Is it just me?
> It seems that only a few camera enthusiasts are photographers.
>
> Is it just me?
Might be able to tell you better if you'd tell us what you mean. Do you
mean 'camera enthusiasts' just buy cameras to sit on the shelf while
'photographers' actually take photos?
I think it is like gun fondlers. They masturbate their guns and
worship the Second Amendment. But they do not know how to use them.
--
I contend we are both atheists - I just believe in
one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you reject all other gods,
you will understand why I reject yours as well.
Stephen F. Roberts
So what tool were you fondling when you posted this pretentious
drivel?
--
YOP...
> In article <722v2eF...@mid.individual.net>, ray <r...@zianet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:26:50 -0400, Charles wrote:
>>
>> > It seems that only a few camera enthusiasts are photographers.
>> >
>> > Is it just me?
>>
>> Might be able to tell you better if you'd tell us what you mean. Do you
>> mean 'camera enthusiasts' just buy cameras to sit on the shelf while
>> 'photographers' actually take photos?
>
> I think it is like gun fondlers. They masturbate their guns and
> worship the Second Amendment. But they do not know how to use them.
Seems kind of messy to me. I suspect a competent psychiatrist could help
you a lot.
On 3/15/09 10:05 AM, in article 724jqbF...@mid.individual.net, "ray"
<r...@zianet.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:08:38 -0700, Ockham's Razor wrote:
>
>> In article <722v2eF...@mid.individual.net>, ray <r...@zianet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 18:26:50 -0400, Charles wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems that only a few camera enthusiasts are photographers.
>>>>
>>>> Is it just me?
>>>
>>> Might be able to tell you better if you'd tell us what you mean. Do you
>>> mean 'camera enthusiasts' just buy cameras to sit on the shelf while
>>> 'photographers' actually take photos?
>>
>> I think it is like gun fondlers. They masturbate their guns and
>> worship the Second Amendment. But they do not know how to use them.
>
> Seems kind of messy to me. I suspect a competent psychiatrist could help
> you a lot.
Maybe prevent him from using his razor that caused the mess in the first
place?
Of course they have, and so have many serious amateurs (those who care about
results more than about gear).
The mix here is tilting toward gear-heads, and some of those are nit-picking
axe-grinders and trolls.
Not all that much offered here these days for folks who want to take good
shots.
I suppose it's difficult to define a good shot, defining a good camera is
probably easier,
and it's easier to discuss camera specs than the intricacies of what makes a
good picture.
I think they have the same problem in the art and music worlds, I think
sport is a little
easier provided you ban drugs.
.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"Ockham's Razor" <Men...@pdx.net> wrote in message
news:Mencken-2D3344...@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>This has great "Monty Pythonesque" possibilities.
>
>All we need is a NG populated with the great artists (or more
>appropriatly self-professed great artists) engaged in debate over the
>benefits of various brushes, palette knives, media (canvas texture,
>wood panel grain & fresco plasters, Oils vs. watercolors etc.)
>
>For musicians the Canon/Nikon wars could be revived as
>Stradivarius/Guarneri, Steinway/Bosendorfer, or Gibson/Fender wars.
Real artists and real photographers have better things to do with their
time than pandering to the desperate needs of the snapshooting subhuman
soap-opera mentalities (i.e. trolls) that have proliferated, and now live
out their insignificant lives, in this newsgroup.
Re: "I suppose it's difficult to define a good shot, ..." Wrong. It's easy
to define a good shot and to also convey that information in text to
others--that which works and does not work. Only someone who is not a real
photographer or real artist would think that task difficult. Why then don't
they do this for you? (see previous paragraph)
Please folks, do not respond to this poster further until you are fully
aware of his background.
"FYI" is the anti-dslr- and chdk-troll, aka Keoeeit, Vern, X-Man,
Baumbadier, Casiobear, etc, ad infinitum.
He's well known for the 'attitude', and that's being kind. He can be
found on many forums, is frequently banned (eg Steve's Forums,
photography-on-the.net) and he's usually quite easy to spot, by his
withdrawn posts and images (ironic, huh?). He doesn't like leaving a
trail, but is too incompetent to not be recognised wherever he goes..
(and *still* always posts from cpinternet)
Stands out like the proverbial puppy nuts.. (O:
For further details, google "keoeeit minnesota". You'll see his posts
are often lamenting about how he lives alone...
Umm, any questions?
>FYI wrote:
>> Real artists and real photographers have better things to do...
>Hi, Keoeeit!
>
>Please folks, do not respond to this poster further until you are fully
>aware of his background.
>
>"FYI" is the anti-dslr- and chdk-troll, aka Keoeeit, Vern, X-Man,
>Baumbadier, Casiobear, etc, ad infinitum.
>
>He's well known for the 'attitude', and that's being kind. He can be
>found on many forums, is frequently banned (eg Steve's Forums,
>photography-on-the.net) and he's usually quite easy to spot, by his
>withdrawn posts and images (ironic, huh?). He doesn't like leaving a
>trail, but is too incompetent to not be recognised wherever he goes..
>
>(and *still* always posts from cpinternet)
Now go find the 14 other servers that have been used recently. Never heard
of proxies? Like this one being used? Quite a few use it. It's fun posting
from this one to make you jump, EVERY time. You're not too bright for a
troll, are you, but then that's a given.
Thanks for proving, again, what was stated about your kind--"snapshooting
subhuman soap-opera mentalities". :-) Emphasis on "soap-opera usenet living
troll".
(O:
...Like I said:
>> any questions?