«

Alan Browne wrote:
> On 10-02-26 18:04 , Paul Furman wrote:
>> Henry Olson wrote:
>>> Diffraction
>>> size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
>>> focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much
>>> diffraction
>>> as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor.
>>
>> I won't even ask what this was supposed mean 'cause it's nonsense. If
>> anything vaguely the opposite of reality but too jumbled to make sense
>> of.
>
> Don't you realize that ending a sentence with a preposition makes his
> whole argument right?

<SMACK!>

:-)

"Henry Olson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:57:00 -0600, "MikeWhy" <boat042-(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>"Henry Olson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:29:00 -0600, "MikeWhy" <boat042-(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is
>>>>thus
>>>>diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
>>>>wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
>>>>aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can
>>>>resolve
>>>>no
>>>>more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades
>>>>to
>>>>about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide web
>>>>image.
>>>>
>>>>How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
>>>>aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For
>>>>APS-C,
>>>>such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a Canon
>>>>5D
>>>>Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and 5D2
>>>>are,
>>>>respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.
>>>
>>> How does it compare? It compares to prove that you're a moron.
>>> Diffraction
>>> size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
>>> focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much
>>> diffraction
>>> as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor. What's even more
>>> interesting
>>> is that smaller lenses can be figured to diffraction-limited quality,
>>> the best there is, much more easily and inexpensively than for larger
>>> lenses.
>>
>>Fine. Say the cheap lens really can resolve 413 lines/mm wide open. It
>>doesn't, but who can tell? The system is diffraction limited at f/3.9.
>>Wide
>>open aperture at longest focal length is f/5.6. It can resolve as little
>>as
>>290 lines/mm and no one would know the difference. At that point, that 10
>>MP
>>sensor is resolving no more than 4.8 MP of detail.
>>
>>> There is not one DSLR lens in existence that can claim true "diffraction
>>> limited quality" because they aren't figured that precisely. If they
>>> could,
>>> then they would be sharpest at full aperture, none of them are.
>>
>>*Very few* are, which is still more than none. The Canon 300mm f/2.8L is
>>one
>>such lens. There are others. The fact of the matter is, it's sharper than
>>my
>>sensor can discern. That's the difference between your tiny lens and the
>>big
>>lens. The big lens goes in front of a large sensor that can make use of
>>the
>>detail and sharpness. The pixels are too large to resolve the diffraction
>>rings, and so it's happy and I'm happy. The tiny lens sits in front of a
>>tiny sensor with tiny pixels, which do resolve the diffraction rings.
>>Magnifying the details enough to see them also magnifies the airy disks
>>into
>>visible airy blobs. Blobby details; sad face.
>>
>>> The
>>> converse is not true when using smaller lenses on smaller sensor. Many
>>> of
>>> them are sharpest at widest aperture. The only thing that limits their
>>> sharpness is diffraction at smaller apertures, this is what "diffraction
>>> limited" means.
>>
>>A minor correction: "Diffraction limited" applies to the system -- image,
>>lens, and sensor -- not just the lens.
>
> No, diffraction-limited applies to the optics only. Your whole system
> applies to the principle of "the weakest link". Changing the photosite
> size
> does not change the diffraction. It only shows that you're trying to
> measure 1 centimeter with either a 2cm rule with only 1 tic-mark on it or
> a
> 2cm rule with 4 tic-marks on it. Your only available unit of measure has
> no
> effect on the diffraction coming from the optics. And it has absolutely
> nothing to do at all with the image itself. The same rules will apply no
> matter what you are trying to image. From stars to a building, they will
> all be affected by the diffraction the same. Just because you can't see it
> in one or the other doesn't mean it isn't there the same in both images.
>
>>
>>> Diffraction which doesn't even border more than 2
>>> photosites at smallest apertures due to the shorter focal-lengths
>>> required.
>>
>>Focal length is already part of the f/N number, by definition. Unless you
>>have a different number to share, I'll hold with my calculation of f/3.9.
>>
>>> But you go ahead, keep believing what you believe, That's what you get
>>> for
>>> obtaining your education from trolls' posts like your own.
>>
>>I do my own thinking. You should do the same. From my point of view,
>>you're
>>too smug in your belief to see that which you already know. You're saying
>>the exact same things I'm saying, and still refuse to accept the truth of
>>their meaning. Tiny sucks, not because tiny of itself is bad, but because
>>tiny has to be magnified to be useful. Magnifying the good also magnifies
>>the bad. Because of that magnification, diffraction becomes a problem for
>>tiny pixels well before it becomes a problem for bigger pixels. (The same
>>could be said of gain noise, but who wants to trawl that old song?)
>
> No, we're not saying the same things. And "tiny" does not mean poor
> optics.
> Tell that to my diffraction-limited quality plan-apochromatic 100x
> oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective; which delivers nice
> images even when pushed to 1200x. According to your rudimentary way of
> thinking about diffraction I should see nothing but diffraction through
> that objective lens. Educate yourself. The free tutor you're getting on
> the
> internet doesn't seem to be working in your favor. You have to at least
> know enough to know what resources on the net are misinformation
> fabrications or genuine information.

The minute they start using your apo 100x lens in a P&S, or you use the P&S
lens on your microscope, I'll acknowledge the relevance. Until then, let's
just figure that the Hubble isn't gratuitously big for big's sake, and that
its f/24 optics had some influence on the sensor array's 15 micron pixels.
OTOH, if small is good, smaller would be even better, and Hubble's optics
and 16k pixels would fit in a thimble, but only for convenience's sake so we
could find it if we should drop it.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 00:23:11 -0600, "MikeWhy" <boat042-(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>"Henry Olson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 03:57:00 -0600, "MikeWhy" <boat042-(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Henry Olson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:29:00 -0600, "MikeWhy" <boat042-(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>The new Fuji has a pixel pitch of 2.4 microns, or 413 lines/mm. It is
>>>>>thus
>>>>>diffraction limited at f/3.9. The Fuji is already diffraction limited at
>>>>>wide open aperture over much of its zoom range. At f/5.6, the wide open
>>>>>aperture at the long end of its zoom range, its 1/2.3" sensor can
>>>>>resolve
>>>>>no
>>>>>more than 4.8 MP. By f/16, the diffraction limited resolution degrades
>>>>>to
>>>>>about 100 lines/mm, a little less than 0.6 MP, roughly a 1024px wide web
>>>>>image.
>>>>>
>>>>>How does this compare to DSLRs? Again, below the diffraction limited
>>>>>aperture, resolution is limited by sensor size, not pixel pitch. For
>>>>>APS-C,
>>>>>such as a Canon 7D, 3.3 MP at f/16. For full frame 135, such as a Canon
>>>>>5D
>>>>>Mk2, 8.6 MP at f/16. Diffraction limited aperture for the 7D and 5D2
>>>>>are,
>>>>>respectively, f/6.9 and f/10.3.
>>>>
>>>> How does it compare? It compares to prove that you're a moron.
>>>> Diffraction
>>>> size is more revealed by and proportional to distance. The smaller
>>>> focal-lengths required on smaller sensors don't reveal as much
>>>> diffraction
>>>> as a longer focal-length on a larger sensor. What's even more
>>>> interesting
>>>> is that smaller lenses can be figured to diffraction-limited quality,
>>>> the best there is, much more easily and inexpensively than for larger
>>>> lenses.
>>>
>>>Fine. Say the cheap lens really can resolve 413 lines/mm wide open. It
>>>doesn't, but who can tell? The system is diffraction limited at f/3.9.
>>>Wide
>>>open aperture at longest focal length is f/5.6. It can resolve as little
>>>as
>>>290 lines/mm and no one would know the difference. At that point, that 10
>>>MP
>>>sensor is resolving no more than 4.8 MP of detail.
>>>
>>>> There is not one DSLR lens in existence that can claim true "diffraction
>>>> limited quality" because they aren't figured that precisely. If they
>>>> could,
>>>> then they would be sharpest at full aperture, none of them are.
>>>
>>>*Very few* are, which is still more than none. The Canon 300mm f/2.8L is
>>>one
>>>such lens. There are others. The fact of the matter is, it's sharper than
>>>my
>>>sensor can discern. That's the difference between your tiny lens and the
>>>big
>>>lens. The big lens goes in front of a large sensor that can make use of
>>>the
>>>detail and sharpness. The pixels are too large to resolve the diffraction
>>>rings, and so it's happy and I'm happy. The tiny lens sits in front of a
>>>tiny sensor with tiny pixels, which do resolve the diffraction rings.
>>>Magnifying the details enough to see them also magnifies the airy disks
>>>into
>>>visible airy blobs. Blobby details; sad face.
>>>
>>>> The
>>>> converse is not true when using smaller lenses on smaller sensor. Many
>>>> of
>>>> them are sharpest at widest aperture. The only thing that limits their
>>>> sharpness is diffraction at smaller apertures, this is what "diffraction
>>>> limited" means.
>>>
>>>A minor correction: "Diffraction limited" applies to the system -- image,
>>>lens, and sensor -- not just the lens.
>>
>> No, diffraction-limited applies to the optics only. Your whole system
>> applies to the principle of "the weakest link". Changing the photosite
>> size
>> does not change the diffraction. It only shows that you're trying to
>> measure 1 centimeter with either a 2cm rule with only 1 tic-mark on it or
>> a
>> 2cm rule with 4 tic-marks on it. Your only available unit of measure has
>> no
>> effect on the diffraction coming from the optics. And it has absolutely
>> nothing to do at all with the image itself. The same rules will apply no
>> matter what you are trying to image. From stars to a building, they will
>> all be affected by the diffraction the same. Just because you can't see it
>> in one or the other doesn't mean it isn't there the same in both images.
>>
>>>
>>>> Diffraction which doesn't even border more than 2
>>>> photosites at smallest apertures due to the shorter focal-lengths
>>>> required.
>>>
>>>Focal length is already part of the f/N number, by definition. Unless you
>>>have a different number to share, I'll hold with my calculation of f/3.9.
>>>
>>>> But you go ahead, keep believing what you believe, That's what you get
>>>> for
>>>> obtaining your education from trolls' posts like your own.
>>>
>>>I do my own thinking. You should do the same. From my point of view,
>>>you're
>>>too smug in your belief to see that which you already know. You're saying
>>>the exact same things I'm saying, and still refuse to accept the truth of
>>>their meaning. Tiny sucks, not because tiny of itself is bad, but because
>>>tiny has to be magnified to be useful. Magnifying the good also magnifies
>>>the bad. Because of that magnification, diffraction becomes a problem for
>>>tiny pixels well before it becomes a problem for bigger pixels. (The same
>>>could be said of gain noise, but who wants to trawl that old song?)
>>
>> No, we're not saying the same things. And "tiny" does not mean poor
>> optics.
>> Tell that to my diffraction-limited quality plan-apochromatic 100x
>> oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective; which delivers nice
>> images even when pushed to 1200x. According to your rudimentary way of
>> thinking about diffraction I should see nothing but diffraction through
>> that objective lens. Educate yourself. The free tutor you're getting on
>> the
>> internet doesn't seem to be working in your favor. You have to at least
>> know enough to know what resources on the net are misinformation
>> fabrications or genuine information.
>
>The minute they start using your apo 100x lens in a P&S, or you use the P&S
>lens on your microscope, I'll acknowledge the relevance. Until then, let's
>just figure that the Hubble isn't gratuitously big for big's sake, and that
>its f/24 optics had some influence on the sensor array's 15 micron pixels.
>OTOH, if small is good, smaller would be even better, and Hubble's optics
>and 16k pixels would fit in a thimble, but only for convenience's sake so we
>could find it if we should drop it.

You're a moron.

"Bill W D" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The ONLY reason diffraction is less visible at larger apertures (in
> diffraction limited glass) is that the greater amount of light devoted to
> the center of the airy-disk (the real information) overwhelms the dimmer
> amount of light dispersed into the diffraction. That diffraction dispersal
> width and intensity which never changes. Smaller apertures don't CAUSE
> more
> diffraction, they only allow it to become more visible because there is
> less light to focus into the center of the airy-disk. It is the exact same
> width of dispersion no matter how large or small the aperture if the
> distance is retained.

I'll tell you what. I'll go dig out my college physics texts and review
them. Then I'll come back and we'll have this discussion. In the meantime,
none of the above changes anything, and none of it differs from naive
observation and measurement. When I make the hole smaller beyond a certain
point, and I do know with good precision where that point is, the image gets
progressively softer. Endless examples on the web with EXIF, and controlled
ISO lens chart shots confirm those numbers. I don't have to be an organic
chemist to light my Coleman stove. It lights just the same, and while it
illuminates my world, it seems to only darken yours.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:59:35 -0000, "Pete"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>MikeWhy wrote:
>> "Henry Olson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> ...
>>> No, we're not saying the same things. And "tiny" does not mean poor
>>> optics.
>>> Tell that to my diffraction-limited quality plan-apochromatic 100x
>>> oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective; which delivers nice
>>> images even when pushed to 1200x. According to your rudimentary way of
>>> thinking about diffraction I should see nothing but diffraction through
>>> that objective lens. Educate yourself. The free tutor you're getting on
>>> the
>>> internet doesn't seem to be working in your favor. You have to at least
>>> know enough to know what resources on the net are misinformation
>>> fabrications or genuine information.
>>
>> The minute they start using your apo 100x lens in a P&S, or you use the
>> P&S lens on your microscope, I'll acknowledge the relevance. Until then,
>> let's just figure that the Hubble isn't gratuitously big for big's sake,
>> and that its f/24 optics had some influence on the sensor array's 15
>> micron pixels. OTOH, if small is good, smaller would be even better, and
>> Hubble's optics and 16k pixels would fit in a thimble, but only for
>> convenience's sake so we could find it if we should drop it.
>
>An oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective will get more
>resolution at the expense of image accuracy, as explained here:
>http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials...tialvariation/
>
>That would be useful for a P&S, not.
>

By referencing a principle distantly related to phase contrast microscopy
and then babbling nonsense about it? You're right, that's not helpful at
all to anything being discussed. But you go right ahead and juggle your
red-herrings. If you can't dazzle them with brilliance try to baffle
everyone with random-website bullshit, right?

The point being made that small optics are not automatically "bad" just
because they are small nor are they prone to more diffraction. The shorter
focal-lengths being used for smaller sensors lessens any problems from
diffraction faced by lenses with longer focal-lengths on larger sensors.
Large optics are often bad just because they are large, due to the extra
expense needed to figure them accurately enough to provide an image with
the resolution needed for small photosites. None of which, in consumer
grade glass, will ever reach diffraction-limited quality. Add in the longer
focal-lengths required which spread the diffraction artifacts even wider
and you're back at square one. The opposite is true of smaller lenses where
they are easy to figure to diffraction-limited figures. Case in point being
my plan-apo microscope objective lens, its aperture being measured in under
5 millimeters diameter.


>Hubble? Obviously designed on the back of a cigarette packet and at the last
>minute some kind company donated a 15 micron pitch sensor. The f/24 optical
>path is just a coincidence :-)
>
>Pete
>

How much did it cost them to get the Hubble Telescope mirror
diffraction-limited? $450,000,000. When it costs that much in time and
manpower to create just ONE diffraction-limited curve on a 2.4 meter
diameter surface, then come and talk to me how that would be proportionally
priced to your multi-component lenses if all lens surfaces in them were
made to diffraction-limited curves. All your speculative measurements are
for naught if your lenses are not diffraction-limited. The best you can
hope for is trying to find what photosite-pitch will match the blur from
your badly figured lens surfaces. No diffraction problems are even involved
or worth considering. If your resolution becomes less at widest apertures
this automatically dictates that your lenses are not of diffraction-limited
quality anyway. Everything after that is just your mental-masturbation over
what could be possible if you had decent glass in your theoretical world.
Diffraction is not your problem.

I'm starting to understand now that you're a moron too. Pity. In one post
about a week ago you actually said something intelligent. Nothing since
then though. A one hit wonder, just a lucky string of words on your part. I
won't bother waiting and watching for that to ever happen again.

Henry Olson wrote:
> No, we're not saying the same things. And "tiny" does not mean poor optics.
> Tell that to my diffraction-limited quality plan-apochromatic 100x
> oil-immersion phase-contrast microscope objective; which delivers nice
> images even when pushed to 1200x.

The smallest feature that visible light can reveal is about half a
micron because lightwaves have width. Enlarge that 1000x as you suggest
onto a 2.5 micron pixel as we are discussing and that feature is going
to reach across about 200 pixels, eating up about 5,000 pixels worth of
sensor space. Not that this has any relevance to vaguely normal
photography but...

The only 1200x microscope objectives out there are toys, because it
doesn't work.

An f2.8 lens used at 20X has an effective aperture of about f/58. You
need a larger format camera to make use of that. Small sensors are
generally better for microscope objectives because of the smaller image
circles but by the time you reach 100x, you need big pixels to work
efficiently:
http://www.microscopyu.com/tutorials...tor/index.html

Microscope objectives are faster than photographic camera lenses, you
mostly need very small pixels to resolve all the objectives offer, and
you need a bare sensor, not a super-zoom on the back of the scope. There
are some old macro lenses for film but they were designed for 35mm up to
4x5 format so not as sharp on an AP-S sensor or 4/3 and really would do
best on MF.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:35:32 -0500, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 10-02-26 18:39 , Henry Olson wrote:
>
>> "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves
>> up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
>
>"It is a good thing for the uneducated man to read books of quotations."
>- Winston Churchill.

OOoo... looky! There's someone who doesn't even know what oxymoronic means!
They are an oxymoron themselves! That's even worse than being a moron.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:02:26 -0500, Alan Browne
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 10-02-27 16:24 , Ted Banks wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:35:32 -0500, Alan Browne
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10-02-26 18:39 , Henry Olson wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves
>>>> up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill
>>>
>>> "It is a good thing for the uneducated man to read books of quotations."
>>> - Winston Churchill.
>>
>> OOoo... looky! There's someone who doesn't even know what oxymoronic means!
>> They are an oxymoron themselves! That's even worse than being a moron.
>
>I don't need a book of quotations to call these up.
>
>You so obviously do.

Prove it.

FWIW, I never have read a book of quotations. I never allow anyone else to
define which thoughts or words from another that I should read or listen
to. That's like listening to the weatherman instead of learning meteorology
myself and opening the door to see what's really going on.

Nor do I ever take the advice of someone who says, "Don't listen to that
person!" In fact it makes me curious why someone would be so afraid and
insecure of that person's thoughts to cause them to say that. It makes me
want to hear from the person they don't want anyone to listen to even more.
I summed it up in a quotable of, "When you tell me your opinions of other
people it tells me nothing about them, but it does tell me tomes about
you."

I've gleaned my favorite thought-snippets from all manner of places. As
well as a few of my own that are just as quotable. Like this one, "'Why',
is the difference between men and philosophers." Or this one, "The size of
your weapons doesn't show the heights of your strengths, it only reveals
the depths of your fears and insecurities."

The "Men occasionally ..." quotable was picked out of a magazine article
once. Or how about this worthy thought from an African tribal member who
told me, "A rich man shames himself, a poor man shames us all," when we
were conversing about capitalism vs. tribal societies.

Or perhaps this one I gleaned from somewhere else once, "You can't blow
dust away without making a lot of fools cough."

Or maybe this one from a book written by Henry David Thoreau, "What does
education often do? It makes a straight-cut ditch of a free, meandering
brook."

Or perhaps this one, yet again obtained from somewhere else and remembered,
"The poet, the artist, the sleuth--whoever sharpens our perception tends to
be antisocial. He cannot go along with currents and trends." by Alfred
North Whitehead

Here's another favorite that I don't even recall where I first saw it or
heard it, "Innovators and creative geniuses cannot be reared in schools.
They are precisely the men who defy what the school has taught them."

Another favorite, "To lie beside a stream, beneath a tree on a warm
summer's day, listening to the water and watching the clouds float by is
NEVER a waste of time." by J. Lubbock. Nicely printed up on a placard and
affixed to a wall in my present home.

Or this nice thought from Japan's Buddhists, "Just because the message may
never be received does not mean it is not worth sending."

Or this silly and fun memorable string of words that I told to a friend
once, "If I can do it, you can do it. If you can do it, he can do it. If he
can do it, we can do it. If we can do it, they can do it. And if they can
do it, everybody can do it! And if everybody can do it ... why bother?"

Can you only remember one quote that you read from a newsgroup because you
have no real-life experiences from any other resources, nor can even think
for yourself? I could go on for hours typing worthwhile thoughts that I
received from others, as well as many of my own, without any reference to
what they were or were not printed on or in.

I recall one very memorable discussion on a beach once with a very old
Royal Hawaiian who only spoke very simple broken-english. Both of us using
pantomime often when there was a loss of words. He'd have been a killer
partner at any party's charade game. He agreed to teach me some palm-frond
weavings (which is what caused me to approach him in the first place,
noticing his deft handiwork from a distance as I was hiking past). One of
the interesting aspects of our conversation was that the weaving patterns
he was teaching me had never been written down in any books. Nor, as far as
I know, are they documented anywhere in print or photo to this very day.
There's a reason for that, which I respected. I could make web-pages full
of these designs with photos and directions, but I don't, out of respect.
This too was part of the lessons.

My payment for these lessons was to now teach others in person so the
knowledge of those historical weaving patterns would never be lost. Every
time I am near a certain type of palm tree (only one type of palm works for
these patterns, due to its unique rib-structure) I will also try to find
anyone who would like to learn these unique toys, ceremonial patterns, and
small cooking vessels. My payment for the amazing lesson I was awarded by
that wise and kind man. The two different (small and large serving size)
self-expanding rice-cooker patterns the most unique, used for luau cooking
methods. Each person getting their own self-compacted rice-cake, complete
with a long leaf handle to safely remove it from the hot steam-pit when
placing each on a persons' plate. I found the mechanics of those the most
interesting. How they had enough give to expand but also compress the rice
into a cake as it cooked. Ingenious to say the least. As well as the
bird-of-paradise decorative pattern that when suspended from the left-over
leaf-rib, as if on the end of a long fishing-pole with an almost invisible
suspension line, it will bob and weave always facing into the wind. If
you've ever spotted one stuck into the nook of a tree in some
out-of-the-way place it might have been myself that wove that one. I have
left a trail of them around the world whenever the raw materials were
available. Weaving them as I hike. If I can't teach someone directly (as
was my lesson-price agreement), then perhaps a lucky finder will be aware
enough to understand its complex folding method and learn by unfolding one.
I've seen similar patterns at tacky tourist shops, but they are bulky and
awkward looking as if some kindergartner's exercise. Nothing at all like
this complex and delicate bird pattern that tries to float on the slightest
breeze with its swept-back wings and feathered wing edges.

An anecdote (and a fun thing for myself to clearly recall again) to make
the point that in some societies books and words aren't even necessary to
pass on important thoughts and wisdoms. But they will never be forgotten as
long as the message conveyed is worth passing on, by those who can
comprehend the value of them.

You happen to choose the only quotable possible that proves you to be
nothing but an oxymoron. A fine choice to display to the world--for you.

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:34:32 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
wrote:

>
>The only 1200x microscope objectives out there are toys, because it
>doesn't work.

Tell that to Leica who sold this few ounces of metal and glass to me for
over $700. I didn't say it was rated to be used at 1200x, I said it still
affords really nice images even when pushed to 1200x.

Can't you even read you ****in' moron?

Ted Banks wrote:
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Ted Banks wrote:
>>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> Henry Olson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick
>>>>> themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -
>>>>> Winston Churchill
>>>>
>>>> "It is a good thing for the uneducated man to read books of
>>>> quotations."
>>>> - Winston Churchill.
>>>
>>> OOoo... looky! There's someone who doesn't even know what oxymoronic
>>> means! They are an oxymoron themselves! That's even worse than being a
>>> moron.
>>
>> I don't need a book of quotations to call these up.
>>
>> You so obviously do.
>
> Prove it.

[snip]

> You happen to choose the only quotable possible that proves you to be
> nothing but an oxymoron. A fine choice to display to the world--for you.

What is the oxymoron you're referring to?