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

Nikon is backwards



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old February 8th 19, 02:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Nikon is backwards

On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 01:22:25 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

Why would I wear something to protect me from something which only happens to dangerous drivers? I've never needed a belt and probably never will. I don't wear armbands or a lifejacket when I swim in the sea either, because I'm not a pathetic pussy like you.


"... something which only happens to dangerous drivers".

Now there is a fallacy.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #302  
Old February 8th 19, 02:27 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Commander Kinsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Nikon is backwards

On Fri, 08 Feb 2019 01:22:14 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 01:22:25 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

Why would I wear something to protect me from something which only happens to dangerous drivers? I've never needed a belt and probably never will. I don't wear armbands or a lifejacket when I swim in the sea either, because I'm not a pathetic pussy like you.


"... something which only happens to dangerous drivers".

Now there is a fallacy.


Clearly you're one of the useless drivers who can't avoid others that **** up. A good driver avoids all accidents.

Even if you don't, the chances should be slim enough for you to worry about it no more than being struck by lightning. Maybe you ought to get some pills for your paranoia.
  #303  
Old February 8th 19, 05:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon is backwards

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If you had been the innocent party, how nay of these could your
driving skills enabled yo to have avoided?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z52L6jGdSkY

a good driver could have avoided most, if not all of those.

it's never a good idea to proceed into the path of an oncoming
vehicle,
regardless of the colour of the light.

If you can see it coming but not if it is hidden behind other
traffic.

even then.

Precognition?

no.

defensive driving.

How can you defend yourself against something which shouldn't be there
and is hidden from you?


by proceeding with caution until it's no longer hidden. driving 101.

if you blindly pull into traffic without looking, then your license
should be revoked.


Typical subject shift.


nope. it's exactly on topic.

If you blindly pull out into the traffic then
you are not the innocent party. (See the first line of this post).


the video in that first line of your post shows numerous vehicles
blindly pulling into traffic.

they *assumed* that since the light was green, those with a red light
on the cross street would stop, without having actually checked if that
was the case.
  #304  
Old February 8th 19, 05:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon is backwards

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Are your mirrors adjusted to give sideways views?

no need for a mirror for sideways views.

They will have to be if as you claim you are going to use them as a
defence against traffic coming from the side.


no side windows on your car?


Of course there are, but I don't have to use mirrors to see out of
them.


exactly the point.

i said:
no need for a mirror for sideways views.


first you argue, then you agree. crazy.
  #305  
Old February 8th 19, 10:00 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Nikon is backwards

rOn Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:12:15 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If you had been the innocent party, how nay of these could your
driving skills enabled yo to have avoided?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z52L6jGdSkY

a good driver could have avoided most, if not all of those.

it's never a good idea to proceed into the path of an oncoming
vehicle,
regardless of the colour of the light.

If you can see it coming but not if it is hidden behind other
traffic.

even then.

Precognition?

no.

defensive driving.

How can you defend yourself against something which shouldn't be there
and is hidden from you?

by proceeding with caution until it's no longer hidden. driving 101.

if you blindly pull into traffic without looking, then your license
should be revoked.


Typical subject shift.


nope. it's exactly on topic.

If you blindly pull out into the traffic then
you are not the innocent party. (See the first line of this post).


the video in that first line of your post shows numerous vehicles
blindly pulling into traffic.


Please go away until you can accept that we are now discussing "If you
had been the innocent party, how nay of these could your driving
skills enabled you to have avoided?" The emphasis is on the word
"innocent".

they *assumed* that since the light was green, those with a red light
on the cross street would stop, without having actually checked if that
was the case.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #306  
Old February 8th 19, 10:12 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13,611
Default Nikon is backwards

On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 23:12:16 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Are your mirrors adjusted to give sideways views?

no need for a mirror for sideways views.

They will have to be if as you claim you are going to use them as a
defence against traffic coming from the side.

no side windows on your car?


Of course there are, but I don't have to use mirrors to see out of
them.


exactly the point.

i said:
no need for a mirror for sideways views.


first you argue, then you agree. crazy.


Read the posts.

Eric Stevens
If you had been the innocent party, how nay of these could your
driving skills enabled yo to have avoided?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z52L6jGdSkY


Commander Kinsey
nay? yo? Speak English. And by being aware of what's happening in
my mirrors.

Eric Stevens
Are your mirrors adjusted to give sideways views?

nospam
no need for a mirror for sideways views.

Eric Stevens
They will have to be if as you claim you are going to use them as a
defence against traffic coming from the side. [Note: nospam didn't
make that claim. Commander Kinsey did]

nospam
no side windows on your car?

Eric Stevens
Of course there are, but I don't have to use mirrors to see out of
them.

nospam
exactly the point.

i said:
no need for a mirror for sideways views.


first you argue, then you agree. crazy.

I see I should have put in a /s for you way back when I last responded
to Commander Kinsey. He certainly got the point and has been rather
quiet since.
--
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #307  
Old February 8th 19, 04:27 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default Nikon is backwards

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

If you had been the innocent party, how nay of these could your
driving skills enabled yo to have avoided?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z52L6jGdSkY



If you blindly pull out into the traffic then
you are not the innocent party. (See the first line of this post).


the video in that first line of your post shows numerous vehicles
blindly pulling into traffic.


Please go away until you can accept that we are now discussing "If you
had been the innocent party, how nay of these could your driving
skills enabled you to have avoided?" The emphasis is on the word
"innocent".


yep, and both parties are *not* innocent. one ran a red light and the
other did not look to see if everyone had stopped.

the *very* first crash in that video, a maroon vehicle runs a red
light, while a grey vehicle slowly moves into its path. the driver of
the grey vehicle clearly did not look for approaching traffic and was
traveling slow enough that it could easily have stopped and avoided a
crash had the driver simply looked to the left.
  #308  
Old February 8th 19, 08:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Commander Kinsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Nikon is backwards

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 11:04:05 -0000, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Friday, 1 February 2019 19:37:40 UTC, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 12:51:00 -0000, Whisky-dave wrote:

On Wednesday, 30 January 2019 22:47:34 UTC, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 22:51:29 -0000, David B. "David wrote:

I confess that I don't go swimming in icy cold lakes - not since I did
my aircrew survival course during a very cold and frost November!

I've never worked out why people don't like being cold. All that happens is you shiver (which is simply muscle movement, just like running or cycling),

I don't like doing either of those, I just don't see the point usually.


So you're a lazy bugger?


No I just believe in energy conservation.


Then you must have your central heating switched off. The least energy usage would be sat at home with no heating wearing a thick jacket.

and you get numb fingers and toes (which isn't that sore and only temporary).

But what's the advantage of having such an experience, do you head butt walls so you can feel pain ?


It's not an advantage or a disadvantage, I just don't care if my fingers are numb.


Handy I guess when you're a ******. But not so good when you actiually have something useful to do.


Do your fingers not operate in the cold or something? Are you a girl?
  #309  
Old February 8th 19, 08:32 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Commander Kinsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Nikon is backwards

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 16:31:08 -0000, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2019-02-03 20:10, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 00:09:00 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-02-02 18:53, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Fri, 01 Feb 2019 23:20:06 -0000, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2019 22:30:07 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 13:17:57 -0000, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-30 17:55, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 01:05:49 -0000, Alan Browne


Exhaust manifold 2 years ago. $400. Installed.

That is VERY expensive. $400 for an exhaust!??!

No. Exhaust _manifold_. The thing that gathers the exhaust from the
engine before the expansion joint leading to the catalytic converter.

Which is smaller and should be cheaper than a whole exhaust, you were
royally ripped off.

What! A complicated casting which has to be machined should be cheaper
than a length of bent tubing? Come now.

It's not that complicated, they're mass produced. I've had one much
cheaper than that, about £60 I think.

You obviously have no clue about what part I referred to.


I know what a ****ing manifold is, this one fits my car and costs £78
including delivery:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/253550837048
Do you like being ripped off? Remember, 90% of garages are run by
cowboys, never ever buy a part from them, buy your own part and either
fit it yourself or get them to do it for labour only.


Hmm. Let's see.
1. Renault.
2. That part is tiny compared to the one on the Accord 2.4 L


1.6 isn't much smaller than 2.4.

3. 87£ is about $150. The Honda compliant part is more expensive
because it is bigger - and not some knockoff crap for cheapskates with
Renault's.


Why buy another original for a ripoff price when it's the original that wore out in the first place?

4. Markup and labour and taxes.

So, as usual you're fabricating BS that in the end is as meaningless as
your life...


You still paid more than double me. Markup is theft. Labour shouldn't be much to bolt something on, must have taken under an hour. Tax is theft.
  #310  
Old February 8th 19, 08:35 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Commander Kinsey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default Nikon is backwards

On Wed, 06 Feb 2019 03:30:49 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2019 22:46:51 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Tue, 05 Feb 2019 10:09:42 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Mon, 04 Feb 2019 23:37:31 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 23:33:05 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 21:58:17 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 07:29:34 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 02 Feb 2019 23:44:21 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2019 23:07:17 -0000, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 01 Feb 2019 22:31:26 -0000, "Commander Kinsey"
wrote:

On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 18:27:45 -0000, Alan Browne wrote:

On 2019-01-31 13:24, Bill W wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019 08:17:57 -0500, Alan Browne
wrote:

On 2019-01-30 17:55, Commander Kinsey wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 01:05:49 -0000, Alan Browne

I'd rather have it. Never know. Didn't cost anything to get fixed.

Airbags, like seatbelts, cause as much harm as good. I never wear a
seatbelt unless there's a cop nearby. My friend's father died because
he was trapped by his seatbelt in an accident. They're also damn
annoying - whenever you lean forwards at a junction to see if any
traffic is coming, the damn thing locks! Then you've got to slowly lean
back and forwards again, trying to encourage it to believe you weren't
thrown forwards in an accident.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Yeah, mostly, but even though you're replying to a troll,

I'm seeing that now. Seemed reasonable. I guess he's a long con troll.

// he's partly
right about the belts locking in some cars. It's the way some are
designed, and you sometimes have to push yourself back in the seat to
release them. He's certainly right about "annoying".

Never had that issue with my 2 most recent cars. I seem to recall
something like that on an older car.

Drive w/o a seatbelt here and it's a fine.

It's only a fine if you're caught. I get caught once a year, £100 a year is a small price to pay for:
1) No annoyance when leaning forwards.
2) Not having to put the ****ing thing off and on every time I get to and out of my car.

3) No protection in an accident.

Isn't it better to not crash in the first place? Or are you incapable of driving properly?

It is much better to not crash in the first place.

I am very capable of driving, properly or otherwise.
I can't speak for other people or fate in general.

Good drivers can avoid bad drivers.

Boy! Have you got a lot to learn.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12197505

If you had been the innocent party, how nay of these could your
driving skills enabled yo to have avoided?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z52L6jGdSkY

nay? yo? Speak English. And by being aware of what's happening in my mirrors.

Are your mirrors adjusted to give sideways views?


Sit still in your chair. Observe, without moving your head or eyes from straight forwards, how far around you you can see - it's about 180 degrees. Now consider you are actually able to move your head and eyes while driving, and have the use of not one but three mirrors. You should always be aware of everything 360 degrees

around you when driving. If not, you're a ****ing menace.

Obviously the complexity of the above video is beyond you. As a hint I
will tell you that the majority of the accidents in that video were
caused by a vehicle in front or to one side of the camera. Please also
note that you claimed you would be able to defend yourself against
these vehicles with the aid of what is happening in your mirrors. I am
reluctant to tell you that mirrors normall show what is behind you and
normally are of no help avoiding vehicles in front or to one side of
you. Please think about this.


Mirrors are for behind. To the side (which is every single clip in the video) is in peripheral vision anyway. If you have no peripheral vision (which you seem to be suggesting) then please get off the road before you kill somebody. When you approach a green light, you should see a speeding car 90 degrees to the side which you can easily tell has not seen or is ignoring his red light. So you can stop and avoid the collision.
 




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
Going backwards, DSLR to Fixed Lens. J. B. Dalton Digital Photography 3 August 14th 06 04:45 AM
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack Michel General Equipment For Sale 1 October 2nd 05 01:57 PM
FS in Ottawa Canada nikon F80 / nikon lens / sigma lens / kirk shoulder stock / nikon battery pack Michel 35mm Equipment for Sale 1 October 2nd 05 01:57 PM
[eBay] Nikon F80 Nikon MB-16 Nikon flash SB23 Like New In Box * MINT Patty 35mm Equipment for Sale 0 December 22nd 04 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:48 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.