r.p.d.zlr

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:28:21 GMT, Jürgen Exner
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:34:23 -0600, Allen wrote in
And blocking messages from 126.com, 163.com, gmail and googlemail will
eliminate many junk messages.

Along with many legitimate messages. Why not just block everything?

I still have to see a single legitimate article from 126.com or 163.com.

As for Google and gmail: well, yeah, there are some poor souls out there who
got entangled in Google's net. But because Google is currently en vogue
spammers are swarming there and are faking their addresses as coming from
google. Because Google doesn't provide a usable interface to Usenet anyway,
there isn't that much loss in blocking Google. After all, people posting
from there typically don't even know Usenet and often violate any imaginable
nettiquette anyway. On the other hand it does get rid of a lot of spam.

I disagree. But of course you are free to filter as you see fit.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

In article , John Navas
says...

Now actually down to about 130 messages per day.

Ok, time to refocus on a single r.p.d. group :-)
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , John Bean
says...

The group was badly named, ill-defined and never should have passed
its vote.

Agreed.

Fine. Can we bury it then?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 22:12:55 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , John Bean
says...

The group was badly named, ill-defined and never should have passed
its vote.

Agreed.

Fine. Can we bury it then?

It's already dead and buried, we seem to be indulging in a
verbal post mortem.

In my case (and a few others I reckon) it's just a touch of
"I told you so" smugness, but to be honest even that's not
worth the effort since it was obvious from the start that it
had no future.

Best let it lie.

--
John Bean

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 20:28:21 GMT, J?rgen Exner wrote:
John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:34:23 -0600, Allen wrote in
And blocking messages from 126.com, 163.com, gmail and googlemail will
eliminate many junk messages.

Along with many legitimate messages. Why not just block everything?

I still have to see a single legitimate article from 126.com or 163.com.

As for Google and gmail: well, yeah, there are some poor souls out there who
got entangled in Google's net. But because Google is currently en vogue
spammers are swarming there and are faking their addresses as coming from
google. Because Google doesn't provide a usable interface to Usenet anyway,
there isn't that much loss in blocking Google. After all, people posting
from there typically don't even know Usenet and often violate any imaginable
nettiquette anyway. On the other hand it does get rid of a lot of spam.

I killfile all _original_ postings from google groupers.
If there are any followups, I'll see those. Usually such followups are
from folks _not_ killfiling gg and they are replying to a reasonable
post. Then I can follow (or participate in) what hopefully is an On
Topic thread.

Of course, I also see all the followups by idiots that just can't keep
their fingers off the keyboard when they see A-Piece-Of-Crap posting
from google.

Jonesy
--
Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | linux
38.24N 104.55W | @ config.com | Jonesy | OS/2
*** Killfiling google posts: http://jonz.net/ng.htm

David J Taylor wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote:
[]
After I acquired my Sony R1 and took up a detailed interest in
photography again I was pointed to that newsgroup, on the grounds that
the R1 is exactly the kind of camera that newsgroup was
about. Unfortunately, not only was there not much going on in that
newsgroup, but a lot of it was debates about whether or not various
cameras were or were not ZLRs, whether ZLRs existed, whether if they
did exist there was any point to them, and so on.

For cameras which, like the Sony R1, don't fit into any obvious category,
the main r.p.d. would be the onvious place.

The problem seems to be that this is not simply a technical issue or a
question of language. It is a highly emotionally charged topic. It
sounds to me as though there are some very vocal DSLR owners who were
talked into buying a more expensive camera than they needed and are
now determined to justify their purchase by using the same arguments
as the camera salesman (or their "knowledgeable" friend) used on them.

Chris,

I suspect that you are being deliberately provocative here! As I feel
sure you know, there are many reasons for getting a DSLR, including
working at lower light levels, interchangeable lenses, lower-noise and
high quality images, and the ability to buy into a "system". I suspect
raw-format images are mainly used by DSLR users as well.

Of course.

Although there
will be exceptions, the higher cost and greater inconvenience of casual
use will have put all but those who need an SLR from purchasing one.

I disagree there. For example, in the lower end RE photography it's
not unusual to encounter DSLR users who only use one general purpose
zoom, never print or display to higher resolution than a 6"x4" print,
never use high ISOs because they can use long exposures on a tripod,
and so on. They've spent good money buying a lot of performance and
features they don't have any use for.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

On 8 Feb 2008 01:51:46 GMT, Chris Malcolm wrote
in :

David J Taylor wrote:

Although there
will be exceptions, the higher cost and greater inconvenience of casual
use will have put all but those who need an SLR from purchasing one.

I disagree there. For example, in the lower end RE photography it's
not unusual to encounter DSLR users who only use one general purpose
zoom, never print or display to higher resolution than a 6"x4" print,
never use high ISOs because they can use long exposures on a tripod,
and so on. They've spent good money buying a lot of performance and
features they don't have any use for.

Kaiden 360 One VR. Review:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/360one_mod3.html

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

John Navas wrote:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:54:44 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote in :

In article , John Navas
says...

Given that the population of compact digital cameras is many times that
of dSLR cameras, it would seem to make more sense for dSLR posts to be
confined to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, leaving rec.photo.digital for
everything else,

There is no way to enforce this.

There is no way to enforce anything on Usenet, a bit part of why it's
withering away.


Hello, John:

With close to 6,900 subscribers, news:rec.photo.digital is probably the
most active newsgroup in all of Usenet, today.

How's that, for bucking a negative trend? :-J


Cordially,
John Turco

On Fri, 08 Feb 2008 01:21:15 -0600, John Turco
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:

On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 07:54:44 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote in :

In article , John Navas
says...

Given that the population of compact digital cameras is many times that
of dSLR cameras, it would seem to make more sense for dSLR posts to be
confined to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, leaving rec.photo.digital for
everything else,

There is no way to enforce this.

There is no way to enforce anything on Usenet, a bit part of why it's
withering away.

With close to 6,900 subscribers, news:rec.photo.digital is probably the
most active newsgroup in all of Usenet, today.

How's that, for bucking a negative trend? :-J

Actually following the negative trend -- traffic is way down from its
heyday.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

Chris Malcolm wrote:
David J Taylor
[]
Although there
will be exceptions, the higher cost and greater inconvenience of
casual use will have put all but those who need an SLR from
purchasing one.

I disagree there. For example, in the lower end RE photography it's
not unusual to encounter DSLR users who only use one general purpose
zoom, never print or display to higher resolution than a 6"x4" print,
never use high ISOs because they can use long exposures on a tripod,
and so on. They've spent good money buying a lot of performance and
features they don't have any use for.

So what if they prefer a DSLR camera for their purposes? BTW: what is
"RE" supposed to mean? What /has/ changed, I think, is that it is now
much more difficult to get high-performance, small-sensor cameras. The
market has developed in a slightly different direction, to making DSLRs
cheaper rather than making more 2/3-inch sensor cameras.

Cheers,
David