Dpreview review of Nikon's 70-200mm telephoto

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by RichA, May 2, 2008.

  1. RichA

    frederick Guest

    WTF are you on about? I guess your ignorant top-posting indicated that
    you'd probably not have heard of Godwin's Law, but I didn't realise you
    were so dumb that you couldn't use Google - or another search engine -
    when needed.
    BTW, there's only one race - the human race. If gene therapy could mean
    you could lose your mother's baboon genes and the other mutations from
    inbreeding, then you might even be able to join up.
     
    frederick, May 5, 2008
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Archibald Guest

    Who argues with a fool? A fool does.

    Archibald
     
    Archibald, May 5, 2008
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    **** you and "top posting". WHO GIVES A SHIT IF THE REPLY TO A POST IS ON
    THE BOTTOM?

    Just more anal-retentive bullshit of all you geeks........................
     
    John Smith, May 5, 2008
    #43
  4. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    It's not my job to Google your "Godwin's Law".

    Explain it............
     
    John Smith, May 5, 2008
    #44
  5. RichA

    frederick Guest

    It's not anal-retentive BS. Rather perhaps an indicator of credibility,
    and willingness to conform to accepted standards.

    But if the point of your posts to this forum is to show that you're just
    an ignorant wanker - then congratulations - you've succeeded!
     
    frederick, May 5, 2008
    #45
  6. RichA

    frederick Guest

    It's not my job to explain the obvious.
    You've somehow acquired the skills to be able to post abusive crap on
    usenet. Finding answers to simple questions mightn't be beyond your
    ability either.
     
    frederick, May 5, 2008
    #46
  7. RichA

    Mark Sieving Guest

    It's well known in the Usenet community.

    "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison
    involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
     
    Mark Sieving, May 5, 2008
    #47
  8. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    "Acceptable standards"???????????????

    Who set these standards, and why does it matter? Don't you all have
    anything better to do than get bothered by top or bottom posting? My God,
    I'd slit my wrists if I were this hung up on soft corners, top posting, etc.
    etc. etc. etc.

    You all really need to get some sort of life................................
     
    John Smith, May 5, 2008
    #48
  9. RichA

    frederick Guest

    WRT to "accepted standards" google "usenet protocol".
    If lower standards suit your low ambition, then that's your problem, but
    don't expect anyone else to roll over and slither along at your level.
    <snipped>
     
    frederick, May 5, 2008
    #49
  10. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    But WHY is it SO important to "bottom" post?



     
    John Smith, May 5, 2008
    #50
  11. RichA

    frederick Guest

    Top-posting.
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    What is the most annoying thing in usenet?
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
     
    frederick, May 5, 2008
    #51
  12. [88 lines removed]
    So you think you are a fool. Well, that's your choice.
    But you *are* someone who doesn't know how to quote properly,
    hence: unthinking rude.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 5, 2008
    #52
  13. Google.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 5, 2008
    #53
  14. Looks like I got under your skin ...
    And yes, you're a waste of good air and space. Kindly perform
    a retroactive abortion on yourself. Thank you.

    -Wolfgang

    PS: Interesting things in your post's header:
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.96.95.198
    X-Complaints-To:
    So much for your anonymity and non-traceability ...
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 5, 2008
    #54
  15. [crap, as usual]
    Incurable optimist.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 5, 2008
    #55
  16. ["the world famous 18-200mm VR"]
    Oh, the sarcasm!
    A "show stopper" is a problem so nasty the show *can't* go on.
    "It is a decent all-purpose lens, but it doesn't ruin everything".
    What an accolade!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 5, 2008
    #56
  17. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    I didn't write that, you dumb ****.



     
    John Smith, May 5, 2008
    #57
  18. Quite the unambitious photographer, Rita is, isn't zie?
    Calling a mere mortal lens "utter perfection" ...

    On the other hand, a mere "world famous", "great lens" must
    be ... average[1].

    -Wolfgang

    [1] I understand that's an American phenomenon[2], calling average
    (as in: in the middle of the pack, between better and worse)
    at least "exceptional". Rita overdoes that, obviously, so
    a above average[3] (meaning: better than average as defined
    above) lens becomes "utter perfection".

    So what is a "great" (but not exceptional) lens in Rita's
    standard? Probably what an American would call "average"
    or "above average" (meaning poor or sub-average).

    [2] It can't be British, as they are masters of understatement.

    [3] Context: within the Nikon lens lineup, as Rita doesn't 'do'
    other manufacturers, prefering prejudice to knowledge.
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 5, 2008
    #58
  19. I argued with you.
    Talking about thinks you don't understand or can do? Again?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 6, 2008
    #59
  20. RichA

    John Smith Guest

    You really need to improve your English, mein Herr.
     
    John Smith, May 6, 2008
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.