Ultra-Sharpen is on sale!

[Guest]

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

In article <_lGxd.13421$_3.151956@typhoon.sonic.net>, john_doe@nospam.com
says...
> Well, thank you for pointing that out. I was under the impression from all
> of the flames others have gotten from cross posting that it was the wrong
> way to go. I think people need to decide on one way to do something and
> stick with it.

True. I have seen people argue both sides. However, when cross-posting
is usually argued against, it is when somebody includes dozens of newsgroups,
or groups which are obviously orthogonal to the contents of the article.

Many people will run automatic kill filters that will dump any message
which is crossposted to more than some number of newsgroups. Google
has recently placed limits on how many groups can be included in a post,
and that is a good thing. Two or three that have overlapping content,
or to which the information is appropriate makes sense. In that way,
everyone which might be interested will see it, whereas anyone that
reads more than one of the groups will only have to see one copy.

> I am willing to be that even if I had cross posted the message I would still
> have gotten my ass chewed out. As far as I am concerned it makes all of your
> ass chewer far worse than me. Your being jerks I was trying to do something
> nice.

I never "chewed your ass", I tried to explain the technical aspects of
it, please be sure and point out where I was a jerk below...

>
> John
>
>
> "Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c2fb83b88e71ce1989d39@news.verizon.net...
> > In article <liLwd.12980$_3.142994@typhoon.sonic.net>, john_doe@nospam.com
> > says...
> >> I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one
> >> separately.
> >> Hardly the moves of a spammer.
> >
> > Note: If you had cross-posted it to those 4 groups instead of 4 separate
> > times, then everyone with a decent newsreader and read all four groups
> > would
> > have seen the article ONCE and it would have been marked as read in the
> > other three. As it is, they had to read or mark read the same exact thing
> > four times.
> >
>
>
>

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"For some reason most people seem to be born without the part
of the brain that understands pointers." -- Joel Spolsky

 

[Guest]

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

In article <kbncs019k35otqdmcr4rief66mear4ln9d@4ax.com>, none@none.com says...
> There are certain patterns spammers have. First, the salutation as if
> they know everyone on the group. The second is the effusive praising
> of a product that isn't even out yet, trying to ingratiate the product
> into the ranks by making it sound "cool" or desirable to be part of
> the "in crowd" (cult lens?) by owing one. Third is the "cheers"
> ending. It's pure salesmanship.
> I've seen it dozens of times. So, even if the person was simply
> passing on information he sounded much like someone spamming.

Here lies the problem. Once a spammer tactic becomes common enough
to be stereotypical, anyone that exhibits the same behavior, even for
legitimate reasons, instantly becomes branded as a spammer.

It's no different than any other stereotype in that regard. It is
unfortunate when somebody gets flamed for it when they are innocent,
but in the long run, the odds are that the spammer will be correctly
id'd 50X more often than the exception. However, telling a true
spammer that he is spamming will have no effect at all, except for
starting a thread like this one, whereas telling someone that does
it "by accident" about it seems to hit a nerve. Counterintuitive at
best.

 

[Guest]

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

I didn't say you chewed my ass. I was saying some and not necessarily people
in this group. I posted the message to four groups, two Photoshop ones and
two digital camera ones. In general, people have posted more spam about my
supposed spam posts than I did. Frankly, all of the bitching and complaining
they have done has done more to disrupt the newsgroups than my single little
post which if people had any class or an ounce of brains would simply have
ignored.

But, instead we now have threads with 20 or 30 or more spam messages.
Frankly, I don't think any of you have room to talk about my posts. At least
my were on topic!

John


"Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c3177fab2505f6e989d3f@news.verizon.net...
> In article <_lGxd.13421$_3.151956@typhoon.sonic.net>, john_doe@nospam.com
> says...
>> Well, thank you for pointing that out. I was under the impression from
>> all
>> of the flames others have gotten from cross posting that it was the wrong
>> way to go. I think people need to decide on one way to do something and
>> stick with it.
>
> True. I have seen people argue both sides. However, when cross-posting
> is usually argued against, it is when somebody includes dozens of
> newsgroups,
> or groups which are obviously orthogonal to the contents of the article.
>
> Many people will run automatic kill filters that will dump any message
> which is crossposted to more than some number of newsgroups. Google
> has recently placed limits on how many groups can be included in a post,
> and that is a good thing. Two or three that have overlapping content,
> or to which the information is appropriate makes sense. In that way,
> everyone which might be interested will see it, whereas anyone that
> reads more than one of the groups will only have to see one copy.
>
>> I am willing to be that even if I had cross posted the message I would
>> still
>> have gotten my ass chewed out. As far as I am concerned it makes all of
>> your
>> ass chewer far worse than me. Your being jerks I was trying to do
>> something
>> nice.
>
> I never "chewed your ass", I tried to explain the technical aspects of
> it, please be sure and point out where I was a jerk below...
>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> "Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.1c2fb83b88e71ce1989d39@news.verizon.net...
>> > In article <liLwd.12980$_3.142994@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>> > john_doe@nospam.com
>> > says...
>> >> I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one
>> >> separately.
>> >> Hardly the moves of a spammer.
>> >
>> > Note: If you had cross-posted it to those 4 groups instead of 4
>> > separate
>> > times, then everyone with a decent newsreader and read all four groups
>> > would
>> > have seen the article ONCE and it would have been marked as read in the
>> > other three. As it is, they had to read or mark read the same exact
>> > thing
>> > four times.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
> "For some reason most people seem to be born without the part
> of the brain that understands pointers." -- Joel Spolsky

 

[Guest]

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

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:xyKxd.13482$_3.152668@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Yes, these "netiquette" guides are like the Bible. Written by a few
> people that want to control everyone else.

Wrong again. Netiquette is a set of guidelines that are beneficial to
efficient use of USENET, and display a sense of respect for others.
"Efficient" and "respect" are apparently concepts alien to some.

Bart

 

[Guest]

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

After reading most of the posts in the dozen or so newsgroups I read I would
have to say that "Efficient" and "Respect" are the last things 90% of the
people think about. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much name calling, in
fighting, bickering, nit picking and other "niceties" on these groups.

Personally, my four on topic posts about Ultra-Sharpen should be the least
of peoples worries.

John


"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:41c8702f$0$1153$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
>
> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:xyKxd.13482$_3.152668@typhoon.sonic.net...
>> Yes, these "netiquette" guides are like the Bible. Written by a few
>> people that want to control everyone else.
>
> Wrong again. Netiquette is a set of guidelines that are beneficial to
> efficient use of USENET, and display a sense of respect for others.
> "Efficient" and "respect" are apparently concepts alien to some.
>
> Bart

 

[Guest]

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

In article <1kGxd.13420$_3.151807@typhoon.sonic.net>, john_doe@nospam.com
says...
> Sorry Randy, that is the name my parents gave me. Emma and Mathew Doe and me
> their son John. My dad thought it was funny and I have had to live with that
> joke for 42 years. Trust me it isn't funny.

Well, at least you weren't named Sue.

 

[Guest]

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

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ow_xd.13624$_3.154549@typhoon.sonic.net...
> After reading most of the posts in the dozen or so newsgroups I read I
would
> have to say that "Efficient" and "Respect" are the last things 90% of the
> people think about. Otherwise there wouldn't be so much name calling, in
> fighting, bickering, nit picking and other "niceties" on these groups.
>
> Personally, my four on topic posts about Ultra-Sharpen should be the least
> of peoples worries.
>
> John

Don't you love it when someone attempts to inflame a thread by telling you,
you are wrong as the opening statement? The truth is they really don't know
if what you said is true or not, it's just their opinion yet it's like they
are standing in the doorway with arms folded when you come for a visit.

I don't think I met a ruder bunch of people in my entire life as the ones in
this group. They fire off a salvo in contradiction of something you've said,
calling you derogatory names in the process and when you retaliate, claim
you are the one getting agro!!! Great stuff.

And while I'm at it... What about the armchair experts who argue so
vehemently, their point of view when highly qualified people in the industry
who are renown authors of respected manuals on the subject... say otherwise?
I guess school is out, eh?

As for ultra-sharpen?
I have tried this and a few others supposedly able to fix out of focus and
blurred images. None work like is claimed for them although all will work to
some degree. I can only surmise why U.S. is so cheap. The only program I
have used that actually does work the way it is claimed is un-shake. This
job removes the extra images caused from camera shake. It is so incredibly
agricultural, I doubt many non Linux users could work with it.

Cheers,
Doug

 

[Guest]

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

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> writes:

> Don't you love it when someone attempts to inflame a thread by telling you,
> you are wrong as the opening statement? The truth is they really don't know
> if what you said is true or not, it's just their opinion yet it's like they
> are standing in the doorway with arms folded when you come for a visit.

Poor widdle Ryadia. We wouldn't want to tell you are wrong, even when
you're acting like an idiot. We should be polite and agree with
anything you say. Of course.

> I don't think I met a ruder bunch of people in my entire life as the ones in
> this group. They fire off a salvo in contradiction of something you've said,
> calling you derogatory names in the process and when you retaliate, claim
> you are the one getting agro!!! Great stuff.
>
> And while I'm at it... What about the armchair experts who argue so
> vehemently, their point of view when highly qualified people in the industry
> who are renown authors of respected manuals on the subject... say otherwise?
> I guess school is out, eh?

If you can't comprehend basic optics, and find artists with imperfect
or superstitious technical knowledge who happen to misundertnderstand
the same things as you *it doesn't mae you right*.

If Ansel Adams claims that photographs were painted by pixies *it
wouldn't make it true*

B>

 

[ken]

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

"Bruce Murphy" <pack-news@rattus.net> wrote in message news:m2ekhincit.fsf@greybat.rattus.net...

> If Ansel Adams claims that photographs were painted by pixies *it
> wouldn't make it true*

Are you trying to imply that they really aren't painted by pixies?
I don't know if I could live with that realization!

 

[Guest]

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

"Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote in message
news:8C7yd.1157$5R.539@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Bruce Murphy" <pack-news@rattus.net> wrote in message
> news:m2ekhincit.fsf@greybat.rattus.net...
>
>> If Ansel Adams claims that photographs were painted by pixies *it
>> wouldn't make it true*
>
> Are you trying to imply that they really aren't painted by pixies?
> I don't know if I could live with that realization!
>
>
Aren't "pixies" what Ansel called his lab assistants? ;-)

--
Skip Middleton
http/www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

 

[Guest]

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

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in
news:%uKxd.13480$_3.152345@typhoon.sonic.net:

> Now spam as far as I am concerned is when you post things like "look
> at my ass" to every newsgroup there is. What I did is not spam, those
> that consider it that have their own mental problems and will not
> affect me in any way, plain and simple.

1. It is not up to you to decide what spam is, nor me.
It is my belief though that very few people think
that spam has anything to do with asses.

2. I was writing about cross posting, not spam.
Therefore I don't understand your reply.

3. Make calling other people that disagree with you
"mentally ill" make you feel more comfortable?

4. You still being here proves that you are affected by
what others write.


/Roland

 

[Guest]

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

In message <_lGxd.13421$_3.151956@typhoon.sonic.net>,
"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:

>Well, thank you for pointing that out. I was under the impression from all
>of the flames others have gotten from cross posting that it was the wrong
>way to go.

Cross-posting is not a bad thing, per se, as long as the post is
appropriate for all of the groups involved. Of course, many cross-posts
are off-topic, trolls, or spam, so a lot of people automatically react
unfavorably to all cross-posts.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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

In message <41c73ede$0$142$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>Actually it is, if constained to a few relevant groups. Multi-posting
>consumes hue ammounts of bandwidth/storage, whereas crossposting
>doesn't. So in fact is is encouraged to cross-post, if you are
>compelled to do so...

The way I understand it, if you cross-post to 100 newsgroups, the text
only appears once on the news servers; the header line that contains the
group names is only longer.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

 

[Guest]

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

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:zz_xd.13625$_3.154440@typhoon.sonic.net...

>
> But, instead we now have threads with 20 or 30 or more spam messages.
> Frankly, I don't think any of you have room to talk about my posts. At
least
> my were on topic!
>
> John

But John...
You are a top poster too and that, added to cross poster, means you are
really a bad, bad, boy. Now incorporate the cardinal sin of spamming the
groups - which incidentally no one dropping the can on you would ever, ever
think of doing... And you have what I would call multiple sinning Johnny.

You are probably aware that the only people allowed to have multiple sins in
these groups are not allowed to Spam. Let's face it, John... You'll have to
buy a Canon and become one of the anointed few allowed to have multiple
sins!

Doug