[GEN] rec.photo.digital.slr-sytems is the place for DSLR d..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

S. wrote:
[]
> My ISP hasn't signed on to any new groups in a couple of years.
>
> S.

My ISP is the same - primarily to all the resources taken up by the binary
newsgroups.

I joined one of the free text news servers just for the new groups.

Cheers,
David

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:59:22 -0600, Jim Redelfs <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote:


>Thanks to Alan Browne having the NERVE to post here an invitation to the dSLR
>newsgroup, I am moving there.

Trouble is, not all servers carry the new groups yet. Mine (news.individual.de)
doesn't.


--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http/www.cginternet.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:21:36 +0800, Christopher Pollard wrote:

>>Thanks to Alan Browne having the NERVE to post here an invitation to the dSLR
>>newsgroup, I am moving there.
>
> Trouble is, not all servers carry the new groups yet. Mine (news.individual.de)
> doesn't.

I would suggest that you update your group list. I use news.individual.de
and have rec.photo.digital.slr-systems available. It has been there for at
least a couple of weeks (that I know of).
--
Bo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Jim Redelfs" <jim.redelfs@redelfs.com> wrote in message
news:jim.redelfs-B0625D.20503402012005@news.central.cox.net...
SNIP
> I first "heard" about the
>
> <news:rec.photo.digital.slr-sytems>
>
> group somewhat more than a week ago.
>
> My Cox Communications news server did NOT carry it.
> I logged-on their support site and left email requesting it.
>
> It is now on the server.
>
> That's good service.

Yes it is, because it is a service they provide, at their discretion.
Good service, indeed.

Bart

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:19:17 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>I take it you are one of the anal types who thinks that the world needs a
>rec.photo.zlr and a rec.photo.rangefinder etc etc etc group. Go back to your
>double entry bookkeeping.

Insults are rather pathetic in newsgroup posts; they conjure up images
of small-time individuals salivating over their keyboards as they type
things they would never dream of saying to someone's face.

>Most of the world is looking for people who can
>help them

Indeed; and in that context all I sought to do, without insult or
name-calling, was to point out that your wish to lump heterogeneous
posts together in one newsgroup tends in only one direction. The
result will not be helpful; and if you can't see that then there's no
arguing with you.
--

Henry Law <>< Manchester, England

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:

>
> hey, aren't those 4 of the groups the fun lovin trolls shooed in?

That's spelt "shoot-in" and no, nothing to do with trolls.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm (More info?)

"Alan Browne_" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote

> "Steve Young" <bowtieATbrightdslDOTnet> wrote:

>> hey, aren't those 4 of the groups those fun lovin trolls shooed in?

> That's spelt "shoot-in" and no, nothing to do with trolls.

hahaha no, I meant new group shoo in
You did read the cite?

This message has more admission/explanation of the 'stuffing' activity, if
you care
Msg-ID: 1104389207.333908.190940@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Kinda looks like what I've been saying all along.
Those fun lovin 'socks' are why we have the new groups
Don't we just love em!? ))

x

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No there is no arguing with the anal types at all, who would rather reduce
the posts down to the point where the groups is dead than "suffer" the
indignities of having to look over a whole list of stuff that they don't
understand. Why don't you go to your little happy group and have your fun,
instead of hanging around here cluttering this group with your neurotic
obsessions?

--
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Henry Law" <lawshouse.public@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:2suit0dsdq5epnisue2tfitpfhsaocq4pg@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:19:17 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >I take it you are one of the anal types who thinks that the world needs a
> >rec.photo.zlr and a rec.photo.rangefinder etc etc etc group. Go back to
your
> >double entry bookkeeping.
>
> Insults are rather pathetic in newsgroup posts; they conjure up images
> of small-time individuals salivating over their keyboards as they type
> things they would never dream of saying to someone's face.
>
> >Most of the world is looking for people who can
> >help them
>
> Indeed; and in that context all I sought to do, without insult or
> name-calling, was to point out that your wish to lump heterogeneous
> posts together in one newsgroup tends in only one direction. The
> result will not be helpful; and if you can't see that then there's no
> arguing with you.
> --
>
> Henry Law <>< Manchester, England

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Henry Law wrote:
> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:19:17 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Insults are rather pathetic in newsgroup posts; they conjure up images
> of small-time individuals salivating over their keyboards as they type
> things they would never dream of saying to someone's face.
>

That's our Tony.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

WebKatz wrote:
> Henry Law wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 18:19:17 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>> Insults are rather pathetic in newsgroup posts; they conjure up images
>> of small-time individuals salivating over their keyboards as they type
>> things they would never dream of saying to someone's face.
>>
>
> That's our Tony.


Tony wrote:
> No there is no arguing with the anal types at all, who would rather reduce
> the posts down to the point where the groups is dead than "suffer" the
> indignities of having to look over a whole list of stuff that they don't
> understand. Why don't you go to your little happy group and have your fun,
> instead of hanging around here cluttering this group with your neurotic
> obsessions?
>


Case in point...

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thoughtful and measured? Not our Tony.

He'll just killfile you - but first he'll have to tell you that he's
going to killfile you - then he wont' do it right - so the next time he
sees a post from you he'll killfile you again - but first he'll have to
tell you that he's going to killfile you, again...

 

[Confused]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 13:57:50 -0500
In message <MuXBd.12534$Us1.193946@wagner.videotron.net>
Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> The intent was never to replace rpd, just to have a zone that is specific to the
> needs of D-SLR shooters. People can have as many NG's as they like, after all.

Do you do like other usenet fragmenters and lurk and flame
under other names? Wage email campaigns to lure people away
from the bad group? Your methods and high and mighty
authority-posing attitude is classic, after all.

Jeff

 

[Confused]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 14:02:16 -0500
In message <WyXBd.12631$Us1.196110@wagner.videotron.net>
Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

> Nor is the intent of an NG to help people learn every general function of a
> specific camera. I understand when people question something like metering, or
> why files come out a certain size in a given mode, as these are sometimes
> difficult to interpret even with the manual. But the question that you're
> referring to was something that can only be answered by somebody delving into
> the manual for that specific camera. It might was well be the person with the
> camera and the manual. The manual for the camera in question is available
> online from the manufacturer.

You don't have any tolerance for people who are not perfect, eh?
BTW... do you get tea and toost with your FreeLunch ISP?

Jeff

 

[Dave]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

So you CAN see me, eh Tony? How sweet that you still care.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:35:33 -0600, Bo Stevens <bostevens@charter.net> wrote:

>I would suggest that you update your group list.

Ok, got it now. I had done the 'get new groups' thing but it never showed up so
I figured it wasn't there yet.
I did a full refresh instead, and there it is.

Thanks

--
Chris Pollard


CG Internet café, Tagum City, Philippines
http/www.cginternet.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:28:46 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:

>Why don't you go to your little happy group and have your fun,
>instead of hanging around here cluttering this group with your neurotic
>obsessions?

Please look very carefully at the two posts I wrote in this thread and
tell me where I have advocated a new group of any kind - happy, little
or otherwise. And while you're about it please let me know what it
was I wrote that suggested to you that I was obsessed with something.

What we're doing here is discussing some ideas and maybe some simple
principles, but you seem to be one of those people who see
disagreement as a form of attack. Now the real answer is that you and
I are both right (I know it will hurt you to realise that I, obsessive
anal book-keeper as you designate me, am right but hold tight: the
pain will pass).

You're right because excessive division of groups is damaging and
pointless. I'm right because insufficient division of groups simply
doesn't work (and by the way my post of 02 Jan 2005 13:20:23 +0000 was
ironic - did you not spot it?). But plainly the actual answer in any
particular case is unclear (no simple answers, no happy ending: sorry
if that disturbs you).

It's true that rec.photo.digital is a very busy group, and there is
considerable heterogeneity in the posts, to the point where most
people are only interested in a minority of the articles. On the
other hand it's not at all clear that rec.photo.digital.slr-systems is
fulfilling its purpose: many articles seem to be cross-posted between
the two (the worst of all worlds), and there is much material in the
"mother" group that could have gone in the "daughter". In the end
only the people that use the groups will decide.

I'd like to read a thoughtful and measured reply from you but on
previous experience I doubt you're able to produce one.
--

Henry Law <>< Manchester, England

 

[Tony]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Perhaps I have you crossed up with someone else.

--
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http/www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html

"Henry Law" <lawshouse.public@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:em2lt0ti3jfbh3pt0qmc2tf1fmggko6ijs@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 23:28:46 GMT, "Tony" <tspadaro@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Why don't you go to your little happy group and have your fun,
> >instead of hanging around here cluttering this group with your neurotic
> >obsessions?
>
> Please look very carefully at the two posts I wrote in this thread and
> tell me where I have advocated a new group of any kind - happy, little
> or otherwise. And while you're about it please let me know what it
> was I wrote that suggested to you that I was obsessed with something.
>
> What we're doing here is discussing some ideas and maybe some simple
> principles, but you seem to be one of those people who see
> disagreement as a form of attack. Now the real answer is that you and
> I are both right (I know it will hurt you to realise that I, obsessive
> anal book-keeper as you designate me, am right but hold tight: the
> pain will pass).
>
> You're right because excessive division of groups is damaging and
> pointless. I'm right because insufficient division of groups simply
> doesn't work (and by the way my post of 02 Jan 2005 13:20:23 +0000 was
> ironic - did you not spot it?). But plainly the actual answer in any
> particular case is unclear (no simple answers, no happy ending: sorry
> if that disturbs you).
>
> It's true that rec.photo.digital is a very busy group, and there is
> considerable heterogeneity in the posts, to the point where most
> people are only interested in a minority of the articles. On the
> other hand it's not at all clear that rec.photo.digital.slr-systems is
> fulfilling its purpose: many articles seem to be cross-posted between
> the two (the worst of all worlds), and there is much material in the
> "mother" group that could have gone in the "daughter". In the end
> only the people that use the groups will decide.
>
> I'd like to read a thoughtful and measured reply from you but on
> previous experience I doubt you're able to produce one.
> --
>
> Henry Law <>< Manchester, England

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

[restructered]

Tony wrote:
Henry Law" <lawshouse.public@btconnect.com> wrote in message

>> .....I'd like to read a thoughtful and measured reply from you but on
>> previous experience I doubt you're able to produce one.

> Perhaps I have you crossed up with someone else.
>

Q.E.D.!

--
John McWilliams