Olympus Point and Shoot out performs DSLRs

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by Douglas, Nov 15, 2007.

  1. Douglas

    John Navas Guest

    I didn't say that. I said it's quite likely not what you claimed
    (crappy hosting), and noted your lack of any supporting evidence. You
    didn't know what the problem was, making your accusation pretty silly.
    One other person. Not "a *number* of people" as you claimed.
    And not evidence of a hosting problem. If you check, you'll see that
    Firefox message is actually a DNS problem, not a hosting problem, which
    can be caused by lots of different things, some local, some at various
    remote levels.
    Your actual insult was: "Using a reliable Internet connection are you?
    Maybe you should ask for your money back. ;)"
    You were far off the mark, as I've shown in my replies, and you're made
    yourself look foolish (in my opinion at least).
    Let me know if and when you find one.
    They certainly don't hang out here. ;)
    Hint: The real issue is your behavior.
    Now you make yourself look clueless.
    I'm not upset. I actually chuckle and shake my head.
    And merely remarking on your attitude and style.
    You were, and still are, as I've shown in my replies.
    That's not what I said. I said:
    * It wasn't the problem you claimed.
    * Your insults were childish and inappropriate.
    Are you really this immature?
    I actually doubt your unfounded insult,
    which I've now shown to be wrong.
    I will.
    John Navas, Nov 16, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Douglas

    John Navas Guest

    2 and only 2 people had DNS problems. Everyone else did not.
    That only makes you look foolish.
    John Navas, Nov 16, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Douglas

    John Navas Guest

    Criticizing spelling errors isn't terribly meaningful or constructive,
    and I rather liked the pun, even if accidental. ;) Lighten up!
    Perhaps because he didn't see it as a "real" problem. Images are just a
    rough approximation of reality, and I personally rather like the glare
    effect around the incandescent lights -- HDR might well have looked
    artificial, a common problem with HDR in my opinion -- I don't see this
    as needing HDR.
    If HDR works better for you, then that's what you should use.
    "Different strokes for different folks." :)

    (I've deleted personal attacks, which only serve to make your position
    less persuasive.)
    John Navas, Nov 16, 2007
  4. Douglas

    John Navas Guest

    Could you all please take this to kind of thing to alt.insults-gangbang?
    [follow-up set] When posting here, please have at least a tiny bit of
    relevant content to relieve the monotony of the insults. Thanks!
    John Navas, Nov 16, 2007
  5. Douglas

    John Navas Guest

    Not terribly surprising -- most laptop/notebook brands are made in a
    very few large factories by contract manufacturers, but that doesn't
    mean they don't have significant differences.
    John Navas, Nov 16, 2007
  6. Sigh - It was 3 (spelled THREE) people, actually - I didn't post
    *every* link, because I thought you might learn a lesson and actually
    check. Like I said, you didn't do ANY homework. Hint - look up "SMS"
    for the third person.

    And given you also haven't noticed the repeated postings and
    sockpuppeting by the anti-DSLR troll... well...

    I like your comments in the next seven postings (??? - note this is my
    *only* response) about personal attacks, after your 'foolish' and
    'childish' remarks. You don't spot the irony? Good to see you solely
    occupy the high ground. (O:

    I also note how you have left Doug's insults uncommented.

    mark.thomas.7, Nov 16, 2007
  7. Douglas

    John Navas Guest

    1. I saw no such post.
    2. I don't pay much attention to the nonsense he posts in any event.
    But I will check if you've got at least a Message-Id or URL.
    John Navas, Nov 16, 2007
  8. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    The traffic these threads have generated is 20 times greater than any
    other topic. They're public service listings! ;)

    People being walked on by DSLRdiots need this to air their views. They do
    after all make up the majority of camera owners and without the
    (considerable) profit from their purchases, DSLRdiots would still be
    trying fo find a digital back for their cameras.

    Douglas, Nov 16, 2007
  9. Douglas

    Douglas Guest

    Why on earth would I want to resize an original image?
    The "on-line" one is like every other image on the Internet, done over
    with an image editor and had the EXIF data removed before posting.

    You really ought to get a life, this one is making you into a joker.

    Douglas, Nov 16, 2007
  10. Douglas

    John Navas Guest

    There are actually lots of images on the Internet that contain EXIF
    data, many resized, some full resolution.
    John Navas, Nov 16, 2007
  11. Douglas

    Noons Guest

    another moron with no clue as to the difference
    between singuylar and plural...
    Noons, Nov 16, 2007
  12. Douglas

    Noons Guest

    er.... what are they supposed to be? Dark green?
    Noons, Nov 16, 2007
  13. Douglas

    Noons Guest

    given you never shown the ability to take ANY pics,
    that is really no surprise...
    Noons, Nov 16, 2007
  14. Douglas

    Noons Guest

    I still got a soft spot to get a 21/om2 combo.
    one day...
    Noons, Nov 16, 2007
  15. Douglas

    Annika1980 Guest


    Not only does your post make no sense, you can't spell for shit,
    Annika1980, Nov 17, 2007
  16. Douglas

    John Navas Guest

    Your post wasn't any more substantive. How about skipping the
    spellcopping and sticking to digital cameras?
    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007
  17. Douglas

    John Navas Guest

    Could you all please take this to kind of thing to alt.insults-gangbang?
    [follow-up set] When posting here, please have at least a tiny bit of
    relevant content to relieve the monotony of the insults. Thanks!

    Best regards,
    John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

    "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
    difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
    boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
    John Navas, Nov 17, 2007
  18. Douglas

    tnom Guest

    What it comes down to is this:

    Many DSLR owners can ONLY justify their expenditure for a DSLR
    by minimizing the usefulness of a P&S.
    tnom, Nov 17, 2007
  19. Douglas

    Wayne Folks Guest

    I believe this all started with that cretin Roger Clark, when he replied to
    someone wanting a P&S camera that he should "get a REAL camera". Then some P&S
    owners posted photos that were of better quality than photos from his
    MkII+L-glass. Roger couldn't believe it so he tried time and time again to prove
    that his $15,000 worth of dSLR photo gear MUST be better than $400 worth of P&S.
    He failed.Then examples kept surfacing of the same condescending and insecure
    displays from other dSLR owners. They were eventually all put in their place.
    Now all that's left are the resident-troll armchair photographers that keep it
    going because they saw how popular it was.
    Wayne Folks, Nov 17, 2007
  20. Snap! (O:

    I admitted on another thread recently that I lusted after an Olympus
    OM system as a teenager (mainly because of those lovely ads in the
    National Geo's....) But I never did get one. I will before I die,

    The closest I've been so far was the Olympus C8080, which had a 28-140
    zoom. That lens was very sweet. Sharp and consistent across frame at
    all f-l's, lovely contrast and as flare free as any zoom I've owned.
    Nice piece of glass. Ok, maybe not a Zuiko... but one day soon...
    mark.thomas.7, Nov 17, 2007
    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.