Ping Tony Cooper

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 04:51:59 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The lens is, and will always be, an 85mm lens. The argument is that
in some people's opinion, that can be a "long lens". In other
people's opinion, it is not a long lens.

it's not a matter of opinion. 85mm is a long lens and anyone who thinks
otherwise is wrong. simple as that. you even agreed with that the other
day. changing it again so quickly?

I would never have considered it a long lens in the days I owned a
Graflex.

once again, you're moving the goalposts.

don't think that you can get away with changing the film format without
anyone noticing.

I haven't changed the film format. I'm mentioning it for the first
time in the context of the 85mm lens.

now go read the definition, this time for comprehension.

Even if you insist on using a definition rather than relying on how
people use a term, the definition is useless without someone
specifying an image size. You didn't: I did.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The lens is, and will always be, an 85mm lens. The argument is that
in some people's opinion, that can be a "long lens". In other
people's opinion, it is not a long lens.

it's not a matter of opinion. 85mm is a long lens and anyone who thinks
otherwise is wrong. simple as that. you even agreed with that the other
day. changing it again so quickly?

I would never have considered it a long lens in the days I owned a
Graflex.

once again, you're moving the goalposts.

don't think that you can get away with changing the film format without
anyone noticing.

I haven't changed the film format. I'm mentioning it for the first
time in the context of the 85mm lens.

both statements can't be true. either you did or you didn't.

now go read the definition, this time for comprehension.

Even if you insist on using a definition rather than relying on how
people use a term, the definition is useless without someone
specifying an image size. You didn't: I did.

wrong on that too. originally it was a nikon d300.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


A common factor in these discussions with you is that you turn out to
be relying on a quite specific definition of a term while others are
using the term in a somewhat different sense.

that describes you.

i recall you arguing that 'pc' stands for personal computer, therefore
a mac is a pc.

Now you really are changing the subject.

i haven't changed a thing.

*you* brought up definitions, not me, so if anyone has changed the
subject (from lenses), that would be you.

Eh? We were talking about long and longer lenses in general when in
Message-ID: you cited the
definition of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
In photography, a long-focus lens is a camera lens which has a focal
length that is longer than the diagonal measure of the film or
sensor that receives its image.

_That's_ when we first got down to definitions.

yep, and then you started to argue about long, long-focus and telephoto.

You are on the wrong side of
the definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer
"A personal computer (PC) is a multi-purpose computer whose size,
capabilities, and price make it feasible for individual use.[1] PCs
are intended to be operated directly by an end user, rather than by
a computer expert or technician."

By that xdefinition a Mac is indeed a PC.

as i said, technically it is, but nobody thinks mac when they hear the
term 'pc'. that's just how it is.

but if you insist, a smartphone also qualifies under that definition,
as do tablets, smar****ches, nases and numerous other devices, which
would make apple the top manufacturer of pcs, blowing well past hp,
dell, lenovo, etc.

except that when people hear the term 'pc', they think windows
computer, *not* a mac.

Do they? Have you asked?

yes they do, and there's no need to ask. talk to people and listen to
how they use the term.

Now you are abandoning the Wikipedia definition and relying on how
people "use the term". It's a pity you didn't do that instead of
setting this long side issue rolling with your Message-ID:


i'm not abandoning anything.

your own reference proves you wrong.

did you even read it? clearly not. had you done so, you wouldn't have
cited it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer#Terminology
...For example, "PC" is used in contrast with "Mac", an Apple
Macintosh computer.[5][6][7][8] This sense of the word is used in the
"Get a Mac" advertisement campaign that ran between 2006 and 2009,
as well as its rival, I'm a PC campaign, that appeared in 2008. Since
none of these Apple products were mainframes or time-sharing systems,
they were all "personal computers" and not "PC" (brand) computers.

it also makes the distinction between time-shared systems and personal,
except that is not true.

for example, a 'personal computer' can (and often is) configured as a
server, where multiple people can be using it at the same time, almost
always remotely and known only by their ip address.

it also doesn't need to be a dedicated server. a computer in the next
room could be used by more than one person at the same time over the
local network.

therefore, by your own reference, modern personal computers are not
personal.

you are also avoiding explaining that if a mac should be called a pc,
so should smartphones and smar****ches, the most personal of any
computer.

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:57:23 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


A common factor in these discussions with you is that you turn out to
be relying on a quite specific definition of a term while others are
using the term in a somewhat different sense.

that describes you.

i recall you arguing that 'pc' stands for personal computer, therefore
a mac is a pc.

Now you really are changing the subject.

i haven't changed a thing.

*you* brought up definitions, not me, so if anyone has changed the
subject (from lenses), that would be you.

Eh? We were talking about long and longer lenses in general when in
Message-ID: you cited the
definition of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
In photography, a long-focus lens is a camera lens which has a focal
length that is longer than the diagonal measure of the film or
sensor that receives its image.

_That's_ when we first got down to definitions.

yep, and then you started to argue about long, long-focus and telephoto.

No I never did, but I did argue about you suddenly introducing a rigid
definition into what until then had been a more general discussion.

You are on the wrong side of
the definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer
"A personal computer (PC) is a multi-purpose computer whose size,
capabilities, and price make it feasible for individual use.[1] PCs
are intended to be operated directly by an end user, rather than by
a computer expert or technician."

By that xdefinition a Mac is indeed a PC.

as i said, technically it is, but nobody thinks mac when they hear the
term 'pc'. that's just how it is.

but if you insist, a smartphone also qualifies under that definition,
as do tablets, smar****ches, nases and numerous other devices, which
would make apple the top manufacturer of pcs, blowing well past hp,
dell, lenovo, etc.

except that when people hear the term 'pc', they think windows
computer, *not* a mac.

Do they? Have you asked?

yes they do, and there's no need to ask. talk to people and listen to
how they use the term.

Now you are abandoning the Wikipedia definition and relying on how
people "use the term". It's a pity you didn't do that instead of
setting this long side issue rolling with your Message-ID:


i'm not abandoning anything.

Merely demonstrating your ability to believe six contradictory ideas
before breakfast.

your own reference proves you wrong.

did you even read it? clearly not. had you done so, you wouldn't have
cited it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer#Terminology
...For example, "PC" is used in contrast with "Mac", an Apple
Macintosh computer.[5][6][7][8] This sense of the word is used in the
"Get a Mac" advertisement campaign that ran between 2006 and 2009,
as well as its rival, I'm a PC campaign, that appeared in 2008. Since
none of these Apple products were mainframes or time-sharing systems,
they were all "personal computers" and not "PC" (brand) computers.

The distinction is one made first by Apple for commercial advertising
purposes. Why on earth should I let that steer my usage of the english
language?

it also makes the distinction between time-shared systems and personal,
except that is not true.

Its obviously rubbish then. Why on earth are you relying on it?

for example, a 'personal computer' can (and often is) configured as a
server, where multiple people can be using it at the same time, almost
always remotely and known only by their ip address.

Why on earth should peole use a personal computer to play tennis?

it also doesn't need to be a dedicated server. a computer in the next
room could be used by more than one person at the same time over the
local network.

therefore, by your own reference, modern personal computers are not
personal.

you are also avoiding explaining that if a mac should be called a pc,
so should smartphones and smar****ches, the most personal of any
computer.

Why on earth should I explain the obvious to you? Oh. I know ...
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:57:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The lens is, and will always be, an 85mm lens. The argument is that
in some people's opinion, that can be a "long lens". In other
people's opinion, it is not a long lens.

it's not a matter of opinion. 85mm is a long lens and anyone who thinks
otherwise is wrong. simple as that. you even agreed with that the other
day. changing it again so quickly?

I would never have considered it a long lens in the days I owned a
Graflex.

once again, you're moving the goalposts.

don't think that you can get away with changing the film format without
anyone noticing.

I haven't changed the film format. I'm mentioning it for the first
time in the context of the 85mm lens.

both statements can't be true. either you did or you didn't.

I can and I didn't.

now go read the definition, this time for comprehension.

Even if you insist on using a definition rather than relying on how
people use a term, the definition is useless without someone
specifying an image size. You didn't: I did.

wrong on that too. originally it was a nikon d300.

Not on my Graflex.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 9/30/2018 11:39 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:57:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The lens is, and will always be, an 85mm lens. The argument is that
in some people's opinion, that can be a "long lens". In other
people's opinion, it is not a long lens.

it's not a matter of opinion. 85mm is a long lens and anyone who thinks
otherwise is wrong. simple as that. you even agreed with that the other
day. changing it again so quickly?

I would never have considered it a long lens in the days I owned a
Graflex.

once again, you're moving the goalposts.

don't think that you can get away with changing the film format without
anyone noticing.

I haven't changed the film format. I'm mentioning it for the first
time in the context of the 85mm lens.

both statements can't be true. either you did or you didn't.

I can and I didn't.

now go read the definition, this time for comprehension.

Even if you insist on using a definition rather than relying on how
people use a term, the definition is useless without someone
specifying an image size. You didn't: I did.

wrong on that too. originally it was a nikon d300.

Not on my Graflex.

Ah, SO much context has been striped that there's
there's no way to establish the range of film/sensor
diagonals that apply to "it's not a matter of opinion.
85mm is a long lens and anyone who thinks
otherwise is wrong."
~~
Lacking format pinning context the quoted [absolute]
statement is wrong in many cases.
~~
[Note: Yes, I too thought about my Graflex when I read
that statement. ]
--

L...
RC
--

On Sun, 30 Sep 2018 20:57:22 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The lens is, and will always be, an 85mm lens. The argument is that
in some people's opinion, that can be a "long lens". In other
people's opinion, it is not a long lens.

it's not a matter of opinion. 85mm is a long lens and anyone who thinks
otherwise is wrong. simple as that. you even agreed with that the other
day. changing it again so quickly?

I would never have considered it a long lens in the days I owned a
Graflex.

once again, you're moving the goalposts.

don't think that you can get away with changing the film format without
anyone noticing.

I haven't changed the film format. I'm mentioning it for the first
time in the context of the 85mm lens.

both statements can't be true. either you did or you didn't.

now go read the definition, this time for comprehension.

Even if you insist on using a definition rather than relying on how
people use a term, the definition is useless without someone
specifying an image size. You didn't: I did.

wrong on that too. originally it was a nikon d300.

The Nikon D300 is not a lens. If you bother to read Eric's statement,
he was referring to a lens at a time when he owned a particular
camera. The term remains "long lens".

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Eh? We were talking about long and longer lenses in general when in
Message-ID: you cited the
definition of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
In photography, a long-focus lens is a camera lens which has a focal
length that is longer than the diagonal measure of the film or
sensor that receives its image.

_That's_ when we first got down to definitions.

yep, and then you started to argue about long, long-focus and telephoto.

No I never did, but I did argue about you suddenly introducing a rigid
definition into what until then had been a more general discussion.

i never said it was rigid.

once again, you alter what i say.

You are on the wrong side of
the definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer
"A personal computer (PC) is a multi-purpose computer whose size,
capabilities, and price make it feasible for individual use.[1] PCs
are intended to be operated directly by an end user, rather than by
a computer expert or technician."

By that xdefinition a Mac is indeed a PC.



your own reference proves you wrong.

did you even read it? clearly not. had you done so, you wouldn't have
cited it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer#Terminology
...For example, "PC" is used in contrast with "Mac", an Apple
Macintosh computer.[5][6][7][8] This sense of the word is used in the
"Get a Mac" advertisement campaign that ran between 2006 and 2009,
as well as its rival, I'm a PC campaign, that appeared in 2008. Since
none of these Apple products were mainframes or time-sharing systems,
they were all "personal computers" and not "PC" (brand) computers.

The distinction is one made first by Apple for commercial advertising
purposes.

the distinction long predates that particular ad campaign.

Why on earth should I let that steer my usage of the english
language?

so that others understand what you mean and also to not look like a
blithering idiot.

it also makes the distinction between time-shared systems and personal,
except that is not true.

Its obviously rubbish then. Why on earth are you relying on it?

the question is why are *you* relying on it.

perhaps you forgot, but *you* provided that link.

for example, a 'personal computer' can (and often is) configured as a
server, where multiple people can be using it at the same time, almost
always remotely and known only by their ip address.

Why on earth should peole use a personal computer to play tennis?

why not?
https://www.focusedapps.com/app/hit-tennis-3/

it also doesn't need to be a dedicated server. a computer in the next
room could be used by more than one person at the same time over the
local network.

therefore, by your own reference, modern personal computers are not
personal.

you are also avoiding explaining that if a mac should be called a pc,
so should smartphones and smar****ches, the most personal of any
computer.

Why on earth should I explain the obvious to you? Oh. I know ...

so obvious, yet you fail to comprehend it.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:


I would never have considered it a long lens in the days I owned a
Graflex.

once again, you're moving the goalposts.

don't think that you can get away with changing the film format without
anyone noticing.

I haven't changed the film format. I'm mentioning it for the first
time in the context of the 85mm lens.

both statements can't be true. either you did or you didn't.

now go read the definition, this time for comprehension.

Even if you insist on using a definition rather than relying on how
people use a term, the definition is useless without someone
specifying an image size. You didn't: I did.

wrong on that too. originally it was a nikon d300.

The Nikon D300 is not a lens.

nobody said it was.

If you bother to read Eric's statement,

something you should do.

he was referring to a lens at a time when he owned a particular
camera.

what you fail to understand is the particular camera is very important.

you continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of all things
photographic.

The term remains "long lens".

yep, one which you do not understand, along with many others.

On Mon, 01 Oct 2018 02:04:35 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Eh? We were talking about long and longer lenses in general when in
Message-ID: you cited the
definition of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-focus_lens
In photography, a long-focus lens is a camera lens which has a focal
length that is longer than the diagonal measure of the film or
sensor that receives its image.

_That's_ when we first got down to definitions.

yep, and then you started to argue about long, long-focus and telephoto.

No I never did, but I did argue about you suddenly introducing a rigid
definition into what until then had been a more general discussion.

i never said it was rigid.

Itwas specific and that's what made it rigid.

once again, you alter what i say.

I don't have to. You are quite capable of amending text yourself.


You are on the wrong side of
the definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer
"A personal computer (PC) is a multi-purpose computer whose size,
capabilities, and price make it feasible for individual use.[1] PCs
are intended to be operated directly by an end user, rather than by
a computer expert or technician."

By that xdefinition a Mac is indeed a PC.



your own reference proves you wrong.

did you even read it? clearly not. had you done so, you wouldn't have
cited it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_computer#Terminology
...For example, "PC" is used in contrast with "Mac", an Apple
Macintosh computer.[5][6][7][8] This sense of the word is used in the
"Get a Mac" advertisement campaign that ran between 2006 and 2009,
as well as its rival, I'm a PC campaign, that appeared in 2008. Since
none of these Apple products were mainframes or time-sharing systems,
they were all "personal computers" and not "PC" (brand) computers.

The distinction is one made first by Apple for commercial advertising
purposes.

the distinction long predates that particular ad campaign.

Why on earth should I let that steer my usage of the english
language?

so that others understand what you mean and also to not look like a
blithering idiot.

it also makes the distinction between time-shared systems and personal,
except that is not true.

Its obviously rubbish then. Why on earth are you relying on it?

the question is why are *you* relying on it.

perhaps you forgot, but *you* provided that link.

for example, a 'personal computer' can (and often is) configured as a
server, where multiple people can be using it at the same time, almost
always remotely and known only by their ip address.

Why on earth should peole use a personal computer to play tennis?

why not?
https://www.focusedapps.com/app/hit-tennis-3/

it also doesn't need to be a dedicated server. a computer in the next
room could be used by more than one person at the same time over the
local network.

therefore, by your own reference, modern personal computers are not
personal.

you are also avoiding explaining that if a mac should be called a pc,
so should smartphones and smar****ches, the most personal of any
computer.

Why on earth should I explain the obvious to you? Oh. I know ...

so obvious, yet you fail to comprehend it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens