If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#191
|
|||
|
|||
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
In article , Whisky-dave wrote:
Whisky-dave: That's the thing you've never expplained it just gone on about ID messages which are irrelivant. Sandman: I did explain it, 47 days ago. I've even directed you to the exact message in which I explained it. Here it is again: Whisky-dave: As I explined 44 days ago that doesn;t direct anywhere useful Sandman: 1. Yes it does - it directs you to the post I made with the explanation. Which contained no explanation. It does. Sandman: Whisky-dave 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400 10/10/2014 "That link doesn;t open why can't you re-post the actual text?" That was a mere 32 days ago. That's right, for 32 days you have been unable to figure out how to use a Message-ID. You still think it doesn't "direct anywhere useful". It's you that's unable tom use message ID. Incorrect. Whisky-dave: all it does it take me to teh same place as I get whenscrolling back through the posts. So what extra info is here. ? Sandman: It requires no "scrolling", it's a direct like to exact post I am talking about, that contains the answer to your question, from 49 days ago. and that post didnt; give the information you said it did. Prove it. You have yet to be able to quote anything from the post in question, so there is nothing that tells me that you have even been able to actually find it - in spite of me giving you the Message-ID so many times. Sandman: I told you the answer to your question was in a post with Message-ID Are you capable of showing what text this message relates to. ? Of course - and at first I did, like I said. But you ignored it and snipped away and were a complete asshole, so why should I help you further? The answer to your question is found in the post with the aforementioned message-ID, that's all the information I need to give you. I owe you nothing more, and I have given you all the information you need to see the answer to your question. The fact that you're so mind-numbingly stupid that you can't even figure out what a Message-ID is and how to use it is none of my concern. Or how do you get the message ID to show anything, as it seems to show me differnt text to what you claim it does. Perhaps that is the problem. That's because you're a moron that doesn't know how to use a Message-ID. None of my concern. The information is in the post with that Message-ID. I have no problem using your "client" (Google Groups) and find that very post using that very Message-ID, but I'm a lot smarter than you. Most people are, of course. Or could you tell me what I'm meant to do with the text ? What text? the text from the message ID you post. See for yourself, use the Message-ID to find the post and you can see the text yourself. Takes you about 30 seconds (or 50 days). I get what is above that I've left in, so you have some chance of knowing what I mean by 'the text' The text "above" was not from the message with the Message-ID I posted, Dave. You've consistently failed to find the right message, in spite of the Message-ID being a unique identifier for one single post. Sandman: Basically, you have asked me two question repeatedly oever and over and aover again: Because there's yet to be an answer. Apart from 49 and 47 days ago, that is. Also would you like to continue with your constant arseholes responses to typos as yuo do ? You're WAY beyond simple typos, drunk Dave. Would you like your competence and literacy decided on by the following "oever" "question" "oever" I make mistakes as well, I have no problem admitting to that. I don't even have a spelling checker in my usenet client. I don't make even 1% of the spelling and grammar mistakes you do, however. Sandman: 1. What Canon model am I talking about? You asked this question the first time he 09/22/2014 I answered that question directly, and quoted the post I later started referencing: , that post was from 09/21/2014, so just one day old. But here we are, 49 days later and you still have not managed to comprehend the information in that post which first was quoted to you, and later referenced by Message-ID. YOu know why I didn't quote it again? Because you SNIPPED THE QUOTE in your followup. You replied and *REMOVED* the quote of me talking about what camera I am in reference to. In spite of this, I was such a nice guy that I quoted this post no less then THREE times for your benefit. So again no mention of which camera well done. and you wonder why it takes 40+ posts. But I gave you the message-ID so you can see for yourself. Easy! Sandman: 2. In what way is the Canon "trounced" by the Nikon? You asked this question the first time he 09/24/2014 For obvious reasons, I had grown tired at quoting things for you, so I gave you two Message-ID's: and , where I had listed the many ways that the Nikon "trounces" the Canon. But not which canon. Luckily, that was answered he -- Sandman[.net] |
#192
|
|||
|
|||
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
In article , Whisky-dave wrote:
Whisky-dave: That's the thing you've never expplained it just gone on about ID messages which are irrelivant. Sandman: I did explain it, 47 days ago. I've even directed you to the exact message in which I explained it. Here it is again: Whisky-dave: As I explined 44 days ago that doesn;t direct anywhere useful Sandman: 1. Yes it does - it directs you to the post I made with the explanation. Whisky-dave: Which contained no explanation. Sandman: It does. Then I didnt see it. Not my problem. The message in question contains the answer to your question. If you can't find it or can't understand the words in it, I don't care. So what is the explanation. More **** about ID messages will get you the same response. If you wish you can state the message ID, and underneath the actual message. I did, before. You ignored it. Thsi is because I seem to get a differnt message to what you do. So the only way tpo cpmpare such things is to compare the messages. No, all you have to do is look up the Message-ID I gave you. It can only point to one single message, and once you look it up, you have your answer. Should take you 30 seconds. You're up to about 50 days now. I don;t know why you're so reluctant to do this. Because you're an asshole troll, that's why. If you were a normal person and a grown up, I would have been a lot more forthcoming to you. And from the beginning I was. I quuted the relevant part of the message along with the Message-ID like I always do, since I'm a nice guy. In your followup you deleted the quote and ignored it kept asking the question. I even quoted it two more times but you kept asking, so then I moved over to just referencing the Message-ID since I grew tired of quoting the same post over and over again. And then I realized that you're here posting to USENET and you have no clue what a Message-ID is and how to use it. That coupled with the fact that you are a complete asshole troll made it far more fun to see you stumble around on your own nose than to help you obtain your answer. Simple as that. What goes around, comes around. Treat others as you want others to treat you. If you can't take the heat.. and so on. Sandman: Luckily, that was answered he www.howtofixcomputers.com › ... › Digital Photo 3 days ago - 4 posts In that very post is the answer to the question that still haven't been able to figure out. First-class humor! yes how to fix computers, the obvious message ID to explain what camera you are refering to. Haha did you... did you just *GOOGLE* the Message-ID??? Yes, yes you did! I just google it and that's the first hit! I... I don't know what to say, I mean I knew you were a retarded troll and perhaps somewhere inside I was desperately hoping it was just an act to stir up stuff on usenet, but no, I think you really ARE this stupid. You actually went to google.co.uk and searched the *WEB* for occurances of the Message-ID, and for whatever reason, some HTFC-form has indexed this group and that shows up as the very first hit! That's amazing, is this how you think Message-ID's work? Ok, just because I think it's actually harmful for you to be this stupid, I'll lend you one more hand. You are using Google for posting to usenet. You're NOT using Google web search engine to post to USENET, they are two different things. Really old people and perhaps newborns may mix things like that uo, but hey, that's ok. You'd think that for someone that apparetnly more or less manages to send messages through one Google service would know that it is different from other Google services - or did you also search your Google calendars for my Message-ID? The service you're using is named "Google Groups". It's widely recognized as the worst USENET client known to mankind, so it's no surprise that you're using it at all. Google Groups has a search function of its own you know, that actually doesn't search bbc.co.uk and facebook.com bot only usenet and Google Groups posts. Neat, isn't it? Yeah, at the top of Google Groups you can see what we people call a "search bar", in to that you can put "search terms" but wait, hold your horses! A Message-ID is not a search term! If you search for the Message-ID you will only find posts where the Message-ID has been *mentioned*, like you did for the web search, remember? That's not how you find the actual message for which the Message-ID is referencing. No, you have to go into what we call "advanced search", whoho there, big boy, don't be scared, it's a big word I know. And I know the search bar in itself was plenty too advanced for you to begin with. When you have a group selected, there is a small arrow in the search bar, that invokes the advances search, and it will fold down to reveal what most seem like thousands of search options for your mind, but relax, go to your happy place and try your hardest to locate something there that looks something like the letters you see he "Message ID" Now have an adult help you use the keyboard to search or the relevant Message-ID, little troll-dave, and you'll be just fine -- Sandman[.net], should I have told him that you need to remove the angle brackets? Ooops... |
#193
|
|||
|
|||
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
Thread summary:
Q1: What camera was Sandman talking about? Answer: When: Sep 21 (52 days ago) Q2: In what ways does the D7100 'trounce' the 7D? Answer: When: Sep 17 (56 days ago) Posts from Whisky-Dave in this thread: 56 over a span of 51 days! Whisky-dave: Then I didnt see it. Sandman: Not my problem. Not mine either. So if you're not having a problem, why are you still asking questions that were answered 56 days ago? Sandman: The message in question contains the answer to your question. If you can't find it or can't understand the words in it, I don't care. If I don;lt understand what you've posted why should I care ? You keep asking about it! If you don't care, stop asking! You've posted about it 56 times in this thread! Asking the same questions over and over again that I have quoted the answer to and given you references to where the answer is many many times. You obviously care a lot more than any normal person would ever do. Whisky-dave: I don;t know why you're so reluctant to do this. Sandman: Because you're an asshole troll, that's why. NO because it doesn't say what you think it says, that is yuor problem. It says exactly what I say it says. And how would you know - you've yet to be able to figure out how to use a Message-ID and actually find the actual messages, so you don't even have the capacity of knowing whether or not the messages says what I say they do. Sandman: If you were a normal person and a grown up, I would have been a lot more forthcoming to you. and yet I'm not the only one here that thinks your an arsehole. Yeah, there are lots of trolls in this group. I can't explain why. What you guys have in common is that you become really nasty when your errors, misinformation and lies are exposed and thrown in your face. Whisky-dave: yes how to fix computers, the obvious message ID to explain what camera you are refering to. Sandman: Haha did you... did you just *GOOGLE* the Message-ID??? Yes, yes you did! I just google it and that's the first hit! I... I don't know what to say, The why don't you post what you get. Sandman: That's amazing, is this how you think Message-ID's work? Then how does the message ID work for you ? I explained it in my post - you snipped the long explanation away in your followup. This is why you're an asshole, Dave. I am kind enough to tell you how to use a Message-ID and then snip it away and ask me how you use it. That's what makes you an asshole troll. Posting endless crap about how great you are still hasn't produced the actual post. The actual post was produced 56 days ago. It's still there, all you have to do is go look it up. Voila. -- Sandman[.net] |
#194
|
|||
|
|||
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
In article , Whisky-dave wrote:
Sandman: Thread summary: Q1: What camera was Sandman talking about? Answer: When: Sep 21 (52 days ago) Answer sandman : I'm still not going to tell you all I;m going to do is post a message ID Sandman: Q2: In what ways does the D7100 'trounce' the 7D? Answer: When: Sep 17 (56 days ago) Answer sandman : I'm still not going to tell you all I;m going to do is post a message ID Here is an extended summary: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Question: What camera was Sandman talking about? Answer: When: Sep 21 (54 days ago) Quoted: 53 days ago 52 days ago 50 days ago 49 days ago 44 days ago 37 days ago Referenced: 8 days ago 7 days ago 3 days ago 3 days ago 2 days ago ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Question: In what ways does the D7100 'trounce' the 7D? Answer: When: Sep 17 (58 days ago) Quoted: 54 days ago 54 days ago Referenced: 50 days ago 37 days ago 28 days ago 25 days ago 25 days ago 25 days ago 8 days ago 3 days ago 2 days ago ---------------------------------------------------------------------- As you can see, I have both quoted *and* referenced the articles on many many occasions. If you've managed to miss them all these times, what difference would it make if I quoted them again? I have no guarantee that you will understand it now, so why bother? I've given you 100% of what you need to acquire your answer, you're just to stupid to understand how to get to it. -- Sandman[.net] |
#195
|
|||
|
|||
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
On 11/17/2014 8:40 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 14 November 2014 07:36:34 UTC, Sandman wrote: In article , Whisky-dave wrote: Answer sandman : I'm still not going to tell you all I;m going to do is post a message ID So what's the poiunt then. Please stop feeding the troll. You have more sense. -- PeterN |
#196
|
|||
|
|||
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
In article , Whisky-dave wrote:
Whisky-dave: Answer sandman : I'm still not going to tell you all I;m going to do is post a message ID So what's the poiunt then. Thread summary: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Question: What camera was Sandman talking about? Answer: When: Sep 21 (58 days ago) Quoted: 57 days ago 56 days ago 54 days ago 53 days ago 48 days ago 41 days ago Referenced: 12 days ago 11 days ago 7 days ago 7 days ago 6 days ago 4 days ago ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Question: In what ways does the D7100 'trounce' the 7D? Answer: When: Sep 17 (62 days ago) Quoted: 58 days ago 58 days ago Referenced: 54 days ago 41 days ago 32 days ago 29 days ago 29 days ago 29 days ago 12 days ago 7 days ago 6 days ago 4 days ago ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Sandman[.net] |
#197
|
|||
|
|||
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
In article , PeterN wrote:
Whisky-dave: Answer sandman : I'm still not going to tell you all I;m going to do is post a message ID So what's the poiunt then. Please stop feeding the troll. You have more sense. Did Peter just claim that drunk Dave has *more sense*?? Hahaha! -- Sandman[.net] |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon new release D7100 | Rob | Digital Photography | 159 | March 15th 13 11:09 AM |
6400 on the D3? How about 12,800 on a little P&S? | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | January 24th 08 08:29 PM |