Which DSLR to look for on ebay ?

On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:20:49 -0700, Paul Furman
wrote:

Nice 640 pixel thumbnails dude!

No more than that is needed to completely prove you to be the ignorant
snapshooting fool and DSLR-Troll that you are. You can downsize your images
to that size too and they'll still show all their inherent faults that I
pointed out, making your camera's faults even more apparent. I already did
exactly that with your images to make sure that no more than 640x480 was
needed to prove my point further.

Unless you are brain-dead and don't understand why this is so.

But then I guess you are, brain-dead that is. You keep proving it. It's
probably because I don't want to believe that anyone could be as amazingly
stupid and inexperienced as you keep proving yourself to be. I should just
accept that fact and ignore any further attempts of yours at proving the
same. Nothing that you ever post will ever change that fact.

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:

[His usual tirade]

"¿Por qué no te callas?"
HM Juan Carlos I

jue

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:20:49 -0700, Paul Furman

Nice 640 pixel thumbnails dude!

No more than that is needed to completely prove you to be the ignorant
snapshooting fool and DSLR-Troll that you are.

Yep, it's stolen images it shows us. Too bad they were taken by DSLRs.

-Wolfgang

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:42:50 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:20:49 -0700, Paul Furman

Nice 640 pixel thumbnails dude!

No more than that is needed to completely prove you to be the ignorant
snapshooting fool and DSLR-Troll that you are.

Yep, it's stolen images it shows us. Too bad they were taken by DSLRs.

-Wolfgang

Yep, yours is the reply of a pure bona fide DSLR-Troll alright.

No matter how many times evidence is shown to them to prove them wrong, the
first words out a DSLR-Troll's keyboard are "They're stolen!" or "You
edited the EXIF!" This is why I don't even leave the EXIF info intact
anymore. That would have been your next claim, that I edited the EXIF tags.

Thanks for thinking they were taken with a DSLR. But you're dead wrong. No
DSLR on earth can provide that much DOF in available-light at hand-held
shutter-speeds at ISO100. Not only do the photos themselves prove they were
not taken with any DSLR, now you admit to the fact that P&S cameras are
even better than DSLRs.

Nice!

Thanks!

See? Even trolls like you can be put to good use.

How does it feel being so used? AND so wrong? (Again)

You stupid and pathetic DSLR-Trolls are all alike.

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:42:50 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:20:49 -0700, Paul Furman

Nice 640 pixel thumbnails dude!

No more than that is needed to completely prove you to be the ignorant
snapshooting fool and DSLR-Troll that you are.

Yep, it's stolen images it shows us. Too bad they were taken by DSLRs.

-Wolfgang

Yep, yours is the reply of a pure bona fide DSLR-Troll alright.

You're a known liar and troll. YOu have no credibility.

Go away.

--
Ray Fischer

On 30 Sep 2009 15:48:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:42:50 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:20:49 -0700, Paul Furman

Nice 640 pixel thumbnails dude!

No more than that is needed to completely prove you to be the ignorant
snapshooting fool and DSLR-Troll that you are.

Yep, it's stolen images it shows us. Too bad they were taken by DSLRs.

-Wolfgang

Yep, yours is the reply of a pure bona fide DSLR-Troll alright.

You're a known liar and troll. YOu have no credibility.

Go away.


Being called a liar and troll by one of the most deceptive
armchair-photographer trolls in these newsgroups ..... Ouch. Stop. It
hurts. No more. Please, I can't stand it. You sure showed me.

eye roll

Can these useless and ignorant net-life trolls get any more lame?

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:
On 30 Sep 2009 15:48:38 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:42:50 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:20:49 -0700, Paul Furman

Nice 640 pixel thumbnails dude!

No more than that is needed to completely prove you to be the ignorant
snapshooting fool and DSLR-Troll that you are.

Yep, it's stolen images it shows us. Too bad they were taken by DSLRs.

-Wolfgang

Yep, yours is the reply of a pure bona fide DSLR-Troll alright.

You're a known liar and troll. YOu have no credibility.

Go away.

Being called a liar and troll by one of the most deceptive

And you offer more of the same.

--
Ray Fischer

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:42:50 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:
On Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:20:49 -0700, Paul Furman

Yep, it's stolen images it shows us. Too bad they were taken by DSLRs.

Yep, yours is the reply of a pure bona fide DSLR-Troll alright.

So I caught you red-handed. Thanks for confirming it, worm.
(troll is too high on the evolutionary scale for you).

Thanks for thinking they were taken with a DSLR. But you're dead wrong. No
DSLR on earth can provide that much DOF in available-light at hand-held
shutter-speeds at ISO100.

available-light? hand-held? ISO100?
Nope, nope and 'a DSLR isn't THAT noisy'.

Not only do the photos themselves prove they were
not taken with any DSLR, now you admit to the fact that P&S cameras are
even better than DSLRs.

I also admit the moon is made of cheese and the world is a disk.

How does it feel being so used? AND so wrong? (Again)

Used? Hah! You're to incompetent to use a chicken for an egg.

-Wolfgang

Ignore the Ignorant DSLR Trolls wrote:

Can these useless and ignorant net-life trolls get any more lame?

They can emulate you, worm. They always can emulate you.

-Wolfgang