Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Am I asking too much?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 15, 2005 2:11:26 AM

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

Hi All

I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife. Mostly
it'll be P&S, but she thinks she has a creative side too, so would like some
manual control.
Shortlist: Canon Powershot SD300 / IXUS 40.
Pentax Optio S5i.
That's it!

Are there any others worth considering that are about the same size and
price? In an ideal world I'd like to have more manual control than this
camera provides, and less chromatic abberation.
TIA.

More about : question

Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:11:27 AM

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

Grumps wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
> Mostly it'll be P&S, but she thinks she has a creative side too, so
> would like some manual control.
> Shortlist: Canon Powershot SD300 / IXUS 40.
> Pentax Optio S5i.
> That's it!
>
> Are there any others worth considering that are about the same size
> and price? In an ideal world I'd like to have more manual control
> than this camera provides, and less chromatic abberation.
> TIA.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method...

This is a link to a side-by-side comparison for the two you picked, and the
Canon S60. I have the S50 and it rocks. More potential for creativity. A
big plus for me was the sliding lens cover which did not allow the camera to
be accidentally turned on. Have fun looking!

---
Michelle
(SeaShel)

free the fish to reply
Anonymous
April 15, 2005 2:11:27 AM

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

Grumps wrote:
> Hi All
>
> I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife. Mostly
> it'll be P&S, but she thinks she has a creative side too, so would like some
> manual control.
> Shortlist: Canon Powershot SD300 / IXUS 40.
> Pentax Optio S5i.
> That's it!
>
> Are there any others worth considering that are about the same size and
> price? In an ideal world I'd like to have more manual control than this
> camera provides, and less chromatic abberation.
> TIA.
>
>
Casio offers come very small cameras with nice features. Sorry but I
haven't kept up with models.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Related resources
April 15, 2005 2:42:40 AM

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

"SeaShel" <seashel@boxofwsfish.com> wrote in message
news:115to2dr8dv6k25@corp.supernews.com...
> Grumps wrote:
> > Hi All
> >
> > I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
> > Mostly it'll be P&S, but she thinks she has a creative side too, so
> > would like some manual control.
> > Shortlist: Canon Powershot SD300 / IXUS 40.
> > Pentax Optio S5i.
> > That's it!
> >
> > Are there any others worth considering that are about the same size
> > and price? In an ideal world I'd like to have more manual control
> > than this camera provides, and less chromatic abberation.
> > TIA.
>
>
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp?method...
anon_sd300%2Cpentax_optios5i%2Ccanon_s60&show=all
>
> This is a link to a side-by-side comparison for the two you picked, and
the
> Canon S60. I have the S50 and it rocks. More potential for creativity.
A
> big plus for me was the sliding lens cover which did not allow the camera
to
> be accidentally turned on. Have fun looking!

Thanks for the link. That site must be the one that I've visited the most in
the last few days. I've been in the stores too, to see what these two feel
like. To be honest, there's not a lot in it. The SD300 has a faster
continuous mode, but how useful is that going to be to wifey, but the S5i is
cheaper. I have the S45 myself (a few years old now). It's not quite as
pocketable as the SD300 though.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:24:33 AM

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

"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
> Hi All
>
> I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
Mostly

The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful. It
really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as mere
possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the camera". "I
need a radio for the car".

Hannah.
And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I deserve
at home.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:24:34 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:24:33 +0100, "Hannah" <hannah@example.com>
wrote:

>"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
>> Hi All
>>
>> I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
>Mostly
>
>The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful. It
>really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as mere
>possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the camera". "I
>need a radio for the car".
>
>Hannah.
>And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I deserve
>at home.

U must be on the rag, why do you make it our problem?

<g>

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:24:34 AM

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

"Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>
> "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
> > Hi All
> >
> > I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
> Mostly
>
> The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful. It
> really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as
mere
> possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the
camera". "I
> need a radio for the car".
>
> Hannah.
> And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
deserve
> at home.

I don't see whats wrong with him saying "the wife"? Would it have
sounded better if he said "my wife"? Lots of men say "the wife" in North
America (US and Canada). Its common. How is it any different from women
saying "I'm getting something for "the husband" or "my husband"?

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:24:34 AM

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

Hannah wrote:
> "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
>
>>Hi All
>>
>>I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
>
> Mostly
>
> The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful. It
> really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as mere
> possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the camera". "I
> need a radio for the car".
>
> Hannah.
> And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I deserve
> at home.
>
>
>
>
>
Enlighten us, oh PC one. How should he have phrased it? I want a
camera for the 'old bag'? Perhaps; The slut I live with wants a camera?
Some people can find the strangest things to get upset over?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:24:34 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:24:33 +0100, Hannah or one of her sisters
wrote:

> And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect
> I deserve at home.

It's nice to know that the husb. . . (oops) that the partner gives
you a sufficient allowance.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:24:34 AM

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

"Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>
> "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
>> Hi All
>>
>> I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
> Mostly
>
> The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful. It
> really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as mere
> possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the camera". "I
> need a radio for the car".
>
> Hannah.
> And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
> deserve
> at home.
>
>
>
>
>
It's a whole lot less possessive than "my" wife, don't you think?

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:24:35 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>
>>"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
>>
>>>Hi All
>>>
>>>I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
>>
>>Mostly
>>
>>The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful. It
>>really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as
>
> mere
>
>>possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the
>
> camera". "I
>
>>need a radio for the car".
>>
>>Hannah.
>>And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
>
> deserve
>
>>at home.
>
>
> I don't see whats wrong with him saying "the wife"? Would it have
> sounded better if he said "my wife"? Lots of men say "the wife" in North
> America (US and Canada). Its common. How is it any different from women
> saying "I'm getting something for "the husband" or "my husband"?
>
> Cathy
>
Unless, of course, you have more than one, in which case a name would be
better. .....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:24:35 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:c3W7e.689$f6.676@fe04.lga...
> Hannah wrote:
> > "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
> >
> >>Hi All
> >>
> >>I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
> >
> > Mostly
> >
> > The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful.
It
> > really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as
mere
> > possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the
camera". "I
> > need a radio for the car".
> >
> > Hannah.
> > And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
deserve
> > at home.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Enlighten us, oh PC one. How should he have phrased it? I want a
> camera for the 'old bag'? Perhaps; The slut I live with wants a
camera?
> Some people can find the strangest things to get upset over?

haha. I don't think you should say any of those things to your wife Ron
or she might hit you :) .

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:24:35 AM

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

Skip M wrote:
> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>>
>> "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the
>>> wife. Mostly
>>
>> The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful.
>> It really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves
>> as mere possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for
>> the camera". "I need a radio for the car".
>>
>> Hannah.
>> And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
>> deserve
>> at home.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> It's a whole lot less possessive than "my" wife, don't you think?

I dono. I'll run it by the domestic staff and let you know.


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:24:36 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:B4W7e.694$f6.228@fe04.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
> > "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
> > news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
> >
> >>"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
> >>
> >>>Hi All
> >>>
> >>>I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the
wife.
> >>
> >>Mostly
> >>
> >>The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful.
It
> >>really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as
> >
> > mere
> >
> >>possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the
> >
> > camera". "I
> >
> >>need a radio for the car".
> >>
> >>Hannah.
> >>And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
> >
> > deserve
> >
> >>at home.
> >
> >
> > I don't see whats wrong with him saying "the wife"? Would it have
> > sounded better if he said "my wife"? Lots of men say "the wife" in
North
> > America (US and Canada). Its common. How is it any different from
women
> > saying "I'm getting something for "the husband" or "my husband"?
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> Unless, of course, you have more than one, in which case a name would
be
> better. .....

Hmm. yes, that could be a problem. Gotta keep your names straight in
that case. :) 

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:24:36 AM

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

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:c3W7e.689$f6.676@fe04.lga...
>
>>Hannah wrote:
>>
>>>"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi All
>>>>
>>>>I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
>>>
>>>Mostly
>>>
>>>The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful.
>
> It
>
>>>really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as
>
> mere
>
>>>possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the
>
> camera". "I
>
>>>need a radio for the car".
>>>
>>>Hannah.
>>>And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
>
> deserve
>
>>>at home.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Enlighten us, oh PC one. How should he have phrased it? I want a
>>camera for the 'old bag'? Perhaps; The slut I live with wants a
>
> camera?
>
>> Some people can find the strangest things to get upset over?
>
>
> haha. I don't think you should say any of those things to your wife Ron
> or she might hit you :) .
>
> Cathy
>
Might? You don't know my wife. Or is it 'the wife' (only one I've had
for 37 years).


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:50:18 AM

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

"Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >

> U must be on the rag, why do you make it our problem?
>
Who the bloody hell are you supposed to be? And did I address my comments to
you? I think not.
You wouldn't understand being 'on the rag', as you so delicately put it, if
you were given 1000 years to learn about it. But no, for your info, I'm not.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 12:50:19 AM

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

Hannah wrote:
> "Owamanga" <owamanga(not-this-bit)@hotmail.com> wrote in message > >
>
>> U must be on the rag, why do you make it our problem?
>>
> Who the bloody hell are you supposed to be? And did I address my
> comments to you? I think not.
> You wouldn't understand being 'on the rag', as you so delicately put
> it, if you were given 1000 years to learn about it. But no, for your
> info, I'm not.

You post on Usenet you address everyone who has the misfortune of
reading your spew.

Seems clear to me you want someone to sympathize with some ill fortune
you have suffered.

Tell us all about it.


--
Frank ess
April 16, 2005 1:18:00 AM

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

"Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>
> "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
> > Hi All
> >
> > I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
> Mostly
>
> The wife. How awfully old fashioned

Maybe,

> patronising

You need a dictionary.

> and disrespectful. It
> really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves

Better halves? I don't think so.

> as mere possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the
camera". "I
> need a radio for the car".
>
> Hannah.
> And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
deserve
> at home.

Live alone do you?
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:00 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:18:00 +0100, Grumps wrote:

> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>> patronising
>
> You need a dictionary.

Why so?

--
John Bean

Times fun when you're having flies (Kermit the Frog)
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:01 AM

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

"John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1cwkjvjbzk20n.dlg@waterfoot.net...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:18:00 +0100, Grumps wrote:
>
> > "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
> > news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
> >> patronising
> >
> > You need a dictionary.
>
> Why so?
>
> --
> John Bean

"Patronising" is spelled that way in the UK and Australia and New
Zealand and maybe some other countries.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:01 AM

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

John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1cwkjvjbzk20n.dlg@waterfoot.net:

> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:18:00 +0100, Grumps wrote:
>
>> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>>> patronising
>>
>> You need a dictionary.
>
> Why so?
>

Spelling of 'patronizing'.

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:02 AM

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

"Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9639A084A4FDCebabulacare2com@66.192.254.230...
> John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1cwkjvjbzk20n.dlg@waterfoot.net:
>
> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:18:00 +0100, Grumps wrote:
> >
> >> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
> >> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
> >>> patronising
> >>
> >> You need a dictionary.
> >
> > Why so?
> >
>
> Spelling of 'patronizing'.

It looks like Hannah is from the UK, so patronising is the correct
spelling for the UK and Australia/New Zealand and even once in a while
in newspaper articles in Canada where I am located due to our early
British historical influences.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:03 AM

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

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in
news:BvydnauOIPs_tP3fRVn-sg@rogers.com:

> "Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9639A084A4FDCebabulacare2com@66.192.254.230...
>> John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1cwkjvjbzk20n.dlg@waterfoot.net:
>>
>> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:18:00 +0100, Grumps wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>> >>> patronising
>> >>
>> >> You need a dictionary.
>> >
>> > Why so?
>> >
>>
>> Spelling of 'patronizing'.
>
> It looks like Hannah is from the UK, so patronising is the correct
> spelling for the UK and Australia/New Zealand and even once in a
> while in newspaper articles in Canada where I am located due to our
> early British historical influences.
>
> Cathy
>
>

I shoulda put a ?, rather than a period. I was just guessing as to why
Grumps said that. Sorry.

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:03 AM

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

"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3casauF6nbdnjU1@individual.net...
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message

<snip>

> > > Well, I shouldn't really. But, here you go;
> > > http://www.pbase.com/itsgrumps/image/42105003
> > > Some people say that I look a bit like George Clooney. I'm not so
> > sure.
> >
> > That looks like it IS George Clooney. I think you are putting me on
you
> > jokester. Who is the woman?
>
> Er, the wife. Ducks for cover.

I don't believe thats your wife or you. Its George Clooney and some
glamorous woman he wants to be seen with. (I put glamorous that time )
as sometimes we spell it that way :) 

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:03 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 22:24:06 +0100, Grumps wrote:

> No. You're all wrong. I meant that patronising is not a word that
> describes me calling my marital partner 'the wife'. The word 'the'
> is used as an utmost form of respect, as in 'The Queen'.

'The' seems more neutral than anything else to me. Counter
examples could include similarly well know terms, people or phrases
such as "The Donald", "The village idiot" and "The President". I
don't know if you recall or not, but R. M. Nixon was referred to by
his staff as "The P.", hardly the utmost form of respect. :) 
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:04 AM

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

"Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9639A6230E915ebabulacare2com@66.192.254.230...
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in
> news:BvydnauOIPs_tP3fRVn-sg@rogers.com:
>
> > "Eric Babula" <ebabula@care2.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9639A084A4FDCebabulacare2com@66.192.254.230...
> >> John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> news:1cwkjvjbzk20n.dlg@waterfoot.net:
> >>
> >> > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:18:00 +0100, Grumps wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
> >> >> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
> >> >>> patronising
> >> >>
> >> >> You need a dictionary.
> >> >
> >> > Why so?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Spelling of 'patronizing'.
> >
> > It looks like Hannah is from the UK, so patronising is the correct
> > spelling for the UK and Australia/New Zealand and even once in a
> > while in newspaper articles in Canada where I am located due to our
> > early British historical influences.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> >
>
> I shoulda put a ?, rather than a period. I was just guessing as to why
> Grumps said that. Sorry.

Thats ok Eric. :) 

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:09 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:B4W7e.694$f6.228@fe04.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
>> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
>> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>>
>>>"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
>>>
>>>>Hi All
>>>>
>>>>I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
>>>
>>>Mostly
>>>
>>>The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful. It
>>>really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as
>>
>> mere
>>
>>>possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the
>>
>> camera". "I
>>
>>>need a radio for the car".
>>>
>>>Hannah.
>>>And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
>>
>> deserve
>>
>>>at home.
>>
>>
>> I don't see whats wrong with him saying "the wife"? Would it have
>> sounded better if he said "my wife"? Lots of men say "the wife" in North
>> America (US and Canada). Its common. How is it any different from women
>> saying "I'm getting something for "the husband" or "my husband"?
>>
>> Cathy
>>
> Unless, of course, you have more than one, in which case a name would be
> better. .....

But then of course, you'd use the indefinite article - "I'm getting
something for _a_ wife/husband".

D.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:10 AM

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

"Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 3pbfj$iln$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:B4W7e.694$f6.228@fe04.lga...
> > Cathy wrote:
> >> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
> >> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
> >>
> >>>"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
> >>>
> >>>>Hi All
> >>>>
> >>>>I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the
wife.
> >>>
> >>>Mostly
> >>>
> >>>The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful.
It
> >>>really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as
> >>
> >> mere
> >>
> >>>possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the
> >>
> >> camera". "I
> >>
> >>>need a radio for the car".
> >>>
> >>>Hannah.
> >>>And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
> >>
> >> deserve
> >>
> >>>at home.
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't see whats wrong with him saying "the wife"? Would it have
> >> sounded better if he said "my wife"? Lots of men say "the wife" in
North
> >> America (US and Canada). Its common. How is it any different from
women
> >> saying "I'm getting something for "the husband" or "my husband"?
> >>
> >> Cathy
> >>
> > Unless, of course, you have more than one, in which case a name
would be
> > better. .....
>
> But then of course, you'd use the indefinite article - "I'm getting
> something for _a_ wife/husband".

Haha. this is getting more complicated. :) 

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:25:10 AM

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

"Deep Reset" <DeepReset@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:D 3pbfj$iln$1@titan.btinternet.com...
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:B4W7e.694$f6.228@fe04.lga...
>> Cathy wrote:
>>> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>>>
>>>>"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>>Hi All
>>>>>
>>>>>I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the wife.
>>>>
>>>>Mostly
>>>>
>>>>The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful. It
>>>>really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as
>>>
>>> mere
>>>
>>>>possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the
>>>
>>> camera". "I
>>>
>>>>need a radio for the car".
>>>>
>>>>Hannah.
>>>>And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
>>>
>>> deserve
>>>
>>>>at home.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't see whats wrong with him saying "the wife"? Would it have
>>> sounded better if he said "my wife"? Lots of men say "the wife" in North
>>> America (US and Canada). Its common. How is it any different from women
>>> saying "I'm getting something for "the husband" or "my husband"?
>>>
>>> Cathy
>>>
>> Unless, of course, you have more than one, in which case a name would be
>> better. .....
>
> But then of course, you'd use the indefinite article - "I'm getting
> something for _a_ wife/husband".
>
> D.
>
>
Or "one of the wives/husbands." Or, numerically, 'for wife number one..."

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:51:17 AM

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

On 15 Apr 2005 20:46:09 GMT, Eric Babula wrote:

> John Bean <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1cwkjvjbzk20n.dlg@waterfoot.net:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:18:00 +0100, Grumps wrote:
>>
>>> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>>>> patronising
>>>
>>> You need a dictionary.
>>
>> Why so?
>>
>
> Spelling of 'patronizing'.

You need a dictionary - unless you're in the US in which case your
misspelling is excused.

Think global, and remember that "English" does not mean "American".

--
John Bean

It is better to hide ignorance, but it is hard to do this when we relax over
wine (Heraclitus)
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:53:46 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:44:45 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> "John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1cwkjvjbzk20n.dlg@waterfoot.net...
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:18:00 +0100, Grumps wrote:
>>
>>> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
>>>> patronising
>>>
>>> You need a dictionary.
>>
>> Why so?
>
> "Patronising" is spelled that way in the UK and Australia and New
> Zealand and maybe some other countries.

Yes I know, Cathy. I suspect it's easier to say "It's spelled 'patronizing'
in the US and maybe some other countries".

--
John Bean

To err is human - and to blame it on a computer is even more so (Robert
Orben)
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 1:53:47 AM

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

"John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1rhoa6e8gpo9h$.dlg@waterfoot.net...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 16:44:45 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>
> > "John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1cwkjvjbzk20n.dlg@waterfoot.net...
> >> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 21:18:00 +0100, Grumps wrote:
> >>
> >>> "Hannah" <hannah@example.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:ydGdnWjkctRtif3fRVnyjA@pipex.net...
> >>>> patronising
> >>>
> >>> You need a dictionary.
> >>
> >> Why so?
> >
> > "Patronising" is spelled that way in the UK and Australia and New
> > Zealand and maybe some other countries.
>
> Yes I know, Cathy. I suspect it's easier to say "It's spelled
'patronizing'
> in the US and maybe some other countries".

Well, I didn't say it quite that way. Its just the different ways its
spelled in different countries.
I thought you were serious when you say "why so" so I wasn't sure what
you meant.
I'm in Canada, and we mostly spell words with the "z" like patronizing,
agonizing, analyzing.
At one time here, probably 25 years ago, they quite often spelled those
words with an "s" but as time went by and with our close proximity to
the US and because most books and magazines here originate in the US. we
gradually put a "z" in those words. I am originally from Scotland, so
grew up in school using "s" in those words. As long as we know what
each other is talking about, thats the main thing :) 

Cathy
April 16, 2005 2:08:37 AM

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

"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3carmbF6lnhcbU1@individual.net...
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>
>> > And I have the T-shirt too (Printed by Disney).
>>
>> Well, I would like to see you wearing this Disney Tshirt as I would like
>> to see if you look as Grumpy as you sound :)  Post it somewhere so we can
>> see what you look like.
>
> Well, I shouldn't really. But, here you go;
> http://www.pbase.com/itsgrumps/image/42105003
> Some people say that I look a bit like George Clooney. I'm not so sure.
>
>

LOL

That's very funny.

You're a good looking fella, Grumps!
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:08:38 AM

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

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:FXW7e.436$716.260@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3carmbF6lnhcbU1@individual.net...
> > "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> >
> >> > And I have the T-shirt too (Printed by Disney).
> >>
> >> Well, I would like to see you wearing this Disney Tshirt as I would
like
> >> to see if you look as Grumpy as you sound :)  Post it somewhere so
we can
> >> see what you look like.
> >
> > Well, I shouldn't really. But, here you go;
> > http://www.pbase.com/itsgrumps/image/42105003
> > Some people say that I look a bit like George Clooney. I'm not so
sure.

> LOL
>
> That's very funny.
>
> You're a good looking fella, Grumps!

Thats not him Renee. He's just kidding. He wishes :) 

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:08:39 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 18:17:08 -0400, Cathy wrote:

> Thats not him Renee. He's jvst kidding. He wishes :) 

There's an anecdote to that effect by the mvsician that played on
and did the voiceover for one of George Clooney's songs in the film
"Oh Brother, Where Art Thov". It was recovnted by Dan Tyminski in
the DVD version of "Alison Kravss + Union Station Live", and vh, the
wish wasn't his, bvt one of his wife's. :) 
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:14:46 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:05:23 -0400, Cathy wrote:
> I thought you were serious when you say "why so" so I wasn't sure what
> you meant.

Well I was, in a way. But you're right, I very strongly suspected that the
original criticism was nothing more than a spelling flame, and an
ill-educated one at that.

> I'm in Canada, and we mostly spell words with the "z" like patronizing,
> agonizing, analyzing.

In fact I often use the US/Canadian preferred spelling with a "z" reather
than an "s", it's not even subject to comment in the UK. That's why I
highlighted this example. I doubt that anybody from the UK would even think
to seriously claim that the "z" variant was a misspelling, so why should
anybody claim the "s" variant is a misspelling? The excellent (American)
Miriam-Webster dictionary has both forms listed.

> At one time here, probably 25 years ago, they quite often spelled those
> words with an "s" but as time went by and with our close proximity to
> the US and because most books and magazines here originate in the US. we
> gradually put a "z" in those words. I am originally from Scotland, so
> grew up in school using "s" in those words. As long as we know what
> each other is talking about, thats the main thing :) 

Sensible Cathy. I hope that others will learn the same tolerance.

--
John Bean

To err is human, but to really foul things up requires a computer (Farmers'
Almanac)
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:14:47 AM

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

"John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:16trlfc35739t.dlg@waterfoot.net...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:05:23 -0400, Cathy wrote:
> > I thought you were serious when you say "why so" so I wasn't sure
what
> > you meant.
>
> Well I was, in a way. But you're right, I very strongly suspected that
the
> original criticism was nothing more than a spelling flame, and an
> ill-educated one at that.

Maybe he was just kidding. Hard to say when people don't put a smiley.

> > I'm in Canada, and we mostly spell words with the "z" like
patronizing,
> > agonizing, analyzing.
>
> In fact I often use the US/Canadian preferred spelling with a "z"
reather
> than an "s", it's not even subject to comment in the UK. That's why I
> highlighted this example. I doubt that anybody from the UK would even
think
> to seriously claim that the "z" variant was a misspelling, so why
should
> anybody claim the "s" variant is a misspelling? The excellent
(American)
> Miriam-Webster dictionary has both forms listed.

Both forms are correct depending on what country you are living in. Are
you in the UK? Since you are using gmail, I can't tell from your
headers. :) 
I have many relatives in Scotland and they always write "s" as in
organised, analyse, patronise, and all those kind of words. They never
use "z". Its not the way they were taught in school and not how its
spelled in newspaper articles or books over there.

> > At one time here, probably 25 years ago, they quite often spelled
those
> > words with an "s" but as time went by and with our close proximity
to
> > the US and because most books and magazines here originate in the
US. we
> > gradually put a "z" in those words. I am originally from Scotland,
so
> > grew up in school using "s" in those words. As long as we know what
> > each other is talking about, thats the main thing :) 
>
> Sensible Cathy. I hope that others will learn the same tolerance.

Thank you. :) 

Cathy
April 16, 2005 2:17:23 AM

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

John Bean wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:05:23 -0400, Cathy wrote:
>> I thought you were serious when you say "why so" so I wasn't sure
>> what you meant.
>
> Well I was, in a way. But you're right, I very strongly suspected
> that the original criticism was nothing more than a spelling flame,
> and an ill-educated one at that.
>
>> I'm in Canada, and we mostly spell words with the "z" like
>> patronizing, agonizing, analyzing.
>
> In fact I often use the US/Canadian preferred spelling with a "z"
> reather than an "s", it's not even subject to comment in the UK.
> That's why I highlighted this example. I doubt that anybody from the
> UK would even think to seriously claim that the "z" variant was a
> misspelling, so why should anybody claim the "s" variant is a
> misspelling? The excellent (American) Miriam-Webster dictionary has
> both forms listed.
>
>> At one time here, probably 25 years ago, they quite often spelled
>> those words with an "s" but as time went by and with our close
>> proximity to the US and because most books and magazines here
>> originate in the US. we gradually put a "z" in those words. I am
>> originally from Scotland, so grew up in school using "s" in those
>> words. As long as we know what each other is talking about, thats
>> the main thing :) 
>
> Sensible Cathy. I hope that others will learn the same tolerance.

Ackk - ENOUGH already.
April 16, 2005 2:19:44 AM

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

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:uJmdna77Qby1oP3fRVn-1g@rogers.com...
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:FXW7e.436$716.260@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:3carmbF6lnhcbU1@individual.net...
>> > "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> > And I have the T-shirt too (Printed by Disney).
>> >>
>> >> Well, I would like to see you wearing this Disney Tshirt as I would
> like
>> >> to see if you look as Grumpy as you sound :)  Post it somewhere so
> we can
>> >> see what you look like.
>> >
>> > Well, I shouldn't really. But, here you go;
>> > http://www.pbase.com/itsgrumps/image/42105003
>> > Some people say that I look a bit like George Clooney. I'm not so
> sure.
>
>> LOL
>>
>> That's very funny.
>>
>> You're a good looking fella, Grumps!
>
> Thats not him Renee. He's just kidding. He wishes :) 
>
> Cathy
>

Actually, I knew that the moment I saw him, Cathy. But I forgot to add my
;-) (wink). Anyway, I'm still getting a good laugh out of it.

:-)

Renee
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:19:45 AM

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

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:46X7e.1616$_t3.110@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:uJmdna77Qby1oP3fRVn-1g@rogers.com...
> > "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> > news:FXW7e.436$716.260@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>
> >> "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message

<snip>

> >> > Well, I shouldn't really. But, here you go;
> >> > http://www.pbase.com/itsgrumps/image/42105003
> >> > Some people say that I look a bit like George Clooney. I'm not so
> > sure.
> >
> >> LOL
> >>
> >> That's very funny.
> >>
> >> You're a good looking fella, Grumps!
> >
> > Thats not him Renee. He's just kidding. He wishes :) 
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> Actually, I knew that the moment I saw him, Cathy. But I forgot to add
my
> ;-) (wink). Anyway, I'm still getting a good laugh out of it.
>
> :-)

Yeah, Grumps is wishing he would look like that. haha. I was just going
along with him. Having a good laugh is very worthwhile - even Grumps has
mellowed a bit and not living up to his name. He turns into the wolfman
at midnight though :) 

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:38:17 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:29:08 -0400, Cathy wrote:
> Both forms are correct depending on what country you are living in. Are
> you in the UK? Since you are using gmail, I can't tell from your
> headers. :) 

Yes NW England, good spamtrap is gmail. After many years of communicating
with my friends in the US I'm happy to patronize their linguistic foibles at
the same time as I happily mix the two languages :-)

>> Sensible Cathy. I hope that others will learn the same tolerance.
>
> Thank you. :) 

You're more than welcome. Despite the loud-mouthed comments to the contrary,
most users of these newsgroups are sensible, civilised (with an 's"!)
people.

--
John Bean

In all large corporations, there is a pervasive fear that someone, somewhere
is having fun with a computer on company time. Networks help alleviate that
fear (John C. Dvorak)
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 2:38:18 AM

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

"John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bvgaxu7e8mv.dlg@waterfoot.net...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:29:08 -0400, Cathy wrote:
> > Both forms are correct depending on what country you are living in.
Are
> > you in the UK? Since you are using gmail, I can't tell from your
> > headers. :) 
>
> Yes NW England, good spamtrap is gmail. After many years of
communicating
> with my friends in the US I'm happy to patronize their linguistic
foibles at
> the same time as I happily mix the two languages :-)

So you're in NW England? I guess I've been lucky as I don't have a need
for gmail. I don't mind being semi recognized. For years I used my real
email address on the Internet, but that was about 8 years ago. There
wasn't as much spam then. I haven't put my real email address on
newsgroups for a few years now though.

> >> Sensible Cathy. I hope that others will learn the same tolerance.
> >
> > Thank you. :) 
>
> You're more than welcome. Despite the loud-mouthed comments to the
contrary,
> most users of these newsgroups are sensible, civilised (with an 's"!)
> people.

Yes, most people here seem quite nice. At least the ones I've
communicated with. And watch that "s" as in civilised :)  -

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 3:13:21 AM

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

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:56:02 -0400, Cathy wrote:
> So you're in NW England? I guess I've been lucky as I don't have a need
> for gmail. I don't mind being semi recognized. For years I used my real
> email address on the Internet, but that was about 8 years ago. There
> wasn't as much spam then. I haven't put my real email address on
> newsgroups for a few years now though.

Oh, I'm happy for people to attack my usual email address (john@waterfoot
net) but gmail shifts some of the load to somebody else's server at no cost
to me :-)

I always use a real email address on usenet, every so often someone
important to me contacts me that I would have otherwise missed, a much more
important event than the routine disposal of the torrents of spam that is
mainly handled by automated filters. I don't mind the spammers - it's their
time and bandwidth they're wasting not mine.

--
John Bean

Computers are useless. They can only give you answers (Pablo Picasso)
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 3:13:22 AM

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

"John Bean" <waterfoot@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1jslrdsw7jwdn.dlg@waterfoot.net...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 17:56:02 -0400, Cathy wrote:
> > So you're in NW England? I guess I've been lucky as I don't have a
need
> > for gmail. I don't mind being semi recognized. For years I used my
real
> > email address on the Internet, but that was about 8 years ago. There
> > wasn't as much spam then. I haven't put my real email address on
> > newsgroups for a few years now though.
>
> Oh, I'm happy for people to attack my usual email address
(john@waterfoot
> net) but gmail shifts some of the load to somebody else's server at no
cost
> to me :-)

> I always use a real email address on usenet, every so often someone
> important to me contacts me that I would have otherwise missed,

I don't see john@waterfoot net anywhere in your messages. Not till you
mention it in the above paragraph. So you use gmail sometimes and not
others?

> a much more
> important event than the routine disposal of the torrents of spam that
is
> mainly handled by automated filters. I don't mind the spammers - it's
their
> time and bandwidth they're wasting not mine.

Yes, but its our bandwidth they are using as well since we have to
download their spam when we download our newsgroup messages. You must
have a very tolerant attitude towards spammers, which is more than I
have. I hate them and find them very aggravating which is their motive.
Nobody buys their stuff that I know. I used to get tons of spam on a
previous ISP, and even with filtering, couldn't get rid of them. My
present ISP is partnered with mail and have good spam blocks, but they
don't do newsgroups. On this NG there were tons of google OT messages
which have subsided recently.I was getting ready to drop this NG from my
list.

Cathy
April 16, 2005 3:18:11 AM

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

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:_didncWR47Rrof3fRVn-tw@rogers.com...
> "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3casauF6nbdnjU1@individual.net...
> > "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > Well, I shouldn't really. But, here you go;
> > > > http://www.pbase.com/itsgrumps/image/42105003
> > > > Some people say that I look a bit like George Clooney. I'm not so
> > > sure.
> > >
> > > That looks like it IS George Clooney. I think you are putting me on
> you
> > > jokester. Who is the woman?
> >
> > Er, the wife. Ducks for cover.
>
> I don't believe thats your wife or you. Its George Clooney and some
> glamorous woman he wants to be seen with. (I put glamorous that time )
> as sometimes we spell it that way :) 

Bah! Rumbled.
It was end of last year in LA. TBH, I don't know who she was either.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 3:18:12 AM

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

"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3casucF6n8v2sU1@individual.net...
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:_didncWR47Rrof3fRVn-tw@rogers.com...
> > "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3casauF6nbdnjU1@individual.net...
> > > "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > Well, I shouldn't really. But, here you go;
> > > > > http://www.pbase.com/itsgrumps/image/42105003
> > > > > Some people say that I look a bit like George Clooney. I'm not
so
> > > > sure.
> > > >
> > > > That looks like it IS George Clooney. I think you are putting me
on
> > you
> > > > jokester. Who is the woman?
> > >
> > > Er, the wife. Ducks for cover.
> >
> > I don't believe thats your wife or you. Its George Clooney and some
> > glamorous woman he wants to be seen with. (I put glamorous that
time )
> > as sometimes we spell it that way :) 
>
> Bah! Rumbled.
> It was end of last year in LA. TBH, I don't know who she was either.

Let me see other jpgs of you to prove you are not George Clooney. You
mean you just stood beside some woman and told somebody to take your
picture? I doubt it.

Cathy
April 16, 2005 3:20:39 AM

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

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:46X7e.1616$_t3.110@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:uJmdna77Qby1oP3fRVn-1g@rogers.com...
> > "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> > news:FXW7e.436$716.260@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >>
> >> "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:3carmbF6lnhcbU1@individual.net...
> >> > "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> >> >
> >> >> > And I have the T-shirt too (Printed by Disney).
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, I would like to see you wearing this Disney Tshirt as I would
> > like
> >> >> to see if you look as Grumpy as you sound :)  Post it somewhere so
> > we can
> >> >> see what you look like.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I shouldn't really. But, here you go;
> >> > http://www.pbase.com/itsgrumps/image/42105003
> >> > Some people say that I look a bit like George Clooney. I'm not so
> > sure.
> >
> >> LOL
> >>
> >> That's very funny.
> >>
> >> You're a good looking fella, Grumps!
> >
> > Thats not him Renee. He's just kidding. He wishes :) 
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> Actually, I knew that the moment I saw him, Cathy. But I forgot to add my
> ;-) (wink). Anyway, I'm still getting a good laugh out of it.
>
> :-)

And that's how I'll end tonight.
As long as someone has a laugh.

ex-Grumps.
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 3:20:40 AM

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

"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3cat30F6isobcU1@individual.net...
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:46X7e.1616$_t3.110@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> > "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> > news:uJmdna77Qby1oP3fRVn-1g@rogers.com...
> > > "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> > > news:FXW7e.436$716.260@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> > >>
> > >> "Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:3carmbF6lnhcbU1@individual.net...
> > >> > "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> > >> >
> > >> >> > And I have the T-shirt too (Printed by Disney).
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Well, I would like to see you wearing this Disney Tshirt as I
would
> > > like
> > >> >> to see if you look as Grumpy as you sound :)  Post it somewhere
so
> > > we can
> > >> >> see what you look like.
> > >> >
> > >> > Well, I shouldn't really. But, here you go;
> > >> > http://www.pbase.com/itsgrumps/image/42105003
> > >> > Some people say that I look a bit like George Clooney. I'm not
so
> > > sure.
> > >
> > >> LOL
> > >>
> > >> That's very funny.
> > >>
> > >> You're a good looking fella, Grumps!
> > >
> > > Thats not him Renee. He's just kidding. He wishes :) 
> > >
> > > Cathy
> > >
> >
> > Actually, I knew that the moment I saw him, Cathy. But I forgot to
add my
> > ;-) (wink). Anyway, I'm still getting a good laugh out of it.
> >
> > :-)
>
> And that's how I'll end tonight.
> As long as someone has a laugh.
>
> ex-Grumps.

Oh, no! please Grumps don't put "x" like that. We won't know who you are
:-)

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 3:20:50 AM

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

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:C8Y7e.2334$Jg7.2178@fe03.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
> > "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:c3W7e.689$f6.676@fe04.lga...
> >
> >>Hannah wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Grumps" <grumpsnothere@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:3c84l5F6kvdqnU1@individual.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Hi All
> >>>>
> >>>>I've spent a while searching for a pocket-sized camera for the
wife.
> >>>
> >>>Mostly
> >>>
> >>>The wife. How awfully old fashioned, patronising and disrespectful.
> >
> > It
> >
> >>>really winds me up when people like you treat your better halves as
> >
> > mere
> >
> >>>possessions. Like "I've been searching for a zoom lens for the
> >
> > camera". "I
> >
> >>>need a radio for the car".
> >>>
> >>>Hannah.
> >>>And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect I
> >
> > deserve
> >
> >>>at home.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Enlighten us, oh PC one. How should he have phrased it? I want a
> >>camera for the 'old bag'? Perhaps; The slut I live with wants a
> >
> > camera?
> >
> >> Some people can find the strangest things to get upset over?
> >
> >
> > haha. I don't think you should say any of those things to your wife
Ron
> > or she might hit you :) .
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> Might? You don't know my wife. Or is it 'the wife' (only one I've
had
> for 37 years).

Hehe. so "THE" wife keeps you in line does she? Well, whether its "the"
wife or "my" wife, is a minor point. Congratulations on your 37 years
together. On the jpgs you directed me to before, I thought you and your
wife, look good together.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 16, 2005 3:50:41 AM

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

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message
news:a0g061tjn0epco09ejjkjnm4o2kg5ggn4c@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:24:33 +0100, Hannah or one of her sisters
> wrote:
>
> > And yes, I AM in a bad mood tonight, but by God I get the respect
> > I deserve at home.
>
> It's nice to know that the husb. . . (oops) that the partner gives
> you a sufficient allowance.
>

Oh dear, even less PC. Or should that be more politically incorrect?
As it happens, I'm the main breadwinner by far in our little household, not
through any shortcomings of "the" significant other, who earns a decent
salary, but thanks to my success as a photographer.

And yes, I should add my apologies to all for starting such a hot thread. I
dropped a big white lens onto concrete today. It's a goner, and that's
really annoyed me. I'll try to cheer up now.

H.
!