7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

On 2014-10-09 17:59:25 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/9/2014 1:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:36:56 +0000, PeterN said:

The variatin applicable to coputing is no longer relevant, since the
advent of quantum coputing.

WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?


There was a variation on Eric's former sig line:

"there are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand
binary, and those who don’t."

So?

I repeat; WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?

One sounds like some sort of ED medication, and the other puting with a
collaborator.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/9/2014 3:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:59:25 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/9/2014 1:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:36:56 +0000, PeterN said:

The variatin applicable to coputing is no longer relevant, since the
advent of quantum coputing.

WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?


There was a variation on Eric's former sig line:

"there are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand
binary, and those who don’t."

So?

I repeat; WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?

Typos.


One sounds like some sort of ED medication,

I have no need for that.

and the other puting with a
collaborator.


What kind of collaborator
--
PeterN

On 2014-10-09 21:36:35 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/9/2014 3:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:59:25 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/9/2014 1:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:36:56 +0000, PeterN said:

The variatin applicable to coputing is no longer relevant, since the
advent of quantum coputing.

WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?


There was a variation on Eric's former sig line:

"there are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand
binary, and those who don’t."

So?

I repeat; WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?

Typos.

Twice for "coputing"!!


One sounds like some sort of ED medication,

I have no need for that.

Hmmm...

and the other puting with a
collaborator.


What kind of collaborator

Your "puting" collaborator.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:59:25 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 10/9/2014 1:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:36:56 +0000, PeterN said:

The variatin applicable to coputing is no longer relevant, since the
advent of quantum coputing.

WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?


There was a variation on Eric's former sig line:

"there are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand
binary, and those who don’t."

Nope. Mine was a paradox based on the use of sets which contain
themselves as a member.

"There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

How can I claim to be a member of the "the second class" (people who
don't divide people into classes) when to do so I have to divide
people into the respective classes?

If I don't divide people into classes how can I claim to be a member
of the second class? If I claim to be a member of the second class
then I have divided people into classes and therefore don't qualify
for membership in the second class.

Real headache territory.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:36:35 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 10/9/2014 3:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:59:25 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/9/2014 1:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:36:56 +0000, PeterN said:

The variatin applicable to coputing is no longer relevant, since the
advent of quantum coputing.

WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?


There was a variation on Eric's former sig line:

"there are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand
binary, and those who don’t."

So?

I repeat; WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?

Typos.


One sounds like some sort of ED medication,

I have no need for that.

and the other puting with a
collaborator.


What kind of collaborator

Copulating? Was that what you meant to write?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-10-09 23:24:14 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 13:59:25 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 10/9/2014 1:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:36:56 +0000, PeterN said:

The variatin applicable to coputing is no longer relevant, since the
advent of quantum coputing.

WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?


There was a variation on Eric's former sig line:

"there are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand
binary, and those who donÂ’t."

Nope. Mine was a paradox based on the use of sets which contain
themselves as a member.

"There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes, and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

How can I claim to be a member of the "the second class" (people who
don't divide people into classes) when to do so I have to divide
people into the respective classes?

If I don't divide people into classes how can I claim to be a member
of the second class? If I claim to be a member of the second class
then I have divided people into classes and therefore don't qualify
for membership in the second class.

Real headache territory.

Time to cite Groucho Marx;
“I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.�


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-10-09 23:27:08 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:36:35 -0400, PeterN wrote:

On 10/9/2014 3:03 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:59:25 +0000, PeterN said:

On 10/9/2014 1:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-10-09 17:36:56 +0000, PeterN said:

The variatin applicable to coputing is no longer relevant, since the
advent of quantum coputing.

WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?


There was a variation on Eric's former sig line:

"there are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand
binary, and those who donÂ’t."

So?

I repeat; WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?

Typos.


One sounds like some sort of ED medication,

I have no need for that.

and the other puting with a
collaborator.


What kind of collaborator

Copulating? Was that what you meant to write?

Now that would explain all the typos.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

as this is getting difficult for you how about answering the
original question.

It's only difficult for you because you can't understand English.

Sandman:
"Yeah, like I said - the 7D is trounced by the D7100"

How or in what way is the 7D or the 7D2 trounced by the D7100 ?

simple question, can you answer it.

I have, many times. Here is the last time I did so:


You're welcome. I know you won't be able to understand it this time either.

You have now written twenty-five (25!!!) posts in this thread talking about
your confusion about something that I cleared up nineteen (19!!!) days ago.

You can't get dumber than that. Why do you keep doing this to yourself?



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , PeterN wrote:

PeterN:
The variatin applicable to coputing is no longer relevant,
since the advent of quantum coputing.

Savageduck:
WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?

PeterN:
There was a variation on Eric's former sig line:

"there are only 10 kinds of people in the world: those who
understand binary, and those who don’t."

Savageduck:
So?

I repeat; WTF are "variatin" and "coputing"?

Typos.

Twice for "coputing"... Ironic, for a self-professed English expert.

PeterN
07/19/2014 09:58:06 PM

"As a former editor and professor, I would qualify as an
expert in contemporary English usage in most courts."


- "Yes your honour, his coputer is the cuprit"
- "His what is the what?"

That quote above from you is one of the most hilarious things you've said,
given the fact that contemporary English, or any version of English is
pretty foreign to you.





--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
as this is getting difficult for you how about answering the
original question.

Sandman:
It's only difficult for you because you can't understand English.

"Yeah, like I said - the 7D is trounced by the D7100"

Whisky-dave:
How or in what way is the 7D or the 7D2 trounced by the D7100 ?

simple question, can you answer it.

Sandman:
I have, many times. Here is the last time I did so:


That link doesn;t open why can't you re-post the actual text ?

It's not a link, you blithering idiot. It's a Message-ID that is a
reference to a USENET post. Don't you know anything. In the message with
that Message-ID, you can find a reference to the post which answers your
confusion.

All I want to know is how the 7D (that you refer to) trounches the
D7100 why is that suchy a difficult question.

1. I have never claimed that the 7D "trounches" the D7100
2. The claim I did make is referenced in the message I have provided
a reference to.

Why is that so difficult for you.

Nothing of this is difficult for me. I know exactly what I've said, and
what cameras I have talked about. You are severely confused by everything,
in spite of me giving you quotes and message-ID's to help you out. You keep
asking the same questions over and over again, often directly after me
having quoted the answer or given you the Message-ID, like in your post
above.

Oh, and yes - that was your twnety-sixth (26!!!) post in this thread where
you keep asking questions to which you've been given the answer to.
Questions that was explained and answered no less than nineteen days ago.
You've been at it for almost three weeks! Three weeks of your idiotic posts
where you don't understand what is being written. Amazing.


--
Sandman[.net]