Re: Sony F828 at ISO greater than 100

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by FishMaze, Sep 2, 2003.

  1. FishMaze

    FishMaze Guest

    Thanks to everyone who responded. It's so valuable (for an newbie like me)
    to have you people as a resource.
    FM
     
    FishMaze, Sep 2, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. FishMaze

    JD Guest

    FishMaze wrote:

    > Thanks to everyone who responded. It's so valuable (for an newbie like me)
    > to have you people as a resource.
    > FM


    Be careful when using the term "you people". It appears that some "people"
    take offense at being called "people" and actually try to have you fired for
    using that term on the base of racism. I know it sounds completely
    ridiculous, but some poor guy I worked with a few years ago got fired for
    using that very phrase in a way no more intentionally meaning to be racist as
    you were. But with "people" today, you have to watch every friggin word
    you say. It is sad, but unfortunately true.
     
    JD, Sep 2, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. JD wrote:
    > Be careful when using the term "you people". It appears that some "people"
    > take offense at being called "people" and actually try to have you fired for
    > using that term on the base of racism. I know it sounds completely
    > ridiculous, but some poor guy I worked with a few years ago got fired for
    > using that very phrase in a way no more intentionally meaning to be racist as
    > you were. But with "people" today, you have to watch every friggin word
    > you say. It is sad, but unfortunately true.


    Yeah. We had a very politically correct woman get upset when an email
    was sent "thanking you all for manning the help desk over the weekend".

    She took offense at the term "manning" since it did not include women.

    She was a silly bitch.
     
    Andrew McDonald, Sep 2, 2003
    #3
  4. MarkH wrote:
    > I am not doubting your assessment of this woman, as I don’t know her. But
    > when I looked up manning on dictionary.com (because I never thought of it
    > as sexist until I read your post about someone objecting to the term) and
    > under the usage notes was this "Fifty-six percent of the Panel (61 percent
    > of the women and 54 percent of the men) disapprove of the sentence Members
    > of the League of Women Voters will be manning the registration desk."
    >
    > So maybe the silly bitch had a valid point?


    That was not the only silly thing she did. She was one of those people
    who would probably take offense at the term human or even woman.

    She just took things to extremes.
     
    Andrew McDonald, Sep 2, 2003
    #4
  5. FishMaze

    JD Guest

    > > Yeah. We had a very politically correct woman get upset when an email
    > > was sent "thanking you all for manning the help desk over the
    > > weekend".
    > >
    > > She took offense at the term "manning" since it did not include women.
    > >
    > > She was a silly bitch.

    >
    > I am not doubting your assessment of this woman, as I don’t know her. But
    > when I looked up manning on dictionary.com (because I never thought of it
    > as sexist until I read your post about someone objecting to the term) and
    > under the usage notes was this "Fifty-six percent of the Panel (61 percent
    > of the women and 54 percent of the men) disapprove of the sentence Members
    > of the League of Women Voters will be manning the registration desk."
    >
    > So maybe the silly bitch had a valid point?


    No, these are just words and phrases, and in many cases, just as these, there
    was no INTENT to offend anyone! People are going out of their way to find
    something offensive about every sentence, then hurt someone for saying it,
    even if they had to intent to offend.

    In the case of a co-worker of mine who was reprimanded for using the phrase
    "you people" towards a table of people that contained both whites and blacks
    when one of the blacks at the table cried it was a racist remark, the
    co-worker stated that he was sorry, he did not realize that blacks did not
    like to be refereed to as "people" and would she have preferred the term
    "animals" instead or what else? He also made it clear that he had no intent
    to offend, as if he did, he could probably come up with a word describing
    blacks that was much more offensive than "people"

    The story above about having to poll people to find out if people find a
    phrase offensive, and what percentage do, shows how far people will go to try
    and look for more ways to find something that is offensive that was never
    intended to be, just to be silly.

    If someone wants to be offensive, you won't have to take a survey or research
    to see if it is offensive or not, it will be obvious.

    Instead of "manning the registration desk" they would have said something
    like: "No friggin BROADS at the registration desk because they should be in
    the kitchen cooking where they belong" if they wanted to be offensive to
    women.

    One day, just as we have to now pronounce words like Uranus and Harassment
    differently because they became offensive for no intentional reasons, we will
    no longer be able to say Broadcasting and have to pronounce that word
    differently. Hopefully I will be dead before that happens so I don't have to
    see it happen.
     
    JD, Sep 2, 2003
    #5
  6. "Andrew McDonald" <> wrote in message
    news:4nS4b.5597$...
    > MarkH wrote:
    > > I am not doubting your assessment of this woman, as I don’t know her.

    But
    > > when I looked up manning on dictionary.com (because I never thought of

    it
    > > as sexist until I read your post about someone objecting to the term)

    and
    > > under the usage notes was this "Fifty-six percent of the Panel (61

    percent
    > > of the women and 54 percent of the men) disapprove of the sentence

    Members
    > > of the League of Women Voters will be manning the registration desk."
    > >
    > > So maybe the silly bitch had a valid point?

    >
    > That was not the only silly thing she did. She was one of those people
    > who would probably take offense at the term human or even woman.
    >
    > She just took things to extremes.
    >


    The key word used in the above statement is "Probably".
     
    Steven C \(Doktersteve\), Sep 2, 2003
    #6
  7. FishMaze

    Ann Meffert Guest

    So, you were working with Ross Perot on his presidential bid, eh?

    "JD" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    FishMaze wrote:

    > Thanks to everyone who responded. It's so valuable (for an newbie like

    me)
    > to have you people as a resource.
    > FM


    Be careful when using the term "you people". It appears that some
    "people"
    take offense at being called "people" and actually try to have you fired
    for
    using that term on the base of racism. I know it sounds completely
    ridiculous, but some poor guy I worked with a few years ago got fired
    for
    using that very phrase in a way no more intentionally meaning to be
    racist as
    you were. But with "people" today, you have to watch every friggin
    word
    you say. It is sad, but unfortunately true.
     
    Ann Meffert, Sep 2, 2003
    #7
  8. JD wrote in part:


    > Be careful when using the term "you people". It appears that some "people"
    > take offense at being called "people" and actually try to have you fired for
    > using that term on the base of racism. I know it sounds completely
    > ridiculous, but some poor guy I worked with a few years ago got fired for
    > using that very phrase in a way no more intentionally meaning to be racist as
    > you were.


    You worked with Ross Perot?

    Corry
    --

    It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net

    "I think all foreigners should stop interfering in the internal affairs
    of Iraq." --Paul Wolfowitz
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Sep 2, 2003
    #8
  9. FishMaze

    Guest

    JD <> wrote:
    >> > Yeah. We had a very politically correct woman get upset when an email
    >> > was sent "thanking you all for manning the help desk over the
    >> > weekend".
    >> >
    >> > She took offense at the term "manning" since it did not include women.
    >> >
    >> > She was a silly bitch.

    >>
    >> I am not doubting your assessment of this woman, as I don’t know her. But
    >> when I looked up manning on dictionary.com (because I never thought of it
    >> as sexist until I read your post about someone objecting to the term) and
    >> under the usage notes was this "Fifty-six percent of the Panel (61 percent
    >> of the women and 54 percent of the men) disapprove of the sentence Members
    >> of the League of Women Voters will be manning the registration desk."
    >>
    >> So maybe the silly bitch had a valid point?


    > No, these are just words and phrases, and in many cases, just as
    > these, there was no INTENT to offend anyone! People are going out
    > of their way to find something offensive about every sentence, then
    > hurt someone for saying it, even if they had to intent to offend.


    Years ago, Hofstadter wrote about this. His idea, whenever coming
    across such cases, was to substitute race-specific (rather than
    gender-specific) words, and see what the result looks like. So, ble
    and whe for she and he, white and black for man and woman, and so on:

    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html

    Andrew.
     
    , Sep 2, 2003
    #9
  10. FishMaze

    JD Guest

    > > No, these are just words and phrases, and in many cases, just as
    > > these, there was no INTENT to offend anyone! People are going out
    > > of their way to find something offensive about every sentence, then
    > > hurt someone for saying it, even if they had to intent to offend.

    >
    > Years ago, Hofstadter wrote about this. His idea, whenever coming
    > across such cases, was to substitute race-specific (rather than
    > gender-specific) words, and see what the result looks like. So, ble
    > and whe for she and he, white and black for man and woman, and so on:
    >
    > http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html


    Another interesting thing to note is that when one person accuses another of
    being racist, it is always because the other person happens to be of a different
    race, never the same. So in fact, it requires a bit of racism to call someone
    a racist.

    When you see a comedian of a certain race making jokes against that race, they
    are never called racists, yet other people saying the same statements will be
    labeled racists based on what race they are.

    People who call others racists, are racists.
     
    JD, Sep 2, 2003
    #10
  11. FishMaze

    JD Guest

    > So, you were working with Ross Perot on his presidential bid, eh?

    He is only a Republicat in disguise as a fourth party candidate.
    He is rich for the same beliefs and actions that make the
    Republican/Democrats that way. He couldn't run under either name as they
    were taken, so he ran as an independent, but he is one of them.

    But no candidate in a democratic style of government can ever break the
    corrupt system. He will always be outvoted by the majority. That's how
    it works.

    Get one good guy in a democracy, and he will be worthless and outvoted all
    the time by the majority idiots.

    Democracy: Three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.

    You think democracy is good? Then you are a wolf. Of course it is good
    for you, everything always goes your way and always will.

    A democracy can never be good or fair to everyone. The only form of
    government that could be fair to everyone would be a dictatorship with a
    dictator that ruled by Libertarian principals.

    Even a Libertarian President in a democratic style of government could do
    nothing against a Republicat congress. Nor would a few Libertarians in
    congress. The majority always rules and tells everyone else how to live.

    A Libertarian dictatorship would be sweet. But it can never happen.
    Even if some small country tried it somewhere, the US would go and take it
    over and establish it's own copy of a puppet government in place like it is
    doing now one country at a time. (or two or three at a time as is now the
    case)

    Dictatorship: Most of the time bad, depends on the dictator.
    Democracy: Always bad, never good as it always depends on the majority of
    people, which are stupid.
     
    JD, Sep 2, 2003
    #11
  12. FishMaze

    JD Guest

    > JD wrote in part:
    >
    > > Be careful when using the term "you people". It appears that some "people"
    > > take offense at being called "people" and actually try to have you fired for
    > > using that term on the base of racism. I know it sounds completely
    > > ridiculous, but some poor guy I worked with a few years ago got fired for
    > > using that very phrase in a way no more intentionally meaning to be racist as
    > > you were.

    >
    > You worked with Ross Perot?


    No way. Don't even know what idiots like him, Clinton or Bush have to do with the
    statement.
     
    JD, Sep 2, 2003
    #12
  13. FishMaze

    Trevor S Guest

    JD <> wrote in news::

    <snip>

    >
    > Another interesting thing to note is that when one person accuses
    > another of being racist, it is always because the other person happens
    > to be of a different race, never the same.


    That's misleading, I have several acquaintances of the same race that are
    racist.

    > So in fact, it requires a bit of racism to call someone a racist.


    That's like saying it requires you to be a criminal to call someone else a
    criminal ? Makes no sense at all....

    --
    Trevor S


    "Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
    -Albert Einstein
     
    Trevor S, Sep 2, 2003
    #13
  14. FishMaze

    JD Guest

    > > Another interesting thing to note is that when one person accuses
    > > another of being racist, it is always because the other person happens
    > > to be of a different race, never the same.

    >
    > That's misleading, I have several acquaintances of the same race that are
    > racist.


    But see, no one would call you a racist for making the statement you just
    made. THAT is the point. But if those acquaintances of yours were of a
    different race than you and you called them racists, then people would look at
    YOU differently for that statement.

    > > So in fact, it requires a bit of racism to call someone a racist.

    >
    > That's like saying it requires you to be a criminal to call someone else a
    > criminal ? Makes no sense at all....


    Right, THAT would make no sense at all. Plus would not be a good analogy
    because no one who calls someone a criminal is then considered a criminal.

    You bring up a good point that you don't have to be a racist to call someone a
    racist, but in most cases the REASON someone is being called a racist is based
    on their race.

    If I say all Irish people are drunks, you are not going to know if you should
    consider me a racist or not because on this newsgroup, you don't know if I am
    Irish or not. If you KNOW if I am or not, then you can start to make a
    judgment about me based on my race.

    Comedians are always making fun of their own races and the audience laughs at
    all the racist comments. Yet if a comedian of another race told the same
    exact jokes, the audience would be angered and outraged.

    The only difference between laughing or being upset is based on the race of
    the comedian.
     
    JD, Sep 3, 2003
    #14
  15. FishMaze

    Pat Chaney Guest

    On 2/9/03 7:10 pm, "JD" <> wrote:

    > Another interesting thing to note is that when one person accuses another of
    > being racist, it is always because the other person happens to be of a
    > different race, never the same.


    That's not true at all.


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251
     
    Pat Chaney, Sep 3, 2003
    #15
  16. Pat Chaney wrote:

    > On 2/9/03 7:10 pm, "JD" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Another interesting thing to note is that when one person accuses another of
    >>being racist, it is always because the other person happens to be of a
    >>different race, never the same.

    >
    >
    > That's not true at all.
    >


    I believe racists are genetically inferior to other people.

    Corry
    --

    It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
    http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net
     
    Unclaimed Mysteries, Sep 3, 2003
    #16
  17. Unclaimed Mysteries <> wrote:

    >I believe racists are genetically inferior to other people.


    Hehe, I like that!

    Hans-Georg

    --
    No mail, please.
     
    Hans-Georg Michna, Sep 3, 2003
    #17
  18. FishMaze

    Paul H. Guest

    "Unclaimed Mysteries" <> wrote in message
    news:gRi5b.17659$...
    > Pat Chaney wrote:


    >>SNIP<<


    > I believe racists are genetically inferior to other people.
    >



    How true. If only racists knew their place and didn't get so uppity...

    Today's assignment: take a picture of your favorite racist, post a link to
    it, and be sure to include all pertinent details such as camera make and
    model, EXIF data, etc! Otherwise, stop posting such off-topic dreck in the
    digital photography newsgroup.
     
    Paul H., Sep 3, 2003
    #18
  19. FishMaze

    JD Guest

    > > I believe racists are genetically inferior to other people.

    Then you are no better than a racist yourself.

    > How true.


    See how many people jump aboard the "HATE" wagon as long as it is "politically
    correct" and/or government endorsed hate or racism?

    Listening to old radio shows, you can hear Americans bashing the "JAPS" (as
    they refer to them in the programs) and the audience roaring in laughter when
    they do. Today the same statements would bring anger instead of laughter,
    yet today the same "jokes" are made against the people in the middle east which
    are "OK" to participate in now, yet when people watch old television programs
    of today a few decades from now, they will be horrified as well.

    Racism and hate against groups of people are wrong not just when political
    correctness says so, but also when it is politically correct to use racism and
    hate.

    > model, EXIF data, etc! Otherwise, stop posting such off-topic dreck in the
    > digital photography newsgroup.


    It would be interesting to know why YOU joined the "off-topic" discussion if
    you feel that it does not belong here?
     
    JD, Sep 3, 2003
    #19
  20. FishMaze

    JD Guest

    > > > model, EXIF data, etc! Otherwise, stop posting such off-topic dreck in
    > the
    > > > digital photography newsgroup.

    > >
    > > It would be interesting to know why YOU joined the "off-topic" discussion

    > if
    > > you feel that it does not belong here?

    >
    > Because, my dear unobservant egomaniac, if you examine the subject line you
    > might correctly conclude that I pulled up the message in hopes of reading
    > something about the new Sony 828. Imagine my surprise to find the subject
    > had been hijacked by a gang of trolls intent up dispersing their collective
    > nonsense throughout my favorite newsgroup.


    But now this second time you knew this, and decided to again post an off-topic
    post (which this second post of yours is) again.

    Now what is your excuse?

    I have one, as I don't have a problem with occasional off-topic posts, so I am
    not a hypocrite for joining the occasional off-topic post which is natural and
    common on all newsgroups. But since you don't feel anyone should participate
    in off-topic discussions, it would be interesting to know why you are doing so?
     
    JD, Sep 4, 2003
    #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. Georgette Preddy

    Is Sigma's SD10 at ISO 1600 better than Canon's 1Ds at ISO 100?

    Georgette Preddy, Jul 11, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    713
    Randall Ainsworth
    Jul 15, 2004
  2. Jimmy Smith
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    934
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Jul 27, 2004
  3. Akhtar
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    745
    Walter Roberson
    Nov 17, 2006
  4. =?Utf-8?B?U2NvdHQgQ3VtbWlucw==?=

    Maximum JVM heap size greater than 1.8GB will prevent ColdFusion M

    =?Utf-8?B?U2NvdHQgQ3VtbWlucw==?=, May 8, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,893
    Jane C
    May 9, 2007
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    306
    Nik Coughlin
    Sep 19, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page