Going Down With The D3!!

Rita Berkowitz wrote:
> Even when going down the D3 still kicks ass at high-ISO!
>
> <http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com/going_down.htm>

Caution: Rita sometimes posts links to pure manure.

"Rita Berkowitz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:FNCdnUrkZdRAShzVnZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@supernews.com...
> Even when going down the D3 still kicks ass at high-ISO!

Noise and over-sharpening make that shot awful.

Charles wrote:
> "Rita Berkowitz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:FNCdnUrkZdRAShzVnZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@supernews.com...
>> Even when going down the D3 still kicks ass at high-ISO!
>
> Noise and over-sharpening make that shot awful.
>
You're the judge! Not many go any more to Rita's bait.

--
john mcwilliams

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:57:33 -0700, John McWilliams
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Charles wrote:
>> "Rita Berkowitz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:FNCdnUrkZdRAShzVnZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> Even when going down the D3 still kicks ass at high-ISO!
>>
>> Noise and over-sharpening make that shot awful.
>>
>You're the judge! Not many go any more to Rita's bait.

So we have a troll - Rita - who posts to get attention. What term do
we call you? You follow Rita as surely as Helen follows Annika.

I see very little difference between the troll and the person who can
be counted on to post a follow-up to a troll's post.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:57:33 -0700, John McWilliams
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Charles wrote:
>>> "Rita Berkowitz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:FNCdnUrkZdRAShzVnZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@supernews.com...
>>>> Even when going down the D3 still kicks ass at high-ISO!
>>> Noise and over-sharpening make that shot awful.
>>>
>> You're the judge! Not many go any more to Rita's bait.
>
> So we have a troll - Rita - who posts to get attention. What term do
> we call you? You follow Rita as surely as Helen follows Annika.
>
> I see very little difference between the troll and the person who can
> be counted on to post a follow-up to a troll's post.

Try to understand motive, tony, and you may "see" more.

At the very least, I have been diligent in redirecting his and Bret's
x-posted efforts at disruption and attention seeking.

Perhaps you could judiciously do the same. Yeah, it's wildly unpopular
with those who need the attention, and with quite a few others, but it
would be nice to have a few groups somewhat free of spewing for their
own pleasure at others' discomforts.

--
john mcwilliams

John McWilliams wrote:

> tony cooper wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:57:33 -0700, John McWilliams
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Charles wrote:
> >>> "Rita Berkowitz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> news:FNCdnUrkZdRAShzVnZ2dnUVZ_tbinZ2d@supernews.com...
> >>>> Even when going down the D3 still kicks ass at high-ISO!
> >>> Noise and over-sharpening make that shot awful.
> >>>
> >> You're the judge! Not many go any more to Rita's bait.
> >
> > So we have a troll - Rita - who posts to get attention. What term do
> > we call you? You follow Rita as surely as Helen follows Annika.
> >
> > I see very little difference between the troll and the person who can
> > be counted on to post a follow-up to a troll's post.
>
> Try to understand motive, tony, and you may "see" more.
>

All *I* see John is more noise... In this case both of us disagree, and
I'm not going to post follow up after follow up because I think/believe
that I might be right, and it isn't going to change what you are doing.

> At the very least, I have been diligent in redirecting his and Bret's
> x-posted efforts at disruption and attention seeking.
>

The problem is that you really are not solving anything... You add yet
more noise. Perhaps you should get a newsreader that can actually
kill-file the "crap" you find distasteful, instead of trying to play
net-cop, and/or telling people what to do, or how to post.

> Perhaps you could judiciously do the same. Yeah, it's wildly unpopular
> with those who need the attention, and with quite a few others, but it
> would be nice to have a few groups somewhat free of spewing for their
> own pleasure at others' discomforts.
>

When you stop following Rita and Bret's every posts, THEN and only then
can you give someone else advice on how to post, or where to post it to.


- JT
knows that my reply isn't going to change anything...

--
See Header for Improving Usenet's Signal-To-Noise Ratio

"The pendulum of the mind oscillates between sense and nonsense,
not between right and wrong." - Carl Jung

tony cooper wrote:

> I see very little difference between the troll and the person who can
> be counted on to post a follow-up to a troll's post.

Who's trolling? These are photography related groups and I'm enjoying
myself posting pictures and discussing photography. Please don't lump me in
with these trolls, misfits and malcontents. I can't help it if little
Johnny gets a rise every time he sees one of my posts. I know he's like
that little piece of toilet paper you get stuck to the bottom of your shoe
that you can't get rid of.



Rita
--
Stamping out Internet stupidity one idiot at a time. Never empower the
idiot, embrace it and stimulate it. For more details go to the Usenet
Stimulus Project page.

http://ritaberk.myhosting247.com

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:48:55 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>tony cooper wrote:
>
>> I see very little difference between the troll and the person who can
>> be counted on to post a follow-up to a troll's post.
>
>Who's trolling? These are photography related groups and I'm enjoying
>myself posting pictures and discussing photography. Please don't lump me in
>with these trolls, misfits and malcontents. I can't help it if little
>Johnny gets a rise every time he sees one of my posts. I know he's like
>that little piece of toilet paper you get stuck to the bottom of your shoe
>that you can't get rid of.
>

I suppose different people have different definitions of "trolling",
but I subscribe to the definition that says that trolling in a
newsgroup is the deliberate inclusion of something controversial for
the sole intent of eliciting responses.

In that sense, Rita, you are trolling. The inclusion of a link to a
photograph does not mitigate the trolling aspect of the post.

I do agree that you enjoy photography. You have an odd definition of
"discussing", though. Pure dissing is not discussion.

Not that your adversaries are all that much better.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

tony cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 19:48:55 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>> I see very little difference between the troll and the person who can
>>> be counted on to post a follow-up to a troll's post.
>> Who's trolling? These are photography related groups and I'm enjoying
>> myself posting pictures and discussing photography. Please don't lump me in
>> with these trolls, misfits and malcontents. I can't help it if little
>> Johnny gets a rise every time he sees one of my posts. I know he's like
>> that little piece of toilet paper you get stuck to the bottom of your shoe
>> that you can't get rid of.
>>
>
> I suppose different people have different definitions of "trolling",
> but I subscribe to the definition that says that trolling in a
> newsgroup is the deliberate inclusion of something controversial for
> the sole intent of eliciting responses.
>
> In that sense, Rita, you are trolling. The inclusion of a link to a
> photograph does not mitigate the trolling aspect of the post.
>
> I do agree that you enjoy photography. You have an odd definition of
> "discussing", though. Pure dissing is not discussion.
>
> Not that your adversaries are all that much better.

Except most of his nay-sayers don't think they're above everyone else.

--
john mcwilliams