poll - did you miss the voting about dividing r.p.d?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Roland Karlsson, Oct 22, 2004.

  1. Roland Karlsson

    Jim Townsend Guest

    If it has a fixed lens it's a ZLR.. Get your facts straight :) :)

    What a mess.. With such broad definitions most cameras can now be
    anything you want them to be.
     
    Jim Townsend, Oct 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Roland Karlsson

    bob Guest

    I knew there was a vote, but I didn't vote, because I don't care too
    much about the outcome.

    Consider Yahoo Groups. There are 10's of 000s of groups. All it takes to
    form a group is to invent a name for it. There are at least several
    yahoo groups devoted to the Nikon Coolpix 5000. Just the 5000. There are
    plenty of groups with no discussion at all, but they do not seem to have
    a detrimental impact on the other groups.

    The slr group makes sense to me, even though there doesn't seem to be a
    lot of use for it.

    According to the rational for the ZLR group, posted to
    news.announce.newsgroups on October 21,

    So there you go. ZLR doesn't really stand for anything, it's just a
    three letter symbol invented to cover high end digicams.

    As a humorous side note, making comparisons between digital photography
    and film photography is considered "off-topic."

    I think it would have made a lot more sense to form a subgroups for
    prints and software, since those two issues seem to take up more
    bandwidth than anything.

    Bob
     
    bob, Oct 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Yepp - and that should have told you that it was a mistake;
    that the names were not good.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Oct 24, 2004
  4. Seconded! :)


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Oct 24, 2004
  5. wrote in @news.supernews.com:
    No - actually it is not. I did a research of the topic. ZLR was invented
    by Olympus 1970 to describe their SLR cameras with a zoom that could
    not be removed. It means "Zoom Lens Reflex". The first advanced digital
    cameras (that was not SLR) was actually ZLR. Now some illiterate people
    call all advanced non SLR thingies ZLR. Its a big misstake, nothing else.
    And now we made the same mistake in r.p.d. That's it folks.

    It would have been better with the groups 1, 2, 3 and 4. Each with its
    own charter.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Oct 24, 2004
  6. This group is not particular busy.

    My prediction is that the posts here will be divided 60-40
    betweein this group and the dslr group and thet the three
    others will receive almost none.

    So - it will be almost just as busy after the new groups have
    been made.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Oct 24, 2004
  7. The problem is that it does stand for something "Zoom Lens Reflex".
    Oly have made some. Don't know if any other manufacturer have done so.
    BTW - the term is invented by Olympus 1990 to describe a film
    based ZLR camera series - the iS series.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Oct 24, 2004
  8. Roland Karlsson

    Ed Ruf Guest

    Constructively, use a real news reader and make use of:
    - killfiles
    - watch thread markings
    - ignore thread markings
    - keep message markings

    Finally, it's just usenet, get a grip. Go away for a while, so what? Just
    mark things current If you miss something, so what? Is it that stinking
    important? If it is, I hope you are doing daily backups of your
    newsreader's data files. If you're not doing this, you need to take a
    breath and put it in the proper perspective.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Oct 24, 2004
  9. Roland Karlsson

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    It did. Please go read the discussion so we don't need to repeat it.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Oct 24, 2004
  10. Roland Karlsson

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    That has the distinction of being the single most absurd statement I have
    seen in the entire course of this process.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Oct 24, 2004
  11. Roland Karlsson

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    If you have to do those things just to read a group, the group has a
    serious problem.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Oct 24, 2004
  12. bob wrote:
    []
    That sounds like a good suggestion - why not find a like-minded person and
    propose and second the idea? I think you may have to wait until sometime
    after the present proposal is concluded, though.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Oct 24, 2004
  13. Roland Karlsson

    Ed Ruf Guest

    No, none of that is required to read the group. Just as absolutely no
    knowledge of photography or one's camera is required to take photos, just
    set it on auto and push the button. If you want more out of it, you need to
    put a bit more into it. If you can't learn how to effectively use 3
    features of a decent newsreader, how are you going to master something as
    complicated as your camera? I see no reason newsgroups need to be
    infinitely subdivided and dumbed down by content, when simple measures as
    I've described can significantly increase the SNR. Is the content of other
    informational media subdivided at this level, or are we the users required
    to use a little initiative to filter out that which we deem unimportant? I
    don't see those things I've mentioned as excessive.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Oct 24, 2004
  14. Roland Karlsson

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Why do you feel that someone should need to learn those things effectively
    in order to talk about photography?
    Because a newsgroup should be usable without those things. Because it should
    be usable for someone coming into it for the first time. It should be usable
    to someone who doesn't want to spend an inordinate amount of time and effort
    on it. It should be usable to someone who doesn't care how Usenet works or
    want to spend time and energy on the technical process rather than the
    reason they came in the first place; this is, after all, not a group about
    Usenet, but about something entirely different, and prowess with Usenet
    client software should not be a prerequisite for participation.

    Because there are people out there who know how to use decent newsreaders
    far better than you do, who want to read this group, who have tried to read
    this group, and who have given up on this group because they can't keep up
    with it in any way that makes sense. Because some of those people have
    valuable contributions to make. Because it doesn't make sense to have a
    newsgroup with this much traffic, almost none of which is of interest to
    any particular reader.
    I do. Whose idea was it that someone should have to learn that sort of
    thing just to be able to *talk* about something else? The things you
    mention are there to make the experience better and/or more customized
    for the individual user -- not to merely make it possible to get started.

    You wonder why people run off to those silly, annoying web forums? No
    one has *ever* made a web forum that is any good, they are annoying to
    use at best, and every time I look at one all I can say is "why in the
    heck do people use this crap?" Well, this is why. This, right here,
    is why they're willing to put up with universally abysmal interfaces,
    slow reading, flashing ads, and lack of features. They are inferior
    to Usenet in every single way, except one -- when people arrive at
    them, no one expects them to learn volumes of arcane knowledge just
    to get started.
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Oct 24, 2004
  15. Hmmm ... the discussions are not left at my news server.
    I could google it - but ...


    /Roland

    PS. Now I think I understand why my news-client (Xnews) was VERY slow
    when doing threading some weeks ago. It was this discussion that could
    be found in some few threads.
     
    Roland Karlsson, Oct 24, 2004
  16. Roland Karlsson

    bob Guest

    Of course you are correct, but according to the group charter, the people
    who created the group decided differently.

    For myself, I'll wait and see if the new group gets any good posts.

    Bob
     
    bob, Oct 24, 2004
  17. Roland Karlsson

    bob Guest

    That sounds like work to me.

    I offered the idea here when the idea of splitting of was tossed around
    earlier, but I guess no one who wanted new groups liked my idea well
    enough.

    Bob
     
    bob, Oct 24, 2004
  18. Roland Karlsson

    Ed Ruf Guest

    No, again, one does not have to do anything I suggested to begin. On the
    other hand, by your own reasoning, there is no alternative other than to
    cater to the least common denominator, and so I would expect you to propose
    the elimination od r.p.d and creation of similar specific topic groups
    along the lines of these forums. To do otherwise would point out the
    logical fallacy of your reasoning.

    We clearly are on philosophically opposite sides of this discussion.
    ________________________________________________________
    Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 ()
    http://EdwardGRuf.com
     
    Ed Ruf, Oct 24, 2004
  19. Don't blame others. Why didn't you submit a proposal?
     
    Woodchuck Bill, Oct 24, 2004
  20. hehe ... you see ... sometimes the world surprise you :)


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Oct 24, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.