Which camera is better?

[Gary]

I am undergoing a treatment to remove precancerous lesions from my
scalp, and I want to take photos of the scalp and send them to my
dermatologist to see whether the treatment is progressing normally.

I have an iPhone 5 and an iPad 2. Which camera will produce the
clearest pictures?

[Steve W. Jackson]

In article <50b75958$0$27202$c3e8da3$92d0...@news.astraweb.com>,

The iPhone has by far a better camera than the iPad 2. I have an iPhone
4S and its camera is far superior to my iPad 2.
--
Steve W. Jackson
Montgomery, Alabama

[Douglas C. Neidermeyer]

Maybe next time just ask which camera has the better close-up resolution ;-)

--
We have a spending problem, not a failure to raise taxes problem."
--Grover Norquist

[bj]

"Douglas C. Neidermeyer" <s...@arms.omega.faber.edu> wrote:
> On 11/29/12 7:47 AM, Gary wrote:
>> I am undergoing a treatment to remove precancerous lesions from my
>> scalp, and I want to take photos of the scalp and send them to my
>> dermatologist to see whether the treatment is progressing normally.
>>
>> I have an iPhone 5 and an iPad 2. Which camera will produce the
>> clearest pictures?
>>
>
> Maybe next time just ask which camera has the better close-up resolution ;-)

I took some quite adequate close-up pictures of some sores with the front
camera of my iPhone 4. That way I could (more or less) see what I was
pointing at.

I don't think I could have held the iPad 3 steady enough, seems like it'd
be a bit awkward -- or are you planning to set the <whichever> somewhere
steady and point&shoot, hoping to get the right spot in focus?

(not sure how you would do scalp pictures & know what you're getting unless
you're like one of my old teachers with "eyes in the back of her head")
bj

[nospam]

In article
<1428265146375910644.630762...@news.giganews.com>,

bj <addre...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> (not sure how you would do scalp pictures & know what you're getting unless
> you're like one of my old teachers with "eyes in the back of her head")

use a real camera with live view and a swiveling lcd.

[Garyy]

While I hold my finger on the button I lift the camera over my head
into what seems like a good position. Flash is on. Then I release the
button.

If the angle isn't quite right I erase and redo untril it is. Then I crop.

[7...@gmail.com]

A suggestion: find a new doctor that will look at the scalp in person
and not by photo no matter what the source.

As someone who works in the medical field i'm horrified that a doctor
is doing this rather than examining you in person.

IMHO any doctor who does his should loose his right to practice.

[Anthony]

Maybe they WANT the doctor to look at it from a photo.

Maybe the doctor is far away.

Maybe the doctor is booked out 6 months and impossible to get an
appointment.

Maybe they charge less to look at a photo than the person, and the
patient has no insurance, so has to take this option.

Maybe the patient is bedridden and to get them out of the house is a
real ordeal.

Maybe they have no car to even get them to the doctor.

You don't know the circumstances.

[Savageduck]

I had similar thoughts.

Is this exercise for the doctor or something the OP believes will
simplify his life, or perhaps be a possible use for his device camera ?
Skin lesions are always best checked in the flesh as it were. An iPad,
or iPhoto snapshot isn't going to give the detail, and most importantly
the feel that a responsible clinician will need to truly evaluate.

Something as serious as pre-cancerous lesions are best monitored by
regular visits to a dermatologist. I have had squamous cell carcinomas
removed from my face, and numerous solar keratoses, and pre-cancerous
lesions removed from my arms, legs, and back. I see my dermatologist
regularly every 9-12 months, and if my family doctor is concerned after
routine physical check up, I visit the dermatologist.
If you are susceptible to this type of problem it is vital that a
professional checks areas you cannot easily see, such as scalp, and
back.

I would forego the long distance photo consultation.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[JF Mezei]

On 12-11-29 20:18, Savageduck wrote:

> I would forego the long distance photo consultation.

If a photo is sufficient for the general doctor to make a referal to a
specialist, then the photo, even from an iPhone is enough to get
something done and saves a useless visit to the generalist.

It is wrong to assume that a photo will be used only for a final diagnosis.

[Savageduck]

On 2012-11-29 16:27:54 -0800, Anthony <mu...@test.invalid> said:

> On 11/29/2012 4:13 PM, 7...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 07:47:19 -0500, Gary <gar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am undergoing a treatment to remove precancerous lesions from my
>>> scalp, and I want to take photos of the scalp and send them to my
>>> dermatologist to see whether the treatment is progressing normally.
>>>
>>> I have an iPhone 5 and an iPad 2. Which camera will produce the
>>> clearest pictures?
>>
>> A suggestion: find a new doctor that will look at the scalp in person
>> and not by photo no matter what the source.
>>
>> As someone who works in the medical field i'm horrified that a doctor
>> is doing this rather than examining you in person.
>>
>> IMHO any doctor who does his should loose his right to practice.
>>
>
>
> Maybe they WANT the doctor to look at it from a photo.

Not a great idea.

> Maybe the doctor is far away.

Find one closer.

> Maybe the doctor is booked out 6 months and impossible to get an appointment.

Since the OP has already had treatment, it seems that a good
practitioner would have suggested making regular follow-up
appointments. When I had a Squamous cell carcinoma removed from my
face, I had a two week, then a six week follow-up. then I had check ups
at a six month interval for 18 months. I am now on a 9-12 month checkup
routine.

> Maybe they charge less to look at a photo than the person, and the
> patient has no insurance, so has to take this option.

Possibly. However, this is an individual who owns and uses an iPhone
and an iPad with both the basic cost of the devices and the plan costs
within his budget. Also, a quick check of the OP shows that he is a Mac
user, so even if he doesn't carry medical insurance, I have a feeling
that for a health issue as important as this, he could well afford to
pay for a visit to the doctor out of pocket.

> Maybe the patient is bedridden and to get them out of the house is a
> real ordeal.
>
> Maybe they have no car to even get them to the doctor.
>
> You don't know the circumstances.

They got to the doctor once, so there is some method in place to enable
a visit for a real consultation.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

Note, the OP, Gary has already told us the diagnosis has been made and
he is currently undergoing treatment by a specialist.
It is Gary who says, "and I want to take photos of the scalp and send

them to my dermatologist to see whether the treatment is progressing

normally." So it seems this is an exercise the OP wants to engage in so
he can get reassurance from his dermatologist. My suggestion is to
trust his specialist and stick to the follow-up routine he has
undoubtably been advised to follow.

When hearing the words "pre-cancerous lesion" there is an element of
concern felt by the patient (I know, I've been there and done that) and
perhaps this is the OP's way to be proactive in handling his concern
with his medical problem.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Wes Groleau]

On 11-29-2012 19:13, 7...@gmail.com wrote:
> A suggestion: find a new doctor that will look at the scalp in person
> and not by photo no matter what the source.

As another person who works in health care, I think you are over-reacting.

1. A competent, conscientious dermatologist will know whether the image
isn't clear enough to judge progress. It isn't for diagnosis, its for
making sure treatment is doing something.

2. A good doctor is quite busy, and can look at photos far more often
than he can schedule appointments.

> As someone who works in the medical field i'm horrified that a doctor
> is doing this rather than examining you in person.

When I got in to see my doctor after having a severe skin problem, I had
already made a lot of progress self-treating. It was necessary to show
him the photos from when it was worse for him to be able to get the
whole story.


--
Wes Groleau

Even if you do learn to speak correct English,
whom are you going to speak it to?
— Clarence Darrow

[zulu]

"Douglas C. Neidermeyer" <s...@arms.omega.faber.edu> wrote in message
news:k98bkp$m3a$1...@news.albasani.net...

> On 11/29/12 7:47 AM, Gary wrote:
>> I am undergoing a treatment to remove precancerous lesions from my
>> scalp, and I want to take photos of the scalp and send them to my
>> dermatologist to see whether the treatment is progressing normally.
>>
>> I have an iPhone 5 and an iPad 2. Which camera will produce the
>> clearest pictures?
>>
>
> Maybe next time just ask which camera has the better close-up resolution
> ;-)

More to the point, I have never been able to find out the minimum focal
length of the camera. (ipad3 in my case.).

I have just tried to use an app called *Scan* on one of those black and
white squares they look like a micro crossword. (I have no real idea what
they do or what they are called, I was trying to find out!). I assume they
are a hyperlink....(?)


--
zulu

[zulu]

<7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5cufb8t15km1ptggl...@4ax.com...

*lose*
>

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 07:47:19 -0500, Gary <gar...@hotmail.com> wrote:

A splurge to buy an actual, REAL digital camera, or a friend who has
one.

You could even set it up 'semi-permanent', so all you have to do is go
to that location and perform a new 'daily shoot'.

Like pointing it and some illumination down from the ceiling of a
hallway passage.

There is not ANY phone, even the 'new' 'HD" HTC, that has the optics
you need to take decent macro shots of your scalp.

Of those two, however, I would venture a seasoned guess that the phone
is far more advanced. There are also macro shot add-on lenses you can
get for it.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2012 18:32:01 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <50b75958$0$27202$c3e8da3$92d0...@news.astraweb.com>

>The iPhone 5 has a better camera, but either will be more than good
>enough.

Bull. I'd bet that NO phone has any close focus capacity without
add-on optics.

They all likely have a minimum focal length and that will yield a poor
picture framing for this application.

He should use a real camera.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

Real simple. Get a bar code reader like 'qrafter' and place the
barcode too close to see. The iPad will focus in as close as it can. Then
back away 1cm and re-perform the scan. continue until YOU see the image
in focus. That distance is the minimal focal length shot you should ever
attempt to take.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

Yeah. It is already a loose right.

That is why there are so many money sucking quacks in the 'industry'.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

There are also camera apps that give the user full slider control over
the zoom. So you could manually determine the minimum focus without much
effort as well.

[zulu]

"ChairmanOfTheBored" <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote in message
news:rb4hb81bq0s4a5a8e...@4ax.com...

I'd ,love to.....I'm nealy blind...
I can't _see_ if it is in focus.

Re-read ny post.
It's not a barcode.
This thing is about 1cm square, a bit like a tiny crossword.
It''s an image on a letter I just got.


--
zulu

[zulu]

"ChairmanOfTheBored" <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote in message

news:hg5hb89and7fn61nh...@4ax.com...

Apparently it's a *QR code*....

[Gary]

I'm the OP, and have just finished reading the interchange as to the
advisability of my sending the doctor photos vs. personal visit.
Here's my actual situation:

The doctor is very close (5 min by auto).
He's very busy and hard to get an appointment with.
I have just finished taking 5 days of a 2-week regimen of the
medication, and the doctor said I should decide whether to extend it to
4 weeks (if my scalp has turned really red, I can stop, otherwise
continue).
Your arguments are well taken, and I am going to make an appointment
today to see him after 2 weeks and let him make the judgment.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH for your discussions; they have changed my
perspective on the whole issue.

[George Kerby]

On 11/29/12 6:13 PM, in article 5cufb8t15km1ptggl...@4ax.com,

Anybody in the "Medical Field" should know what the difference between
"loose" and "lose".

Perhaps you don't know the WHOLE story? Maybe the Physician had already seen
the patient recently and wanted to follow-up by this method before the next
regularly scheduled appointment? Maybe the Patient's insurance only allowed
for so many Office Visits? There are MANY justifiable reasons for this
method of following the patients daily/weekly progress.

You ever hear of "Doctors Without Borders"? You might Google the term
"Telemedicine". It works quite well, thank you.

[George Kerby]

On 11/29/12 11:21 PM, in article k99fof$46c$1...@dont-email.me, "Wes Groleau"

<Grolea...@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> On 11-29-2012 19:13, 7...@gmail.com wrote:
>> A suggestion: find a new doctor that will look at the scalp in person
>> and not by photo no matter what the source.
>
> As another person who works in health care, I think you are over-reacting.
>
> 1. A competent, conscientious dermatologist will know whether the image
> isn't clear enough to judge progress. It isn't for diagnosis, its for
> making sure treatment is doing something.
>
> 2. A good doctor is quite busy, and can look at photos far more often
> than he can schedule appointments.
>
>> As someone who works in the medical field i'm horrified that a doctor
>> is doing this rather than examining you in person.
>
> When I got in to see my doctor after having a severe skin problem, I had
> already made a lot of progress self-treating. It was necessary to show
> him the photos from when it was worse for him to be able to get the
> whole story.
>

Indeed, Wes. For example, my GSD had a reddened area on her muzzle. I called
her Vet and described it to him. He requested that I take a picture and
e-mail it to his office, since he was booked up for regular office visits
for several days out and we agreed not to go to the trouble/expense of an
Emergency exam. The picture was quite satisfactory (iPhone 3s) for his
diagnosis and determination that it was not fungal or viral (like a
'cold-sore'), but rather a bacterial infection for which he prescribed the
correct antibiotic. My pup healed up nicely.

[zulu]

"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnkbhk3i....@mbp55.local...
> In message <jN%ts.517292$W63.2...@fx05.am4>

> A QR code can contain pretty much any sort of textual information. It
> could be a URL, it could be a name and address and phone numbers for a
> business. It could be a serial number.
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QR_code>

Thanks Lewis.

--
zulu

[George Kerby]

On 11/30/12 9:42 AM, in article
michelle-00345D...@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <slrnkbhjtu....@mbp55.local>,

> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>> They all likely have a minimum focal length and that will yield a
>>> poor
>>> picture framing for this application.
>>

>> So you have no idea what you are talking about and are just making shit
>> up? Are you a nospam sockpuppet?
>
> My guess is a "news" sock puppet.

Oh NO! Not THAT moron. I was suspecting a re-birth of the Apple-hating
"Zara".

[nospam]

In article <michelle-974C54...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> > More to the point, I have never been able to find out the minimum focal
> > length of the camera. (ipad3 in my case.).
>

> It's not a zoom lens, so there's only one focal length. Furthermore,
> without knowing the size of the sensor, knowing the focal length will not
> give you any useful information.

given the context, he means minimum focus distance, i.e, how close can
you get to something and still be able to focus on it.

[zulu]

"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
news:michelle-974C54...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <jN%ts.517292$W63.2...@fx05.am4>,
> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No offence Michelle, but I didn't need a lecture.
I first used a camera over 60 years ago...

I just wanted to know the closest I could get to an object with the camera
on an iPad3 and still have it in focus.
I know that wasn't quite what I asked,but it was fairly obvious what I
meant....

--
zulu

[zulu]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:301120121329270689%nos...@nospam.invalid...

Yes.
As my reply to Michelle...


--
zulu

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <uf3hb8tq4qakkp8qo...@4ax.com>,

ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> said:

> There is not ANY phone, even the 'new' 'HD" HTC, that has the optics
>you need to take decent macro shots of your scalp.

No? I suspect that something like this would be more than sufficient for
routine "current status" photos from a dermatological standpoint.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0xdkj0wz7bfbiqn/2012-11-30%2014.47.04.jpg

If anything further is needed, it will likely be beyond a person's
ability to photograph themselves and will require a visit.

I'm not suggesting that camera phones will entirely replace high end
digital cameras for all purposes, but in general, the best camera in the
world is the one you have with you when you need to take a photo.

--
The nice thing about standards, there is enough for everyone to have their own.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <hg5hb89and7fn61nh...@4ax.com>,

ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> said:

> There are also camera apps that give the user full slider control over
>the zoom.

Keep in mind that there is no optical zoom, just an automatic crop. In
other words, the blurry image may be a result of the digital crop and
stretch rather than the camera's actual capabilities.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

The barcode is so you can set the camera up at its closest focus. You
perform the barcode scans to determine what the minimum focus is.

It has nothing to do with any barcode you may or may not have
emblazoned on your scalp.

>This thing is about 1cm square, a bit like a tiny crossword.
>It''s an image on a letter I just got.

That is called a 2D barcode or even a UID type. a standard barcode
scanner will not read it.

The iPad and iPhone, however, will. The software I mentioned reads
them just fine.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 12:35:49 -0000, "zulu"
<zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>Apparently it's a *QR code*....
>

The "Qrafter" app I mentioned will read it.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:24:46 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>Depends on how close you need to get. The iPhone can focus on items only
>about 2" away without a problem.

I doubt your claim, AND it is PISS POOr resolution, at best.

>
>> They all likely have a minimum focal length and that will yield a poor
>> picture framing for this application.
>

>So you have no idea what you are talking about

You are a goddamned retard. Phone cameras are shit. Real cameras are
NOT. YOU are retarded to tout a phone cam as being viable, and even
calling the shots they make "good". You are a fucking joke, and your
snide comment is further proof of that FACT, you retarded piece of shit.

> and are just making shit
>up?

Nobody said a goddamned thing about making shit up, you retarded fuck.
You claiming that a phone has a good camera is 'making shit up' Stew in
it, fucktard.

> Are you a nospam sockpuppet?

You're a goddamned idiot. It doesn't get any dumber than you.

Your mother should be imprisoned for failing to flush you, the moment
the retarded cunt shat you.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:24:46 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>> He should use a real camera.
>
>I'm sure he'd be happy to if you buy it for him.

Grow the fuck up, you retarded piece of shit.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 08:51:47 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

>
>For instance, most digital SLRs have a sensor that's about 2/3 the size of
>a 35mm frame. So, the effective focal length of the lens is about 1.5
>times the actual focal length when compared to a 35mm full-frame film
>camera.
>
>In other words, a 50mm lens on most digital SLRs will have the same
>coverage as a 75mm lens on a 35mm film camera.

You're a goddamned retard.

I have a camera which can focus on an object 1cm from the primary lens.

Your grasp of reality, much less optics rests firmly at nil.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:02:19 -0000, "zulu"
<zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>
>"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message
>news:michelle-974C54...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <jN%ts.517292$W63.2...@fx05.am4>,
>> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>No offence Michelle, but I didn't need a lecture.
>I first used a camera over 60 years ago...

The stupid cunt IS offensive, and you SHOULD return the favor.

>
>I just wanted to know the closest I could get to an object with the camera
>on an iPad3 and still have it in focus.

And that stupid twit does NOT have enough knowledge of the system, nor
the aptitude for the technology, to tell you anything valid.

>I know that wasn't quite what I asked,but it was fairly obvious what I
>meant....

I had no problem seeing what you wanted to know.

If I were you, I would place exactly ZERO credence in anything the
Steiner cunt says.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:52:07 -0800, DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net>
wrote:

>I'm not suggesting that camera phones will entirely replace high end
>digital cameras for all purposes, but in general, the best camera in the
>world is the one you have with you when you need to take a photo.

What a stupid fucking remark. The best camera for the job IS the best
camera for the job, whether you have it or not. If you d not have it,
you do NOT have the "bets camera for the job" and even though you may get
the shot, it only represents a half assed stab at doing the job.

Looks like you did a job on your grasp of reality.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:52:07 -0800, DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net>
wrote:

>In the last episode of <hg5hb89and7fn61nh...@4ax.com>,
>ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> said:
>
>> There are also camera apps that give the user full slider control over
>>the zoom.
>
>Keep in mind that there is no optical zoom, just an automatic crop. In
>other words, the blurry image may be a result of the digital crop and
>stretch rather than the camera's actual capabilities.

The camera in my ipad has a moving lens. It focuses and zooms, not just
cropping.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <erkib89k2ibp7bh3f...@4ax.com>,

I notice you completed trimmed out the sample photo which shows a camera
phone is more than capable of accomplishing this task. Glad to see we
agree that it works well for this need.

With regards to my comment, you can have all the camera gear you want at
home, but that won't help you if you stumble across a scene that you
want to photograph while you're out. Learn to use the camera you carry
with you and you might get surprisingly good results.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:44:09 -0700, Prancer <pra...@prancer.commatose>
wrote:

>In article <q2kib8tc8prkvnsd4...@4ax.com>,

> ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote:
>
>> Your mother should be imprisoned for failing to flush you, the moment
>> the retarded cunt shat you.
>

>You mangy illegitimate rabid offspring of a syphilitic canine prostitute,

A ten IQ retarded fuck like you wouldn't know.

>go wash your mouth out with soap.

Go fuck off and die. Do it now.

> Better yet, wash it out with lye.

You need to be vivisected (yes, retard, you'll have to go look that one
up), and then doused in an alcohol bath, and then cast into a fine powder
lye pit, so we can watch you writhe like the retarded little fuck you
are.

>And when you're finished with that,

Fuck you, you fucking retarded fuck.

> fuck off and die, motherfucker.

Have fun trying to affect that change, you retarded piece of shit.
>--
>Ho Ho Ho my ass.

More proof that you are a total fucking retard.

You need a big, splintery NYPD broomstick handle shoved up your ass,
till it comes out of your mouth.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:51:48 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

>
>Not that you know anything about jobs, you unemployable cunt.


Hahahaha. I get vetted by 6 agencies a year, you retard cunt.

A couple of which you are too goddamned stupid to even be aware of the
existence of.

You're a goddamned idiot. You know nothing about me, and this pathetic
crack proves both that fact, and the fact that you are nothing more than
an immature little slut mentality bitch. You have nothing to offer
society.

I have been working all my life, and the last ten have been in an
engineering capacity.

You were saying, cunt?

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Sat, 1 Dec 2012 00:56:41 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <q2kib8tc8prkvnsd4...@4ax.com>

> ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 15:24:46 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
>> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>Depends on how close you need to get. The iPhone can focus on items only
>>>about 2" away without a problem.
>
>> I doubt your claim, AND it is PISS POOr resolution, at best.
>

>No, it is not. It is a very decent 8MP camera.

No, it is a set of shit optics in front of a shit 8MP CMOS sensor of
poor design, at best.

Nothing qualitative at all about them except that a clam can be made
that they have improved over time.

They were total shit. Now they are just lame shit. Nothing has
changed about the fact that it is always going to be piss poor
replacement for a real set of optics in front of a real, camera grade
sensor.

>
>>>> They all likely have a minimum focal length and that will yield a poor
>>>> picture framing for this application.
>>>
>>>So you have no idea what you are talking about
>
>> You are a goddamned retard.
>

>Congrats, I am done with you. Record time!

Like I was seeking or would give a fat flying fuck what a total fucking
retard like you has to say about what you *think* life is like.

I would bet that you are more than a little obese. You fat fuck! You
can't even manage your weight, and you want folks to believe that you
have any grasp of anything technical?

>> Phone cameras are shit.
>
>So you know nothing and are making shit up.

Phone cameras are shit. That is true, and is also 100% proof that I
know quite a bit more than a pathetic Appletard like you ever did or ever
will.

Your claims in this thread alone proves that you are a stupid fuck, at
best.

> Are you SURE you're not nospam?

You retarded filter fucktards are the trolls of Usenet. You are just
too fucking stupid to see it.

>But no, even he is not this stupid.

Thanks for admitting the depths of YOUR stupidity, dumbfuck.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:56:54 -0800, DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net>
wrote:

>I notice you completed trimmed out the sample photo which shows a camera
>phone is more than capable of accomplishing this task. Glad to see we
>agree that it works well for this need.

A true mouthy retarded fuck makes a claim of agreement where there was
none.

You could be a bit more retarded, just not in this life.

It was a shit picture, fucktard.

The target is a 1cm square area, not your 6" by 6" stupidity.

Take a close shot with it, dumbfuck. Oh, that's right... you do not
know what that is.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:56:54 -0800, DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net>
wrote:

> Learn to use the camera you carry
>with you and you might get surprisingly good results.

Learn? You learn, fuckhead!

I carry an Olympus macro zoom everywhere I go, and I almost always ride
a bike.

Camera, sound recorder, laptop, iPad, bike tools, memory sticks for PC
repair and for camera storage. Every trip, every day.

Learn to carry a decent camera and you will not have to make yourself
look utterly retarded by touting inferior cameras as viable photography
solutions.

As it stands, you are nothing more than a fucking joke.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 18:02:37 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <slrnkbilh5....@mbp55.local>,

> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> >> If I were you, I would place exactly ZERO credence in anything the
>> >> Steiner cunt says.
>>

>> > Of course you wouldn't, because you're adverse to facts and truth, you
>> > pussy.
>>
>> He's a Republican?
>
>I was trying to keep politics out of this. ;)


You are both nothig more than a pair of goddamned retarded, poorly
raised idiots.

Your parents should all face public stonings or firing squads.

Then, it is off to the lye pits with you!

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <f0lib8hr3p2b6vmh7...@4ax.com>,

ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> said:

>On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:52:07 -0800, DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net>
>wrote:
>

>>Keep in mind that there is no optical zoom, just an automatic crop. In
>>other words, the blurry image may be a result of the digital crop and
>>stretch rather than the camera's actual capabilities.
>
> The camera in my ipad has a moving lens. It focuses and zooms, not just
>cropping.

It focuses, but as far as I can tell, doesn't zoom. Can you point to a
cite which indicates it's an optical zoom?

Apple's technical specs also don't mention an optical zoom.

[DevilsPGD]

In the last episode of <i7oib8lr1pj5nqvgr...@4ax.com>,

ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> said:

> The target is a 1cm square area, not your 6" by 6" stupidity.

Crop as needed if you like, the resolution is sufficient for home-photos
intended for dermatologist use -- Note my skin condition in the photo?
Been down this road before.

[nospam]

In article <o37jb8pvore5hrs36...@4ax.com>, DevilsPGD

<booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> >>Keep in mind that there is no optical zoom, just an automatic crop. In
> >>other words, the blurry image may be a result of the digital crop and
> >>stretch rather than the camera's actual capabilities.
> >
> > The camera in my ipad has a moving lens. It focuses and zooms, not just
> >cropping.
>
> It focuses, but as far as I can tell, doesn't zoom. Can you point to a
> cite which indicates it's an optical zoom?
>
> Apple's technical specs also don't mention an optical zoom.

there is no zoom in any idevice.

some apps fake it with digital zoom. that is *not* the same thing and
doesn't require any moving parts anywhere. it's just cropping and
scaling.

[zulu]

"Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message

news:michelle-BAD5D4...@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <slrnkbigjn....@mbp55.local>,

> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> > No offence Michelle, but I didn't need a lecture. I first used a
>> > camera over 60 years ago...
>>

>> Well, I think maybe you *did* need a lecture because you misused 'focal
>> length' in your question. :p
>>
>> I knew what you meant, but what you asked was the wrong question, I
>> simply chose to ignore 'focal length' and Michelle didn't.
>
> Well, actually, I didn't know that he had meant focus distance, and
> answered what I thought was the actual question.


OK, Faity Nuff :o)

...but I _still_ don't know the answer to:
Let me try again...

"How close can I get to an object with the camera on my iPad3 and keep it
in sharp focus?"

I really do not know how to make it clearer or more understandable.


--
zulu

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:00:11 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <3enib8hh9bv33vjc5...@4ax.com>,

> ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote:
>
>> >Not that you know anything about jobs, you unemployable cunt.
>>
>>
>> Hahahaha. I get vetted by 6 agencies a year, you retard cunt.
>

>And they all reject you.

No. They all pass me, and they say I do not stink. Your pathetic, STD
ridden carcass, however, would get some bad marks.

>
>> A couple of which you are too goddamned stupid to even be aware of the
>> existence of.
>>
>> You're a goddamned idiot. You know nothing about me,
>

>I know that you're a bombastic asshole

Funny. I had that very same thought about you in your first response
ever to one of my posts here.

You are, in fact, the very troll you make so many claims of others
being. You are as bad as it gets, twit.

> with delusions of adequacy,

You are still deluded in your claim that I am not employable. I do more
to make the word a better place in a week than your pathetic, stinking
ass has done or ever will do in your entire, pathetic life. Your false
claim are an indicator of your delusions, dipshit, not mine.

> who
>takes great joy in insulting other people

No. I take great joy in insulting retarded fucks who deserve to be
insulted. You are one such retarded fuck, you retarded fuck.

> because you lead a boring life
>devoid of any meaningful experiences.


You obviously failed your psych courses as well. That is no surprise
though.
>
>So rant on,

Uh... your bullshit post here, full of retarded lies, qualifies more
as a rant than anything I ever posted here or anywhere else, twit.

> twat;

You also have gender issues. remember, no matter how hard you try or
wish you were a man, you will never get there, you school marm,
prohibitionist mentality man wanna be bitch.

> it keeps you off the streets,

I do not get "on the streets". That must be something retarded whores
like you do and familiarize yourself with. It is a shame that we cannot
clear the streets of all the retarded whores like you.

> and from harming anyone.

I want to harm retarded whores. I would gather you all up into a
bundle and make a MOAWB out of you and drop you onto an Iranian hate
rally, drenched in pig blood.

>But I'm done with you; you're a waste of pixels.

You are a waste of atoms, cunt.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 22:06:59 -0800, DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net>
wrote:

>In the last episode of <i7oib8lr1pj5nqvgr...@4ax.com>,
>ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> said:
>
>> The target is a 1cm square area, not your 6" by 6" stupidity.
>
>Crop as needed if you like, the resolution is sufficient for home-photos
>intended for dermatologist use -- Note my skin condition in the photo?

NO, you RETARDED FUCK. THAT IS THE POINT.

It is not 'sufficient'. It barely qualifies as barely adequate.

>Been down this road before.

Good for you splotch boy.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

And I told you EXACTLY how to make that determination. D'OH!

[JF Mezei]

Do the cameras used in the iDevices have ANY moving parts ? Always been
curious on how focus is done on digital cameras without moving parts.

My old Sony Ericsson phone had mechanical zoom and you could hear the
little motor adjusting the lens. But no noise at all on the iDevices
(and many other similar devices).

Or do the les elements actually move inside to do zoom but it is done
via magnets or whatever instead of a motor ?

[David Taylor]

Can't speak specifically for the iPad cameras, but on similar 'phone
cameras there is movement for focussing. I expect the same is true on
the iPad. They are fixed focal length, no zoom.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[George Kerby]

On 11/30/12 2:48 PM, in article
michelle-D66A57...@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <CCDE5720.93E4D%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,

> George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> They all likely have a minimum focal length and that will yield a
>>>>> poor
>>>>> picture framing for this application.
>>>>

>>>> So you have no idea what you are talking about and are just making
>>>> shit up? Are you a nospam sockpuppet?
>>>
>>> My guess is a "news" sock puppet.
>>
>> Oh NO! Not THAT moron. I was suspecting a re-birth of the Apple-hating
>> "Zara".
>
> I think not. Zara never infected the iPhone newsgroup; he stuck to the Mac
> newsgroups. Ditto for Priam/Yugo.

Yeah, but that wouldn't keep them from the migration over to this group.
After all, it's another Apple product that they can obsess over...

[George Kerby]

On 11/30/12 5:34 PM, in article slrnkbigjn....@mbp55.local, "Lewis"
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <to7us.428480$nB6.1...@fx21.am4>

> zulu <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> "Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message

>> news:michelle-974C54...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In article <jN%ts.517292$W63.2...@fx05.am4>,

>>> "zulu" <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>> No offence Michelle, but I didn't need a lecture.
>> I first used a camera over 60 years ago...
>
> Well, I think maybe you *did* need a lecture because you misused 'focal
> length' in your question. :p
>
> I knew what you meant, but what you asked was the wrong question, I
> simply chose to ignore 'focal length' and Michelle didn't.

Agreed. "focal length" is an absolutely exact term describing a lens'
physical characteristics. I, too, took it as that.

Michelle went into great detail trying to help in her reply, it was not
meant in way as being derogatory, the way I read it. In fact, it was quite
surprising her knowledge of photography was so extensive. I am surprised she
isn't a 'regular' over in the photo groups.

Zulu SHOULD have asked about "minimum FOCUS" length. Otherwise, this is
"much ado about nothing"...

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

You have never heard of a magnetic linear actuator?

Think speaker voice coil. Completely silent linear motion.

At those dimensions, the lens segment in question would likely only
need to be moved a millimeter or two.

[George Kerby]

On 11/30/12 6:50 PM, in article f0lib8hr3p2b6vmh7...@4ax.com,

Well then YOUR iPad didn't come from Apple, asshole, because EVERY OTHER one
EVER manufactured has DIGITAL ZOOM, shitforbrains.

[nospam]

In article <50ba1b32$0$63526$c3e8da3$e408...@news.astraweb.com>, JF

usually it moves the lens assembly. it's possible it could have
internal focusing and move one or more elements, but not likely given
the size of the lens. the amount it moves is incredibly small and i
doubt you'll hear any noise.

[George Kerby]

On 11/30/12 6:58 PM, in article slrnkbilh5....@mbp55.local, "Lewis"
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <michelle-4928A9...@news.eternal-september.org>
> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>> In article <dkkib8hk4mlkgps4j...@4ax.com>,

>> ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote:
>
>>> If I were you, I would place exactly ZERO credence in anything the
>>> Steiner cunt says.
>
>> Of course you wouldn't, because you're adverse to facts and truth, you
>> pussy.
>
> He's a Republican?

Impossible, he's not employed. Only welfare queens like this one sit around
all day and night trolling Apple newsgroups waiting for "Their Check". Guess
which Party is the one they support, hmmmm?

[George Kerby]

On 11/30/12 7:35 PM, in article 3enib8hh9bv33vjc5...@4ax.com,

"ChairmanOfTheBored" <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 17:51:48 -0700, Michelle Steiner
> <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Not that you know anything about jobs, you unemployable cunt.
>
>

> I have been working all my life, and the last ten have been in an
> engineering capacity.
>

I thought the Railroads stopped "featherbedding" long ago...

[George Kerby]

On 11/30/12 7:51 PM, in article rcoib8p0rhp506auv...@4ax.com,

"ChairmanOfTheBored" <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:56:54 -0800, DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Learn to use the camera you carry
>> with you and you might get surprisingly good results.
>
> Learn? You learn, fuckhead!
>
> I carry an Olympus macro zoom everywhere I go, and I almost always ride
> a bike.
>

The authorities do that after a string of DUIs so other than public
transportation, that is the method of travel for most alkies.

SHIT camera, BTW...

[George Kerby]

On 11/30/12 8:00 PM, in article
michelle-5F1D88...@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <3enib8hh9bv33vjc5...@4ax.com>,

> ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote:
>
>>> Not that you know anything about jobs, you unemployable cunt.
>>
>>
>> Hahahaha. I get vetted by 6 agencies a year, you retard cunt.
>

> And they all reject you.
>

>> A couple of which you are too goddamned stupid to even be aware of the
>> existence of.
>>
>> You're a goddamned idiot. You know nothing about me,
>

> I know that you're a bombastic asshole with delusions of adequacy, who
> takes great joy in insulting other people because you lead a boring life

> devoid of any meaningful experiences.
>

> So rant on, twat; it keeps you off the streets, and from harming anyone.

>
> But I'm done with you; you're a waste of pixels.

Hell, I was late for the Party!

[George Kerby]

On 12/1/12 12:06 AM, in article o37jb8pvore5hrs36...@4ax.com,

"DevilsPGD" <booga...@crazyhat.net> wrote:

> In the last episode of <f0lib8hr3p2b6vmh7...@4ax.com>,
> ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> said:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:52:07 -0800, DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Keep in mind that there is no optical zoom, just an automatic crop. In
>>> other words, the blurry image may be a result of the digital crop and
>>> stretch rather than the camera's actual capabilities.
>>
>> The camera in my ipad has a moving lens. It focuses and zooms, not just
>> cropping.
>
> It focuses, but as far as I can tell, doesn't zoom. Can you point to a
> cite which indicates it's an optical zoom?
>
> Apple's technical specs also don't mention an optical zoom.

There are none. It exists only in TrollBoi's feeble "mind". ONLY there.
It is a strictly digital, nothing more.

TrollBoi doesn't have any access to an iPad, other than riding it's Schwinn
over to the local BestBuy and hanging out there all day between trolling
sessions...

[George Kerby]

On 12/1/12 11:29 AM, in article
michelle-91D184...@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <CCDF8775.93ECC%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,

> George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hell, I was late for the Party!
>

> The party is this evening; if you can make it here, you're invited. It's
> not every day that a gal can celebrate her 70th birthday.

Well, congratulations! Wish I could make it, SWA wants too much money for
such short notice and my frequent flyer milage is short. Take a lot of
ictures and post them OK?

[George Kerby]

On 12/1/12 11:36 AM, in article
michelle-0F254F...@news.eternal-september.org, "Michelle
Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> In article <CCDF83EF.93EC5%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,

> George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Michelle went into great detail trying to help in her reply, it was not
>> meant in way as being derogatory, the way I read it. In fact, it was
>> quite surprising her knowledge of photography was so extensive. I am
>> surprised she isn't a 'regular' over in the photo groups.
>

> I've been a photographer for more than 50 years, but got tired of the
> "Nikon vs. Canon" arguments long ago, just as I got tired of the arguments
> about different brands of audio equipment.

Then you'd love it over at rec.photo.digital. They talk about that as well
as such topics as tire mileage, Jews killing Arafat, WWII aircraft, clothing
and other pertinent topics. Right now, RAW vs. JPEG is the subject du
jour...

[nospam]

In article <michelle-0F254F...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

> I've been a photographer for more than 50 years, but got tired of the
> "Nikon vs. Canon" arguments long ago, just as I got tired of the arguments
> about different brands of audio equipment.
>

> Computers is an ever-evolving field, which makes for more interesting
> discussions than audio or photo equipment.

digital photography is also an ever-evolving field.

> So I'm on these Mac and iDevice
> newsgroups, and not on the photo or audio ones.

the photo newsgroups are rarely nikon v. canon. the threads are mostly
about photography, the technology and quite a bit more. however, there
is a bit of off-topic noise but that's easily filtered out.

[JF Mezei]

On 12-12-01 12:29, Michelle Steiner wrote:

> The party is this evening; if you can make it here, you're invited. It's
> not every day that a gal can celebrate her 70th birthday.

That is only 46 in hex :-)

Congrats. Did you order your iMac for your birthday present ? Since you
only have this brithday in your life, I say splurge and get the extra
memory :-)

[JF Mezei]

>> "How close can I get to an object with the camera on my iPad3 and keep it
>> in sharp focus?"

With a real camera, you can "cheat" minimum distance by having bright
illumination which allows a smaller aperture (higher Fstop) which
increases depth of field.

Does this concept apply to an iPhone style of camera ? (brighter lights
gives greater depth of field) ? Or is the lens truly fixed aperture with
only the shutter speed varying depending on light levels ?

[zulu]

"Lewis" <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote in message
news:slrnkbkq1i....@mbp55.local...
> In message <Q8mus.346325$Xv.1...@fx07.am4>

> zulu <zulu.romeo...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> "Michelle Steiner" <mich...@michelle.org> wrote in message

>> news:michelle-BAD5D4...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> In article <slrnkbigjn....@mbp55.local>,

>>> Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > No offence Michelle, but I didn't need a lecture. I first used a
>>>> > camera over 60 years ago...
>>>>
>>>> Well, I think maybe you *did* need a lecture because you misused 'focal
>>>> length' in your question. :p
>>>>
>>>> I knew what you meant, but what you asked was the wrong question, I
>>>> simply chose to ignore 'focal length' and Michelle didn't.
>>>

>>> Well, actually, I didn't know that he had meant focus distance, and
>>> answered what I thought was the actual question.
>
>
>> OK, Faity Nuff :o)
>
>> ...but I _still_ don't know the answer to:
>> Let me try again...

>
>> "How close can I get to an object with the camera on my iPad3 and keep
>> it
>> in sharp focus?"
>

> On mine I am able to get a sharp image at about 2 1/4 to 2 1/2 inches
> (about 5.75-6.5cm). I can hold it over my macbookpro keyboard and if I
> get QWAS into the frame, it's sharp. I cannot focus on just a single key
> filling the frame.
>

Thank you! very much!


--
zulu

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:02:12 -0600, George Kerby
<ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>On 11/30/12 6:58 PM, in article slrnkbilh5....@mbp55.local, "Lewis"
><g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <michelle-4928A9...@news.eternal-september.org>
>> Michelle Steiner <mich...@michelle.org> wrote:
>>> In article <dkkib8hk4mlkgps4j...@4ax.com>,
>>> ChairmanOfTheBored <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote:
>>
>>>> If I were you, I would place exactly ZERO credence in anything the
>>>> Steiner cunt says.
>>
>>> Of course you wouldn't, because you're adverse to facts and truth, you
>>> pussy.
>>
>> He's a Republican?
>
>Impossible, he's not employed.

Your private detective source should be fired, because your fact are
not pertinent to me, dumbfuck.

> Only welfare queens like this one sit around
>all day and night trolling Apple newsgroups waiting for "Their Check".

Only? Are you sure? Do you know what welfare is? Do you know what a
queen is? Are you sure, you absolute self made utter retard?

> Guess
>which Party is the one they support, hmmmm?

You Zimmerman Complex ridden retards have a big long list of those
'they'people, eh?

You are a fucking joke.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:04:01 -0600, George Kerby
<ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I thought the Railroads stopped "featherbedding" long ago...

Sub-human retards only think that they think. You are one such retard.

Hell, you captain the fucking team, joke boy.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:06:53 -0600, George Kerby
<ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>On 11/30/12 7:51 PM, in article rcoib8p0rhp506auv...@4ax.com,
>"ChairmanOfTheBored" <RUB...@crackasmile.org> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:56:54 -0800, DevilsPGD <booga...@crazyhat.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Learn to use the camera you carry
>>> with you and you might get surprisingly good results.
>>
>> Learn? You learn, fuckhead!
>>
>> I carry an Olympus macro zoom everywhere I go, and I almost always ride
>> a bike.
>>
>
>The authorities

You know NOTHING about "the authorities", much less "what they do".

> do that after a string of DUIs

Know that first hand, do ya, boy?

> so other than public
>transportation, that is the method of travel for most alkies.

My liver is just fine, child. Nice try. utter failure and zero facts,
however.

>SHIT camera, BTW...

You are too goddamned retarded to know, BTW.

[ChairmanOfTheBored]

On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 10:31:42 -0700, Michelle Steiner
<mich...@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <CCDF8624.93EC8%ghost_...@hotmail.com>,

> George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Of course you wouldn't, because you're adverse to facts and truth,
>> >> you pussy.
>> >
>> > He's a Republican?
>>
>> Impossible, he's not employed. Only welfare queens like this one sit
>> around all day and night trolling Apple newsgroups waiting for "Their
>> Check". Guess which Party is the one they support, hmmmm?
>

>I suspect that he's a Libertarian, because he appears to believe that he
>can do or say anything he wants without repercussions.
repercuss away, you retarded CUNT!

I will get to swinging back and re-posting your pathetic horseshit,
because you deserve every fucking swipe you ever got from me, you
retarded BITCH!

What you are is lucky that I am a nice guy, because I feel that
retarded fucks like you should be erased from the gene pool along with
your entire bloodline.

>Damn, I wanted to keep politics out of this, but got sucked in anyways.

DAMN, I wanted to erase fuktards like you in this life, but you do a
fine job of exposing your stupidity all by yourself.

I merely sit and watch, and laugh heartily at your utter stupidity.

So go ahead, you retarded cunt!. Make all your attempts at
"repercussions". I'll sit here laughing.

I'll put you in your retarded, ill affect school marm mentality place
in a heartbeat, and get pats on the back for doing it.

Fuck off and die, you nappy headed ho!