P&S junk. Adding a teleconverter just makes it worse
Rich
with it's lens, the images sucked. The worst 70-300mm $180 zoom on a
DSLR would do better.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=33791622
me
wrote:
Once again too bad Rich makes generalizations from everything he
reads!
The Nikon 990/4500 series + converters was a awell thought out and
designed system. TC, WA and Fisheye.
me
wrote:
>Poor fellow. I tried with with an Olympus C-8080 years ago and even
Even worse RichA BS. All photos are taken at 1/200s or less shutter
speed. With camera only 35mm equiv fl of 485-500+ let alone add
theTC. Just one 1/160s with the FZ-18 is shown for comparison with
the conclusion the FZ-18 is superior to the FZ-35.
Looks more like it's the inability to handhold long exposures at lomg
focal lengths might be the real issue here.
Another example of why we should killfile richA.
Rich
Forget the blurring from motion, look at the fuzziness from spherical
aberration and the gross chromatic aberration! You can't just slap a
"lens on a lens" and expect it to work well.
DSLR-Troll Killer
wrote:
Are you aware that all the zoom lenses for DSLRs are just slapping lenses
on other lens arrays to achieve those longer focal lengths? The only
difference is that you buy them that way already attached together in a
single lens barrel. In P&S cameras you just happen to have the front
elements that comprise the telescopic part removable when needed, or if you
don't want to buy that portion of a longer focal-length lens. While some
might consider "shopping around" for the right conversion lenses to match
the existing optics on your camera a major pain in the ass, I actually
enjoy the hunt in trying to find the best teleconverter or wide-angle
adapter from Company-A that works best with P&S camera from Company-B. Many
cross-company matches working far better than A's converter matched to A's
camera. In doing so I also found fish-eye adapters for under $100 that beat
the pants off of any dedicated $2500 Nikkor fisheye lenses for any D/SLR.
But you wouldn't know anything about this, because you've never owned ANY
camera, P&S or otherwise.
Like this quick example:
<http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2512/4132272547_6448e0b6f2_o.jpg>
[Note to moron trolls: Do not misconstrue the pixel-sharp details due to
over-sharpening. That's due to Lanczos-8 downsampling retaining as much
detail as possible from the original image along with JPG compression
artifacts for web posting. Pixel-peeping reveals no halos, just JPG
compression artifacts that you will ignorantly try to see as
over-sharpening.]
But you're right, you can't slap "a lens on a lens" and expect good
results. You get even better results if you slap "a lens on a lens on a
lens". To borrow a well known example posted by someone else long ago:
"Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm
equivalent)."
Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
open for as long as you live.
If not, you get to shut up now.
Bhogi
> Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
> EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
> open for as long as you live.
>
> If not, you get to shut up now.
So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
your camera?
DSLR-Troll Killer
An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.
2197mm EFL / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL
1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm EFL
215mm EFL / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical diameter.
Nearly all teleconverters for all P&S cameras have more physical diameter
than 2.4 inches. My favorite one to ensure no aperture loss has an
entrance-pupil of 80mm (3.15 inches).
Got that?
Now go stick your tongue in a light-socket with it plugged in and turned on
to find out how electricity works.
DSLR-Troll Killer
equations. It was so much easier to type.
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:37 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <bh...@siol.com> wrote:
An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.
2197mm EFL / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL
1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm true focal length
215mm true focal length / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical
diameter of the entrance pupil.
Bhogi
> Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
> equations. It was so much easier to type.
Don't worry you're still wrong.
Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
your mistake.
What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
With respect to things that matter in photography (light sensitivity,
DOF, softening due to diffraction) when you compare EFLs of P&S to
DSLR you should also calculate "effective aperture ratio", which in
your case is about f/12.
Tried some night shots with your super duper fast 61.5mm telescope
lately?
p.s.
Why compare with DSLRs, compare with 4x5 large format, then you'll
kick some serious ass with 12000mm EFL @ f/3.5!
Think about it.
DSLR-Troll Killer
>On 25 nov., 15:34, DSLR-Troll Killer <d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
>> Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
>> equations. It was so much easier to type.
>
>Don't worry you're still wrong.
>
>Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
>your mistake.
>What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
>With respect to things that matter in photography (light sensitivity,
>DOF, softening due to diffraction) when you compare EFLs of P&S to
>DSLR you should also calculate "effective aperture ratio", which in
>your case is about f/12.
That's only relevant to DOF.
Holy fuck are you DSLR trolls ever fucking iditos.
DSLR-Troll Killer
>On 25 nov., 15:34, DSLR-Troll Killer <d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
>> Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
>> equations. It was so much easier to type.
>
>Don't worry you're still wrong.
>
>Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
>your mistake.
>What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
>With respect to things that matter in photography (light sensitivity,
>DOF, softening due to diffraction) when you compare EFLs of P&S to
>DSLR you should also calculate "effective aperture ratio", which in
>your case is about f/12.
That's only relevant to DOF.
Holy fuck are you DSLR-Trolls ever fucking idiots.
Bhogi
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:37:34 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <bh...@siol.com> wrote:
> >On 25 nov., 15:34, DSLR-Troll Killer <d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
> >> Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
> >> equations. It was so much easier to type.
>
> >Don't worry you're still wrong.
>
> >Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
> >your mistake.
> >What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
> >With respect to things that matter in photography (light sensitivity,
> >DOF, softening due to diffraction) when you compare EFLs of P&S to
> >DSLR you should also calculate "effective aperture ratio", which in
> >your case is about f/12.
>
> That's only relevant to DOF.
No, that's relevant to all things that matter in photography:
- DOF
- light sensitivity
- softening due to diffraction
Can't have it only the way you decide, you should take all things into
account.
Here is "DSLR-Troll Killer"'s reasoning for anyone with half a brain
in need of a good laugh, even P&S owners (which are quite nice
actually!):
1) all that matters is field of view
2) P&S have about 4x smaller sensors (16x smaller area) than DSLRs
3) to get a DSLR effective focal length (EFL) multiply FL by 4
4) focal ratio stays the same
Let's see where this reasoning takes us:
A) ultra large format cameras with film about 70x larger (4900x larger
area) than P&S sensor
For a lens of 2200mm EFL @ f/3.5 those misguided suckers need 44000mm
EFL @ f/3.5
Good luck with that!
B) mobile phone camera with sensor about 2x smaller (4x smaller area)
than P&S sensor
For a lens of 2200mm EFL @ f/3.5 these lucky photographers need only
300mm EFL @ f/3.5
These guys really know how things go!
It is clear that the smaller the sensor the better. Best overall is
not P&S it is a mobile phone camera (the smaller the better!), that's
why we all have at least one after all.
DSLR-Troll Killer
LOL!!!!!!!!!! You wasted all that time to try to convince your
pretend-photographer's troll self that your chosen ideal of a camera MUST
be better. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, too fuckin' funny. Good thing I don't have to pay for this
entertainment.
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!
Bhogi
This is how troll killer kills its prey.
...head on the wall, next!
Ray Fischer
>On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:37 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <bh...@siol.com> wrote:
>
>>On 25 nov., 07:05, DSLR-Troll Killer <d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
>>> Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
>>> EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
>>> open for as long as you live.
>>>
>>> If not, you get to shut up now.
>>
>>So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
>>your camera?
>
>An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.
Someone like you.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
>On 25 nov., 15:34, DSLR-Troll Killer <d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
>> Ooops, got carried away with typing EFL instead of true focal length in the
>> equations. It was so much easier to type.
>
>Don't worry you're still wrong.
>
>Comparing effective focal lengths but ignoring sensor pixel sizes is
>your mistake.
>What does focal ratio mean to you anyway?
You're trying to educate someone who is only interested in being an
asshole troll.
FYI.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 16:35:56 -0800 (PST), Rich <rande...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Poor fellow. I tried with with an Olympus C-8080 years ago and even
>>with it's lens, the images sucked. The worst 70-300mm $180 zoom on a
>>DSLR would do better.
>>
>>http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=33791622
>
>Once again too bad Rich makes generalizations from everything he
>reads!
> ...
Not true, he only makes generalizations from everything that
does not fit his preconcived opinioins.
Allen
your 628mm diamter lens?"
Allen
DSLR-Troll Killer
>Tried some night shots with your super duper fast 61.5mm telescope
>lately?
>
Actually, I have. One of my cameras can shoot images by IR light alone in
the total dark. I have 2 IR floods that allow me to take perfectly exposed
images (and videos) in total darkness up to 120 ft. away without disturbing
nor alerting any wildlife to my presence, undisturbed by neither light nor
sounds from my P&S camera. Got some fine shots and video of the endangered
Florida Panther's behavior in the wilds that way.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2717/4134380269_24ae01453e.jpg
(only a small image down-size of full-frame available for public trolls'
consumption)
How's your dSLR doing for things like that?
I wouldn't mind seeing the results of you shooting panthers in the wilds in
the dead of night with your clattering and flashing DSLR. Better stay
inside that attack-proof wildlife blind of yours and hope they show up
where you are -- some day.
LOL
Fuck, are you ever an ignorant basement-living DSLR-Troll.
C J Campbell
Let's see your panther shots. Put up or shut up.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
DSLR-Troll Killer
Shots, plural? Nope, you only get to see that one. One of the few I'm
willing to share with online trolls. It's not even a good one. I never
share good things with trolls. Just the barest minimum needed to prove them
to be the fools and trolls that they are.
George Kerby
On 11/26/09 5:51 AM, in article cnqsg5t669u7n2lqf...@4ax.com,
"DSLR-Troll Killer" <d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
You mean like this self-portrait?
<http://tinyurl.com/2xur6p>
Bhogi
No, you misunderstood. He's trying to tell you nobody believes that is
your shot.
It's impossible to be so serious about photography as you make us
believe you are and at the same time be so close-minded and stupid as
you demonstrate all the time. It's impossible to believe one word you
say.
But I nevertheless do believe you have a super duper 61.5mm diameter
fast telescope.
It's dumb to say P&S is better than DSLR as it is to say DSLR is
better than P&S.
It's dumb to make comparisons as you make them.
P&S are different from DSLR and that's all. Ultra large format of say
500mmx400mm is also different so what.
Your trolling is dumb.
...then again maybe you are dumb.
DSLR-Troll Killer
>No, you misunderstood. He's trying to tell you nobody believes that is
>your shot.
No, you've misunderstood (as all trolls always do). I could give a fuck if
any of you believe that what I post are my photographs. Because when it
comes right down to it, NOT ONE OF YOU CAN EVER PROVE that a photograph
that you have posted was taken by yourself, nor can you even prove what
camera nor lens it was taken with.
I'm way ahead of your ignorant DSLR-Trolls' games. This is why I don't give
a fuck if you think those are my photos or not. I know they are mine, and I
also know that they are taken with exactly the equipment as I've explained,
that's all that matters. I have absolutely no reason to lie to anyone. But
YOU do!
Your "can't dazzle them with brilliance so try to baffle them with
bullshit" trolls' tactics speak for themself, loud and clear.
Where's your photographs to prove me wrong? I proved you 100% wrong, now
it's your turn to try to reverse that proof.
Where's your hand-held DSLR photos taken with a 2000mm+ EFL lens with an
f/3.5 aperture? Ones taken at night too. We're all still waiting.
You're nothing but a low-life fucked-up and insecure DSLR-Troll. It's all
you are and will ever be. 100% proved.
Bhogi
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98957482@N00/
There are a few shots at 2000mm and 1000mm EFL (actually 1200mm f/12
and 600mm f/6 REAL focal length and aperture) but I'm not going to
search for them for you.
I can handhold this during day, but times should be more than 1/500
sec which I can get only with high ISOs. P&S at ISO 100 are are like
ISO 1600 in my camera. Go ahead and handhold your camera at night, no
one believes you anyway.
I know enough about this that I can now say without a doubt, you are
not troll, you are just blinded by your dumbness.
You speak of optics yet you can't grasp anything beyond field of view.
Actually I don't think anyone wants to argue with you, let alone play
games with you, waste of time, it's just that those who don't know
might believe your drivel.
DSLR-Troll Killer
Oh dear. The DSLR-Troll failed to prove anything again. He can't even find
photos that he's stolen to prove me wrong. The other important requirement
is that they have to be at f/3.5 too.
Keep hunting for them!
Bhogi
If you browsed thru my pictures you maybe noticed I manly shoot ultra
wide angles of 16mm EFL.
I crap on your 2000mm EFL nonsense.
I have a lens like that but it's only a nuisance and a paperweight.
Those who sell pictures of little birds use giant lenses and SLRs but
you'll never understand why.
DSLR-Troll Killer
I have no desire to wade through droves of really bad beginner's improperly
exposed, oversaturated, and poorly composed snapshots of boring subjects.
Just for the record, my P&S cameras can go as wide as 9mm with an adapter
lens, one which imparts no CA nor softness. An example posted at the
beginning of this thread. 9mm EFL @ f/2.7 on one camera, and 11mm EFL @
f/2.0 on another. With a seamless zoom range from those widest
focal-lengths right up to where the camera's own lens picks up without the
adapter lens. It's nice to get full-sky night images showing constellations
from horizon to horizon with stars down to magnitude 9.7. Fantastic for
recording meteor showers. All done with a high-quality and inexpensive P&S
camera. Doesn't get better than that!
How are the apertures on those overpriced wide-angle piece of shit
toy-lenses of yours? While you're busy fumbling with them, changing them,
hauling them, and getting dust on the sensor when changing them, while also
missing once-in-a-lifetime shots because you're too busy fumbling with
them.
See, you can't even win by claiming wide-angle superiority.
But thanks for posting confirmation, in your sour-grapes-failure style, of
you being proved wrong and you being nothing but an insecure and ignorant
DSLR-Troll.
Thanks!
Bhogi
Hahaha!
See, no one claims superiority but you.
I just pointed that I crap on long focal lengths because they're of no
interest to me and to most of photographers. My interest lies in wide
angles and medium telephoto.
Those who use long focal lengths and get paid for it use giant lenses
and SLRs.
Now enough of this I'm leaving this... discussion it's not.
I'll end with my conclusion:
DSLR-Troll Killer
>Those who use long focal lengths and get paid for it use giant lenses
>and SLRs.
And there you are, wrong again. I've been a professional wildlife
photographer all my life. Many who shoot wildlife professionally today are
learning to use only high-quality P&S cameras due to their flexibility,
portability, ruggedness, and especially for the extra-wide apertures at the
longest focal-lengths needed to properly capture wildlife. No longer
missing shots for having to swap-out lenses or get dust all over the sensor
too. You not knowing this proves you to be nothing but a beginner troll. As
proved by the quality of your beginner's snapshots. Thanks for providing
the link to those so everyone can see what a rudimentary beginner
snapshooter that you truly are.
C J Campbell
Oh noes! He has no photos!
Of course, we all knew that. You will neither put up nor shut up. All
you want is to demonstrate you limited, foul-mouthed vocabulary and
abuse people. Doesn't that get boring? I mean, anyone can say "f---
this" or "f--- that." Big deal. What do you do when this all just gets
to be old hat?
C J Campbell
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:04:31 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <bh...@siol.com> wrote:
>
>> Those who use long focal lengths and get paid for it use giant lenses
>> and SLRs.
>
> And there you are, wrong again. I've been a professional wildlife
> photographer all my life.
Whatever you are, you are not a professional. You certainly don't act
like a professional.
DSLR-Troll Killer
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2009-11-26 10:52:38 -0800, DSLR-Troll Killer <d...@trollkillers.org> said:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:04:31 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <bh...@siol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Those who use long focal lengths and get paid for it use giant lenses
>>> and SLRs.
>>
>> And there you are, wrong again. I've been a professional wildlife
>> photographer all my life.
>
>Whatever you are, you are not a professional. You certainly don't act
>like a professional.
Fuck off you useless DSLR-Troll. Here on usenet I get to tell you useless
fucks, pretend-photographers, and remedial snapshooters EXACTLY what I
think of you useless piece of shits being alive in this world. Whereas in
the real world I treat others with the respect that they have earned and
deserved. You and all like you are owed NONE of that.
-hh
> Fuck off you useless DSLR-Troll. Here on usenet I get to tell you useless
> fucks, pretend-photographers, and remedial snapshooters EXACTLY what I
> think of you useless piece of shits being alive in this world.
What utterly lame Bullshit.
The truth is that you *try* to "tell off" people here because you know
that you're too much of a coward to ever do it face-to-face.
> Whereas in the real world I treat others with the respect that they
> have earned and deserved. You and all like you are owed NONE of that.
If that's true, then what you're trying to claim is that you wouldn't
speak any differently to any of your so-called "DLSR-Troll"
detractors, if you were to meet face to face?
You know what, I'm going to call this bravado bluff: I'd be willing
to pony up for the FFM airline ticket to arrange just such a face-to-
face meeting; post to accept and then email me offline to negotiate
the details.
-hh
PS to Bhogi: thanks for sharing; enjoyed it.
Ray Fischer
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:42:59 -0800, C J Campbell
><christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2009-11-26 10:52:38 -0800, DSLR-Troll Killer <d...@trollkillers.org> said:
>>
>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:04:31 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <bh...@siol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Those who use long focal lengths and get paid for it use giant lenses
>>>> and SLRs.
>>>
>>> And there you are, wrong again. I've been a professional wildlife
>>> photographer all my life.
>>
>>Whatever you are, you are not a professional. You certainly don't act
>>like a professional.
>
>Fuck off you useless DSLR-Troll. Here on usenet I get to tell you useless
Go away, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
rwalker
>The P&S troll writes:
>> Fuck off you useless DSLR-Troll. Here on usenet I get to tell you useless
>> fucks, pretend-photographers, and remedial snapshooters EXACTLY what I
>> think of you useless piece of shits being alive in this world.
>
I think it's just an old alchy with a personality disorder.
Woof.
-hh
>
> Oh my, I think it's angry.
But of course - deep down, they know that they're a lonely loser.
Simply look at his timestamps today: instead of having Thanksgiving
Dinner with family or friends, he was out "looking for love" on
USENET.
Pretty sad, although its invariably due to their own actions that they
end up thus. Lonely and angry at the world.
-hh
bugbear
Are you sure you have the temperament to be a wildlife photographer?
BugBear
DSLR-Troll Killer
Do you HONESTLY think I would allow a moron and troll like you into my real
life? A snapshooting troll and asswipe like you? Even if I did grant you
that honor, I'd tell you the exact same thing to your face because you've
already proved to the world that you don't deserve one iota of respect and
consideration, from ANYONE.
You're just a little imbecilic city-boy with a line of bullshit who can't
even take a decent snapshot.
As far as cowardice ... get this (yes it's true, whether you want to
believe it or not): I used to be bartender for a rough and rugged biker-bar
in the 70's. I still have my chromed Harley timing-chain belt that I used
to hang round my neck whenever things would get a little unsettled, so it'd
be easy to grab should the "fun" get too out of hand. I've lived off the
land in remote wilderness without ever going near civilization for as much
as three years at a time. I've hit a shark in the head with my fist when it
was following me too close for too long while I was spearing some food on a
coral reef. I have no problems walking into the middle of a pack of two
dozen snarling raccoons in the dead of night, in the dark, to break up
their fights. (Today I feed three times that many, as well as skunks,
opossums, bears, and fox every spring and summer, they think of me as one
of their own.) When bored and done taking photographs for the day I used to
play a "Balance the Peanut On Their Snout" game with alligators when
kayaking and hiking in chest-deep swamps amongst them. I'm good at archery
and a sharpshooter with a rifle (thanks to my impeccable hand-held camera
skills).
Sure! Come on out. I can show you EXACTLY what I think of you! But I can
tell you now, save your money. You'll only need a one-way ticket. I have
plenty of land where nobody will find your final resting place. Only I'd
make sure the spot is dug shallow so my critter-friends would get a decent
meal out of your normally-a-waste-of flesh on this earth.
You're even more ignorant and stupid than I thought you were. I didn't
think that would be possible.
LOL!!
DSLR-Troll Killer
See previous reply to the HH TROLL.
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> >
> >You know what, I'm going to call this bravado bluff: I'd be willing
> >to pony up for the FFM airline ticket to arrange just such a face-to-
> >face meeting; post to accept and then email me offline to negotiate
> >the details.
>
> >-hh
>
> Do you HONESTLY think I would allow a moron and troll like you
> into my real life?
Try reading what was written above: I never said that the person from
RPD had to be me. AFAIC, I could be any one of dozens of the honest
posters who you've gone out of your way to insult.
> ... I'd tell you the exact same thing to your face because you've
> already proved to the world that you don't deserve one iota of respect
> and consideration, from ANYONE.
Sorry, but that's still just words while being hidden and protected by
the computer screen. If you're going to want to try to insult me,
you'll have to do it to my face.
> As far as cowardice ... get this (yes it's true, whether you want to
> believe it or not): I used to be bartender for a rough and rugged biker-bar
> in the 70's.
Name of bar? :-)
> [bullshit bravado deleted]
BFD. Some of us have lived in West Philly :-)
> Sure! Come on out. I can show you EXACTLY what I think of you!
And where, pray tell, is that?
> But I can tell you now, save your money. You'll only need a one-way ticket.
> I have plenty of land where nobody will find your final resting place. Only I'd
> make sure the spot is dug shallow so my critter-friends would get a decent
> meal out of your normally-a-waste-of flesh on this earth.
So where is "here"? Where do we meet? & when?
FYI - many people aren't as risk-adverse as you obviously are.
> You're even more ignorant and stupid than I thought you were.
Not at all: we all know that you'll never voluntarily give up your
IRL name / location - despite all of your attempted bravado, it is all
mere lies coming from a cowardly loser who knows that he is just
that.
> I didn't think that would be possible.
Gosh, one would have expected that due to all of your **alleged**
experience and expertise, that you wouldn't have been able to be so
surprised! :-)
Who, What, Where, When....time to put up. Its my nickel, so you have
nothing to lose...that is, if you're not a total fake.
-hh
DSLR-Troll Killer
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>So where is "here"? Where do we meet? & when?
Where: Hwy 75, Badger Creek Staion, ID
Turn north on the small trail just opposite the ranger's station. Have a
good 4-wheeler.
When: This coming spring, anytime after March, when I'll be at my home
there. That'll give you plenty of time to dig through your basement-life
troll's photographer-couch to dig up the change and arrange to get there.
I'll put out a lamp on the porch and clean one of my smaller guns for your
warm greeting.
-hh
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:59:15 -0800 (PST), -hh
>
>
> >So where is "here"? Where do you want to meet? & when?
>
> Where: Hwy 75, Badger Creek Staion, ID
>
> Turn north on the small trail just opposite the ranger's station. Have a
> good 4-wheeler.
>
> When: This coming spring, anytime after March, when I'll be at my home
> there. That'll give you plenty of time to dig through your basement-life
> troll's photographer-couch to dig up the change and arrange to get there.
>
> I'll put out a lamp on the porch and clean one of my smaller guns for your
> warm greeting.
Sorry, don't want to wait that long.
Try again.
-hh
DSLR-Troll Killer
You visit on MY terms, you useless fuck of a troll. Or didn't you realize
that yet? You obey me, not the other way around. Take the offer and die
after March, or remain a useless troll and live a long miserable life.
-hh
>
> You visit on MY terms, you useless fuck of a troll. Or didn't you realize
> that yet? You obey me, not the other way around. Take the offer and die
> after March, or remain a useless troll and live a long miserable life.
Sorry, but your bluff is being called today, not months and months
from now.
Now post a URL to the Google Maps location you claimed to have wanted
to use. Afterall, its all too easy for a 'pathetic loser' to also get
lost.
-hh
DSLR-Troll Killer
I figured as much. You choose, and clearly proclaim to the world, that you
wish to remain a useless fuck of a news-group troll.
I could have won money on this bet.
-hh
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> >> You visit on MY terms, you useless fuck of a troll. Or didn't you realize
> >> that yet? You obey me, not the other way around. Take the offer and die
> >> after March, or remain a useless troll and live a long miserable life.
>
> >Sorry, but your bluff is being called today, not months and months
> >from now.
>
> >Now post a URL to the Google Maps location you claimed to have wanted
> >to use. Afterall, its all too easy for a 'pathetic loser' to also get
> >lost.
>
As expected, that's not a URL.
> You choose...
I choose to call your lame bluff for just what it is. I suspect that
there simply is no "Badger Creek" Ranger station "on Highway 75"
anywhere in Idaho, which is why you did your usual bit: dodged and
namecalled, to continue to prove yourself to be an utter failure.
Just like your inability to produce your portfolio....more of your
'FAIL'.
Of course, this public reminder will cause you to lash out in
anger...again.
Dance, Puppet Dance: " Speak, Roll Over, Play Dead!"
-hh
C J Campbell
Wait. I thought you were a "professional wildlife photographer" all your life.
Frank ess
Are you saying there is no wildlife in biker bars?
C J Campbell
Highway 75 runs north from Shoshone to Challis through Ketchum and past
Sun Valley. I used to fish there quite a bit as a boy catching Dolly
Varden and rainbow trout.
"Badger Creek," however, is much further east on Hwy 12 near the
Montana border. I used to fish there, too. BYU Idaho maintains a camp
out there.
Nobody from that area would claim to photograph "panthers." People in
Idaho call them mountain lions. Further, most of the roads in that area
are paved. You don't need a 4-wheel drive to get around. My family has
lived around that area for generations.
Anybody with the P&S troll's attitude in that area would have been shot
a long time ago. He certainly does not have the temperament or the
ability to get close to any sort of wildlife. He is simply a pathetic
little poser, a shut-in who has never accomplished anything worthwhile
with his life and probably never will.
I would guess that he is probably from the east, perhaps the
southeastern US. He has severe personality disorders that may leave him
institutionalized, but he is allowed internet access. Perhaps he lives
in an adult group home. He dreams of becoming an independent "mountain
man," rather than the socially and physically dependent virtual
prisoner that he is. He owns no guns, but wishes he did. He probably
does not have a license to drive.
I would guess that he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia with
delusions that he is important and that his "enemies" are trying to
destroy him. He has been severely abused in the past and parrots back
most of the insults that have been heaped upon him over the years. He
probably posts in other groups, claiming to be an expert on whatever
subject the groups are about, and is just as disruptive there.
Going out on a limb, I suspect that he is acquainted with horses and
likes horseback riding. He may even compete in Special Olympics.
He has poor math skills and probably cannot tell the difference between
$1,000 and $100. He probably believes he has enough money to buy
anything he wants, but in fact his only income may be from SSI.
He has girlfriends that he has met in Special Olympics or in group
homes, but he does not keep them long. He would be abusive and prone to
fly into jealous rages. He probably often dreams of killing people and
someday he might.
Ray Fischer
>The reading comprehension challenged P&S troll writes:
>> -hh wrote:
>> >
>> >You know what, I'm going to call this bravado bluff: �I'd be willing
>> >to pony up for the FFM airline ticket to arrange just such a face-to-
>> >face meeting; post to accept and then email me offline to negotiate
>> >the details.
>>
>> >-hh
>>
>> Do you HONESTLY think I would allow a moron and troll like you
>> into my real life?
>
>Try reading what was written above: I never said that the person from
>RPD had to be me.
Don't argue with the troll. It exists only to be an asshole and to
bait you into responding
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
DSLR-Troll Killer
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Nobody from that area would claim to photograph "panthers." People in
>Idaho call them mountain lions.
Wow, are you ever a fuckin' moron of a troll. Hmm... I wonder. Where am I
going to photograph Endangered Florida Panthers at night .... I wonder ....
Hmmm... Yes, that's right! From my home in Idaho! That's it! I guess that's
why that night photo posted of a Florida Panther included all that Cabbage
Palm vegetation too! That's the state tree of Idaho you know. According to
the intelligence and intellect of C J Campbell anyway.
Get a fucking life and a brain you fuckin' idiot trolls.
DSLR-Troll Killer
Oh I see, because you sit on your troll's couch all your life, you don't
think a pro photographer can also have fun playing bartender at a biker bar
with all his buddies that he met while out photographing wildlife in remote
and rugged places. They quite liked the photos of their bikes that I
provided for them too. Their hang-out was a fun place to vacation for a few
months every year. Nice group of guys, but got a bit rowdy with guns and
busted bottles on occasion. I guess all those doctors and lawyers from all
over North America that ride out to Sturgis bike-rally every year and stay
a couple weeks to a month don't do that either. According to you and your
infinite troll's wisdom and intellect, of course.
Holy fuck are you ever a loser of an idiot.
Ray Fischer
>On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:08:27 -0800, C J Campbell
><christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Nobody from that area would claim to photograph "panthers." People in
>>Idaho call them mountain lions.
>
>Wow, are you
Go away, asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
George Kerby
On 11/27/09 10:41 AM, in article
8f1f58ef-5b9c-4e2e...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, "-hh"
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> The P&S troll writes:
>> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You visit on MY terms, you useless fuck of a troll. Or didn't you realize
>>>> that yet? You obey me, not the other way around. Take the offer and die
>>>> after March, or remain a useless troll and live a long miserable life.
>>
>>> Sorry, but your bluff is being called today, not months and months
>>> from now.
>>
>>> Now post a URL to the Google Maps location you claimed to have wanted
>>> to use. �Afterall, its all too easy for a 'pathetic loser' to also get
>>> lost.
>>
>> I figured as much...
>
> As expected, that's not a URL.
>
>
>> You choose...
>
> I choose to call your lame bluff for just what it is. I suspect that
> there simply is no "Badger Creek" Ranger station "on Highway 75"
> anywhere in Idaho,
Not unless you consider Australia part of Idaho.
rwalker
<d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
Jesus, you are an idiot.
>
Charlie Groh
wrote:
...and he wastes so much time...the inconsistency is apparent. Numb
nuts...
cg
-hh
>"-hh" wrote:
> >
> > As expected, that's not a URL.
> > I choose to call your lame bluff for just what it is. I suspect that
> > there simply is no "Badger Creek" Ranger station "on Highway 75"
> > anywhere in Idaho,
>
> Not unless you consider Australia part of Idaho.
Which merely makes the hours at which he posts even the more revealing
as to just how much of a "lonely boy" he is.
-hh
C J Campbell
What night photo of a panther?
Liar!
C J Campbell
Liar! Since you lie about everything, I guess I really don't have to
worry much about your opinion of me, either.
You are just meaningless noise.
George Kerby
On 11/28/09 10:00 AM, in article
2009112808005316807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom, "C J Campbell"
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-27 14:40:56 -0800, DSLR-Troll Killer <d...@trollkillers.org> said:
>
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:08:27 -0800, C J Campbell
>> <christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Nobody from that area would claim to photograph "panthers." People in
>>> Idaho call them mountain lions.
>>
>> Wow, are you ever a fuckin' moron of a troll. Hmm... I wonder. Where am I
>> going to photograph Endangered Florida Panthers at night .... I wonder ....
>> Hmmm... Yes, that's right! From my home in Idaho! That's it! I guess that's
>> why that night photo posted of a Florida Panther included all that Cabbage
>> Palm vegetation too! That's the state tree of Idaho you know. According to
>> the intelligence and intellect of C J Campbell anyway.
>>
>> Get a fucking life and a brain you fuckin' idiot trolls.
>
> What night photo of a panther?
>
Awhile back he put up some badly framed/focused IR shot that he found on
Google, much like I found this:
<http://www.lesjones.com/www/images/posts/2007-12-21-Game-Camera-0034-Fullsi
ze.jpg>
Then, in his sicko fantasy, he imagined that it was a "Florida Panther", and
claimed it to be "not his best" or some such crap because he didn't want
"Trolls to take his work".
A gawdam laff a minute, I tell ya!!!
DSLR-Troll Killer
wrote:
You mean this one of my own, that I posted about 4 days ago? (Which I'll
admit, is one of the poorest ones. Trolls don't deserve any better
photography shown to them.)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2702/4143727944_b9898aec8f.jpg
Yes, you're right. You DSRL-Trolls are a "gawdam laff a minute, I tell
ya!!!"
Let's see if we can help to educate the ignorance of C J Campbell and all
the other DSLR-Trolls...
The species known as "Puma concolor" has common-names in various regions.
Florida: "Endangered Florida Panther"
Central & NW N. America: Mountain Lion
SW & Central N. America: Cougar or Puma
Mezzo America & S. America: Puma (et.al.)
To further edify your knowledge (if that's even remotely possible): The
ONLY reason that the common "Mountain Lion" is called the "Endangered
Florida Panther" is due to a group of power-tripping Florida government
officials who are using that species to drive people off of their own
private-lands and trying to reclaim that land as "government controlled".
There are large pockets of natural oil-reserves in the "Florida Panther's"
stomping grounds. (Don't believe me? Learn to read topographic maps where
all the capped-off oil-wells still remain mapped and charted.) The
"Endganged Florida Panther" and Florida oil-reserves regions are almost
identical in location and range. While photographing the "Endanged Florida
Panther" I learned from many locals in the area how they've even observed
the "panther spotting planes" tending to herd the panthers onto their own
privately-owned lands to make life even more difficult for them.
The ONLY reason these "Endangered Florida Panthers" have slight physical
differences between them and all others of the same species (the Romanesque
nose and crook-tail (heh, nice pun, "Crook Tale")) is due to about one
century of in-breeding, where their natural routes to the north and west to
others of their species were cut-off by human habitation. One century is
nowhere near enough time for a species of that gestation-period and
longevity to differentiate into a new species. Plus their habitat is not
unique enough to even warrant it. When numbers of "Florida Panthers" were
recently dwindling and ruining the CEO-owned government's land-grab plans,
the amazingly ignorant and stupid "US Park Service" of Florida (in their
infinite wisdom and intellect) had some Cougars trapped in Texas and
imported into Florida to help strengthen the genetic line and numbers of
the "Endangered Florida Panther". Thus proving to the world that they are
NOT a unique "endangered species". But now, even if they were, they removed
all hope of them ever being unique because their offspring are now just
common Texas Cougars, Mountain Lions, Pumas, et.al. It's just a government
power-trippers' scam, pure and simple. Another one of the many that the
tax-payers are more than happy to pay for and believe. (They must think the
government is like cable-TV. Pay for the fictional entertainment.)
When doing my own research of "Puma concolor"'s genetics, I found
absolutely zero difference between the Florida Panther and all others that
inhabit two full continents.
This is not too different than the "Florida Endangered Manatee" that was
actually imported from the West Indies in the 60's to eat up the invasive
(human introduced) water-hyacinths clogging the human-created canals.
Another government scam perpetuated by the wealthy. The Manatee is NOT
native to Florida and it is NOT endangered in its native habitat. It's a
human introduced invasive species. Now this invasive species is wiping out
(eating) aquatic-plant breeding habitat for hundreds of unique native
Florida fish. The only reason they keep the manatee on the "endangered"
list and popularize it as such is because wealthy land-owners love being
able to put up the "Warning: Manatee Area. NO BOATING ALLOWED!" signs
alongside their property shorelines to keep their property values up.
But you go ahead. Read and believe what they tell you to believe. Instead
of traversing continents, photographing and documenting all the blatant
lies and outlandish stupidity and ignorance of humanity.
It's fun watching you fools act like, and having the intellect of,
mushrooms--voluntarily remaining in the dark and readily gobbling-up
others' bullshit.
Ray Fischer
> George Kerby <ghost_...@hotmail.com>
It's obviously taken by an automatic motion-sensor camera, asshole.
>http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2702/4143727944_b9898aec8f.jpg
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Just give the police the slime's posting --- it's quite clearly
an announcement of a planned murder and/or planning to run amok.
You'll probably see it then as a defendant.
-Wolfgang
-hh
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, don't want to wait that long.
> > Try again.
>
> Just give the police the slime's posting --- it's quite clearly
> an announcement of a planned murder and/or planning to run amok.
>
> You'll probably see it then as a defendant.
There's no need to even bother the police, as the P&S troll is nothing
but a blowhard of his own delusional fantasies...the type that still
lives in his Mom's basement with his Star Wars toys and doesn't even
have a passport card to visit Canada, let alone actually travel
anywhere on any frequent sort of basis.
This loser (and he knows that he is a loser) is so afraid of even the
potential consequence of his rude online behavior that he will never
willingly real any IRL information...he thinks that he is being "oh so
clever", but the reality is that he lives in fear of discovery that he
has accomplished utterly nothing in his life.
Its easy to see in his behavior, since even though its easy to create
an anonymous account on Flickr, he doesn't so do. Instead, he offers
the occasional hotlink of other peoples' work that he claims to be his
own, which is relatively safe action but yet reaffirms that he is
indeed a total fraud & loser, because he won't even take the risk of
getting caught stealing the image to populate his "own" Flikr page.
-hh
DSLR-Troll Killer
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!
And to think, this much entertainment from proven role-playing
pretend-photographer trolls like you is free!
George Kerby
On 11/29/09 7:58 AM, in article 0sr4h5dm69a3577v9...@4ax.com,
"DSLR-Troll Killer" <d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
You ARE one long-winded pontificating mother-fucker, are you not?!?
SEEESH!!!
DSLR-Troll Killer
You obviously know little about laws from US state to state. I bet you've
never even traveled where people proudly post "Armed Response" signs on
their property borders, nor would you even know what it means. Some regions
don't even need that much. Just a small 1"x2" red, orange, or purple square
posted on one fence-pole at the edge of their property is all that's needed
by law. (Better learn to look for those!) What a fine way for Darwinism to
take you out.
Enjoy your life in your mommy's basement you pathetically ignorant troll.
LOL!!!
DSLR-Troll Killer
>DSLR-Troll <d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
>>
>>You mean this one of my own, that I posted about 4 days ago? (Which I'll
>
>It's obviously taken by an automatic motion-sensor camera, asshole.
Yes, you know this because you were there.
LOL!!!!
DSLR-Troll Killer
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>Instead, he offers
>the occasional hotlink of other peoples' work that he claims to be his
>own
I guess that's why I have the power to delete them all after they have
served their purpose in proving you to be the DSLR-Troll idiot fucks that
you truly are. Nor can you find them previously posted by anyone else on
earth by using any search means available on the net.
Care to be proved a pretend-photographer liar and a troll again?
This is like shooting fish in a barrel. Easier even. I don't have to fill
and stock the barrel! They consistently show up all on their own!
LOL!!!!
DSLR-Troll Killer
wrote:
You ARE one fucked-up desperate mother-fucker of a troll, are you not?!?
Quoting all that just to post your troll's one-line reply?
SEEESH!!!
("Sheesh" for the trolls'-spelling impaired.)
Now if only you could one day post information as valuable as I do. You
might prove yourself to be more than a low-life fuck of a useless troll.
We shall not hold our breath waiting. You are what you are.
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> >Instead, he offers the occasional hotlink of other peoples' work
> > that he claims to be his own
>
> I guess that's why I have the power to delete them all after they have
> served their purpose in proving you to be the DSLR-Troll idiot fucks that
> you truly are.
Irrelevant, since the point is that you're stealing images and hiding
the account that you're doing it from.
Besides, if they really were your's, there's no reason to make the
effort to remove them, since displaying them at all affords a theft,
but particularly because since you repeatedly claim that they're your
"rejects", they have no value to you anyway. As such, it is illogical
to try to hide what you consider is worthless.
> Nor can you find them previously posted by anyone else on
> earth by using any search means available on the net.
All you're doing by deleting rapidly thereafter is simply making the
odds of your image theft less noticable and thus, less likely.
However, not being caught doesn't mean that your thefts didn't
happen. Your lack of morality is hardly a surprise...it comes from
too much Radon from living in the basement and fantasizing with your
_Soldier_of_Fortune_ magazines.
-hh
DSLR-Troll Killer
Yeah, you just keep believing whatever sour-grapes reasons you need in
order to be able to live with your troll's self. Just fine by me!
I'll still be ready for your now-proved-empty trolls'-challenge visit,
after March. Got a nice vermin-gun that'll fit you just right. A mint
condition JC Higgins from the 50's, original 4X scope and all. Not overly
accurate, but that's half the fun. Watching things like you suffer even
longer from the shot being randomly off by a couple inches.
LOL!!!!!
tony cooper
<d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
> The only reason they keep the manatee on the "endangered"
>list and popularize it as such is because wealthy land-owners love being
>able to put up the "Warning: Manatee Area. NO BOATING ALLOWED!" signs
>alongside their property shorelines to keep their property values up.
>
I live in Florida, and near several areas where manatees are found.
When I owned a boat I spent hours on the St John's River where
manatees are almost as commonly seen as are cows. Never, though, have
I seen a sign prohibiting boating because of the presence of manatees.
What you will see are signs that proclaim a stretch of water as a "NO
WAKE" zone. Even at Blue Spring State Park - a designated manatee
refuge - boating is not prohibited.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
-hh
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> >
> >Just give the police the slime's posting --- it's quite clearly
> >an announcement of a planned murder and/or planning to run amok.
>
> >You'll probably see it then as a defendant.
>
Not even close to an insult when speaking to a German. The US laws in
this area are a confusing & disorganized patchwork mess of self-
contradictions and hardly anything to be actually be proud of.
> I bet you've never even traveled where people proudly post "Armed Response" signs
> on their property borders, nor would you even know what it means.
"Its all about the signage". Typically, 95% are bluffs that can't
back it up, and the other 5% are loser wannabee poseuers who will try
to bluff with a BB pistol. The reality is that a warning is a
warning, which surrenders the initiative (advantage), which invariably
means that it is tactically stupid.
> Some regions don't even need that much.
Switzerland is not at all far from Germany... and has a SIG in nearly
every man's house.
> Enjoy your life in your mommy's basement you pathetically ignorant troll.
Right on cue with the attempt to project his condition on others.
Golly, its still too bad that the P&S Troll still haven't said where
his Mommy's basement is, and where he's alledgedly now holed up with
his little BB gun, utterly terrified at even the thoughts of face to
face contact with the outside world.
-hh
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> >
> >Irrelevant, since the point is that you're stealing images and hiding
> >the account that you're doing it from.
Still not denial (let alone proof)
> >Besides, if they really were your's, there's no reason to make the
> >effort to remove them, since displaying them at all affords a theft,
> >but particularly because since you repeatedly claim that they're your
> >"rejects", they have no value to you anyway. As such, it is illogical
> >to try to hide what you consider is worthless.
>
> ...it comes from too much Radon from living in the basement and
> > fantasizing with your _Soldier_of_Fortune_ magazines.
>
> I'll still be ready for your now-proved-empty trolls'-challenge visit,
> after March.
You still haven't provided a clear & credible location (eg, LONG /
LAT).
> Got a nice vermin-gun that'll fit you just right. A mint
> condition JC Higgins ...
Looks like it wasn't a SOF magazine fantasy afterall: it was the good
old Sears Roebuck catalog that you have in your little fetish stash,
primarily for those pages selling women's girdles...
-hh
George Kerby
On 11/30/09 4:11 PM, in article tag8h5dndhl4do601...@4ax.com,
"DSLR-Troll Killer" <d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
It was for 'effect'.
BTW: Pot, meet kettle. (The quote thingy <-- you most likely otherwise would
not 'comprende')
Do you normally function in this ridiculous manner when the ambient
temperature - in Celsius - exceeds your Wechsler Scale score?
Ray Fischer
Ray Fischer
>On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:43:16 -0800 (PST), -hh
><recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
>>Instead, he offers
>>the occasional hotlink of other peoples' work that he claims to be his
>>own
>
>I guess that's why I have the power to
The only "power" you have is to be an asshole troll.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Besides, if they really were your's, there's no reason to make the
> effort to remove them,
It cannot remove the images, the links it posts simply time out on
flickr. After all, they are just cached versions, not originals.
If you look in flickr, you can find the originals --- in someone
elses' photostream.
Probably the slime also claims it starts the sun every
morning, and without it the sun wouldn't rise!
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> This loser (and he knows that he is a loser)
^^
it!
The slime is an it. Never antropomorphise it --- it's not a
human being and does not behave as such, nor does it have a
cuteness factor.
-Wolfgang
Outing Trolls is FUN!
<ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>It cannot remove the images, the links it posts simply time out on
>flickr. After all, they are just cached versions, not originals.
>If you look in flickr, you can find the originals --- in someone
>elses' photostream.
We're all waiting for you to prove that. With even just one of them. Surely
someone of your intellect and net skills should be able to find at least
ONE of my images in someone else's photostream to back up your troll's
claims. Can't you?
Did you manage to keep a collection of all the photos I posted so you can
post them somewhere else now and claim they belong to you or some other
fictional troll's name of yours?
That would of course be the next step for a low-life scum of a troll like
you.
rwalker
<ot...@trollouters.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:51:06 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
><ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>It cannot remove the images, the links it posts simply time out on
>>flickr. After all, they are just cached versions, not originals.
>>If you look in flickr, you can find the originals --- in someone
>>elses' photostream.
>
>We're all waiting
Oh shut up.
Bob Larter
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:37 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <bh...@siol.com> wrote:
>
>> On 25 nov., 07:05, DSLR-Troll Killer <d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
>>> Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
>>> EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
>>> open for as long as you live.
>>>
>>> If not, you get to shut up now.
>> So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
>> your camera?
>
> An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.
>
> 2197mm EFL / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL
>
> 1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm EFL
>
> 215mm EFL / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical diameter.
HAHAHahahahahahahaha! You're *funny*.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
> As far as cowardice ... get this (yes it's true, whether you want to
> believe it or not): I used to be bartender for a rough and rugged biker-bar
> to hang round my neck whenever things would get a little unsettled, so it'd
> be easy to grab should the "fun" get too out of hand. I've lived off the
> land in remote wilderness without ever going near civilization for as much
> as three years at a time. I've hit a shark in the head with my fist when it
> was following me too close for to[*YAWN*]
Man, you are *so* full of shit. The fact that you think that anyone
would believe this sort of rubbish proves that you're mentally ill.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 14:51:06 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>It cannot remove the images, the links it posts simply time out on
>>flickr. After all, they are just cached versions, not originals.
>>If you look in flickr, you can find the originals --- in someone
>>elses' photostream.
> We're all waiting for you to prove that.
You first claimed you shot the photos. Prove it.
We're not waiting for it, we know you cannot, slime.
> Did you manage to keep a collection of all the photos I posted
I don't trade in stolen goods, and slime like you isn't worth it.
> That would of course be the next step for a low-life scum of a troll like
> you.
Psychologists call that projection. But not everyone is an amoral,
stupid, lying, feculent, putrefacient oozing slime like you are.
-Wolfgang
jpdenk
with all other Panthers since someone bothered to look at their DNA,
and there does appear to be some falsifying of data regarding the
Florida cats, but mainly by a few biologists who sometimes tend to
value their private projects over everything else rather than being a
land-grab by politicians for oil. I suspect that the reason they're
still protecting it is because the Mountain Lion has been nearly
extirpated in the eastern US other than in Florida and is only now
beginning to come back a little bit from around the western and
northern edges of its range.
But you're way off-base on the Florida Manatee. It's a distinct sub-
species of the West Indian Manatee, and it's found in both Florida and
the Greater Antilles. The first law protecting them in Florida was
passed in 1893, and another law was passed in 1907 which fined anyone
$500 if they were caught harming Manatees. Their fossils are present
in Florida going back 45 million years, and their bones turn up in pre-
Columbian Indian refuse mounds, so they've been in Florida for a very
long time. I don't know where you got your info about them being
introduced in the '60's, but it's flat 100% wrong.
George Kerby
On 12/8/09 11:14 AM, in article
24aaacd5-adb7-4e3d...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, "jpdenk"
<jpd...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> But you're way off-base on the Florida Manatee. It's a distinct sub-
> species of the West Indian Manatee, and it's found in both Florida and
> the Greater Antilles. The first law protecting them in Florida was
> passed in 1893, and another law was passed in 1907 which fined anyone
> $500 if they were caught harming Manatees. Their fossils are present
> in Florida going back 45 million years, and their bones turn up in pre-
> Columbian Indian refuse mounds, so they've been in Florida for a very
> long time. I don't know where you got your info about them being
> introduced in the '60's, but it's flat 100% wrong.
AS is the rest of his bullshit. What else is new?!?
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>DSLR-Troll Killer wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:14:37 -0800 (PST), Bhogi <bh...@siol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25 nov., 07:05, DSLR-Troll Killer <d...@trollkillers.org> wrote:
>>>> Care to show us any hand-held photos take with *YOUR* DSLR with a 2197mm
>>>> EFL lens at f/3.5? C'mon, any of you DSLR-Trolls? The offer will remain
>>>> open for as long as you live.
>>>>
>>>> If not, you get to shut up now.
>>> So, what you're saying is, you have a 628mm diameter lens attached to
>>> your camera?
>>
>> An ignorant and idiot pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll would say that, yes.
>>
>> 2197mm EFL / 1.7 (digital zoom) = 1292mm EFL
>>
>> 1292mm EFL / 6 (sensor crop factor) = 215mm EFL
>>
>> 215mm EFL / 3.5 (aperture) = 61.5mm required physical diameter.
>
>HAHAHahahahahahahaha! You're *funny*.
Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
alt.kook.lionel-lauer (established on, or before, 2004)
Registered Description: "the 'owner of several troll domains' needs a group where he'll stay on topic."
<http://groups.google.com/groups/search?hl=en&num=10&as_ugroup=alt.kook.lionel-lauer>
"Results 1 - 10 of about 2,170 for group:alt.kook.lionel-lauer."
NameHere
Post your proof about the Florida Manatees. If obtained from a Wiki page
then I know you are full of shit.
Bob Larter is Lionel Lauer - Look it up.
wrote:
>DSLR-Troll Killer wrote:
>> As far as cowardice ... get this (yes it's true, whether you want to
>> believe it or not): I used to be bartender for a rough and rugged biker-bar
>> in the 70's. I still have my chromed Harley timing-chain belt that I used
>> to hang round my neck whenever things would get a little unsettled, so it'd
>> be easy to grab should the "fun" get too out of hand. I've lived off the
>> land in remote wilderness without ever going near civilization for as much
>> as three years at a time. I've hit a shark in the head with my fist when it
>> was following me too close for to[*YAWN*]
>
>Man, you are *so* full of shit. The fact that you think that anyone
>would believe this sort of rubbish proves that you're mentally ill.
jpdenk
As just one example, see http://www.fws.gov/northflorida/manatee/manatee-native-facts.htm
. Regarding Manatee bones in the Florida archaeological record, see
http://www.nbbd.com/godo/history/windover/ .
It's a simple matter to find lots of info backing up what I said. But
I'm not the one making a wild claim about Manatees, so I'd like to see
some proof from you that they were introduced in the 1960's.
Judging by your vulgar response to a very civil response of mine, I'd
guess you're actually the idiot making the original claim that
Manatees aren't native to Florida, proving that you're indeed using
sock puppets to back up your looney self.
NameHere
LOL! That's funny. Citing "facts" from the very CEO-Owned and bought for
political group that gains financially from it being "endangered".
>. Regarding Manatee bones in the Florida archaeological record, see
>http://www.nbbd.com/godo/history/windover/ .
You don't know much about the history of that region do you. It was
completely under water during the time from which any "fossils" could have
originated.
Try finding some actual scientific literature instead of someone's personal
"Community Guide" blog about their own findings and speculations to further
their tourist-money agenda.
Man, you people are such fucking idiots. And so easily manipulated by
anyone.
jpdenk
>
> LOL! That's funny. Citing "facts" from the very CEO-Owned and bought for
> political group that gains financially from it being "endangered".
>
> >. Regarding Manatee bones in the Florida archaeological record, see
> >http://www.nbbd.com/godo/history/windover/ .
>
> You don't know much about the history of that region do you. It was
> completely under water during the time from which any "fossils" could have
> originated.
>
> Try finding some actual scientific literature instead of someone's personal
> "Community Guide" blog about their own findings and speculations to further
> their tourist-money agenda.
>
> Man, you people are such fucking idiots. And so easily manipulated by
> anyone.
And your proof is where? Since you're the one making the claims that
fly in the face of what is accepted as scientific fact, the burden of
proof is on you, as there is lots of documentation showing that what I
said is accurate.
John Turco
>
> The P&S troll writes:
<edited for brevity>
> > Got a nice vermin-gun that'll fit you just right. A mint
> > condition JC Higgins ...
>
> Looks like it wasn't a SOF magazine fantasy afterall: it was the good
> old Sears Roebuck catalog that you have in your little fetish stash,
> primarily for those pages selling women's girdles...
>
> -hh
Hey, what was wrong with Sears and Wards catalogues of yore, might I
ask? They depicted attractive, wholesome (and shapely) lasses, in bras
and girdles...and those who photographed them, had perfectly enviable
gigs!
That "Soldier of Fortune" mag doesn't sound nearly as appealing, on
the other hand.
--
Cordially,
John Turco <jt...@concentric.net>
Paintings Pain and Pun <http://laughatthepain.blogspot.com>