 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / October 2006Bicker, bicker bicker
Will you guys <insert appropriate names> please stop the bickering and let the old threads go to their grave.  SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly > Will you guys <insert appropriate names> please stop the bickering and > let the old threads go to their grave. Hey Joan I was just thinking that as well, some of the old POTW threads go on for weeks. >> Will you guys <insert appropriate names> please stop the bickering and >> let the old threads go to their grave. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I was just thinking that as well, some of the old POTW threads go on for > weeks. Well come on guys start some nice new ones. > > I was just thinking that as well, some of the old POTW threads go on for > > weeks. > > Well come on guys start some nice new ones. Wouldn't hurt... But extracting ANY photos from the trolls here is like asking a chook to grow teeth. Apparently, they are all too ashamed of their efforts to show them. >>> I was just thinking that as well, some of the old POTW threads go on for >>> weeks. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Apparently, they are all too ashamed > of their efforts to show them. where are yours? > where are yours? we already established you must be blind... >> where are yours? > > we already established you must be blind... no you didn't actually. Care to show me the post where you established that? Practise what you preach. > no you didn't actually. > Care to show me the post where you established that? > Practise what you preach. Zz-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z >> no you didn't actually. >> Care to show me the post where you established that? >> Practise what you preach. > > Zz-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z typical response from a nuisance poster with too much time spent on the net and not much intelligence. Must be lonely living with the fairies Noons. >>> I was just thinking that as well, some of the old POTW threads go on for >>> weeks. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Apparently, they are all too ashamed > of their efforts to show them. And the pot/kettle award goes to you!! > And the pot/kettle award goes to you!! f.ck off, you piece of turd sh.t troll That's the type of post I'm complaining about. Totally unnecessary foul language. Restraint can be difficult, but much better for the rest of us. If a thread goes in a direction you don't like, just get out of it. Say nothing and walk away, rather than using objectionable language. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : > And the pot/kettle award goes to you!! : : f.ck off, you piece of turd sh.t troll > That's the type of post I'm complaining about. Totally unnecessary > foul language. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If a thread goes in a direction you don't like, just get out of it. > Say nothing and walk away, rather than using objectionable language. Joan You should realise by now Noons is the troll he accuses everyone else of being. Do what the rest of us have done and killfile That way we only see what he posts if someone replies to him, which isn't very often I don't like using the killfile. Oh, and Nuno knows me from many years ago. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : Joan : [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : That way we only see what he posts if someone replies to him, which : isn't very often > I don't like using the killfile. Oh, and Nuno knows me from many > years ago. now you got me worried, woman! :-) Do I? Please, give me a bearing. FNS SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : > I don't like using the killfile. Oh, and Nuno knows me from many : > years ago. : : now you got me worried, woman! :-) : Do I? : Please, give me a bearing. > FNS OMG! That brings back long lost memories! Long time no see, madam. Good to meet you again. What you been doing with yourself, still in IT? Ah well: I'll have to behave, now that I remember you! Darn... :-) When I first started posting in this group, you remembered me and mentioned it. I guess you've forgotten that. FNS was bought by one of its customers. Since then I contracted for about 5 years - had 3 contracts. I'm now with Hudson - yes still in IT. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : > FNS : [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : you! Darn... ::-) > When I first started posting in this group, you remembered me and > mentioned it. I guess you've forgotten that. Age does that > FNS was bought by one of its customers. > > Since then I contracted for about 5 years - had 3 contracts. > I'm now with Hudson - yes still in IT. Don't tell him, but I don't remember him being at Redfern. ;-) I don't know which project he worked on or what dates he was there. SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : > When I first started posting in this group, you remembered me and : > mentioned it. I guess you've forgotten that. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] : > Since then I contracted for about 5 years - had 3 contracts. : > I'm now with Hudson - yes still in IT. > When I first started posting in this group, you remembered me and > mentioned it. I guess you've forgotten that. Likely I did, Joan. However, Usenet is not such a great part of my life that I remember everything in it... My sincere apologies. But I do well remember your excellent Cobol programming skills at FNS! > Since then I contracted for about 5 years - had 3 contracts. > I'm now with Hudson - yes still in IT. Well done. Same here, same old. Lots of contracts, gone full time since 2001. Initially with Aspect for the RAAF, after that with Kaz for the Mining & Resources folks. For the last 18 months was with an Internet SEO and Ad Server Yank company. They still want me there but I couldn't cope with the workload: 24X7 is fun for a while, tiring after that and downright maddening for 9 long months. Now with a well known IT outsourcing company in French's Forest. Still Oracle. With DB2 and SQL Server thrown in to keep things under balance. >> That's the type of post I'm complaining about. Totally unnecessary >> foul language. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> If a thread goes in a direction you don't like, just get out of it. >> Say nothing and walk away, rather than using objectionable language. >You should realise by now Noons is the troll he accuses everyone else of >being. Sing it brother. If you disagree with the paranoid idiot all you get is "drunk racist troll" etcetera, etcetera. Basically, it's just chapter and verse from the Inferior Person's Little Book Of Usenet Flames. >Do what the rest of us have done and killfile > >That way we only see what he posts if someone replies to him, which >isn't very often True. Mind you, it was mildly diverting to see his heiney handed to him on a platter in Mr. T's posts in the "Another perspective on vinyl records" thread. Let me see, Mr. T, knows his stuff, always worth listening to. Noons, paranoid little troll. Ah yes, I DO so love killfiles. > You should realise by now Noons is the troll he accuses everyone else of > being. Dear,dear.... rampant delusion... > Do what the rest of us have done and killfile Apparently, the "us" is all in your imagination. But then again, you have proved beyond any doubt that "voices" are your specialty... > That way we only see what he posts if someone replies to him, which > isn't very often Yeah, right. Only 75% of the traffic here in the last week. Like I said: rampant delusion. Next he's gonna claim the world is with him in the crusade. Voices again... > That's the type of post I'm complaining about. Totally unnecessary > foul language. and the rest of the crap that little turd has been pushing out is ignored, isn't it? > Restraint can be difficult, but much better for the rest of us. 'sOK, I don't mind you exercising it. Me? I'm fed up with these little turds who come here and other so many places, peddling their crap under arranged posts between themselves. So, they cop it. > Say nothing and walk away, rather than using objectionable language. That, is not my style. I don't let POS arseholes trod all over me in real life, much less here. \ > That, is not my style. I don't let POS > arseholes trod all over me in real life, much > less here. Name the time and place we can meet Noons. I'll be there will you? > > And the pot/kettle award goes to you!! > > f.ck off, you piece of turd sh.t troll So you think *everybody* not as stupid as you is a troll. :-) MrT. Off topic > > And the pot/kettle award goes to you!! > > f@#$ off, you piece of ... Must bring my grandkids back here later, to meet all these luvly folks.. Makes you proud to be 'strine, this does. <sarc> Yes, I know *I* would certainly be swearing loudly, if someone used insults like 'pot' and 'kettle' at *me* - what unbelievably vicious, wicked vitriol!! </sarc> (I guess the irony of all this is probably lost on the poster... sigh...) Ah yes, another one... What's the matter, been told to come back and wake the thread again? How about pissing off with the fake comments about "kids" and other crap of the same ilk? > Off topic > Ah yes, another one... > What's the matter, been told to come back [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >> Off topic Fishy fishy Every time bait gets thrown in your way you bite. like shooting fish in a barrel, actually more like throwing in a bat and watching the fish beat themselves to death. You are an amusing individual Noons. Don't fool yourself: you wouldn't be able to shoot an elefant in a barrel, much less a single fish. > You are an amusing individual Noons. Always ready to slap you around the ears, troll. That's what *really* pisses you off, ain't it? :-) > Don't fool yourself: you wouldn't be able to shoot > an elefant in a barrel, much less a single fish. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's what *really* pisses you off, ain't it? > :-) Another bite! fishy fishy fishy. LOL Have you guys looked at the subject of this thread? SignatureJoan http://www.flickr.com/photos/joan-in-manly : > Don't fool yourself: you wouldn't be able to shoot : > an elefant in a barrel, much less a single fish. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] : fishy fishy fishy. : LOL > Have you guys looked at the subject of this thread? > > -- > Joan Judging by the perfectly adult and serious tone of the crap below: > : Another bite! > : fishy fishy fishy. > : LOL No. But then again, it's school holidays? Thanks, Noons, for verifying that you think that sort of language is acceptable. It is clear that you think you look like some sort of ultra-cool hero. Enjoy the fame. But I'll remember your attitude when you attempt to post seriously in the future (is that likely?), and will happily remind you of it. You're old enough to know better. But frankly, I feel like suggesting you show your mother what sort of stuff you are posting here. Especially the one with the f-word. And show her what you were responding to. Are you proud? She might just take your computer out of your room, and wash that dirty mouth out with soap.. If not your mum, why not show *your* kids/grandkids? OK with that? Or have you not procreated? One can only hope. I'm actually sorry you have such a sad and angry existence - that is clear from your postings. Keep on fuming! It's fun. (O: > Thanks, Noons, for verifying that you think that sort of language is > acceptable. Anytime. > It is clear that you think you look like some sort of > ultra-cool hero. Enjoy the fame. But I'll remember your attitude when > you attempt to post seriously in the future (is that likely?), and will > happily remind you of it. I'm shaking already... > You're old enough to know better. Amazing! Truly, a flash of inspiration... There is maybe hope of a smidgeon of intelligence left in all that trolling? > But frankly, I feel like suggesting > you show your mother what sort of stuff you are posting here. > Especially the one with the f-word. And show her what you were > responding to. Are you proud? Yes!!!! So is she, by the way. > She might just take your computer out of your room, and wash that dirty > mouth out with soap.. I doubt it, she knows me. People much bigger than you have tried and got seriously burned... > If not your mum, why not show *your* kids/grandkids? OK with that? Or > have you not procreated? One can only hope. Don't have a problem with that. They've both been trained since an early age to spot morons and ignore them. More than likely, they'd tell you to piss off. > I'm actually sorry you have such a sad and angry existence - that is > clear from your postings. Angry? Narh. You need to see me talking about sanctimonious pricks to know the definition of angry. > Keep on fuming! It's fun. (O: You too. Now: piss off, you and your stupid pedantic posturing. Just one little line is all that we needed to read, because it sums up Noon's mindset.. > People much bigger > than you have tried and got seriously burned... I love it! Just as he missed the irony of the thread he is posting this stuff too, he also has no idea how infantile that sounds. Before he goes to bed, he might want to check some other posts where I am hauling him up on his 'facts', and the very poor film scans you are posting. Noise = reciprocity failure? hahah! Epson 4990 film scans beat DSLR quality? He's a scream! G'nite all. > Before he goes to bed, he might want to check some other posts where I > am hauling him up on his 'facts', and the very poor film scans you are > posting. Once again: you wouldn't know what a scan is if it bit you in the gonads. YOUR claim, that a digital photo of an optical print is a "scan". Oh dear... sure.... > Noise = reciprocity failure? hahah! Reciprocity failure does not exist in digital sensors. But then again, why bother: it's all over the internet on so many sites, why it doesn't. > Epson 4990 film scans beat DSLR quality? He's a scream! Quote the claim? Ah yes: screaming alone in the night again? > G'nite all. Yes, time you went to bed: the alcohol is obviously having a lousy effect... > > Before he goes to bed, he might want to check some other posts where I > > am hauling him up on his 'facts', and the very poor film scans you are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > digital photo of an optical print is a "scan". > Oh dear... sure.... Noons took a photo of a print with a P&S. In other words, NOONs decided the best way to show the results of his (bloody awful) printed image was with a digicam, not a flatbed scanner...!!?? Most folks would have used a scanner, so as to avoid the obvious issues of being out of focus, etc. Indeed I truly hope that OOF is the excuse for you posting this disaster: http://members.iinet.net.au/~nsouto/photos/Vlarge02.jpg That is surely a joke. No sane person could possibly post that trying to show detail. Look at it!!! It's an absolute mush, with a scratch being the only thing remotely sharp (hmm, must be in focus then..)!!! I won't even start to discuss the color balance and dynamic range of those images. Maybe Noons should take my use of the word 'scan' as a hint to improve his methodologies..? They clearly need it. > > Noise = reciprocity failure? hahah! > > Reciprocity failure does not exist in > digital sensors. *Noons* said: Rob>> Has anyone looked at reciprocity failure in digital images. Noons>Yes. It's called "noise". > But then again, why > bother: it's all over the internet on so > many sites, why it doesn't. Noons should name a few. I haven't seen any sites (let alone many) debunking that particular *myth*, but am happy to be proven otherwise. > > Epson 4990 film scans beat DSLR quality? He's a scream! > > Quote the claim? Ah yes: screaming > alone in the night again? Over here, Noons made a number of claims, all heavily disputed: http://groups.google.com.au/group/comp.periphs.scanners/browse_frm/thread/b54d36 0c5582202b/ Noons says this about his film results, and I directly quote: " All that remains is a vastly superior image to what most digital can produce". Yet in that thread, his *only* mention of the scanner he uses, is the Epson 4990. He even posted a heavily reduced image from a 4990 scan, trying to make a point. I can see he has probably used another scanner for some images, but prefer not to try to read people's minds. The other examples he posted were the P&S images of the print I referred to above - that was apparently printed back in 1985 (presumably that wasn't via a film scanner (O:).. If Noons wishes to make these claims, perhaps he should be a bit more explicit, post relevant images, and actually discuss the equipment in use. > Yes, time you went to bed: the alcohol > is obviously having a lousy effect... More insults ignored. Have a great weekend, everyone else! I'm off to the beach and then a bushwalk. Catch your next set of embarrassing posts later, Noons. Now you try to weasel out of your drunken utterance: > Noons took a photo of a print with a P&S. In other words, NOONs > decided the best way to show the results of his (bloody awful) printed > image was with a digicam, not a flatbed scanner...!!?? Then again, it's YOU who claimed it was a scan, dingbat. You can't even read English, can you. > Most folks > would have used a scanner, so as to avoid the obvious issues of being > out of focus, etc. Find me a scanner that can take an A3 print and I'll do it. Like I said in the post which you so conveniently omitted. > I won't even start to discuss the color balance and dynamic range of > those images. you better not, judging by your other incompetent interventions... > Maybe Noons should take my use of the word 'scan' as a hint to improve > his methodologies..? They clearly need it. I wouldn't use your "scans" for anything: they are just a non-event. Nowhere to be seen. > > > Noise = reciprocity failure? hahah! That is YOUR claim, dingbat. You have this weird trait of projecting on others your drunken utterances... > *Noons* said: > Rob>> Has anyone looked at reciprocity failure in digital images. > Noons>Yes. It's called "noise". Yes. It's not called reciprocity failure. Your point, you blithering idiot? > Noons should name a few. I haven't seen any sites (let alone many) > debunking that particular *myth*, but am happy to be proven otherwise. <yawn>follow the links from clarkvision</yawn> > > > Epson 4990 film scans beat DSLR quality? He's a scream! > > Quote the claim? Ah yes: screaming > > alone in the night again? > Over here, Noons made a number of claims, all heavily disputed: http://groups.google.com.au/group/comp.periphs.scanners/browse_frm/thread/b54d36 0c5582202b/ and NONE are that a 4990 can beat dslr quality. But then again like I said: excessive drinking has its disadvantages... > Noons says this about his film results, and I directly quote: > " All that remains is a vastly superior image to what most > digital can produce". And a "film result" is a "scan" from a 4990? Are you completely hell bent on demonstrating your blatant stupidity? > He even posted a heavily reduced image from a 4990 scan, > trying to make a point. which YOU claimed is near the quality of a 6MP dslr image. Crap, it gets worse, eh? > I can see he has probably used another scanner > for some images, but prefer not to try to read people's minds. You can see NOTHING, idiot. Don't fool yourself. > The > other examples he posted were the P&S images of the print I referred to > above - Hang on: is it a print now, or a scan? No one can understand your reasoning, you know? > wasn't via a film scanner (O:).. If Noons wishes to make these claims, > perhaps he should be a bit more explicit, post relevant images, and > actually discuss the equipment in use. I did. YOU are the one that takes print images as scans, misreads and miscalculates resolutions, is incapable of making any sense about what is a 6MP image, in general doesn't have a CLUE what he's talking about and is still unable to produce ONE single result to prove your points. Not one single image. Nothing. > More insults ignored. It's not an insult, it's a verification of fact. Only a drunken idiot could have come up with your reasonings and analysis. And once more: talk is cheap, like all your other interventions. WHERE are YOUR images to prove your points? Nowhere. Case closed. >> Thanks, Noons, for verifying that you think that sort of language is >> acceptable. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Now: piss off, you and your stupid > pedantic posturing. OMG you have to be the stupidest fish to reply to each and every post that baits you. fishy fishy fishy Laugh a minute you are seriously. >> Have you guys looked at the subject of this thread? >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No. But then again, it's school holidays? You just can't help yourself can you? >> Will you guys <insert appropriate names> please stop the bickering and >> let the old threads go to their grave. >> >Hey Joan >I was just thinking that as well, some of the old POTW threads go on for > weeks. If you're talking about the DR ones, I for one have mostly stopped reading them though I don't put a kill filter on them. Far more interesting are the KPOTW (which we haven't had one of this week, I think) and, if I may say, ^T^POTW threads. >>> Will you guys <insert appropriate names> please stop the bickering and >>> let the old threads go to their grave. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > interesting are the KPOTW (which we haven't had one of this week, I > think) and, if I may say, ^T^POTW threads. Thanks Alan Glad we can make you happy >> If you're talking about the DR ones, I for one have mostly stopped >> reading them though I don't put a kill filter on them. Far more [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Glad we can make you happy Eeeh; you know me. I'm easily amused. 8^> Very interesting effect in this week's one. Not an easy shot to pull off either. >>> If you're talking about the DR ones, I for one have mostly stopped >>> reading them though I don't put a kill filter on them. Far more [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Very interesting effect in this week's one. Not an easy shot to pull > off either. Thanks Al It has a bit of the blurring someone mentioned before about my seagull, the red line around the pelican. I got about 45 shots of him there, I haven't gone into them that much so there could be better ones than these. I will have to have a look |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.