Which do you beleive

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by measekite, Apr 12, 2008.

  1. measekite

    measekite Guest

    1.  Nikon is better than Canon

    2.  Canon is better than Nikon

    3.  One is not better than the other but they are different.  Most of the features are the same but are presented a little different.  Each depending on the model has some advantage over the other.  The results may be a little different (sharpness, color etc) on model model in some circumstances sometimes but the actual quality is quite comparable.  One is really not better but may be preferred.
    measekite, Apr 12, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. measekite

    Bert Hyman Guest

    In news:qo6Mj.3369$ measekite
    <> wrote:

    ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    ><html>
    ><head>
    ></head>
    ><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">


    What?

    --
    Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN
    Bert Hyman, Apr 12, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. measekite

    canon.user Guest

    On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:34:14 GMT 'measekite'
    wrote this on rec.photo.digital:

    ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    ><html>
    ><head>
    ></head>
    ><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    ><font face="sans-serif">1.&nbsp; Nikon is better than Canon<br>
    ><br>
    >2.&nbsp; Canon is better than Nikon<br>
    ><br>
    >3.&nbsp; One is not better than the other but they are different.&nbsp; Most of
    >the features are the same but are presented a little different.&nbsp; Each
    >depending on the model has some advantage over the other.&nbsp; The results
    >may be a little different (sharpness, color etc) on model model in some
    >circumstances sometimes but the actual quality is quite comparable.&nbsp;
    >One is really not better but may be preferred.<br>
    ></font>
    ></body>
    ></html>


    Would you like to post in English please.
    canon.user, Apr 12, 2008
    #3
  4. measekite

    Guest

    for a really fair opinion on the Canon/Nikon debate,
    ask Rita - she posts here frequently(!)

    now back to the serious stuff... which is better -
    posting in HTML, or posting in XML ?

    :)
    , Apr 12, 2008
    #4
  5. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Mr. Strat wrote:

    In article &lt;Xns9A7E81BA7E044VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7&gt;, Bert Hyman &lt;&gt; wrote:



    In news:qo6Mj.3369$ measekite &lt;&gt; wrote:



    &lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"&gt; &lt;html&gt; &lt;head&gt; &lt;/head&gt; &lt;body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"&gt;



    What?



    Several of us regulars have told him to stop posting in HTML, but he's apparently severely retarded.

    Are you a regular because you take exlax or just eating a lot of prunes
    measekite, Apr 12, 2008
    #5
  6. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Mr. Strat wrote:

    In article &lt;qo6Mj.3369$&gt;, measekite &lt;&gt; wrote:



    &lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"&gt; &lt;html&gt; &lt;head&gt; &lt;/head&gt; &lt;body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"&gt; &lt;font face="sans-serif"&gt;1.&amp;nbsp; Nikon is better than Canon&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; 2.&amp;nbsp; Canon is better than Nikon&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; 3.&amp;nbsp; One is not better than the other but they are different.&amp;nbsp; Most of the features are the same but are presented a little different.&amp;nbsp; Each depending on the model has some advantage over the other.&amp;nbsp; The results may be a little different (sharpness, color etc) on model model in some circumstances sometimes but the actual quality is quite comparable.&amp;nbsp; One is really not better but may be preferred.&lt;br&gt; &lt;/font&gt; &lt;/body&gt; &lt;/html&gt;



    Is posting in HTML better than plain text?

    Yes

    Except for the


    snip




    retarded.
    measekite, Apr 12, 2008
    #6
  7. measekite

    measekite Guest

    canon.user wrote:

    On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:34:14 GMT 'measekite' wrote this on rec.photo.digital:



    &lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"&gt; &lt;html&gt; &lt;head&gt; &lt;/head&gt; &lt;body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"&gt; &lt;font face="sans-serif"&gt;1.&amp;nbsp; Nikon is better than Canon&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; 2.&amp;nbsp; Canon is better than Nikon&lt;br&gt; &lt;br&gt; 3.&amp;nbsp; One is not better than the other but they are different.&amp;nbsp; Most of the features are the same but are presented a little different.&amp;nbsp; Each depending on the model has some advantage over the other.&amp;nbsp; The results may be a little different (sharpness, color etc) on model model in some circumstances sometimes but the actual quality is quite comparable.&amp;nbsp; One is really not better but may be preferred.&lt;br&gt; &lt;/font&gt; &lt;/body&gt; &lt;/html&gt;



    Would you like to post in English please.

    It is quite apparent you do not know how to read
    measekite, Apr 12, 2008
    #7
  8. measekite

    measekite Guest

    wrote:
    > for a really fair opinion on the Canon/Nikon debate,
    > ask Rita - she posts here frequently(!)
    >

    It is quite apparent Rita knows more than you do.
    > now back to the serious stuff... which is better -
    > posting in HTML, or posting in XML ?
    >
    > :)
    >
    measekite, Apr 12, 2008
    #8
  9. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Re: ÁÐ: Which do you beleive

    G. Paleologopoulos wrote:
    putz
    > Troll.
    measekite, Apr 12, 2008
    #9
  10. measekite

    Spamm Trappe Guest

    On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:03:15 -0700, Mr. Strat wrote:
    > In article <Xns9A7E81BA7E044VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7>, Bert Hyman
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> In news:qo6Mj.3369$ measekite
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >> ><|DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    >> ><htm1>
    >> ><head>
    >> ></head>
    >> ><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">

    >>
    >> What?

    >
    > Several of us regulars have told him to stop posting in HTML, but he's
    > apparently severely retarded.


    Hell, the world would be a far better place if he stopped posting *PERIOD*.

    Anyway, he's PLONKed in perpetuity here, now.
    Spamm Trappe, Apr 12, 2008
    #10
  11. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Spamm Trappe wrote:

    On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:03:15 -0700, Mr. Strat wrote:



    In article &lt;Xns9A7E81BA7E044VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7&gt;, Bert Hyman &lt;&gt; wrote:



    In news:qo6Mj.3369$ measekite &lt;&gt; wrote:



    &lt;|DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"&gt; &lt;htm1&gt; &lt;head&gt; &lt;/head&gt; &lt;body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"&gt;



    What?



    Several of us regulars have told him to stop posting in HTML, but he's apparently severely retarded.



    Hell, the world would be a far better place if he stopped posting *PERIOD*. Anyway, he's PLONKed in perpetuity here, now.

    Thank you for da plunk

    My postings are not meant for idiots.
    measekite, Apr 13, 2008
    #11
  12. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Mr. Strat wrote:

    In article &lt;&gt;, Spamm Trappe &lt;&gt; wrote:



    Hell, the world would be a far better place if he stopped posting *PERIOD*. Anyway, he's PLONKed in perpetuity here, now.



    I just looked at his path/headers. He's using Prodigy? I didn't even know they were still in business. What a loser! That's worse than AOL.


    The know it all is showing his ignorance
    measekite, Apr 13, 2008
    #12
  13. measekite

    Stewy Guest

    In article <8GdMj.19908$%>,
    measekite <> wrote:

    > <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    > <html>
    > <head>
    > <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
    > </head>
    > <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    > <br>
    > <br>
    > Spamm Trappe wrote:
    > <blockquote cite="mid:"
    > type="cite">
    > <pre wrap="">On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:03:15 -0700, Mr. Strat wrote:
    > </pre>
    > <blockquote type="cite">
    > <pre wrap="">In article <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
    > href="mailto:Xns9A7E81BA7E044VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7">&lt;Xns9A7E81BA7E
    > 044VeebleFetzer@216.250.184.7&gt;</a>, Bert Hyman
    > <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
    > href="mailto:">&lt;&gt;</a> wrote:
    >
    > </pre>
    > <blockquote type="cite">
    > <pre wrap="">In <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
    > href="news:qo6Mj.3369$">news:qo6Mj.336
    > 9$</a> measekite
    > <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
    > href="mailto:">&lt;&gt;</a> wrote:
    >
    > </pre>
    > <blockquote type="cite">
    > <pre wrap="">&lt;|DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01
    > Transitional//EN"&gt;
    > &lt;htm1&gt;
    > &lt;head&gt;
    > &lt;/head&gt;
    > &lt;body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"&gt;
    > </pre>
    > </blockquote>
    > <pre wrap="">What?
    > </pre>
    > </blockquote>
    > <pre wrap="">Several of us regulars have told him to stop posting in
    > HTML, but he's
    > apparently severely retarded.
    > </pre>
    > </blockquote>
    > <pre wrap=""><!---->
    > Hell, the world would be a far better place if he stopped posting *PERIOD*.
    >
    > Anyway, he's PLONKed in perpetuity here, now.
    > </pre>
    > </blockquote>
    > Thank you for da plunk<br>
    > <br>
    > My postings are not meant for idiots.<br>
    > </body>
    > </html>


    Written by one, though.
    Stewy, Apr 13, 2008
    #13
  14. measekite

    canon.user Guest

    On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:14:13 -0700 'measekite'
    wrote this on rec.photo.digital:

    ><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
    ><html>
    ><head>
    > <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
    ></head>
    ><body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
    ><br>
    ><br>
    >canon.user wrote:
    ><blockquote
    > cite="mid:4092cc30b4c9bbdcdaaad71e83221541@localhost.127.0.0.1"
    > type="cite">
    > <pre wrap="">On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 17:34:14 GMT 'measekite'
    >wrote this on rec.photo.digital:
    >
    > </pre>
    > <blockquote type="cite">
    > <pre wrap="">&lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"&gt;
    >&lt;html&gt;
    >&lt;head&gt;
    >&lt;/head&gt;
    >&lt;body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"&gt;
    >&lt;font face="sans-serif"&gt;1.&amp;nbsp; Nikon is better than Canon&lt;br&gt;
    >&lt;br&gt;
    >2.&amp;nbsp; Canon is better than Nikon&lt;br&gt;
    >&lt;br&gt;
    >3.&amp;nbsp; One is not better than the other but they are different.&amp;nbsp; Most of
    >the features are the same but are presented a little different.&amp;nbsp; Each
    >depending on the model has some advantage over the other.&amp;nbsp; The results
    >may be a little different (sharpness, color etc) on model model in some
    >circumstances sometimes but the actual quality is quite comparable.&amp;nbsp;
    >One is really not better but may be preferred.&lt;br&gt;
    >&lt;/font&gt;
    >&lt;/body&gt;
    >&lt;/html&gt;
    > </pre>
    > </blockquote>
    > <pre wrap=""><!---->
    >Would you like to post in English please.
    > </pre>
    ></blockquote>
    >It is quite apparent you do not know how to read<br>
    ></body>
    ></html>


    Nope. I said English meaning plain text; you post using HTML
    which is wrong on a text only newsgroup.

    I see you've just spammed the group again with the same stuff.
    canon.user, Apr 13, 2008
    #14
  15. measekite

    measekite Guest

    Re: Which do you believe

    George Kerby wrote: Re: Which do you believe I believe that you will choke on your own phlegm. Now go crawl off and expire, sphincter.
    OK&nbsp; Your dinner is now served


    On 4/12/08 12:34 PM, in article qo6Mj.3369$, "measekite" &lt;&gt; wrote:

    1. &nbsp;Nikon is better than Canon

    2. &nbsp;Canon is better than Nikon

    3. &nbsp;One is not better than the other but they are different. &nbsp;Most of the features are the same but are presented a little different. &nbsp;Each depending on the model has some advantage over the other. &nbsp;The results may be a little different (sharpness, color etc) on model model in some circumstances sometimes but the actual quality is quite comparable. One is really not better but may be preferred.
    measekite, Apr 13, 2008
    #15
    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. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    757
  2. Newbie

    Which camera would YOU buy if you have $300?

    Newbie, Apr 5, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    466
    Paul Rubin
    Apr 6, 2005
  3. Ernie Werbel

    I couldn't beleive it...

    Ernie Werbel, Apr 25, 2007, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    374
    Brian
    May 12, 2007
  4. The Jesus of Suburbia

    Microcontrollers: which one ? which language ? which compiler ?

    The Jesus of Suburbia, Feb 11, 2006, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    510
  5. alexma
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,590
    alexma
    Feb 9, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page