The perfect vacation camera?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Sandman, Mar 11, 2014.

  1. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Haha! Yeah, what does the ISCSC know anyway...
    I already know your reading comprehension is lousy at best, no need to
    further demonstrate this.
    ....the roadkill defiantly tries to exclaim.

    Now go back and lick your wounds, balloon boy.
    Sandman, Mar 14, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    I just love it when two trolls are talking about me, especially when one is
    claiming that I will be disabused of an idea that I never even had!
    Hilarious to see these beginners stumble over each other.
    Sandman, Mar 14, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. You admit then that a little more care in your selection might
    have allowed for at least some significance? What you posted
    was heavy on the "wrong cites", and had zero significance
    because of that.

    Or are you saying that you intentionally made the effort to
    confuse the issue and draw the discussion away from your
    previous faux paus.

    The above is rather specific. Eric clearly specifies where
    you've erred.
    Actually it isn't their words, but *your* words that are "some
    hastily googled fanboy" trash. You've cited material that
    doesn't even relate to our discussion. You've claimed that 4
    quotes amount to 6-7 cites. And the only one that even appears
    to actually be related is taken totally out of context.
    Selected quotes trying to cherry pick what doesn't appear to
    disagree with you, even if it doesn't agree either, and ignoring
    the fact that in general the ISCSC does not agree with you does
    not provide support for anything other than acknowledgement that
    you just don't get it.
    It's a simply case of pointing out that effective and logical
    discussion is required. This nonsense is just nonsense on your

    BTW, what is this "the study from ISCSC". You've cited no
    study. You cited several unrelated quotes, from a variety of
    different publications.

    The least you could have done is *read* the source of your
    material to find out what it says.
    Nonsense *doesn't* count.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 14, 2014
  4. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Haha, ironic.
    Keep telling yourself that, balloon boy.
    Floyd with his fingers in his ears: "lalalalalalaa"
    When I didn't think you could get any more stupid, you proved me wrong,
    Floyd. Congratulations!
    Haha, ironic coming from bullshit master Floyd :)
    Eric knows what study I am in reference to. Maybe you need to do some
    research of your own?
    So should we expect you to stop spewing it, then? Of course not!
    Sandman, Mar 14, 2014
  5. Rather clearly that is absolutely correct. If you had paid
    attention to what the ISCSC publishes you'd see that virtually
    all of the criticisms that I have invoked here do happen to be
    what the ISCSC currently supports. That includes the comments
    about Euro-centric and historic definitions.

    A recent issue of ISCSC's "Comparative Civilization Review" in
    fact has an article titled "Civilization Defined" by Abbey
    Perumpanani. He quotes Felipe Fernandez-Armesto on "historic
    efforts to characterize civilization", by which he means every
    single claim you have made and every single reference to any
    past or imagine definition.

    "is a problematic concept because of its abuse, its
    ambiguities, its partisan connotations,and the arbitrary
    nature of the ways in which it is commonly characterized."
    -- Fernandez-Armesto (December 2001)

    He describes your particular favorite definitive characteristics
    as a "Recursive Definition", and cites British historian Kenneth
    Clark using typical example definitions.

    "Essentially, it is a recursive definition--societies displaying
    features reminiscent of the characteristics of their own
    societies are deemed "civilized". It is through such a
    definition that the Greeks considered the Persians uncivilized,
    Romans called the Germanic tribes barbarian, and the Hindus
    referred to the foreigners as Mlechaas. These notions are
    nothing more than the manifestation of ethnocentric
    bias. Despite their ubiquity, such biases cannot pass for a

    [...] all the historical definitions of civilization that I have come
    across show similar types of errors, albeit to varying degrees."

    Precisely what you have been posting! Note that Perumpanai describes
    your concepts as "errors".

    Now you can see why it's a good idea to get a full understanding
    of the sources you want to quote, rather than just cherry pick a
    few that don't seem to disagree with what you've said. In this
    case a better understanding shows that the ISCSC does not
    support, nor do they provide a "study" that supports, any of the
    ideas you have been called on in this discussion.
    Seems you didn't understand that very well...
    Perhaps Eric knows what you meant, but it's pretty clear that
    you have something amiss. The ISCSC doesn't fund studies.
    There is no study "from the ISCSC". They do publish papers in a
    peer reviewed journal. And indeed, as quoted above, they have
    recently published a paper about defining civilization and the
    problems with historic definitions.

    You clearly are not referencing that paper though, as it says
    you are claiming "nothing more than the manifestation of
    ethnocentric bias" that "cannot pass for a definition".
    (Page 4, "Civilization Defined", by Abbey Perumpanani)
    I guess you think integrity is a laugh.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 14, 2014
  6. Sandman

    Guest Guest

    his entire web site is full of intentional lies, which he freely
    admits. nothing he says or does can be trusted.

    there is the occasional true statement mixed in, but it's not obvious
    to most people which is true and which is false. that's why his site
    must be avoided.
    Guest, Mar 14, 2014
  7. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Which would be relevant if I had proposed anything "euro-centric".
    Again, they are not *my* claims, balloon boy.
    Felipe dislikes rigidity, but isn't on record with a "better" definition,
    he just questions the one in use, which is fine. He says "Most traditional
    definitions of civilizations, however, have been overdefined: excessively
    rigid, contrived and artificial", which is something I can agree with.
    How utterly vague of you - "my" favorite definitive charectaristic, yet you
    can't name which one this suppsoedly is? Haha.
    Neither is this discussion about the word "civilized", so yet another
    irrelevant quote from balloon boy.
    "similar types", yet no direct example, oonly vague hand waving.
    He, just like you, are free to disagree with whatever you choose to
    disagree with. But unless one can examplify this and put forth a more valid
    definition, what good is this disagreement?
    No, please continue to make an utter fool of yourself.
    Again - your reading comprehension problems are of no concern to me.

    William McGaughey even went so far as to categorize civilizations in five
    levels of progress, using communication and institution of power as
    significant parameters. The first level of communication was ideographic
    writing (i.e. hieroglyphs, some classes of chinese writing) and an imperial
    government. He also states that the culture needs to be comparatively
    advanced or developed (from a contemporary standpoint).

    Carroll Quigley said that a civilization is a producing society with means
    of expanstion, and that the means of expansion meant social organizations
    for security, material wealth and such. And he was clear that such a
    society becomes a civilization when it has writing and city life.

    Andrew Targowski listed some parameters where a civilization has "its own
    advanced cultural system driven by communication, religion, wealth, and
    power within complex urban, agricultural infrastructures, and others such
    as industrial, information ones"
    Floyd thinks I have something amiss - so I'm good. Best endorsement I could
    I think you're a big joke, Floyd. I am genuinely laughing out loud watching
    you stumble around trying to hold your position.
    Sandman, Mar 14, 2014
  8. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    I won't argue with this, but I still don't think that's cause enough to
    mistrust this sample image. I have no idea what the motivation would be for
    Ken to tamper with it?
    I usually just disregard the opinion parts of the page, and use it to look
    up some specs or pictures of lenses and/or cameras. He usually have really
    good product images at least.
    Sandman, Mar 14, 2014
  9. So you admit it was relevant!

    Regardless your logic as always is faulty. It is relevant
    because a lot more than just one single point applies.
    Every single one of *your* claims!
    "Felipe" is a friend of yours, on a first name basis?

    Note that "ambiguities" are the opposite of "rigidity".

    It isn't "the one in use" either. He said "most traditional
    definitions". And clearly by "contrived and artificial" he is
    referring to exactly the nonsense you have posted.
    All of them. I'm not nit picking at a single one, but rather at
    your entire conceptualization of civilization. Virtually every
    single time you attempt to define some specific culture out of
    the category of civilization you did so with a Recursive
    Definition that is contrived, artificial, Euro-centric and allows
    only "societies displaying features reminiscent of the
    characteristics of their own societies" (p4, "Civilization
    Defined", Perumpanani)
    Get that lesson from Peter on language. You have been, and
    clearly still are, defining "civilization" as a culture that
    encompasses the characteristics of your own, which you deem

    That isn't a discussion *about* the word civilized, it's just a
    discussion which uses that word correctly to describe something.
    He gave a number of direct examples. In English though, so you
    probably didn't realize that was what it was.
    Welllll... maybe not! He did publish it in a peer reviewed article,
    and he did provide sufficient examples and a clearly valid

    Check with Peter for a linguistics lesson before repeating again and
    again this same lack of comprehension.
    So then why can't you specify a "study" from the ISCSC?
    Oh, that would be the author of Five Epochs of Civilization, who
    also made these statements that contradict things you have
    specifically said in this discussion:

    "The book, Five Epochs of Civilization, comes down on the side
    of saying that civilization is culture."
    -- William McGaughey

    'Another name for this civilization might be a "civilized society."'
    -- William McGaughey
    Quigley, due to his death, has not published anything in recent

    The fact that you can't tell the difference between anthropology
    openly based on Euro-centricity and anthropology based
    specifically on the avoidance of exactly that, is telling.

    Quigley is an interesting figure in the history of the study of
    civilization, he is not an authoritative source for a definition
    of the term civilization.
    Has the ISCSC vetted that with "a study"? Or in a peer reviewed
    article? Or is it just his musing in a February 2008 letter to
    Mattews Melko?

    Seems you have been citing things which don't represent the
    overall opinions of those you cite, you have claimed authority
    where there is none, and you have claimed support for your ideas
    when even that does not exist.
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 14, 2014
  10. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    Opinions about and/or against "euro-centric" definitions would be relevant
    if someone had made a euro-centric definition. Which of course no one has.
    I.e. none.
    You're the master of the obvious, balloon boy.
    You sure use a lot of words to say exactly nothing. When you're done trying
    to be the spokesman of Felipe, let me know.
    Still as vague - you can't even name them! Hilarious!!
    So - you have nothing then? Why waste so much time putting words to what is
    already painfully obivous. You keep claiming some definition is "mine", yet
    you can't even be specific about anything related to "it".
    I love it when you morons try to tell me what I have been defining.
    Indeed. And I love your wriggling when you can't be specific about
    anything. :-D
    Wallace Gray even put forth a number of comments regarding it, where he
    questioned some and agreed with some. Most notably, he is more or less in
    agreement with Steven Pinker where the presence of cities is a defining
    This is the most hilarious part of your contribution to this thread - Floyd
    actually making claims about *PeterN*'s English proficiency. PeterN is the
    one that put forth the Cherokee Nation as an example of a pre-Columbian
    civilization. Yeah, that's the guy you want to have in your corner, Floyd

    Peter is the guy that thinks the word "pejorative" means that something is
    Shouldn't you be quoting him contradicting anything I've said instead?
    Hence, Floyd can disregard his views. Haha! Yes, this is how stupid he is.
    The fact that you want to make idiotic claims about "euro-centricity" is
    quite telling about your knowledge about this.
    Only Floyd get to decide what people are! Haha!
    Floyd's response: "LALALALALALALALALA Can't hear you!!!"
    Again - why continue to hammer in your reading comprehension problems? WE
    KNOW, Floyd - you can't read to save your life, stop displaying it on
    an hourly basis.
    Sandman, Mar 14, 2014
  11. Sandman

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Of course it's relevant, but it's not the final answer. Probably
    nothing is the final answer. I've been reading in and around this
    subject for long enough to be aware of how opinions change. You will
    notice how the page you cited divided their quotations
    into "Some Early Definitions of Civilizations" and "Some Contemporary
    Definitions of Civilizations".

    I am also aware, as you need to be, about the division between North
    American and European opinion as to which is what in the fields of
    anthropology and archaeology and the way the differences in opinion
    are regarded by historians and philosophers. That's why you can be so
    easily lead up the garden path by using selected opinions from a
    single site such as
    You mistake my motives. I am not disgreeing with because it's you. I'm
    disagreeing with you because I think you are wrong. The definitions
    you quote could almost stem from the days when if societies weren't
    like Greece, Rome or Egypt, then they weren't civilized. They would
    reject as uncivilized the people who have recently been discovered to
    have constructed what seems to have been an extensive civilization in
    the Amazon river basin. See
    You mistake my motives.
    I could have just said "Wrong".
    Eric Stevens, Mar 14, 2014
  12. Sandman

    Sandman Guest

    I agree.
    Sandman, Mar 15, 2014
  13. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    Huh! Not even remotely. The Nordic troll forgets that the dry climate in
    the Middle East helps preserve artifacts.
    PeterN, Mar 15, 2014
  14. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    Well it did stop the natives from swinging from trees. \\end sarcasm tag
    PeterN, Mar 15, 2014
  15. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    He's too arrogant to have any discussion with.
    PeterN, Mar 15, 2014
  16. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    You are not capable of any analysis beyond that of kindergarten
    statements, and have ignorantly avoided probable factual reasons for the
    paucity of artifacts in North America. You have even stated that you
    omitted the North American Mayan and Aztec civilizations, etc. As I said
    earlier, your trolling is boring.
    PeterN, Mar 15, 2014
  17. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    Now that's a great, well reasoned and mature response.
    Another great, well reasoned and mature response.
    Still another great, well reasoned and mature response.
    PeterN, Mar 15, 2014
  18. Sandman

    PeterN Guest

    I bought one lens in reliance on his evaluation, (My 18-200,) I doubt I
    will repeat that mistake.
    PeterN, Mar 15, 2014
  19. Sandman

    Hactar Guest

    That's I-4's end at I-275. Which, I suppose, used to be I-75 before some
    of the current I-75 was built.
    There are other ways, if you don't mind driving a bit extra.
    Hactar, Mar 16, 2014
  20. Sandman

    Hactar Guest

    Springs (which implies boating and swimming), picnics, (probably) hiking,
    It's also used for concerts.
    Isn't he going this summer? Manatees won't be much more densely-packed
    there than anywhere else. They're attracted by the warm-water outflow
    from the adjacent generating plant, after all.
    And long sidewalks.
    Hactar, Mar 16, 2014
    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.