7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Sandman:
No, *it* doesn't link anywhere. It is not a link,
it's a Message-ID.

Whisky-dave:
and does NOT go to any message.

Sandman:
Incorrect, it is a Message-ID that reference a unique message on
USENET.

It goes no where

References never "go" anywhere.

now this could be because of the so called advanced options on our
servers where our academics can;t even get their own emails delivered I
don;t know. All I know id that from this university campus it goes no
where.

It has nothing to do with your supposed university campus. It's a
Message-ID, it's not supposed to "go" anywhere, as I've told you about five
times now. It's the unique ID of a specific post, and there exists ways to
find that post if you have that ID.

I know you'd much rather prefer to agrgue this that explain how the
7D or 7D2 trounches the D7100 .

Given the fact that I've never said anything like that, you're right - I
much rather make fun of your inabilities to handle basic usenet stuff than
explain things that exists only inside your small head.

Sandman:
Just like an address doesn't "do" anything, it's a reference to a
message. You don't know how USENET works, so you're stumped.

it doesn;t refernce any message that I can get to.

Yes it does. Just because you lack the knowledge or brain power to figure
out HOW to get to it, doesn't make it invalid as far as being a reference.

If I told you the adress to Starbucks and you don't know how to find your
way there, the problem lies with you, not with the adress.

Just because you're too stupid to understand this simple concept is not
my problem.

As anyone can note, I'm not the one that is having problems understanding
simple concepts.

Sandman:
I didn't intend it to "go" or "take" you to anything,

So what it's use ?

Referencing a specific message I've made. You can use it to find the
message. It's relly easy to do, and there exists online functions for doing
it.

Sandman:
how slow are you? It's a reference to a message. Someone who knows
even the basic stuff about USENET would know how to find the
referenced message within ten seconds.

Which is what I said it's a link,

No, it's not a link.

if it';s not a link what use is it.

A street address is not a link either, yet has a very well defined use.

Whisky-dave:
100% success in doing nothing.

Sandman:
Just like a street address doesn't do anything.

exactly.

Yet, normal people can use a street adress and find their way even though
the adress itself doesn't "do" anything. Go figure (you won't).

Telling me to go to a particular adress is meaqningless if you can;t
get to that address.

But that's not the case here. The address (Message-ID) is something you can
get to. I could even tell you how to get to it, but it's way more fun to
see you on the floor crying out that the address won't take you to
Starbucks on its own.

But you're only doing this to avoid the original point. That's what
trolls do

I'm doing this because you're an idiot that can't understand simple
English. If you were a normal person and not a rude argumentative troll,
this entire 30-post charade from you wouldn't have existed.

But then again, if you had been a normal person, you wouldn't even have
posted your first post in this thread, since the question in your post had
been answered just two posts prior to it. Normal people can read.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
now this could be because of the so called advanced options on
our servers where our academics can;t even get their own emails
delivered I don;t know. All I know id that from this university
campus it goes no where.

Sandman:
It has nothing to do with your supposed university campus. It's a
Message-ID, it's not supposed to "go" anywhere, as I've told you
about five times now. It's the unique ID of a specific post, and
there exists ways to find that post if you have that ID.

So how do I know what's in this message ID

There is nothing "in" a Message-ID anymore than there is something "in" an
address. It's a reference.

or how to I get to that specific post ?

There are online services that index usenet that have search functions, you
know. You may use one without knowing it!

Of course others could answer this, but you can't it seems.

Of course I can. I could get you detailed instructions and even post you a
HTTP url that shows you the post the Message-ID is in reference to - but
I've given you so much help in this thread and you've just acted like an
asshole in return, so why would I help you? It's far more fun to see you
stumble around claiming a Message-ID is not a link and things like that.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
So how do I know what's in this message ID

Sandman:
There is nothing "in" a Message-ID anymore than there is something
"in" an address. It's a reference.

So what is the point you are making via the message ID.?

You asked a question, the answer to the question can be found in a message,
to reference that message, I gave you a Message-ID. This is how it's been
done on USENET for decades.

Whisky-dave:
Of course others could answer this, but you can't it seems.

Sandman:
Of course I can. I could get you detailed instructions and even
post you a HTTP url that shows you the post the Message-ID is in
reference to - but I've given you so much help in this thread and
you've just acted like an asshole in return, so why would I help
you? It's far more fun to see you stumble around claiming a
Message-ID is not a link and things like that.

You really are the most stupid person aren't you.

I DO NOT VNEED the messge ID. Because the post is still on usenet
still in this group. Unlike you I'm so clever I can go to post in
this NG without you posting any IDs. I bet you need a message ID to
wipe your own arse.

Ironic that you started out the above paragraph by calling me stupid, and
then say something like "I'm so clever I can go to post in this NG without
posting any IDs"

Haha!

You asked a question, the answer to your question is in a message, the
Message-ID identifies what message that is, so using it, you can find the
answer you seek.

You've now written thirty-two (32!!!) trolling posts in this thread without
having learned anything.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
So how do I know what's in this message ID

Sandman:
There is nothing "in" a Message-ID anymore than there
is something "in" an address. It's a reference.

Whisky-dave:
So what is the point you are making via the message ID.?

Sandman:
You asked a question, the answer to the question can be found in a
message,

The message is still availble. I DO NOT need a message ID to get to
it.

The purpose of a Message-ID is not to get at unavailable messages. If you
can get to the message - good, then you have your answer, right?

Sandman:
to reference that message, I gave you a Message-ID. This is how
it's been done on USENET for decades.

A message ID is most useful when the message as been deleted.

Incorrect.

The Message has NOT been deleted.

First off, this is irrelevant, secondly - the one referencing a message
have no way of knowing about the retention rate of your NNTP server, so
it's a moot point. No one uses Message-ID to reference deleted messages
only. Another example of your ignorance.

Whisky-dave:
I DO NOT VNEED the messge ID. Because the post is still on
usenet still in this group. Unlike you I'm so clever I can go to
post in this NG without you posting any IDs. I bet you need a
message ID to wipe your own arse.

Sandman:
Ironic that you started out the above paragraph by calling me
stupid, and then say something like "I'm so clever I can go to
post in this NG without posting any IDs"

Yep. It's called copy and paste.

You "go to post" by copy and paste? Wtf? What is it that you're copying,
and where are you pasting it? I swear, you're making less sense for each
post you make.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
The message is still availble. I DO NOT need a message ID to get
to it.

Sandman:
The purpose of a Message-ID is not to get at unavailable messages.
If you can get to the message - good, then you have your answer,
right?

So why do you keep giving me a message ID that I don;t need.

What you need is of no concern to me. You asked a question, a question that
I had already answered in an earlier message, so I referenced that message
so you would know where to find the answer to the question.

This is the message isn;t it ?

snip

That's not the message that the Message-ID references, no. You still
haven't figured it out, have you?

Here is the Message-ID I pointed to:

Which in turn has two Message-ID it points to:
and

None of which is the post you quoted, which has the Message-ID


If you don't know what you've typed perhaps it's you that needs thye
ID. because I don't.

If you don't need it, how come you can't find the post I'm talking about?

Sandman:
to reference that message, I gave you a Message-ID.
This is how it's been done on USENET for decades.

Whisky-dave:
A message ID is most useful when the message as been deleted.

Sandman:
Incorrect.

So what use is a message ID. ?

LIke I've said about ten times now - to reference a USENET message. Why is
this so hard for you to understand?

Whisky-dave:
Yep. It's called copy and paste.

Sandman:
You "go to post" by copy and paste? Wtf? What is it that you're
copying, and where are you pasting it? I swear, you're making less
sense for each post you make.

What sort of idiot are you, can you not select the post or thread or
paragarph or sentance or word and copy it.

I can select a paragraph and a sentence and copy it. How on earth do you
copy the post or the thread? And why are you copying things anyway? Do you
mean you are copying things to search for them elsewhere? Why are you
copying posts, threads, paragraphs and sentences when I have given you the
Message-ID that points to the exact post I am in reference to. What purpose
does this "copying" serve you?

Can you NOT see the text in front of your eyes on the screen in front of
you , you know the screen or monitor that you are meant to be using for
reading. Most people are capable of copying and pasting text

Why can't you read simple English? I specifically asked you *what* you are
copying and *where* you are pasting it. Why can't you answer this question?
Don't you even know what you have copied, why you have copied it or where
you are pasting it? I wouldn't be the least bit surprised.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
The message is still availble. I DO NOT need a
message ID to get to it.

Sandman:
The purpose of a Message-ID is not to get at
unavailable messages. If you can get to the message - good,
then you have your answer, right?

Whisky-dave:
So why do you keep giving me a message ID that I don;t need.

Sandman:
What you need is of no concern to me. You asked a question, a
question that I had already answered in an earlier message,

You DID NOT answer that question.

Incorrect. The answer to your question was to be found in an earlier
message, and instead of repeating what I've already said, I provided you
with the information required to obtain the information again.

Here is the Message-ID I pointed to:

Which in turn has two Message-ID it points to:
and

None of which is the post you quoted, which has the Message-ID



--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
You DID NOT answer that question.

Sandman:
Incorrect. The answer to your question was to be found in an
earlier message, and instead of repeating what I've already said,
I provided you with the information required to obtain the
information again. Here is the Message-ID I pointed to:


What to you mean by pointed to what am I to do with what you point
to. You told nme it's not a link.

It isn't. There are lots of things you can do with that I point you to in
spite of them not being links. If you were to ask me where the Louvre is
then I would tell you Paris. "Paris" isn't a link either, yet that
information would help you locate it should you want to visit it.

Sandman:
Which in turn has two Message-ID it points to:

and


And what then do you do with these Message-ID's ?

The same as the first.

because when I use them I come up with exaclty the post of yours I
already have

You cannot use "them" to come up with "the" post. They are two Message-ID's
that reference two seperate posts.

Default 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

Sandman:
http://www.imaging-resource.com has got a "Beta" of the 7D2 and
posted jpegs of their test targets in their camera "comperometer".
Here's a screen capture of the 7D2 vs the D7100 at ISO 6400... The
Canon's on the left: http://tinyurl.com/mhpwv5m I'm a RAW kind of
guy but it's a preview. "Half frame" fanatics should be ecstatic!

Yeah, like I said - the 7D is trounced by the D7100, and you wanted
to compare it to the D750, where it would be obliterated.

ISO6400 is Max ISO for the D7100 and the 7D goes one step further,
yet at 6400 the 7D doesn't really look that much better. A pity, why
can't Canon handle image noise as good as Nikon?

Again, the above post does NOT have either of the Message-ID's I've posted.
It's a totally unrelated post to my references.

How many btimes are yuo going top refuse to expain thios post.

None. My explanation is in an earlier message, namely:


You're welcome

You have still yet to explain what you meant by

"Yeah, like I said - the 7D is trounced by the D7100, and you wanted
to compare it to the D750, where it would be obliterated."

other than :-

"other than"? So you mean I *have* explained it, then?

Sandman:
Who's the winner? 09/17/2014 "Uh, the D7100 beats the 7D in
most areas. The 7D has slightly better ISO performance and shoots
at 10fps compared to 6fps for the D7100, other than that, it's
utterly trounced." I.e. I was already well aware of the two small
advantages the 7D has, and seeing how small the difference is with
ISO, it's really just one advantage.

Will you look at that, after about 15 posts saying you can't "click the
link", you finally managed to find the pertinent message! Congratulations,
you've now caught up with 1995 USENET.

you can't even get the camera IDs right.

Incorrect.

So, in this post you claimed I can't, or won't, answer the question, yet
here you are quoting my response to that very question. Ironic, wouldn't
you say?

And for the record, and since I know you'll snip this out of shame like you
always do - this was you thirty-sixth (36:th!!!) message in this thread
about your confusion about things that were explained before you evens
tarted posting in it. Amazing!

Now snip away, troll boy.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
You DID NOT answer that question.

Sandman:
Incorrect. The answer to your question was to be
found in an earlier message, and instead of repeating what
I've already said, I provided you with the information
required to obtain the information again. Here is the
Message-ID I pointed to:

Whisky-dave:
What to you mean by pointed to what am I to do with what you
point to. You told nme it's not a link.

Sandman:
It isn't. There are lots of things you can do with that I point
you to in spite of them not being links. If you were to ask me
where the Louvre is then I would tell you Paris. "Paris" isn't a
link either,

it is a link to the name of the place where the Louvre is.

If so, then a Message-ID is a link to the whereabouts of the message. I
thought you meant "link" as something you could click.

Sandman:
yet that information would help you locate it should you want to
visit it.

Now there's more than one Paris so unless one can be sure thre;'s
no Louvre in any of these saying the Louvre is in paris won't help
much will it.

If you're confused by the answer "Paris", I can be more precise for those
that lack the ability to think themselves. Fortunately, you can't get any
more precise than a Message-ID. Think of it as the geo-coordinates of a
message.

Whisky-dave:
because when I use them I come up with exaclty the post of yours
I already have

Sandman:
You cannot use "them" to come up with "the" post. They are two
Message-ID's that reference two seperate posts.

both of which are availble as threads in the newsgroup.

No, *a* post can not be available as "threads", a thread consists of
multiple posts.

You only need message IDs when someone hasn;'t got teh relivent post or
thread in front of them.

Correct.

Whisky-dave:
Default 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

Sandman:
http://www.imaging-resource.com has got a "Beta" of
the 7D2 and posted jpegs of their test targets in their camera
"comperometer". Here's a screen capture of the 7D2 vs the
D7100 at ISO 6400... The Canon's on the left:
http://tinyurl.com/mhpwv5m I'm a RAW kind of guy but it's a
preview. "Half frame" fanatics should be ecstatic!

Whisky-dave:
Yeah, like I said - the 7D is trounced by the D7100, and you
wanted to compare it to the D750, where it would be obliterated.

ISO6400 is Max ISO for the D7100 and the 7D goes one step
further, yet at 6400 the 7D doesn't really look that much
better. A pity, why can't Canon handle image noise as good as
Nikon?

Sandman:
Again, the above post does NOT have either of the Message-ID's
I've posted. It's a totally unrelated post to my references.

that is what I get when I reference your ID.

Then you're doing it incorrectly, unsurprisingly.

I notice your calling it a refernce now.

It has been all the time.

Whisky-dave:
"Yeah, like I said - the 7D is trounced by the D7100, and you
wanted to compare it to the D750, where it would be
obliterated."

other than :-

Sandman:
"other than"? So you mean I *have* explained it, then?

If you're sdaying that 6fps trounces 10 fps , if that';s what you
mean by trounches then yes, in the same way my G10 trounches the 7D

The answer to your confusion is in the posts I've referenced many times.
Your inability to read them is of no concern to me.

Sandman:
Who's the winner? 09/17/2014 "Uh, the D7100 beats
the 7D in most areas. The 7D has slightly better ISO
performance and shoots at 10fps compared to 6fps for the
D7100, other than that, it's utterly trounced." I.e. I was
already well aware of the two small advantages the 7D has, and
seeing how small the difference is with ISO, it's really just
one advantage.

Will you look at that, after about 15 posts saying you can't
"click the link",

again a liar I have NEVER said click and it wasn't a clickable link.

I never lie, as you know:

Whisky-dave
7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400
10/10/2014

"it links to the usenet post apparently. When I click this
link it asks me to tyoe in a text confirmation box, once
I've done that it goes and nothing else happens."

According to you it wasn;t a link it';s now called areference. and
yet still claim the 7D goes at 10fps.

It was never a link, it was always a reference. Some news clients, however,
makes Message-ID's clickable.

Sandman:
So, in this post you claimed I can't, or won't, answer the
question,

you haven;t .

I have, you even quoted it above.

Sandman:
yet here you are quoting my response to that very question.
Ironic, wouldn't you say?

So where's the explanation.

He

I want you to explain how the 7D trounches the D7100

He

and that and as you say you haven;t confused the 7D with the 7D2

You're the only one that is confused.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
it is a link to the name of the place where the Louvre is.

Sandman:
If so, then a Message-ID is a link to the whereabouts of the
message. I thought you meant "link" as something you could click.

No that would be a clickable link or a URL, it's like a link in a
chain in that it links to something.

A Message-ID is the same an address to Starbucks, and a "link" in exactly
the same way.

Sandman:
If you're confused by the answer "Paris", I can be more precise
for those that lack the ability to think themselves.

Fortunately, you can't get any more precise than a Message-ID.
Think of it as the geo-coordinates of a message.

you mean a link as I said and yet you denided it's a link.

Because I thought you meant a link as something you clicked, which you said
several times. No wonder I said it's not a link. The word "link" can be
defined as "a relationship between two things", and in the sense, it most
certainly is a link. But you started to talk about it not "opening" and
that it is a link since things happen when you click it.

which is why I asked you what the purpose of a message ID.

Which I've answered many many times.

Here's a message ID C55-2014.

That's not a Message-ID, no. A Message-ID contains a local part and a
domain part seperated by the at sign.

Whisky-dave:
You only need message IDs when someone hasn;'t got teh relivent
post or thread in front of them.

Sandman:
Correct.

Which was why I was asking why I needed message IDs which you said
didn't link to anything.

To find the referenced article, of course. Is this the tenth time I've told
you this now?

Whisky-dave:
again a liar I have NEVER said click and it wasn't a clickable
link.

Sandman:
I never lie, as you know:

which makes you a liar:- as there's no way I can ever know whether
or not you lie.

Logic fail - lack of knowledge on your part does not make my statement
untrue.

I see you snipped the quote from you where I proved you incorrect.

Sandman:
It was never a link, it was always a reference. Some news clients,
however, makes Message-ID's clickable.

So that's your definition of a link and a refernce is it.

No, it's my definition of a link and a reference.

Whisky-dave:
and that and as you say you haven;t confused the 7D with the 7D2

Sandman:
You're the only one that is confused.

So when you type 7D you mean 7D2 and when talking about 6400 speed
test on the 7D2 beta test you're 'referncing' .

No.

Well at least I now know not to 'refernce' or link to any camera
characteristics you post.

Don't put "refernce" in quote marks when I have never said the word.

So I've learnt something.

I highly doubt that. You seem to still be confused what camera I've talked
about, in what ways it was trounced by another camera, and what a
Message-ID is and its purpose.

Some people never learn.

--
Sandman[.net]

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Sandman:
In article
,

----------------------------------------------------- Sandman:

Whisky-dave:
It was never a link, it was always a reference. Some news
clients, however, makes Message-ID's clickable.

-----------------------------------------------------

Sandman:
Don't put "reference" in quote marks when I have never said the
word.

I see you are editing my text in your followup, Dave. How utterly dishonest
of you, you lying moronic troll.

Whisky-dave:
So I've learnt something.

Sandman:
I highly doubt that.

I've learnt you're a liar too.

You are indeed a liar.

--
Sandman[.net]