Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Ultra-Sharpen is on sale!

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
December 16, 2004 11:17:49 PM

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

More about : ultra sharpen sale

Anonymous
December 17, 2004 12:31:39 AM

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?
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 1:35:39 AM

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?
Related resources
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 3:08:19 PM

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
Anonymous
December 17, 2004 8:28:20 PM

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
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 4:24:07 AM

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
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 9:45:12 AM

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
>
>
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 4:18:52 PM

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
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 4:23:37 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 7:02:36 PM

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
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 9:51:23 PM

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
Anonymous
December 18, 2004 9:51:24 PM

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).
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 1:50:33 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 5:19:41 PM

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?
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 5:20:44 PM

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
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 6:12:38 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 6:16:06 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 10:59:44 PM

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
December 19, 2004 11:26:25 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 11:26:26 PM

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
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 11:26:26 PM

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.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:07:15 AM

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?
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:10:15 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:11:47 AM

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. :-)
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:11:48 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:12:52 AM

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*
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 1:12:53 AM

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.
December 20, 2004 1:22:12 AM

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
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 3:07:59 AM

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
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 11:07:56 PM

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:o anxd.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
>
>
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 11:09:24 PM

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
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 11:09:33 PM

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?
>
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 11:11:38 PM

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.
>
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 11:14:34 PM

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
Anonymous
December 20, 2004 11:55:28 PM

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
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 1:06:38 AM

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
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 1:34:58 AM

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
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 3:54:19 AM

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
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 3:54:56 AM

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
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 9:00:39 AM

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
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 9:03:40 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:11:27 PM

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
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:49:18 PM

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
Anonymous
December 21, 2004 10:49:19 PM

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
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 6:28:01 AM

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.
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 5:58:14 PM

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

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:o w_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
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 5:58:15 PM

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>
December 22, 2004 5:58:16 PM

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!
Anonymous
December 22, 2004 5:58:17 PM

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
!