Ultra-Sharpen is on sale!

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

I don't know if any of your are interested but Ultra-Sharpen is on sale now
for $10. That is $5 less than the normal price. The sale ends on the 23rd. I
just picked up another copy for my laptop and thought I would pass this on.

http://www.ultrasharpen.com

John
53 answers Last reply
More about ultra sharpen sale
  1. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> writes:
    > I don't know if any of your are interested but Ultra-Sharpen is on
    > sale now for $10. That is $5 less than the normal price. The sale
    > ends on the 23rd. I just picked up another copy for my laptop and
    > thought I would pass this on.

    Sure!

    Folks: don't buy from spammers.
    --
    - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    ========================================================================
    When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
  2. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Exactly !

    Dave


    "Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
    news:q54qimj87o.fsf@viisi.ifi.uio.no...
    |
    | Sure!
    |
    | Folks: don't buy from spammers.
    | --
    | - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
    | ========================================================================
    | When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
  3. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:17:49 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
    wrote:

    >I don't know if any of your are interested but Ultra-Sharpen is on sale now
    >for $10. That is $5 less than the normal price. The sale ends on the 23rd. I
    >just picked up another copy for my laptop and thought I would pass this on.
    >
    >http://www.ultrasharpen.com
    >
    >John
    >
    >
    >

    Aren't you supposed to end this spam with "cheers?"
    Like all spammers seem to do?
    -Rich
  4. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    RichA wrote:


    >
    > Aren't you supposed to end this spam with "cheers?"
    > Like all spammers seem to do?

    Still on that one? I'm still chuckling.

    Cheers,
    Alan.


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

    RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:ci46s0tugmv4k3t3ln6qvr5936j3ghfvol@
    4ax.com:

    > Aren't you supposed to end this spam with "cheers?"
    > Like all spammers seem to do?

    Ouch! This must mean that this spammer is a fake spammer!


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

    Actually, yes, it is. Now you know, PLEASE don't do it again.

    Dave


    "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:liLwd.12980$_3.142994@typhoon.sonic.net...
    | I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
    | Hardly the moves of a spammer.
    |
    | John
  7. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    That is your opinion. I give as much weight to that as finding a telephone
    pole and playing sit and spin.

    John


    "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
    news:XELwd.124$_62.28@trnddc01...
    > Actually, yes, it is. Now you know, PLEASE don't do it again.
    >
    > Dave
    >
    >
    >
    > "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
    > news:liLwd.12980$_3.142994@typhoon.sonic.net...
    > | I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one
    > separately.
    > | Hardly the moves of a spammer.
    > |
    > | John
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    That's why you performed the spam in the first place !

    I have NEVER confronted a spammer who didn't think what they did wasn't spam. Those that
    are confrontable are in denial. Those that can't be confronted know they spam, do it
    anyway, and that's why they can't be confronted.

    Dave


    "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
    news:YlQwd.13049$_3.144739@typhoon.sonic.net...
    | That is your opinion. I give as much weight to that as finding a telephone
    | pole and playing sit and spin.
    |
    | John
  9. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    David H. Lipman wrote:

    > That's why you performed the spam in the first place !
    >
    > I have NEVER confronted a spammer who didn't think what they did wasn't spam. Those that
    > are confrontable are in denial. Those that can't be confronted know they spam, do it
    > anyway, and that's why they can't be confronted.


    You do have to give some leeway to people who simply, exuberantly endorse
    products that they believe to be exceptional.

    (I have no idea if the thread OP is a spammer or not, but it is high time for
    this thread to die ... lest ye give too much attention and victory to the "spam"
    if that's what it is ....)

    Cheers,
    Alan


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

    "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in
    news:liLwd.12980$_3.142994@typhoon.sonic.net:

    > I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one
    > separately. Hardly the moves of a spammer.
    >

    Telling in 4 newsgroup that something is on sale is SPAM.
    One might be a mistake, two or more is SPAM.
    It is quite obvious that your intention not was to SPAM,
    and that talks well of you. But the result was SPAM.

    It would be even better if you just admitted that you
    made a mistake. Now it starts to get just embarrising
    for you when you try to defend a lost cause.


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

    John Francis wrote:
    []
    >> You know that's been re-launched?
    >
    > That's a hypothesis.

    I was getting at the fact that the Pancake has resurfaced at all, not that
    it's an identical lens per se. It will be interesting to see what the
    differences between old and new are (apart from the price of course -
    bound to be more if it's "digital"!).

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

    In article <32jchbF3mlu4iU1@individual.net>,
    David J Taylor <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
    >John Francis wrote:
    >[]
    >>> You know that's been re-launched?
    >>
    >> That's a hypothesis.
    >
    >I was getting at the fact that the Pancake has resurfaced at all, not that
    >it's an identical lens per se. It will be interesting to see what the
    >differences between old and new are (apart from the price of course -
    >bound to be more if it's "digital"!).

    Well, the big change is the absence of an aperture ring - it's a DA lens,
    intended for use on cameras with body-mounted aperture controls.

    I'm not sure whether the image circle is large enough to cover 35mm,
    but I don't believe it is. That could mean it's a totally new design,
    or it could just mean that Pentax have decided not to try to use the
    weakest part of the old design (which got a bit soft in the corners).
  13. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    RichA wrote:

    >
    > Exactly how are they "discrete?"
    > -Rich

    Pancake lenses are very flat. A camera with one mounted hardly looks like a
    camera (compared to even an ordinary 50mm f/1.8). One can stalk their city
    scene without attracting much attention. A stock in trade for the street shooter.

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

    In article <0sc9s01mcqjsp3au7t5g87m78eop0pjf4r@4ax.com>,
    RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
    >
    >Exactly how are they "discrete?"
    >-Rich

    Have you ever seen two in the same place?
  15. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:50:33 -0500, Alan Browne
    <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

    >RichA wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Exactly how are they "discrete?"
    >> -Rich
    >
    >Pancake lenses are very flat. A camera with one mounted hardly looks like a
    >camera (compared to even an ordinary 50mm f/1.8). One can stalk their city
    >scene without attracting much attention. A stock in trade for the street shooter.
    >
    >Cheers,
    >Alan

    I guess that's what made rangefinders popular in some circles, that,
    and the fact they have no shutter sound and mirror slap to speak of.
    -Rich
  16. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    John Francis wrote:

    > In article <0sc9s01mcqjsp3au7t5g87m78eop0pjf4r@4ax.com>,
    > RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
    >
    >>Exactly how are they "discrete?"
    >>-Rich
    >
    >
    > Have you ever seen two in the same place?

    LOL!


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

    RichA wrote:


    > I guess that's what made rangefinders popular in some circles, that,
    > and the fact they have no shutter sound and mirror slap to speak of.

    Yep. I read about a White House photographer who stated that (when he worked
    there) only Leica's were allowed. Not because of optical greatness, but becasue
    of the lack of photographer intrusion. Esp. noise. (this doesn't apply to the
    press folks, but to the inside photog who follows the Pres and senior cabinet
    officials around.)

    (I took 4 rolls of a chamber orchestra a few years ago with my Maxxum 9. Most
    people didn't know that Mozart, Bach and Albinoni had "loud Maxxum Mirror slap"
    notations in the score.)

    Cheers,
    Alan.


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

    John Doe <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:

    > I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
    > Hardly the moves of a spammer.

    Had you crossposted, it wouldn't be spam. Posting to each one separately
    makes it spam.

    --
    Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
  19. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    "Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message news:10sbndg8ebo8g4e@corp.supernews.com...
    > John Doe <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:
    >
    > > I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
    > > Hardly the moves of a spammer.
    >
    > Had you crossposted, it wouldn't be spam. Posting to each one separately
    > makes it spam.

    Usenet cops are sometimes more annoying than the people they are policing. Think about it.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:26:25 GMT, "Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote:

    >
    >"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message news:10sbndg8ebo8g4e@corp.supernews.com...
    >> John Doe <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:
    >>
    >> > I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
    >> > Hardly the moves of a spammer.
    >>
    >> Had you crossposted, it wouldn't be spam. Posting to each one separately
    >> makes it spam.
    >
    >Usenet cops are sometimes more annoying than the people they are policing. Think about it.
    >

    See if you think that when the invitations to go to XXX webcam sites
    start permiating this group.
    -Rich
  21. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Ken wrote:

    > Usenet cops are sometimes more annoying than the people they are policing.
    > Think about it.

    Sometimes annoying, but the results are useful. People do get plonked, scorned
    and ignored. So, usenet copping in moderation does have its positive, if
    annoying effects, that benefit the group.

    Cheers,
    Alan


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

    In article <EhLwd.12979$_3.143051@typhoon.sonic.net>, john_doe@nospam.com
    says...
    > Other than being a customer, no. I don't often find many products that I
    > love US is one of them. So when they had a sale I posted.
    >
    > John

    I don't suppose the "John Doe" has anything with them not believing
    you?
  23. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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

    In article <cq4803$1am$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca
    says...
    > RichA wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Exactly how are they "discrete?"
    > > -Rich
    >
    > Pancake lenses are very flat. A camera with one mounted hardly looks like a
    > camera (compared to even an ordinary 50mm f/1.8). One can stalk their city
    > scene without attracting much attention. A stock in trade for the street shooter.

    Yeah, I can imagine a Nikon F5, or a D2X with a pancake lens would look
    very discrete. :-)
  25. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Randy Howard wrote:

    > Yeah, I can imagine a Nikon F5, or a D2X with a pancake lens would look
    > very discrete. :-)

    Of couse not, but an FM-2 or D70 would be.


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

    In article <cq4ni3$fhc$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca
    says...
    > (I took 4 rolls of a chamber orchestra a few years ago with my Maxxum 9. Most
    > people didn't know that Mozart, Bach and Albinoni had "loud Maxxum Mirror slap"
    > notations in the score.)

    I suspect the musicians were very happy that you destroyed their performance.
    *sigh*
  27. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Randy Howard wrote:

    > In article <cq4ni3$fhc$1@inews.gazeta.pl>, alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca
    > says...
    >
    >>(I took 4 rolls of a chamber orchestra a few years ago with my Maxxum 9. Most
    >>people didn't know that Mozart, Bach and Albinoni had "loud Maxxum Mirror slap"
    >>notations in the score.)
    >
    >
    > I suspect the musicians were very happy that you destroyed their performance.
    > *sigh*

    Get your humor module tuned.


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

    "RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message news:c0rbs05tfm573na4htdqc7rohnucgu58ng@4ax.com...
    > On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:26:25 GMT, "Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote:

    > See if you think that when the invitations to go to XXX webcam sites
    > start permiating this group.
    > -Rich

    Rich, I am all for keeping the groups free of legitimate spam but I never understood
    the need to jump all over someone who was simply passing along information on a
    product that was not only topical to the group but conceivably useful to someone
    here who needs to perform image enhancements of this type. Hardcore Usenet
    junkies know the difference between cross-posting and multi-posting but I don't
    expect everyone to know the difference or even why it is important. In the 10 years
    I have been on Usenet I have never once seen a legitimate spammer reply to someone
    who is flaming him for posting spam but I have seen many people who wanted
    to be useful contributors burned at the stake for making a minor mistake. The way
    I reckon it, you guys can afford to cut the poor dumb schmuck a little slack.

    CHEERS,

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

    On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:22:12 GMT, "Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote:

    >
    >"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message news:c0rbs05tfm573na4htdqc7rohnucgu58ng@4ax.com...
    >> On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 20:26:25 GMT, "Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote:
    >
    >> See if you think that when the invitations to go to XXX webcam sites
    >> start permiating this group.
    >> -Rich
    >
    >Rich, I am all for keeping the groups free of legitimate spam but I never understood
    >the need to jump all over someone who was simply passing along information on a
    >product that was not only topical to the group but conceivably useful to someone
    >here who needs to perform image enhancements of this type. Hardcore Usenet
    >junkies know the difference between cross-posting and multi-posting but I don't
    >expect everyone to know the difference or even why it is important. In the 10 years
    >I have been on Usenet I have never once seen a legitimate spammer reply to someone
    >who is flaming him for posting spam but I have seen many people who wanted
    >to be useful contributors burned at the stake for making a minor mistake. The way
    >I reckon it, you guys can afford to cut the poor dumb schmuck a little slack.
    >
    >CHEERS,
    >
    >Ken
    >

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

    Dumb schmuck... You mean like...

    Poppa...poppa their is a dead squirrel on the highaway, does that mean we
    get steak for dinner poppa? 8^)

    John


    "Ken" <ken@ken.ken> wrote in message
    news:oanxd.971$wZ2.374@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
    > Rich, I am all for keeping the groups free of legitimate spam but I never
    > understood
    > the need to jump all over someone who was simply passing along information
    > on a
    > product that was not only topical to the group but conceivably useful to
    > someone
    > here who needs to perform image enhancements of this type. Hardcore Usenet
    > junkies know the difference between cross-posting and multi-posting but I
    > don't
    > expect everyone to know the difference or even why it is important. In the
    > 10 years
    > I have been on Usenet I have never once seen a legitimate spammer reply to
    > someone
    > who is flaming him for posting spam but I have seen many people who wanted
    > to be useful contributors burned at the stake for making a minor mistake.
    > The way
    > I reckon it, you guys can afford to cut the poor dumb schmuck a little
    > slack.
    >
    > CHEERS,
    >
    > Ken
    >
    >
  31. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Randy Howard <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in
    news:MPG.1c2fb89d5d85df27989d3a@news.verizon.net:

    > Yeah, I can imagine a Nikon F5, or a D2X with a pancake lens would look
    > very discrete. :-)

    It would look stupid. Like using roller skate wheels on your car.


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

    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.

    John


    "Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1c2fb7897453e9b6989d38@news.verizon.net...
    > In article <EhLwd.12979$_3.143051@typhoon.sonic.net>, john_doe@nospam.com
    > says...
    >> Other than being a customer, no. I don't often find many products that I
    >> love US is one of them. So when they had a sale I posted.
    >>
    >> John
    >
    > I don't suppose the "John Doe" has anything with them not believing
    > you?
    >
  33. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    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.

    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.

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

    Alan Browne <alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
    news:cq52qt$8e6$1@inews.gazeta.pl:

    >> Usenet cops are sometimes more annoying than the people they are
    >> policing. Think about it.
    >
    > Sometimes annoying, but the results are useful. People do get
    > plonked, scorned and ignored. So, usenet copping in moderation does
    > have its positive, if annoying effects, that benefit the group.
    >

    Entirely correct.

    But those I find totally useless are USENET cop cops.
    Why they bother I don't know. An argument from the orignal
    poster I can take and even appreciate. But someone that just
    comes in from nowhere and jumps at someone that says that
    ads are not allowed is just ... ehem ... strange.


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

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

    > 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 correct according to netiquette.
    What the charter says I don't know. If you have something
    to say you are supposed to say it in one group. Rules
    can always be broken of course, if there are good reasons.
    In rpd we have made things somewhat more complex by having
    rpd and rpd.slr-systems, two groups that overlap heavily.
    Currently I read both and I post in one of them, hoping
    that the other readers also read both.

    > I think people need to decide on one way to do
    > something and stick with it.

    People do not really decide. It is not up to us here and
    decide what is allowed or not. There are charters for USENET
    and groups and there are netiquette advices. The ways on
    USENET do change, but slowly. There are no one here that
    manages the group - there are no referees or owners or
    anything. USENET works without supervision. Therefore are
    rules a good help. Kindly informing when someone is not
    conforming to the rules is a good thing. Even harsh words
    when he insists might be called for.

    Sometimes, as always, breaking the rules is the best thing.
    But mostly it is not. And it is always good to know the rules.

    > 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 have not called you an ass and I have not called you a jerk.
    So, it would be nice if you did not call me so.

    And yes - I really do believe you tried to do something nice,
    and I have already written so. But sometimes when trying to
    do right - you do wrong, and you did. Time to accept that
    knowledge and go on.


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

    "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns95C5DF0767EC0klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    SNIP
    > Cross posting is not correct according to netiquette.

    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...

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

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

    > 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...

    Here is the mother of all netiquette guidelines

    http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1855.html

    It says that cross-posting may be done - if you have a good
    reason and also tell in the subject that you cross-post.

    Now - lots of people use a rule for crossposting in their
    SPAM-filters. So - you will miss those in your post.


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

    If your supposed to say it in one group then there should only be one group.
    When someone has something to say, be it a question or product
    recommendation that is on topic with the groups in question then one should
    post to all pertinent groups. The fact remains that not everyone reads all
    of the groups.

    There are two groups on Photoshop, not everyone reads both of them. There
    are now two groups for this one, so either we need one digital photography
    group or people need to pull their heads out of their asses and get used to
    people posting the same thing to several groups.

    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.

    John


    "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
    news:Xns95C5DF0767EC0klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    > "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in
    > news:_lGxd.13421$_3.151956@typhoon.sonic.net:
    >
    >> 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 correct according to netiquette.
    > What the charter says I don't know. If you have something
    > to say you are supposed to say it in one group. Rules
    > can always be broken of course, if there are good reasons.
    > In rpd we have made things somewhat more complex by having
    > rpd and rpd.slr-systems, two groups that overlap heavily.
    > Currently I read both and I post in one of them, hoping
    > that the other readers also read both.
    >
    >> I think people need to decide on one way to do
    >> something and stick with it.
    >
    > People do not really decide. It is not up to us here and
    > decide what is allowed or not. There are charters for USENET
    > and groups and there are netiquette advices. The ways on
    > USENET do change, but slowly. There are no one here that
    > manages the group - there are no referees or owners or
    > anything. USENET works without supervision. Therefore are
    > rules a good help. Kindly informing when someone is not
    > conforming to the rules is a good thing. Even harsh words
    > when he insists might be called for.
    >
    > Sometimes, as always, breaking the rules is the best thing.
    > But mostly it is not. And it is always good to know the rules.
    >
    >> 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 have not called you an ass and I have not called you a jerk.
    > So, it would be nice if you did not call me so.
    >
    > And yes - I really do believe you tried to do something nice,
    > and I have already written so. But sometimes when trying to
    > do right - you do wrong, and you did. Time to accept that
    > knowledge and go on.
    >
    >
    > /Roland
  39. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

    Thank you, I will make a note of that and try to do that in the future. This
    actually makes sense.

    John


    "Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
    news:41c73ede$0$142$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
    >
    > "Roland Karlsson" <roland_dot_karlsson@bonetmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:Xns95C5DF0767EC0klotjohan@130.133.1.4...
    > SNIP
    >> Cross posting is not correct according to netiquette.
    >
    > 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...
    >
    > Bart
  40. 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
  41. 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.
  42. 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
  43. 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
  44. 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
  45. 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.
  46. 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
  47. 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>
  48. 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!
  49. 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
Ask a new question

Read More

SLR Photo Cameras