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

7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #191  
Old November 11th 14, 03:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
That's the thing you've never expplained it
just gone on about ID messages which are irrelivant.

Sandman:
I did explain it, 47 days ago. I've even directed you
to the exact message in which I explained it. Here it is
again:

Whisky-dave:
As I explined 44 days ago that doesn;t direct anywhere useful


Sandman:
1. Yes it does - it directs you to the post I made with the
explanation.


Which contained no explanation.


It does.

Sandman:
Whisky-dave 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400 10/10/2014
"That link
doesn;t open why can't you re-post the actual text?" That was a
mere 32 days ago. That's right, for 32 days you have been unable
to figure out how to use a Message-ID. You still think it doesn't
"direct anywhere useful".


It's you that's unable tom use message ID.


Incorrect.

Whisky-dave:
all it does it take me to teh same place as I get whenscrolling
back through the posts. So what extra info is here. ?


Sandman:
It requires no "scrolling", it's a direct like to exact post I am
talking about, that contains the answer to your question, from 49
days ago.


and that post didnt; give the information you said it did.


Prove it. You have yet to be able to quote anything from the post in
question, so there is nothing that tells me that you have even been able to
actually find it - in spite of me giving you the Message-ID so many times.

Sandman:
I told you the answer to your question was in a post with
Message-ID


Are you capable of showing what text this message relates to. ?


Of course - and at first I did, like I said. But you ignored it and snipped
away and were a complete asshole, so why should I help you further? The
answer to your question is found in the post with the aforementioned
message-ID, that's all the information I need to give you. I owe you
nothing more, and I have given you all the information you need to see the
answer to your question. The fact that you're so mind-numbingly stupid that
you can't even figure out what a Message-ID is and how to use it is none of
my concern.

Or how do you get the message ID to show anything, as it seems to show me
differnt text to what you claim it does. Perhaps that is the problem.


That's because you're a moron that doesn't know how to use a Message-ID.
None of my concern. The information is in the post with that Message-ID. I
have no problem using your "client" (Google Groups) and find that very post
using that very Message-ID, but I'm a lot smarter than you. Most people
are, of course.

Or could you tell me what I'm meant to do with the text ?


What text?


the text from the message ID you post.


See for yourself, use the Message-ID to find the post and you can see the
text yourself. Takes you about 30 seconds (or 50 days).

I get what is above that I've left in, so you have some chance of knowing
what I mean by 'the text'


The text "above" was not from the message with the Message-ID I posted,
Dave. You've consistently failed to find the right message, in spite of the
Message-ID being a unique identifier for one single post.

Sandman:
Basically, you have asked me two question repeatedly oever and
over and aover again:


Because there's yet to be an answer.


Apart from 49 and 47 days ago, that is.

Also would you like to continue with your constant arseholes
responses to typos as yuo do ?


You're WAY beyond simple typos, drunk Dave.

Would you like your competence and literacy decided on by the
following "oever" "question" "oever"


I make mistakes as well, I have no problem admitting to that. I don't even
have a spelling checker in my usenet client. I don't make even 1% of the
spelling and grammar mistakes you do, however.

Sandman:
1. What Canon model am I talking about? You asked this question
the first time he 09/22/2014
I answered
that question directly, and quoted the post I later started
referencing: , that post was
from 09/21/2014, so just one day old. But here we are, 49 days
later and you still have not managed to comprehend the information
in that post which first was quoted to you, and later referenced
by Message-ID. YOu know why I didn't quote it again? Because you
SNIPPED THE QUOTE in your followup. You replied and *REMOVED* the
quote of me talking about what camera I am in reference to. In
spite of this, I was such a nice guy that I quoted this post no
less then THREE times for your benefit.


So again no mention of which camera well done. and you wonder why it
takes 40+ posts.


But I gave you the message-ID so you can see for yourself. Easy!


Sandman:
2. In what way is the Canon "trounced" by the Nikon? You asked
this question the first time he 09/24/2014
For
obvious reasons, I had grown tired at quoting things for you, so I
gave you two Message-ID's: and
, where I had listed the many
ways that the Nikon "trounces" the Canon.


But not which canon.


Luckily, that was answered he


--
Sandman[.net]
  #192  
Old November 11th 14, 05:40 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
That's the thing you've never expplained it
just gone on about ID messages which are irrelivant.

Sandman:
I did explain it, 47 days ago. I've even directed
you to the exact message in which I explained it. Here it
is again:

Whisky-dave:
As I explined 44 days ago that doesn;t direct
anywhere useful

Sandman:
1. Yes it does - it directs you to the post I made
with the explanation.

Whisky-dave:
Which contained no explanation.


Sandman:
It does.


Then I didnt see it.


Not my problem. The message in question contains the answer to your
question. If you can't find it or can't understand the words in it, I don't
care.

So what is the explanation. More **** about ID
messages will get you the same response. If you wish you can state
the message ID, and underneath the actual message.


I did, before. You ignored it.

Thsi is because I seem to get a differnt message to what you do. So
the only way tpo cpmpare such things is to compare the messages.


No, all you have to do is look up the Message-ID I gave you. It can only
point to one single message, and once you look it up, you have your answer.
Should take you 30 seconds. You're up to about 50 days now.

I don;t know why you're so reluctant to do this.


Because you're an asshole troll, that's why. If you were a normal person
and a grown up, I would have been a lot more forthcoming to you. And from
the beginning I was. I quuted the relevant part of the message along with
the Message-ID like I always do, since I'm a nice guy. In your followup you
deleted the quote and ignored it kept asking the question. I even quoted it
two more times but you kept asking, so then I moved over to just
referencing the Message-ID since I grew tired of quoting the same post over
and over again.

And then I realized that you're here posting to USENET and you have no clue
what a Message-ID is and how to use it. That coupled with the fact that you
are a complete asshole troll made it far more fun to see you stumble around
on your own nose than to help you obtain your answer. Simple as that.

What goes around, comes around. Treat others as you want others to treat
you. If you can't take the heat.. and so on.

Sandman:
Luckily, that was answered he


www.howtofixcomputers.com › ... › Digital Photo 3 days ago - 4
posts In that very post is the
answer to the question that still haven't been able to figure out.
First-class humor!


yes how to fix computers, the obvious message ID to explain what
camera you are refering to.


Haha did you... did you just *GOOGLE* the Message-ID??? Yes, yes you did! I
just google it and that's the first hit! I... I don't know what to say, I
mean I knew you were a retarded troll and perhaps somewhere inside I was
desperately hoping it was just an act to stir up stuff on usenet, but no, I
think you really ARE this stupid. You actually went to google.co.uk and
searched the *WEB* for occurances of the Message-ID, and for whatever
reason, some HTFC-form has indexed this group and that shows up as the very
first hit!

That's amazing, is this how you think Message-ID's work?

Ok, just because I think it's actually harmful for you to be this stupid,
I'll lend you one more hand. You are using Google for posting to usenet.
You're NOT using Google web search engine to post to USENET, they are two
different things. Really old people and perhaps newborns may mix things
like that uo, but hey, that's ok. You'd think that for someone that
apparetnly more or less manages to send messages through one Google service
would know that it is different from other Google services - or did you
also search your Google calendars for my Message-ID?

The service you're using is named "Google Groups". It's widely recognized
as the worst USENET client known to mankind, so it's no surprise that
you're using it at all.

Google Groups has a search function of its own you know, that actually
doesn't search bbc.co.uk and facebook.com bot only usenet and Google Groups
posts. Neat, isn't it? Yeah, at the top of Google Groups you can see what
we people call a "search bar", in to that you can put "search terms" but
wait, hold your horses! A Message-ID is not a search term! If you search
for the Message-ID you will only find posts where the Message-ID has been
*mentioned*, like you did for the web search, remember? That's not how you
find the actual message for which the Message-ID is referencing.

No, you have to go into what we call "advanced search", whoho there, big
boy, don't be scared, it's a big word I know. And I know the search bar
in itself was plenty too advanced for you to begin with.

When you have a group selected, there is a small arrow in the search bar,
that invokes the advances search, and it will fold down to reveal what most
seem like thousands of search options for your mind, but relax, go to your
happy place and try your hardest to locate something there that looks
something like the letters you see he "Message ID"

Now have an adult help you use the keyboard to search or the relevant
Message-ID, little troll-dave, and you'll be just fine


--
Sandman[.net], should I have told him that you need to remove the angle
brackets? Ooops...
  #193  
Old November 12th 14, 09:06 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

Thread summary:
Q1: What camera was Sandman talking about?
Answer:
When: Sep 21 (52 days ago)

Q2: In what ways does the D7100 'trounce' the 7D?
Answer:
When: Sep 17 (56 days ago)

Posts from Whisky-Dave in this thread: 56 over a span of 51 days!

Whisky-dave:
Then I didnt see it.


Sandman:
Not my problem.


Not mine either.


So if you're not having a problem, why are you still asking questions that
were answered 56 days ago?

Sandman:
The message in question contains the answer to your question. If
you can't find it or can't understand the words in it, I don't
care.


If I don;lt understand what you've posted why should I care ?


You keep asking about it! If you don't care, stop asking! You've posted
about it 56 times in this thread! Asking the same questions over and over
again that I have quoted the answer to and given you references to where
the answer is many many times. You obviously care a lot more than any
normal person would ever do.

Whisky-dave:
I don;t know why you're so reluctant to do this.


Sandman:
Because you're an asshole troll, that's why.


NO because it doesn't say what you think it says, that is yuor
problem.


It says exactly what I say it says. And how would you know - you've yet to
be able to figure out how to use a Message-ID and actually find the actual
messages, so you don't even have the capacity of knowing whether or not the
messages says what I say they do.

Sandman:
If you were a normal person and a grown up, I would have been a
lot more forthcoming to you.


and yet I'm not the only one here that thinks your an arsehole.


Yeah, there are lots of trolls in this group. I can't explain why. What you
guys have in common is that you become really nasty when your errors,
misinformation and lies are exposed and thrown in your face.

Whisky-dave:
yes how to fix computers, the obvious message ID to explain what
camera you are refering to.


Sandman:
Haha did you... did you just *GOOGLE* the Message-ID??? Yes, yes
you did! I just google it and that's the first hit! I... I don't
know what to say,


The why don't you post what you get.


Sandman:
That's amazing, is this how you think Message-ID's work?


Then how does the message ID work for you ?


I explained it in my post - you snipped the long explanation away in your
followup. This is why you're an asshole, Dave. I am kind enough to tell you
how to use a Message-ID and then snip it away and ask me how you use it.
That's what makes you an asshole troll.

Posting endless crap about how great you are still hasn't produced
the actual post.


The actual post was produced 56 days ago. It's still there, all you have to
do is go look it up. Voila.




--
Sandman[.net]
  #194  
Old November 14th 14, 08:36 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Sandman:
Thread summary: Q1: What camera was Sandman talking about? Answer:
When: Sep 21 (52 days ago)


Answer sandman : I'm still not going to tell you all I;m going to do
is post a message ID

Sandman:
Q2: In what ways does the D7100 'trounce' the 7D? Answer:
When: Sep 17 (56 days ago)


Answer sandman : I'm still not going to tell you all I;m going to do
is post a message ID


Here is an extended summary:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: What camera was Sandman talking about?
Answer:
When: Sep 21 (54 days ago)

Quoted: 53 days ago
52 days ago
50 days ago
49 days ago
44 days ago
37 days ago

Referenced: 8 days ago
7 days ago
3 days ago
3 days ago
2 days ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: In what ways does the D7100 'trounce' the 7D?
Answer:
When: Sep 17 (58 days ago)

Quoted: 54 days ago
54 days ago

Referenced: 50 days ago
37 days ago
28 days ago
25 days ago
25 days ago
25 days ago
8 days ago
3 days ago
2 days ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see, I have both quoted *and* referenced the articles on many
many occasions. If you've managed to miss them all these times, what
difference would it make if I quoted them again? I have no guarantee that
you will understand it now, so why bother? I've given you 100% of what you
need to acquire your answer, you're just to stupid to understand how to get
to it.

--
Sandman[.net]
  #195  
Old November 17th 14, 03:22 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
PeterN[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 741
Default 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

On 11/17/2014 8:40 AM, Whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 14 November 2014 07:36:34 UTC, Sandman wrote:
In article , Whisky-dave wrote:



Answer sandman : I'm still not going to tell you all I;m going to do
is post a message ID



So what's the poiunt then.




Please stop feeding the troll. You have more sense.


--
PeterN
  #196  
Old November 18th 14, 09:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

In article , Whisky-dave wrote:

Whisky-dave:
Answer sandman : I'm still not going to tell you all I;m going
to do is post a message ID


So what's the poiunt then.


Thread summary:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: What camera was Sandman talking about?
Answer:
When: Sep 21 (58 days ago)

Quoted: 57 days ago
56 days ago
54 days ago
53 days ago
48 days ago
41 days ago

Referenced: 12 days ago
11 days ago
7 days ago
7 days ago
6 days ago
4 days ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Question: In what ways does the D7100 'trounce' the 7D?
Answer:
When: Sep 17 (62 days ago)

Quoted: 58 days ago
58 days ago

Referenced: 54 days ago
41 days ago
32 days ago
29 days ago
29 days ago
29 days ago
12 days ago
7 days ago
6 days ago
4 days ago
----------------------------------------------------------------------


--
Sandman[.net]
  #197  
Old November 18th 14, 09:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default 7D2 vs D7100 @ 6400

In article , PeterN wrote:

Whisky-dave:
Answer sandman : I'm still not going to tell you all I;m going
to do is post a message ID

So what's the poiunt then.


Please stop feeding the troll. You have more sense.


Did Peter just claim that drunk Dave has *more sense*?? Hahaha!


--
Sandman[.net]
 




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
Nikon new release D7100 Rob Digital Photography 159 March 15th 13 12:09 PM
6400 on the D3? How about 12,800 on a little P&S? RichA Digital SLR Cameras 0 January 24th 08 09:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:22 AM.


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.