "LOSER" stamped on your forehead.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then ... this could go on forever, the
    dslr never coming out looking very good if it really was a car.

    The car/camera analogy holds up well only if you consider all the dslr
    drawbacks and apply them to a similar car's drawbacks and deficiencies.
     
    Keep Your Analogies Accurate, Aug 17, 2009
    #15
  16. On Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:49:37 +1000, "Jim...(8-| " <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 16 Aug 2009 12:45:49 -0700 (PDT), Twibil
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>On Aug 15, 11:19 pm, "Jim...(8-| " <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> >> You mean how a P&S camera even rivals the image quality from a
    >>> >> medium-format Hasselblad,
    >>>
    >>> >Yes, in the same sense that a flea "rivals" an elephant.
    >>>
    >>> >(Hint: "rivals" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.)
    >>>
    >>> Maybe you'd better explain then as I and i'm sure others too are
    >>> baffled.

    >>
    >>Last year in the NFL, Detroit went 0 & 12 while Pittsburgh went 10 &
    >>2; yet they are "rivals" within the NFL. Both were competing for the
    >>Superbowl.
    >>
    >>"Rivals" is used by advertising wonks to mean "just as good as", when
    >>in fact all it really means is "competes with" with no implication of
    >>equality at all.

    >
    >Well I don't follow basketball at all but in any top competition any
    >team can beat any other team.
    >>
    >>> We all know the  law of physics will result in better low light
    >>> performance with a larger sensor but how much of what is said here is
    >>> just badge engineering like the car world uses to have people believe
    >>> a Ferrari is a better car than a Hyundai.

    >>
    >>I can help you with that, too. As a 65 year old guy who raced cars for
    >>a living for several years, and who still drives enthusiastically, I
    >>can state categorically that yes; Ferrari *does* build better cars
    >>than Hyundai.
    >>
    >>Not just *faster*, mind you; but "better".
    >>
    >>A *LOT* better.

    >
    >What about it makes it better?
    >Is it comfort?
    >economy?
    >reliability?
    >prestige?
    >performance?
    >handling?
    >
    >Since road laws make the last two points almost totally meaningless I
    >think there may be a parallel somewhere there with cameras.


    If you want to compare cars to dslr then you'll need a car where you have
    to change the tires (lens) every time that you want to drive a different
    speed, distance, area, or road.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then you'll have to run your car
    through a car-wash every time that you change tires because you most likely
    got dirt in the engine. If you don't, then you risk ruining your whole
    trip, not realizing it until you got back home and found out that your
    dirty engine destroyed everything you had to gather along the way that you
    thought you had safely stored in the trunk.

    If you want to compare cars to dslr then you'll have to keep your speed
    limit to under 25mph whenever you have to use headlights.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then you'll have to turn off your
    engine in any area deemed a "Quiet Zone". Or not enter those areas at all
    lest you be told to move your obnoxiously loud pile of junk, have your car
    confiscated, or be attacked by a dangerous animal that you drew to your
    attention thus ending your driving career altogether. There are thousands
    of "Quiet Zones" when it comes to cameras, far more than areas than where
    you are allowed to operate your loud and obnoxious dslr.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then you'll have to get less mpg due
    to it being heavier than a Mack-truck when outfitted with enough tires to
    be comparable to smaller more efficient super-zoom-cars that can travel
    anywhere without having to ever stop to change any tires or clean the
    engine when you do change the tires, as you must.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then you'll have to spend at least
    30-50x's the amount of $ that you would for an economy car that can go just
    about as fast and travel over more terrain without having to change your
    tires that are more expensive than the car itself, getting dirt in your
    "must keep clean" engine, slow down, or stop altogether.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then the a similar car would lose a
    cross-country race in the very first day due to how many times you had to
    stop to change tires, clean the engine, your speed automatically limited to
    25mph whenever you turn on the headlights, not enter the 90% of regions
    deemed as "Quiet Zones" along the route, or plain ol' run out of gas from
    trying to move that much weight for very long distances. But boy, your
    expensive car sure does look good sitting there on the side of the road,
    looking all flashy like a real PRO, with "LOSER" stamped on your forehead.

    If you want to compare cars to dslrs then ... this could go on forever, the
    dslr never coming out looking very good if it really was a car.

    The car/camera analogy holds up well only if you consider all the dslr
    drawbacks and apply them to a similar car's drawbacks and deficiencies.
     
    Keep Your Analogies Accurate, Aug 17, 2009
    #16
  17. Keep Your Analogies Accurate wrote:
    >
    > The car/camera analogy holds up well only if you consider all the dslr
    > drawbacks and apply them to a similar car's drawbacks and deficiencies.


    Virtually no analogy of complex entities holds up under even vague
    scrutiny.

    Unless you can provide one?

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Aug 17, 2009
    #17
  18. Rich

    John Turco Guest

    Twibil wrote:
    >
    > On Aug 15, 11:19 pm, "Jim...(8-| " <> wrote:


    <edited for brevity>

    > Last year in the NFL, Detroit went 0 & 12 while Pittsburgh went 10 &
    > 2; yet they are "rivals" within the NFL. Both were competing for the
    > Superbowl.


    <edited>

    Hello, Twibil:

    Correction(s): The Detroit Lions finished their 2008 campaign, with an
    abysmal 0-16 record (thereby setting a new NFL "standard" for futility).
    The Pittsburgh Steelers won Super Bowl XLIII and complied a 15-4 overall
    mark (12-4 in the regular season and 3-0 in the postseason).

    > > We all know the law of physics will result in better low light
    > > performance with a larger sensor but how much of what is said here is
    > > just badge engineering like the car world uses to have people believe
    > > a Ferrari is a better car than a Hyundai.

    >
    > I can help you with that, too. As a 65 year old guy who raced cars for
    > a living for several years, and who still drives enthusiastically, I
    > can state categorically that yes; Ferrari *does* build better cars
    > than Hyundai.
    >
    > Not just *faster*, mind you; but "better".
    >
    > A *LOT* better.


    <edited>

    Oh, so, you >were< a college teacher (or professor?) and a professional
    race car driver, in the past, and you're a free-lance writer, now?

    You're quite the "Renaissance Man," you are! I think the Lions should've
    hired >you< as their new head coach, instead of Jim Schwartz. <g>

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Aug 20, 2009
    #18
  19. Rich

    John Turco Guest

    Twibil wrote:

    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > As well try to explain the merits of investment banking to someone who
    > firmly believes that the pink fairy Snargfoodle is going to leave them
    > a bag full of gold at any moment.



    Hello, Twibil:

    Sacrilegious swine! The omnipotent Snargfoodle's competence must never
    be questioned, by mere mortals (such as yourself). :-J

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, Aug 20, 2009
    #19
  20. Rich

    Twibil Guest

    On Aug 19, 9:21 pm, John Turco <> wrote:
    >
    > > Last year in the NFL, Detroit went 0 & 12 while Pittsburgh went 10 &
    > > 2; yet they are "rivals" within the NFL. Both were competing for the
    > > Superbowl.

    >
    > <edited>
    >
    > Hello, Twibil:
    >
    > Correction(s): The Detroit Lions finished their 2008 campaign, with an
    > abysmal 0-16 record (thereby setting a new NFL "standard" for futility).
    > The Pittsburgh Steelers won Super Bowl XLIII and complied a 15-4 overall
    > mark (12-4 in the regular season and 3-0 in the postseason).


    Shrug. I pulled the stats from an NFL website, so unless I mis-read or
    mis-typed something (which is possible) I'm not responsible for the
    mistakes.

    And in any case, the point stands.

    > Oh, so, you >were< a college teacher (or professor?) and a professional
    > race car driver, in the past, and you're a free-lance writer, now?


    You'd like a full bio? I was indeed a college instructor -not a
    "professor"- at the University of California for 12 years, I was a
    "professional" racing driver in that that was my profession for
    several years, and that was my only form of income, not to imply that
    I ever became rich or famous. (I wasn't ever going to be good enough
    to ever reach the top levels of competition, and as soon as that
    became clear to me I quit.)
    I've done free-lance writing since back in the '70s, and yes, I still
    do from time to time. Some of the stuff originally printed in national
    publications is still available on line.

    > You're quite the "Renaissance Man," you are! I think the Lions should've
    > hired >you< as their new head coach, instead of Jim Schwartz. <g>


    I played one year of high school football and thereafter went out for
    swimming, cross-country, and track.

    At 6'2" and 155 pounds in high school, I was not cut out for survival
    in a league where the linebackers frequently weighed in at 220+.
     
    Twibil, Aug 20, 2009
    #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.
Similar Threads
  1. Rafael Rivera [Extended64.com]

    Crashing Mystery; Getting Desperate

    Rafael Rivera [Extended64.com], Jun 14, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    1,297
    Christian Hougardy
    Jun 19, 2005
  2. Richard G Carruthers

    Help I am getting Desperate!!

    Richard G Carruthers, Aug 8, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    535
    jackfrost64
    Aug 10, 2005
  3. Miles Bader

    Re: P&S sellers getting desperate

    Miles Bader, Aug 14, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    549
    Bob Larter
    Aug 17, 2009
  4. RichA

    Magazines, websites getting desperate

    RichA, Jul 1, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    131
    Views:
    2,049
    John A.
    Jul 5, 2010
  5. Valorie McLaughlin
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,045
    Jeff Gaines
    Sep 13, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page