Professional Web Applications Themes

Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group? - Photography

This is a 35mm equipment newsgroup. Why are the "totally" inane digital posts encouraged to flourish? The D-Whatever Canon uses interchangable lenses, is that why it's okay or has that moronic doglover become the club mascot? Over the years I saved a few of his images and enjoy looking at them on occasion. His newer digital stuff is mostly crap which is unfortunate since he showed so much promise early on. I've tried blocking his posts but he's in thick with AOL too I guess. Someone please get rid of this slug. My IQ is same as my handicap, yet ...

  1. #1

    Default Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    This is a 35mm equipment newsgroup. Why are the "totally" inane digital posts
    encouraged to flourish?
    The D-Whatever Canon uses interchangable lenses, is that why it's okay or has
    that moronic doglover become the club mascot?
    Over the years I saved a few of his images and enjoy looking at them on
    occasion. His newer digital stuff is mostly crap which is unfortunate since he
    showed so much promise early on.
    I've tried blocking his posts but he's in thick with AOL too I guess.
    Someone please get rid of this slug.




    My IQ is same as my handicap, yet I rock !!!
    Who am I?
    stupid annika1980 Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    stupid annika1980 writes:
    > This is a 35mm equipment newsgroup. Why are the "totally"
    > inane digital posts encouraged to flourish?
    Most people scan their film these days, and the results of scanning are
    digital files.

    Additionally, high end DSLRs are 35mm in every respect except for the
    replacement of film with an electronic sensor.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanichotmail.com> wrote...
    > [...]
    > Additionally, high end DSLRs are 35mm in every respect except for the
    > replacement of film with an electronic sensor.
    Hah! MF rangefinders are 35mm in every respect except for
    the film size. Should they begin posting here too? Why is
    that we have a different newsgroup for them?

    This argument is nonsense, and you know it.


    Victor Bazarov Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?


    "Victor Bazarov" <v.AbazarovattAbi.com> wrote in message
    news:vhb07om58il732corp.supernews.com...
    > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanichotmail.com> wrote...
    > > [...]
    > > Additionally, high end DSLRs are 35mm in every respect except for the
    > > replacement of film with an electronic sensor.
    >
    > Hah! MF rangefinders are 35mm in every respect except for
    > the film size. Should they begin posting here too? Why is
    > that we have a different newsgroup for them?
    >
    > This argument is nonsense, and you know it.
    >
    I agree with Victor...digital does belong somewhere else, not in
    rec.photo.equipment.35mm.


    Buzz Chandler Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    If stupid people stopped responding to his posts the inane one would vanish
    since most of us have killfiled him.

    --
    [url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com[/url]
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    [url]http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html[/url]
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
    "stupid annika1980" <stupidannika1980aol.comoron> wrote in message
    news:20030716120655.13089.00000014mb-m10.aol.com...
    > This is a 35mm equipment newsgroup. Why are the "totally" inane digital
    posts
    > encouraged to flourish?
    > The D-Whatever Canon uses interchangable lenses, is that why it's okay or
    has
    > that moronic doglover become the club mascot?
    > Over the years I saved a few of his images and enjoy looking at them on
    > occasion. His newer digital stuff is mostly crap which is unfortunate
    since he
    > showed so much promise early on.
    > I've tried blocking his posts but he's in thick with AOL too I guess.
    > Someone please get rid of this slug.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > My IQ is same as my handicap, yet I rock !!!
    > Who am I?

    Tony Spadaro Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?


    "Victor Bazarov" <v.AbazarovattAbi.com> wrote in message
    news:vhb07om58il732corp.supernews.com...
    > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanichotmail.com> wrote...
    > > [...]
    > > Additionally, high end DSLRs are 35mm in every respect except for the
    > > replacement of film with an electronic sensor.
    >
    > Hah! MF rangefinders are 35mm in every respect except for
    > the film size. Should they begin posting here too? Why is
    > that we have a different newsgroup for them?
    >
    MF gear won't mate to current 35mm bodies, whereas 35mm gear will mate to
    (some) current digital bodies. In so far as those digital bodies that mate
    with 35mm gear are concerned, they are on topic here. This is not to say
    that most threads started by their users are on topic: they aren't.
    Annika's "look at my pictures" posts are all off topic, because they never
    discuss the merits of the gear used, unless it's to slaver on them in an
    uninformative fashion.

    Besides, if Stupid Annika isn't an obvious troll, I don't know what is.


    Matt Clara Guest

  7. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    Removed by Administrator
    Victor Bazarov Guest
    Moderated Post

  8. #8

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    >Besides, if Stupid Annika isn't an obvious troll, I don't know what is.

    NO TROLL, just venting. I've finally had it with the FABULOUS D60 ROCKS !!!
    type messages showing up. I feel defiled, degraded and dirty to think I
    frequent a place which allows this nonsense to continue even while mocking this
    muttonhead. I've tried blocking his posts to no avail and am finally at my
    wits end. Wading through all the bs here for a few tidbits of knowledge is
    getting harder than gleaning something substantive out of the latest issue of
    Popular Photography & Imaging. Perhaps I'm just being nostalgic for the old
    days when we had errata as diverse as Ed Romney and Richard Knoppow without the
    barrage of crappy digital snapshots. Annika1980 was just a gleam in Gene
    (Snorre Selmer) Wendells' eye then but he created a Frankenstien. Digital
    camera questions went to a different group unless the subject of Imagek came
    up.
    Misguided Youth



    My IQ is same as my handicap, yet I rock !!!
    Who am I?
    stupid annika1980 Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanichotmail.com> wrote...
    > Victor Bazarov writes:
    >
    > > MF rangefinders are 35mm in every respect except for
    > > the film size.
    >
    > And the lenses. DSLRs often use lenses that are interchangeable with
    > 35mm film SLRs.
    So? WTF is your point? People wear hats when it's cold outside.
    People [sometimes] use hats as a slow manual shutter on large
    format cameras? Does it mean it's OK to discuss _weather_ in the
    LF newsgroup? If you want to discuss lenses, it's fine. However,
    the never-ending discussions on the digital BODIES does not belong.
    Period. End of discussion.


    Victor Bazarov Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    >
    > NO TROLL, just venting. I've finally had it with the FABULOUS D60 ROCKS !!!
    > type messages showing up. I feel defiled, degraded and dirty to think I
    > frequent a place which allows this nonsense to continue even while mocking this
    > muttonhead. I've tried blocking his posts to no avail and am finally at my
    > wits end. Wading through all the bs here for a few tidbits of knowledge is
    > getting harder than gleaning something substantive out of the latest issue of
    > Popular Photography & Imaging. Perhaps I'm just being nostalgic for the old
    > days when we had errata as diverse as Ed Romney and Richard Knoppow without the
    > barrage of crappy digital snapshots. Annika1980 was just a gleam in Gene
    > (Snorre Selmer) Wendells' eye then but he created a Frankenstien. Digital
    > camera questions went to a different group unless the subject of Imagek came
    > up.
    > Misguided Youth
    >

    I've got a subscription to Popular Photography and I do not filter out
    anybody's messages. Even so, I find r.p.e.35mm _much_ more useful than
    that silly magazine. I mean, it devouts over 75% of the pages to
    advertisements!



    Mike Marty Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    It's called Usenet, get used to it.



    Patrick L.


    Patrick L. Guest

  12. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    Removed by Administrator
    Matt Clara Guest
    Moderated Post

  13. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    Removed by Administrator
    Matt Clara Guest
    Moderated Post

  14. #14

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?



    stupid annika1980 wrote:
    > This is a 35mm equipment newsgroup. Why are the "totally" inane digital posts
    > encouraged to flourish?
    Nobody is "encouraging" them to "flourish". But to pretend that they
    are totally irrelevant (despite their repetitive and often erroneous
    nature) is foolish.

    > The D-Whatever Canon uses interchangable lenses, is that why it's okay or has
    > that moronic doglover become the club mascot?
    The D30/D60/D10 etc. share many common attributes with 35mm systems for
    obvious reasons, including functions, lenses, flashes and other
    accessories. Discussions of those attributes is wholly appropriate.

    The NG is NOT about photographs themselves, though occasional posting of
    links to photos is tolerated by most contributors. The person to whom
    you refer is a dweeb, no doubt, but easily ignored.

    <the rest of your irrelevant moaning deleted>

    BTW: Hiding yourself behind a pseudonym (or stupidonym in your case) is
    a sign of weakness, insecurity and a deceitful nature.

    Cheers,
    Alan

    Alan Browne Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?


    "Mike" <nedsnakeearthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:mBiRa.104713$Io.8965850newsread2.prod.itd.ea rthlink.net...
    >
    > "Mike Marty" <mikemcs.NOSPAMwisc.edu> wrote in message
    > news:bf4avg$8kr$1news.doit.wisc.edu...
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I've got a subscription to Popular Photography and I do not filter out
    > > anybody's messages. Even so, I find r.p.e.35mm _much_ more useful than
    > > that silly magazine. I mean, it devouts over 75% of the pages to
    > > advertisements!
    > >
    > >
    > As does this NG they are called Nikno and Canon...... :)
    >
    >
    Damn thumbs........Nikon.....lol


    Mike Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    Alan Browne wrote to "stupid annika1980":
    > BTW: Hiding yourself behind a pseudonym (or stupidonym in your case) is
    > a sign of weakness, insecurity and a deceitful nature.
    C'mon, Alan, don't hold back -- tell us what you really think.

    --
    John Miller

    "It's when they say 2 + 2 = 5 that I begin to argue."
    -Eric Pepke

    John Miller Guest

  17. Moderated Post

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    Removed by Administrator
    Victor Bazarov Guest
    Moderated Post

  18. #18

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    >The person to whom
    >you refer is a dweeb, no doubt, but easily ignored.
    >
    ><the rest of your irrelevant moaning deleted>
    >
    >BTW: Hiding yourself behind a pseudonym (or stupidonym in your case) is
    >a sign of weakness, insecurity and a deceitful nature.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >Alan
    Okay, I am weak and insecure but not of deceitful nature. If I divulged my
    true identity my publisher could void my contract. THEY have exclusive right
    to my NAME'S words and images so I'm in a quandry but not a moral one as you
    imagine. Perhaps you have some way of exposing my identity and in the process
    can ruin me and family. As long as your motive is a moral one, it's okay with
    me "alan" or whatever your real name is. You're right as usual.
    Health & Peace,


    My IQ is same as my handicap, yet I rock !!!
    Who am I?
    stupid annika1980 Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    You wouldn't even know Annika was posting crappy digital snapshots unless
    you followed the links to go see them, moron. They're not posted to the
    group...only the link is. The person you should be blaming is yourself for
    going to look at them.


    "stupid annika1980" <stupidannika1980aol.comoron> wrote in message
    news:20030716153557.07171.00000027mb-m12.aol.com...
    > >Besides, if Stupid Annika isn't an obvious troll, I don't know what is.
    >
    > NO TROLL, just venting. I've finally had it with the FABULOUS D60 ROCKS
    !!!
    > type messages showing up. I feel defiled, degraded and dirty to think I
    > frequent a place which allows this nonsense to continue even while mocking
    this
    > muttonhead. I've tried blocking his posts to no avail and am finally at
    my
    > wits end. Wading through all the bs here for a few tidbits of knowledge is
    > getting harder than gleaning something substantive out of the latest issue
    of
    > Popular Photography & Imaging. Perhaps I'm just being nostalgic for the
    old
    > days when we had errata as diverse as Ed Romney and Richard Knoppow
    without the
    > barrage of crappy digital snapshots. Annika1980 was just a gleam in Gene
    > (Snorre Selmer) Wendells' eye then but he created a Frankenstien. Digital
    > camera questions went to a different group unless the subject of Imagek
    came
    > up.
    > Misguided Youth
    >
    >
    >
    > My IQ is same as my handicap, yet I rock !!!
    > Who am I?

    McLeod Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Why all the digital discourse on 35mm group?

    stupid annika1980 writes:
    > THEY have exclusive right to my NAME'S words and
    > images so I'm in a quandry but not a moral one as you
    > imagine.
    Did you give them title to your kidneys and liver as well? How much are
    you paid for selling your personal identity?

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 18th, 05:40 PM
  2. Help - 35mm digital film scanners
    By o r b s c u r e DDJ in forum Photography
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: July 11th, 07:09 PM
  3. Help - digital transfer of 35mm film
    By o r b s c u r e DDJ in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 11th, 05:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139