Tech Support?

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Ok, so when Eric said this:

"which are *usually good to see* and range from 'Oh My Gawd'..."

You read that as:

"which are usually good to see and range from 'God awful' ..."

And think this meaning is "clear"? Seriously?

Yes, of course. I don't struggle with English.

Trolling as usual. Typical.


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

No I didn't.

Yes you did.

You did away with both the "range from" and the "to". That's why I
said "you changed what I wrote from the description of a range to the
joining of (A) and (B).

I only quoted one part of your sentence because that was the only part I
was interested in. Not quoting your entire post didn't change the
meaning.

In fact, as both you and Tony now seem to claim that "Oh my gawd" was
meant to describe how bad some of Peter's pictures are, removing it from
context actually helps that interpretation.

Given the fact that context was about how his photos were "usually
good", adding a nondescript superlative relates to that part of the
sentence.

the teenager expression "OH MY GAWD" was in your quoted
text as a description of Peter's photography.

As a description of one extreme of Peter's photography.

My use of your quote doesn't make it the only description. It makes it
one description.

I called that hyperbole and when Tony stepped in to defend you
(hehe) I asked which photos of Peter that fits that moniker. You're
confused as always.

You remind me of the old joke "Everyone is out of step except my
Johnny".

Well, at least you've stepped out of the actual argument. Good choice.

But that's not the one you messed up, is it?

Which one is?

The one you deleted when you supposedly quoted me.

So I "messed up" something I deleted? That doesn't even make sense. I
quoted you like this:

"OH MY GAWD"

That is, except for capitalization, a verbatim quote. Based on context,
I took this to mean "OH MY GOD, THAT'S AMAZING" while you meant it like
"OH MY GAWD, THAT'S AWFUL".

Adding the "I wish I had done that" adds *nothing* of value to this
expression (regardless of how it is interpreted). You are either
describing his photos as AWFUL - Pretty good or "AWESOME - pretty
good".

Otherwise you would have
deleted it and acted as though it had never existed.

That's what you do, not me.

It's rather hard for you to get away with that claim when you have
just done it.

But I haven't.

Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that.

It's just not logical to interprete that as you talking about his
photographs as being "usually good" and range from "bleeding awful (oh
my gawd)" to "I wish I had done that"

Logical or not, I think you will find that that is the meaning taken
by everyone else.

No, by Tony - who deliberately would take any position that isn't mine.
Hos clown dictionary defines words the exact opposite way actual
dictionaries define them after I have relayed that. Surely you're not
using Tony as someone to lean upon when it comes to interpreting
*English*? That's a joke.

Are you admitting an error in the interpretation of English?

Not at all. I admit my error in interpreting your *intention* based on
the context of your post. I have no problem admitting to errors. But
this wasn't an "English" thing, "Oh my gawd" as an exclamation was
interpreted 100% correct. It's intention was incorrectly interpreted.





--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Wtf? What on *earth* does your opinion about his photography have to do
with him "improving his photography"? Are you saying that Peter only
improves by your opinion? You're making less sense than usual here.

It's not making sense to anyone for the simple reason that your
conclusions are twisted.

They're based on what you've written, and unless you provide a more
logical conclusion, this one stands.

It's wrong.

You failed. :/

What was your alias?

Same as always.

In 1996?

Does anyone remember him?

Why does it matter?


--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Ok, so when Eric said this:

"which are *usually good to see* and range from 'Oh My Gawd'..."

You read that as:

"which are usually good to see and range from 'God awful' ..."

And think this meaning is "clear"? Seriously?

It is much more clear if you add the final few words of the quote
which you are trying to ignore.

Why? You are either describing them as "god awful to pretty good" or
"awesome to pretty good" - both are equally viable. There is NOTHING in
your entire quote that has an inherit negative value.

"usually good to see" - positive
"Oh My Gawd" - nondescript exclamation
"I wish I had done that" - positive

Note to the trolls though - I have already conceded that I
misinterpreted this, I am just challenging the claim that this was
somehow "obvious", which of course it wasn't.

A normal person had replied with "Ooops, you seem to have interpreted
the 'oh my gawd' as positive, it wasn't", but nooo - why do that when
you can have an *argument* instead?



--
Sandman[.net]

On 10/14/2013 11:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-10-14 19:50:44 -0700, Tony Cooper said:

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013 14:12:55 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 23:11:36 +0200, Sandman wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range
from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that.

Here you are caught blatently lying in the true meaning of the word.

You have selectively deleted text from within the text you have been
quoting. Are really stupid enough to think that nobody would notice?

As you quoted above, I originally wrote:

"Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that."

Later, after inserting some text, you wrote:

"I'm not critiquing Peter here, rather Eric's hyperbole. Peter
himself quite clearly sees that he has lot to "improve" when it
comes to photography (as do we all, presumably), but Eric
described his photos as "OH MY GAWD" and how he wished he was able
to have shot a picture like that.

I don't think that Jonas picked up on the meaning of "OH MY GAWD" in
your post. After all, it could mean anything from "God Awful" to "I'm
truly impressed". The meaning intended is clear in context to me, but
Jonas evidently didn't understand the meaning. He will probably
weasel around and pretend he did.


That's when I wrote:

"Go back and read it again. You have quite messed up the meaning of
what I wrote."

My original expression described a range - from (A) to (B) - (A) and
(B) being limits. But as I have quoted (and you deleted) you changed
what I wrote from the description of a range to the joining of (A) and
(B).


Go back and read it again. You have quite messed up the meaning of
what I wrote.

It's still quoted above - I read it as it was written, how did I
supposedly "mess" it up?

But that's not the one you messed up, is it? Otherwise you would have
deleted it and acted as though it had never existed.


I know, I know - one should never take anything Eric says
seriously, but
still..

Try this one.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/test2.tif

Uh... what about that one?

I would class that as an 'Oh My Gawd!'.

...or perhaps, "Holy Crap!!"



I would classify that as POS. It was put up just to demonstrate that
tiff files support layers.

--
PeterN

On 10/15/2013 1:55 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2013-10-14 22:24:09 -0700, Sandman said:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

Insults and personal attacks, that's all Peter is these days.

Not a single post about "improving his photography" which he
claims is
the reason he posts here. Just trolling. Sad to see.

Unlike his photographs which are usually good to see and range from
'Oh My Gawd' to I wish I had done that.

Whatever that has to do with his trolling is anyone's guess.

It has a lot to do with improving his photography.

Wtf? What on *earth* does your opinion about his photography have to do
with him "improving his photography"? Are you saying that Peter only
improves by your opinion? You're making less sense than usual here.

It's not making sense to anyone for the simple reason that your
conclusions are twisted.

They're based on what you've written, and unless you provide a more
logical conclusion, this one stands.

Can't remember Peter posting any of his photos here, really...

You haven't been here very long though.

Yeah, 1996 was just about last week.

In this news group?

Among others

What was your alias?

Same as always.

Strange, the first post I find where you used "Sandman" was back in
September 2010.
That was when you asked the usual suspects here for advise on shooting a
wedding in poor light with your D3S and D80.



He did answer: "same as always," which could mean a nym other than the
one to which you replied.

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

Strange, the first post I find where you used "Sandman" was back in
September 2010.
That was when you asked the usual suspects here for advise on shooting a
wedding in poor light with your D3S and D80.

He did answer: "same as always," which could mean a nym other than the
one to which you replied.

Such as?



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Of course it's obvious. The sentence used clearly presented a range.
The sentence said his photos were "good to see", not that they were
"good".

The range was "oh my god" to "wish I would have done that". Of the two,
only one implies an extreme, and that one doesn't not have inherit
positive or negative value.

So the range is either:

"awful" - "wish I would have done that"

OR

"awesome" - "wish I would have done that"

Both are *EQUALLY* viable interpretation of the range, since "Oh my god"
does not have inherit positive or negative value.

In fact, taking the context into account, there is nothing in the entire
passage that has *negative* value, making the interpretation that "oh my
god" implies a positive exclamation much more logical, even though it
doesn't necessarily need to be that way.

You don't see the difference between "John is good" and "John is good
to see"?

When it comes to photographs, good photographs are good if they are good
to see, yes.

"that model is good" and "that model is good to see" usually both tend
to be about appearance. You are *really* grasping for straws here.

If they are "usually good", then they are rarely bad, so the "Oh my god"
expression meaning "Bleeding awful" is not a logical interpretation.

So you are going to continue to insist on using just "usually good"
and not recognize your error?

My above sentence is equally viable even if you add "see" to it. Stop
arguing for the sake of argument.



--
Sandman[.net]

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Not at all. I admit my error in interpreting your *intention* based on
the context of your post. I have no problem admitting to errors. But
this wasn't an "English" thing, "Oh my gawd" as an exclamation was
interpreted 100% correct. It's intention was incorrectly interpreted.

The "English thing" you missed was the use of "range from".

You are lying.

That clearly established "Oh my gawd" as one end of the range, and "I
wish I had done that" at the other.

This is an ASCII representation of a range:

|--------------------*-------|
1 2 3

1: Awful!
2: I wish I had done that
3. Amazing!

It is clear that "I wish I had done that" is not on the extreme part of
this range. Merely wishing you had done something doesn't make it
amazing, it just makes it an interesting idea.

The expression "OH MY GAWD" can be used as an exclamation for both 1 and
3 while 2 remains in place. It is quite viable for Eric to claim that
Peter's photos range from "I wish I had done that" to "Amazing!" and use
"OH MY GAWD" to represent "AMAZING".

Get. It. Yet?




--
Sandman[.net]

On 2013-10-15 07:27:39 -0700, Sandman said:

In article ,
Tony Cooper wrote:

Not at all. I admit my error in interpreting your *intention* based on
the context of your post. I have no problem admitting to errors. But
this wasn't an "English" thing, "Oh my gawd" as an exclamation was
interpreted 100% correct. It's intention was incorrectly interpreted.

The "English thing" you missed was the use of "range from".

You are lying.

That clearly established "Oh my gawd" as one end of the range, and "I
wish I had done that" at the other.

This is an ASCII representation of a range:

|--------------------*-------|
1 2 3

1: Awful!
2: I wish I had done that
3. Amazing!

It is clear that "I wish I had done that" is not on the extreme part of
this range. Merely wishing you had done something doesn't make it
amazing, it just makes it an interesting idea.

The expression "OH MY GAWD" can be used as an exclamation for both 1 and
3 while 2 remains in place. It is quite viable for Eric to claim that
Peter's photos range from "I wish I had done that" to "Amazing!" and use
"OH MY GAWD" to represent "AMAZING".

Get. It. Yet?

In the context of the image Peter posted (which was meant as a TIFF
demo rather than an example of fine photography) I have a feeling the
"OH MY GAWD!" expressed an initial reaction in much the same way
"WTF!", "HOLY CRAP!, and a few others might. To me the intent and use
of the exclamation was clear.
"HOLY FUZZY BIRDS, Batman!!"

--
Regards,

Savageduck