A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An actual photo in r.p.d.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 11th 14, 08:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default An actual photo in r.p.d.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I'm not saying that my version is better or the best. I'm just saying
that mine is what I want to show. We either go for stark realism and
leave the warts or we remove the warts and try to focus the viewers
attention. It's not good to create new warts.

Sorry I disagree. Some viewers like the warts.

perhaps you can answer your own question:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
Please explain in detail the factual basis for your conclusion.

WTF are you blabbering about.

He only enters a thread to create dissension. Never to link to a
photograph he's taken or to critique one. I don't know why he bothers
to read a photo newsgroup.


you're wrong as usual.


When have you *ever* entered or started a thread about a photograph?


i have.

and then there's you, who enters a thread solely to attack,


Enter it to attack? I started the damn thread.


your comment was solely to attack me.

It was a thread about a photograph until you diverted it.


i didn't divert anything.

you did.
  #12  
Old November 11th 14, 08:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default An actual photo in r.p.d.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I'm not saying that my version is better or the best. I'm just saying
that mine is what I want to show. We either go for stark realism and
leave the warts or we remove the warts and try to focus the viewers
attention. It's not good to create new warts.

Sorry I disagree. Some viewers like the warts.

perhaps you can answer your own question:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
Please explain in detail the factual basis for your conclusion.


WTF are you blabbering about.

He only enters a thread to create dissension. Never to link to a
photograph he's taken or to critique one. I don't know why he bothers
to read a photo newsgroup.


I don't think that you are quite correct. nospam is very knowledgable
about some subjects and does have something to contribute to the news
group.


But when has he ever contributed a photo or a critique or comment
about a photo?

When has he ever entered a thread about a subject where he wasn't
entering to argue with someone about something?


many times.

you're too bent on bashing that you can't see it, or are intentionally
ignoring it so that you can bash.
  #13  
Old November 11th 14, 10:04 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default An actual photo in r.p.d.

On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 17:19:57 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

I'm not saying that my version is better or the best. I'm just saying
that mine is what I want to show. We either go for stark realism and
leave the warts or we remove the warts and try to focus the viewers
attention. It's not good to create new warts.

Sorry I disagree. Some viewers like the warts.

perhaps you can answer your own question:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
Please explain in detail the factual basis for your conclusion.

WTF are you blabbering about.


He only enters a thread to create dissension. Never to link to a
photograph he's taken or to critique one. I don't know why he bothers
to read a photo newsgroup.


you're wrong as usual.

and then there's you, who enters a thread solely to attack, as you've
done here. peter is also guilty of that too.


And you entered this thread only to attack Peter.

Go back and look if you don't believe me.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #14  
Old November 11th 14, 10:49 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default An actual photo in r.p.d.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

I'm not saying that my version is better or the best. I'm just saying
that mine is what I want to show. We either go for stark realism and
leave the warts or we remove the warts and try to focus the viewers
attention. It's not good to create new warts.

Sorry I disagree. Some viewers like the warts.

perhaps you can answer your own question:

In article , PeterN
wrote:
Please explain in detail the factual basis for your conclusion.

WTF are you blabbering about.

He only enters a thread to create dissension. Never to link to a
photograph he's taken or to critique one. I don't know why he bothers
to read a photo newsgroup.


you're wrong as usual.

and then there's you, who enters a thread solely to attack, as you've
done here. peter is also guilty of that too.


And you entered this thread only to attack Peter.

Go back and look if you don't believe me.


he asked the very same question of me in response to almost the same
comment in another thread.

i'm giving back what he dished out first.
  #15  
Old November 11th 14, 11:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default An actual photo in r.p.d.

On 2014-11-11 19:54:00 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


Le Snip

When have you *ever* entered or started a thread about a photograph?


i have.


That should be easy enough to verify. Show us.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #16  
Old November 12th 14, 02:30 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default An actual photo in r.p.d.

On 2014-11-11 23:35:13 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

Well, as in so many other threads, nospam has taken it over and ****ed
it up with his nothing-to-do-with-photography bull****.

I'm outta this one.


Yup!

I killed the the Västerås/London 7D thread and my S/N ratio has
improved vastly. The lesson has been learned. I have made the decision
that once a thread has been irreversibly derailed, regardless of
whoever the flame combatants are, I am going to kill the thread.

I am losing patience when it comes to dealing with such BS.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

  #17  
Old November 12th 14, 05:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default An actual photo in r.p.d.

On 11/12/2014 6:20 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Wednesday, 12 November 2014 01:31:03 UTC, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-11-11 23:35:13 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

Well, as in so many other threads, nospam has taken it over and ****ed
it up with his nothing-to-do-with-photography bull****.

I'm outta this one.


Yup!

I killed the the Västerås/London 7D thread and my S/N ratio has
improved vastly. The lesson has been learned. I have made the decision
that once a thread has been irreversibly derailed, regardless of
whoever the flame combatants are, I am going to kill the thread.


WTF are you talking about derailed ? the above thread is one of the few that has retained it's original point. The 7D 7D mk ii and 7 D mk ii beta test ..
been going 44+ days as pointed out and the same question still remains.
and with sandmans contritutions it'll stay that way until the end of the world he says so in a meggage ID.

This thread hopwever you started has changed already ;-P


I am losing patience when it comes to dealing with such BS.

--
Regards,

Savageduck



It won't lat a day longer if you ignore him.

--
PeterN
  #18  
Old November 12th 14, 09:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default An actual photo in r.p.d.

In article , Andreas Skitsnack wrote:

Well, as in so many other threads, nospam has taken it over and
****ed it up with his nothing-to-do-with-photography bull****.


I'm outta this one.


Fewer posts from Andreas? Whoa, is it christmas?


--
Sandman[.net]
  #19  
Old November 12th 14, 09:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default An actual photo in r.p.d.

In article 2014111117305897385-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck wrote:

On 2014-11-11 23:35:13 +0000, Tony Cooper
said:


Andreas Skitsnack:
Well, as in so many other threads, nospam has taken it over and
****ed it up with his nothing-to-do-with-photography bull****.


I'm outta this one.


Yup!


I killed the the Västerås/London 7D thread and my S/N ratio has
improved vastly. The lesson has been learned. I have made the
decision that once a thread has been irreversibly derailed,
regardless of whoever the flame combatants are, I am going to kill
the thread.


I can't understand why you haven't done that for like... eh, forever? You
have to realize that sometimes it's good that some of us keep the moron
trolls busy so they don't go around and disturb groups that have actual
conversations in it. It's not like that's very common in rpd any more. See
it as a service

I am losing patience when it comes to dealing with such BS.


That's pretty funny. I mean, even if you don't kill such a thread - in what
way did you ever "deal" in it? There are tons of threads, daily, on usenet
that I don't read, but I haven't killed. I don't consider that I still have
to "deal" with them.

Aren't you using Unison? Can't it be set to show all posts as unexpanded
threads, so even if there are 50+ posts in a thread you dislike, it will
show up as one row in your list view and you can just go to the next
thread?

In slrn, I hit "T" (i.e. shift-t) to mark thread as read and move to next
thread.


--
Sandman[.net]
  #20  
Old November 12th 14, 09:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default An actual photo in r.p.d.

In article , PeterN wrote:

Whisky-dave:
WTF are you talking about derailed ? the above thread is one of
the few that has retained it's original point. The 7D 7D mk ii and
7 D mk ii beta test .. been going 44+ days as pointed out and the
same question still remains. and with sandmans contritutions it'll
stay that way until the end of the world he says so in a meggage
ID.


This thread hopwever you started has changed already ;-P


It won't lat a day longer if you ignore him.


Eh, Peter, it's the other way around - Drunk Dave here is the one that
keeps asking the same question. I am the one responding to him, not the
other way around. I was done in that thread 54 days ago.


--
Sandman[.net]
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is it Actual or is it Apparent dynamic range? Mike Russell[_3_] Digital Photography 1 September 2nd 09 08:22 PM
Any actual in-depth reviews of the S5 IS yet? Paul D. Sullivan Digital Photography 0 June 3rd 07 10:21 AM
Actual Pixels or not John Smith[_3_] Digital Photography 9 April 21st 07 04:13 PM
actual size of photos CNN_news Digital Photography 6 February 11th 06 07:22 PM
ISO and actual sensitivity in DSLR's (D70, *istD, 20D, S3...) Alan Browne Digital SLR Cameras 138 March 30th 05 07:28 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.