Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #29829 > unrolled thread

Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 08:30 -0700
    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 09:36 -0700
      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 09:39 -0700
        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 10:14 -0700
        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-21 15:05 -0700
          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 15:21 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-21 16:04 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 16:13 -0700
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 19:10 -0700
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 19:29 -0700
                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-21 20:43 -0700
                      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 21:07 -0700
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-22 02:14 -0700
                      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 23:31 -0700
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-22 02:14 -0700
          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 15:24 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2012-08-21 15:51 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 16:08 -0700
        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 18:06 -0700
          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera John Young <jy@scallawags.net> - 2012-08-21 21:48 -0400
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 19:29 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 20:33 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 22:10 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 22:23 -0700
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 23:31 -0700
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 23:55 -0700
          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 19:29 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 19:40 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 22:09 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-21 23:31 -0700
      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 18:01 -0700
        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-21 19:03 -0700
          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-21 22:17 -0700
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 00:37 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 00:55 -0700
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-22 10:59 -0700
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Tom Stiller <tom_stiller@yahoo.com> - 2012-08-22 14:28 -0400
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 12:46 -0700
                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-22 15:37 -0700
                      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 15:58 -0700
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-22 16:10 -0700
                          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-22 20:03 -0500
                          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 20:20 -0700
                            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 09:06 -0700
                              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-23 12:32 -0700
                                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 12:54 -0700
                                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-23 14:33 -0700
                                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-23 15:20 -0700
                                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-23 16:11 -0700
                                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-23 20:53 -0500
                                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-23 21:05 -0700
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-22 20:01 -0500
                          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVEsPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-22 20:44 -0700
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera salgud <spamboy6547@comcast.net> - 2012-08-23 08:12 -0600
            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-24 17:10 -0400
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-24 14:20 -0700
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-25 08:03 +1000
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-25 09:21 -0400
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-25 09:42 -0700
                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-25 13:01 -0400
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-26 08:22 +1000
                    Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-26 11:41 -0400
                      Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-27 07:38 +1000
                        Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-26 17:48 -0400
                          Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-27 11:19 +1000
                            Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-27 17:13 -0400
                              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-28 08:05 +1000
                                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-27 18:44 -0400
                                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera dorayme <dorayme@optusnet.com.au> - 2012-08-28 11:27 +1000
                                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 20:31 -0500
              Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2012-08-24 21:41 -0700
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Doug Anderson <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> - 2012-08-24 22:29 -0700
                Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2012-08-25 09:22 -0400
                  Re: does anyone use their iPad as a camera Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2012-08-25 09:38 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#29925

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

(snip)

> What contest?
> You started this, and your OP is taking on trollish dimensions.

By "you started this" I think you mean "Michelle posted some photos."

The only thing trollish is your turning MIchelle's post into some kind
of competition.

> What were we supposed to do with your posted images, look at them and
> go, "hmmm"?

You could do that.

Or you could look at them and get an idea how different the quality of
photos are under these conditions between an iPad, an iPhone and a
D70.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29933

On 8/22/12 6:10 PM, in article u5pq6i5xqq.fsf@ethel.the.log, "Doug Anderson"
<ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> 
> (snip)
> 
>> What contest?
>> You started this, and your OP is taking on trollish dimensions.
> 
> By "you started this" I think you mean "Michelle posted some photos."
> 
> The only thing trollish is your turning MIchelle's post into some kind
> of competition.
> 
>> What were we supposed to do with your posted images, look at them and
>> go, "hmmm"?
> 
> You could do that.
> 
> Or you could look at them and get an idea how different the quality of
> photos are under these conditions between an iPad, an iPhone and a
> D70.

See my last post, Doug.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29936

On 2012-08-22 16:10:37 -0700, Doug Anderson said:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> 
> (snip)
> 
>> What contest?
>> You started this, and your OP is taking on trollish dimensions.
> 
> By "you started this" I think you mean "Michelle posted some photos."
> 
> The only thing trollish is your turning MIchelle's post into some kind
> of competition.

What competition?
> 
>> What were we supposed to do with your posted images, look at them and
>> go, "hmmm"?
> 
> You could do that.

It seems that was what she intended.
> 
> Or you could look at them and get an idea how different the quality of
> photos are under these conditions between an iPad, an iPhone and a
> D70.

I did that, expressed my opinion, added to the discussion, and here we are.


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck


--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29949

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

> On 2012-08-22 16:10:37 -0700, Doug Anderson said:
> 
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> > (snip)
> >
> >> What contest?
> >> You started this, and your OP is taking on trollish dimensions.
> > By "you started this" I think you mean "Michelle posted some photos."
> > The only thing trollish is your turning MIchelle's post into some
> > kind
> > of competition.
> 
> What competition?

I would refer to your argumentative post which in my thread is date
stamped

Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:46:07 -0700

and to remarks such as that quoted below.
s
> >> What were we supposed to do with your posted images, look at them and
> >> go, "hmmm"?
> > You could do that.
> 
> It seems that was what she intended.
> > Or you could look at them and get an idea how different the quality
> > of
> > photos are under these conditions between an iPad, an iPhone and a
> > D70.
> 
> I did that, expressed my opinion, added to the discussion, and here
> we are.

If that was all you did, it would have been polite discourse.  Your
posts fell into the "spoiling for a fight" side of polite discourse.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29953

On 2012-08-23 09:06:33 -0700, Doug Anderson 
<ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2012-08-22 16:10:37 -0700, Doug Anderson said:
>> 
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>> (snip)
>>> 
>>>> What contest?
>>>> You started this, and your OP is taking on trollish dimensions.
>>> By "you started this" I think you mean "Michelle posted some photos."
>>> The only thing trollish is your turning MIchelle's post into some
>>> kind
>>> of competition.
>> 
>> What competition?
> 
> I would refer to your argumentative post which in my thread is date
> stamped
> 
> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:46:07 -0700

Argumentative in that post?

After I gave my opinion, Michelle challenged me twice as to my method 
and reasoning regarding how I reached my conclusions and I told her. If 
anything it was Michelle who changed the tone of this dialog with her 
challenge. It seemed obvious to me that she held preconceived notions 
on what those opinions should be.

> 
> and to remarks such as that quoted below.
> s
>>>> What were we supposed to do with your posted images, look at them and
>>>> go, "hmmm"?
>>> You could do that.
>> 
>> It seems that was what she intended.
>>> Or you could look at them and get an idea how different the quality
>>> of
>>> photos are under these conditions between an iPad, an iPhone and a
>>> D70.
>> 
>> I did that, expressed my opinion, added to the discussion, and here
>> we are.
> 
> If that was all you did, it would have been polite discourse.  Your
> posts fell into the "spoiling for a fight" side of polite discourse.

See my comment above.
I believe that defending my position without resorting to less than 
polite discussion is appropriate. i have not resorted to name calling 
obscenities, or other ugliness.

...and now, heeding George Kerby's words of wisdom, I will leave this 
thread to you guys so you can discuss your opinions freely without my 
interference.


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29954

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

> On 2012-08-23 09:06:33 -0700, Doug Anderson
> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:
> 
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 2012-08-22 16:10:37 -0700, Doug Anderson said:
> >>
> >>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> >>> (snip)
> >>>
> >>>> What contest?
> >>>> You started this, and your OP is taking on trollish dimensions.
> >>> By "you started this" I think you mean "Michelle posted some photos."
> >>> The only thing trollish is your turning MIchelle's post into some
> >>> kind
> >>> of competition.
> >> What competition?
> > I would refer to your argumentative post which in my thread is date
> > stamped
> > Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:46:07 -0700
> 
> Argumentative in that post?

Yep.  Michelle stated an opinion about which picture she liked better,
and she explained why.  Your response could have been an explanation
of why you felt differently, or it could have been a "diff'rent
strokes for diff'rent folks" response.  Instead it began,
argumentatively, with:

>OK! That is what happens when you ask for an opinion based on a
>subjective non-standard comparison test, and you already held your own
>preconceived opinion.

If you can't see why accusing someone of having a preconceived notion
is argumentative, then I can't help you.

> After I gave my opinion, Michelle challenged me twice as to my method
> and reasoning regarding how I reached my conclusions and I told
> her. If anything it was Michelle who changed the tone of this dialog
> with her challenge. It seemed obvious to me that she held preconceived
> notions on what those opinions should be.

I think your remark on her having a preconceived notion is the one
that stands out as "tone changing."
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29961

On 2012-08-23 12:54:03 -0700, Doug Anderson 
<ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:

> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2012-08-23 09:06:33 -0700, Doug Anderson
>> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:
>> 
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> On 2012-08-22 16:10:37 -0700, Doug Anderson said:
>>>> 
>>>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>> 
>>>>>> What contest?
>>>>>> You started this, and your OP is taking on trollish dimensions.
>>>>> By "you started this" I think you mean "Michelle posted some photos."
>>>>> The only thing trollish is your turning MIchelle's post into some
>>>>> kind
>>>>> of competition.
>>>> What competition?
>>> I would refer to your argumentative post which in my thread is date
>>> stamped
>>> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:46:07 -0700
>> 
>> Argumentative in that post?
> 
> Yep.  Michelle stated an opinion about which picture she liked better,
> and she explained why.  Your response could have been an explanation
> of why you felt differently, or it could have been a "diff'rent
> strokes for diff'rent folks" response.  Instead it began,
> argumentatively, with:
> 
>> OK! That is what happens when you ask for an opinion based on a
>> subjective non-standard comparison test, and you already held your own
>> preconceived opinion.
> 
> If you can't see why accusing someone of having a preconceived notion
> is argumentative, then I can't help you.
> 
>> After I gave my opinion, Michelle challenged me twice as to my method
>> and reasoning regarding how I reached my conclusions and I told
>> her. If anything it was Michelle who changed the tone of this dialog
>> with her challenge. It seemed obvious to me that she held preconceived
>> notions on what those opinions should be.
> 
> I think your remark on her having a preconceived notion is the one
> that stands out as "tone changing."
> 

Like everybody else here, just expressing my thoughts.
...and you have given me your opinion. So as I have said, I am done 
with this thread.


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29970

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:

> On 2012-08-23 12:54:03 -0700, Doug Anderson
> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:
> 
> > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> >
> >> On 2012-08-23 09:06:33 -0700, Doug Anderson
> >> <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> said:
> >>
> >>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2012-08-22 16:10:37 -0700, Doug Anderson said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> writes:
> >>>>> (snip)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> What contest?
> >>>>>> You started this, and your OP is taking on trollish dimensions.
> >>>>> By "you started this" I think you mean "Michelle posted some photos."
> >>>>> The only thing trollish is your turning MIchelle's post into some
> >>>>> kind
> >>>>> of competition.
> >>>> What competition?
> >>> I would refer to your argumentative post which in my thread is date
> >>> stamped
> >>> Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:46:07 -0700
> >> Argumentative in that post?
> > Yep.  Michelle stated an opinion about which picture she liked
> > better,
> > and she explained why.  Your response could have been an explanation
> > of why you felt differently, or it could have been a "diff'rent
> > strokes for diff'rent folks" response.  Instead it began,
> > argumentatively, with:
> >
> >> OK! That is what happens when you ask for an opinion based on a
> >> subjective non-standard comparison test, and you already held your own
> >> preconceived opinion.
> > If you can't see why accusing someone of having a preconceived notion
> > is argumentative, then I can't help you.
> >
> >> After I gave my opinion, Michelle challenged me twice as to my method
> >> and reasoning regarding how I reached my conclusions and I told
> >> her. If anything it was Michelle who changed the tone of this dialog
> >> with her challenge. It seemed obvious to me that she held preconceived
> >> notions on what those opinions should be.
> > I think your remark on her having a preconceived notion is the one
> > that stands out as "tone changing."
> >
> 
> Like everybody else here, just expressing my thoughts.
> ...and you have given me your opinion. 

Right.  But expressing your thoughts about another poster's motivation
changes the tone quite a bit from expressing your thoughts about the
quality of a photograph.  No?

At least that's my opinion.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29973

In article <2012082312323575249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> After I gave my opinion, Michelle challenged me twice as to my method 
> and reasoning regarding how I reached my conclusions and I told her.

I did not "challenge" you; I asked you to explain your conclusions.  You 
gave no reasons for your conclusions, so I asked because I was curious as 
to how you reached them.

> If anything it was Michelle who changed the tone of this dialog with her 
> challenge.

Is your ego so fragile that you see any question as a challenge?

> It seemed obvious to me that she held preconceived notions on what those 
> opinions should be.

Maybe if you weren't so full of yourself, you wouldn't be seeing things 
that do not exist.

You may be a hotshot in the photography groups, but here you come across as 
an obnoxious know-it-all.

> I believe that defending my position without resorting to less than 
> polite discussion is appropriate.

"defending" your position?  Give me a break.  Asking you to explain how you 
reached your conclusion is not an attack, and therefore there is nothing to 
"defend" against.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29978

On 8/23/12 6:11 PM, in article
michelle-4FC3B6.16110123082012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <2012082312323575249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>> After I gave my opinion, Michelle challenged me twice as to my method
>> and reasoning regarding how I reached my conclusions and I told her.
> 
> I did not "challenge" you; I asked you to explain your conclusions.  You
> gave no reasons for your conclusions, so I asked because I was curious as
> to how you reached them.
> 
>> If anything it was Michelle who changed the tone of this dialog with her
>> challenge.
> 
> Is your ego so fragile that you see any question as a challenge?
> 
>> It seemed obvious to me that she held preconceived notions on what those
>> opinions should be.
> 
> Maybe if you weren't so full of yourself, you wouldn't be seeing things
> that do not exist.
> 
> You may be a hotshot in the photography groups, but here you come across as
> an obnoxious know-it-all.
> 
>> I believe that defending my position without resorting to less than
>> polite discussion is appropriate.
> 
> "defending" your position?  Give me a break.  Asking you to explain how you
> reached your conclusion is not an attack, and therefore there is nothing to
> "defend" against.

I give up

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29980

On 2012-08-23 18:53:42 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> said:

> 
> 
> 
> On 8/23/12 6:11 PM, in article
> michelle-4FC3B6.16110123082012@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
> Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote:
> 
>> In article <2012082312323575249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> After I gave my opinion, Michelle challenged me twice as to my method
>>> and reasoning regarding how I reached my conclusions and I told her.
>> 
>> I did not "challenge" you; I asked you to explain your conclusions.  You
>> gave no reasons for your conclusions, so I asked because I was curious as
>> to how you reached them.
>> 
>>> If anything it was Michelle who changed the tone of this dialog with her
>>> challenge.
>> 
>> Is your ego so fragile that you see any question as a challenge?
>> 
>>> It seemed obvious to me that she held preconceived notions on what those
>>> opinions should be.
>> 
>> Maybe if you weren't so full of yourself, you wouldn't be seeing things
>> that do not exist.
>> 
>> You may be a hotshot in the photography groups, but here you come across as
>> an obnoxious know-it-all.
>> 
>>> I believe that defending my position without resorting to less than
>>> polite discussion is appropriate.
>> 
>> "defending" your position?  Give me a break.  Asking you to explain how you
>> reached your conclusion is not an attack, and therefore there is nothing to
>> "defend" against.
> 
> I give up

Thanks for trying George. ;-)

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29932

On 8/22/12 5:58 PM, in article
2012082215580443658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2012-08-22 15:37:47 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> said:
> 
>> In article <2012082212460731729-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> I disagree with you about the HDR and non HDR versions of the iPhone shot;
>>>> the HDR has more saturated greens, closer to the actual color of the
>>>> leaves, and the leaves themselves are sharper, less soft, than in the non
>>>> HDR picture.
>>> 
>>> OK! That is what happens when you ask for an opinion based on a
>>> subjective non-standard comparison test, and you already held your own
>>> preconceived opinion.
>> 
>> No, I did not have a preconceived opinion.  And actually, I didn't ask for
>> an opinion; I merely presented the pictures.
> 
> With apparantly little purpose.
> 
>>> Take a look at some of the dpreview.com comparison tests to get an idea
>>> of what I am talking about. Then get back to us on this subject. If you
>>> are trying to justify your use of HDR with an iPhone app because it is
>>> your preference, go ahead.
>> 
>> I am not trying to justify anything; I was merely pointing out what I
>> observed.
>> 
>> I could not see how you preferred a picture with washed out sky and less
>> saturation and detail in the leaves to one with a properly exposed sky and
>> greater detail and saturation in the leaves.
> 
> My preference was for the D70 image.
> 
>> If you want to make a contest of it, go a head, but I'm not playing that
>> game.
> 
> What contest?
> You started this, and your OP is taking on trollish dimensions.
> What were we supposed to do with your posted images, look at them and
> go, "hmmm"?
> 
> 

Duck/Michelle:

You two are on a road of generally what happens when two newsgroups get
cross-posted. 

Michelle is a great contributor to the alt.mac groups and Savageduck is one
of the best in the alt.digital groups. Both are headstrong and great
contributors to their respective groups. When worlds collide, egos can
become problematic, so like a good guy, I'm trying to step in before thing
escalate to typical Usenet blather.

Both of you have valid points and I respect both of your viewpoints about
the subject(s) presented. Please believe me when I state that you two, if
introduced differently, would have a more respective view of each other.

OTOH: Opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one. Please don't exhibit the
'posterior', OK guys?

I really believe that if you two could have a little more dialogue, it would
be mutually beneficial for both parties. There is more to both of you than
what should come from a first-time Usenet catfight.

George "Peacemaker" Kerby

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29938

In article <CC5AEB19.8D6EB%ghost_topper@hotmail.com>,
 George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 8/22/12 5:58 PM, in article
> 2012082215580443658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 2012-08-22 15:37:47 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> 
> > said:
> > 
> >> In article <2012082212460731729-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >>>> I disagree with you about the HDR and non HDR versions of the iPhone 
> >>>> shot;
> >>>> the HDR has more saturated greens, closer to the actual color of the
> >>>> leaves, and the leaves themselves are sharper, less soft, than in the 
> >>>> non
> >>>> HDR picture.
> >>> 
> >>> OK! That is what happens when you ask for an opinion based on a
> >>> subjective non-standard comparison test, and you already held your own
> >>> preconceived opinion.
> >> 
> >> No, I did not have a preconceived opinion.  And actually, I didn't ask for
> >> an opinion; I merely presented the pictures.
> > 
> > With apparantly little purpose.
> > 
> >>> Take a look at some of the dpreview.com comparison tests to get an idea
> >>> of what I am talking about. Then get back to us on this subject. If you
> >>> are trying to justify your use of HDR with an iPhone app because it is
> >>> your preference, go ahead.
> >> 
> >> I am not trying to justify anything; I was merely pointing out what I
> >> observed.
> >> 
> >> I could not see how you preferred a picture with washed out sky and less
> >> saturation and detail in the leaves to one with a properly exposed sky and
> >> greater detail and saturation in the leaves.
> > 
> > My preference was for the D70 image.
> > 
> >> If you want to make a contest of it, go a head, but I'm not playing that
> >> game.
> > 
> > What contest?
> > You started this, and your OP is taking on trollish dimensions.
> > What were we supposed to do with your posted images, look at them and
> > go, "hmmm"?
> > 
> > 
> 
> Duck/Michelle:
> 
> You two are on a road of generally what happens when two newsgroups get
> cross-posted. 
> 
> Michelle is a great contributor to the alt.mac groups and Savageduck is one
> of the best in the alt.digital groups. Both are headstrong and great
> contributors to their respective groups. When worlds collide, egos can
> become problematic, so like a good guy, I'm trying to step in before thing
> escalate to typical Usenet blather.
> 
> Both of you have valid points and I respect both of your viewpoints about
> the subject(s) presented. Please believe me when I state that you two, if
> introduced differently, would have a more respective view of each other.
> 
> OTOH: Opinions are like a-holes, everyone has one. Please don't exhibit the
> 'posterior', OK guys?
> 
> I really believe that if you two could have a little more dialogue, it would
> be mutually beneficial for both parties. There is more to both of you than
> what should come from a first-time Usenet catfight.
> 
> George "Peacemaker" Kerby

Hi George.

At this point I am going to cease and desist. 
I prefer for these debates not to degrade to the point individuals in 
other groups we are familiar with seem to lead them.

-- 
Regards,
Savageduck

--- Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net/ - Complaints to news@netfront.net ---

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29947

On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 15:58:04 -0700, Savageduck wrote:

> On 2012-08-22 15:37:47 -0700, Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> said:
> 
>> In article <2012082212460731729-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> I disagree with you about the HDR and non HDR versions of the iPhone shot;
>>>> the HDR has more saturated greens, closer to the actual color of the
>>>> leaves, and the leaves themselves are sharper, less soft, than in the non
>>>> HDR picture.
>>> 
>>> OK! That is what happens when you ask for an opinion based on a
>>> subjective non-standard comparison test, and you already held your own
>>> preconceived opinion.
>> 
>> No, I did not have a preconceived opinion.  And actually, I didn't ask for
>> an opinion; I merely presented the pictures.
> 
> With apparantly little purpose.
> 

I'm confused. First, you accuse her of trying to validate a preconceived
notion, now you accuse of of having no purpose? So which is it?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29988

On 2012-08-22 01:17 , Michelle Steiner wrote:

> questioning your ratings; I'm asking how you reached your conclusions.  Oh,
> it would also help if we knew what your qualifications were.

As a photographer, the 'duck can blow away most wannabes.

Here's one of my favourite shots that he's done.  (Not with an iPad, of 
course).

http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/138049941/original



-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29990

Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> writes:

> On 2012-08-22 01:17 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
> > questioning your ratings; I'm asking how you reached your conclusions.  Oh,
> > it would also help if we knew what your qualifications were.
> 
> As a photographer, the 'duck can blow away most wannabes.
> 
> Here's one of my favourite shots that he's done.  (Not with an iPad,
> of course).
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/138049941/original

A nice picture!  

Still, he could learn that a request to explain his opinion (whether
he wants to comply with that request or not) does not constitute
preconceived notions on behalf of the requester.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#29997

In article <UNOdnTecJsMicKrNnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> On 2012-08-22 01:17 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> 
> > questioning your ratings; I'm asking how you reached your conclusions.  Oh,
> > it would also help if we knew what your qualifications were.
> 
> As a photographer, the 'duck can blow away most wannabes.
> 
> Here's one of my favourite shots that he's done.  (Not with an iPad, of 
> course).
> 
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/138049941/original

It's kitsch! 

I often muse about what you guys actually feel in your beating hearts 
when you talk endlessly and knowledgeably enough about photography and 
cameras and so on.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30009

On 2012-08-24 18:03 , dorayme wrote:
> In article <UNOdnTecJsMicKrNnZ2dnUVZ_q6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 2012-08-22 01:17 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> questioning your ratings; I'm asking how you reached your conclusions.  Oh,
>>> it would also help if we knew what your qualifications were.
>>
>> As a photographer, the 'duck can blow away most wannabes.
>>
>> Here's one of my favourite shots that he's done.  (Not with an iPad, of
>> course).
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/138049941/original
>
> It's kitsch!

Hardly.  A very well executed sunset (or rise).  The scale of the foam 
is very misleading (see the figures walling on the far right).  The 
patterns in the foam at such a scale are great.  The photographic 
capture and presentation are great IMO.  Not to mention the very narrow 
colour palette which strengthens the image.

>
> I often muse about what you guys actually feel in your beating hearts
> when you talk endlessly and knowledgeably enough about photography and
> cameras and so on.

Heart?

Beating?

C'mon?

Really?

At least photography has some level of creativity (and that is revealed 
in some of the photography groups) v. the discussions here which for the 
most part are the adoration of Apple's widgets and discussion of rumours 
and so on.

-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30020

In article <-eGdnQ40Pv7ZTKXNnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> >> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/138049941/original
> >
> > It's kitsch!
> 
> Hardly.  A very well executed sunset (or rise).  The scale of the foam 
> is very misleading (see the figures walling on the far right).  The 
> patterns in the foam at such a scale are great.  The photographic 
> capture and presentation are great IMO.  Not to mention the very narrow 
> colour palette which strengthens the image.

It is a great picture, and it shows that he's a great photographer and/or 
image-processing-software technician, probably both.

-- 
Tea Party Patriots is to Patriotism as 
People's Democratic Republic is to Democracy.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30025

On 2012-08-25 12:42 , Michelle Steiner wrote:
> In article <-eGdnQ40Pv7ZTKXNnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>   Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>>> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/138049941/original
>>>
>>> It's kitsch!
>>
>> Hardly.  A very well executed sunset (or rise).  The scale of the foam
>> is very misleading (see the figures walling on the far right).  The
>> patterns in the foam at such a scale are great.  The photographic
>> capture and presentation are great IMO.  Not to mention the very narrow
>> colour palette which strengthens the image.
>
> It is a great picture, and it shows that he's a great photographer and/or
> image-processing-software technician, probably both.

Very good photographer and pretty handy with PS.



-- 
"C'mon boys, you're not laying pipe!".
                                 -John Keating.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web