Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Siddhartha Jain, Feb 22, 2005.

  1. Siddhartha Jain

    G.T. Guest


    G.T., Feb 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    John Francis Guest

    You can't tell some people. They are just _so_ convinced they
    are right, and absolutely refuse to be considerate and respect
    the expressed wishes of others.

    The end result, of course, is that they end up being ignored.
    John Francis, Feb 26, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Frank ess Guest

    I didn't read what you had to say. It's been said before, I'm certain,
    sometimes more poignantly, sometimes less.

    I didn't read what you had to say because I have an unerring ear for the
    useful, discard the useless out-of-hand, and assign the promulgators to
    a little box of stereotypes, to assist me in conserving my valuable
    time. I apologize for all that.

    I always am genuinely grateful to those who come on the scene and
    demonstrate early, by word, gesture, or tone that they fit in that
    little box.


    Genuinely grateful,

    Frank ess

    "Because of the Swiss Cheese nature of everyone's life experience and
    education, the Whoosh Bird can drop a load on anyone's head, without
    warning." —Albrecht Einstein
    Frank ess, Feb 26, 2005
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Browne Guest

    (You going to pay for keyboard cleaning?)
    Alan Browne, Feb 26, 2005
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Browne Guest

    Please plonk me and have a great life.
    Alan Browne, Feb 26, 2005
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    HTML has several disadvantages:

    1) Not all newsreaders support it (including most unix-based
    newsreaders, including the one which I use by *choice*. I
    do not expect HTML in usenet postings, and it does not belong

    2) HTML is a tool which posted virii can use to infiltrate a
    system -- especially when the newsreader is Outlook Express.
    It is interesting to discover some of the tricks being used in
    HTML posting when you view them with a non-HTML-capable

    3) HTML can be used to hide where a link is posting. (The
    displayed link text can be made different from the actual one.)
    The same comment about tricks applies here.

    4) HTML-only postings are truly ugly in a non-HTML-capable
    newsreader. I sometimes re-post the body of such, with minor
    editing. I change all '<'s to '{'s, all '>'s to '}' and all
    '&'s to '~'s. This, in essence, eliminates the ability of your
    HTML-capable newsreader to recognize it as HTML and pretty it up
    on your screen, and will show the totality of how ugly it is.
    I *might* be able to live with the out-of-sequence presentation,
    *if* it did not result in making it so easy for posters to forget about
    all of that quoted text, and forget to edit the unnecessary parts of it
    out of the reply. Proper nettiquete requires trimming of what is not
    necessary to provide some context to your replies. Seldom is it proper
    to leave the whole thing quoted.

    And in particular, a long top-posted thread has many copies of
    ..sig blocks at the end -- often several from each poster. Proper
    nettiquete requires trimming all but your own -- unless you are
    responding to something in the .sig.

    Also -- the *best* way is neither top-posting or bottom-posting,
    but rather interleaved posting. You trim what is not necessary, and
    insert your replies to each point below that point (as I am doing here).
    This is how usenet was first used, and how it still *should* be used.
    Not to me. And not to many other long-time usenet users.
    Try using a newsreader which does not render HTML, and see how
    much you like those "sensibly formatted" articles. And I will *not* use
    a newsreader enabled for HTML, for the security reasons which I
    mentioned above. And I do not ever read usenet on a system which is the
    common target of those virii and other attacks.
    Might I suggest that web-based fora are the proper venue for
    HTML posting. *Not* in usenet. If you like HTML, post somewhere where
    it is appropriate. If you want to post in usenet, *please* follow the
    guidelines for usenet.
    That may be so from your perspective -- however, usenet was a
    going concern before the internet came into being -- carried by unix
    computers with modems passing articles on from machine to machine, and
    storing them in the local news spool on each machine.
    Usenet was carried on 300 baud modems when 2400 baud was a pipe
    dream. :)
    *You* may be at the end of a 1.5K broadband connection. I may
    be similarly located. But remember that usenet newsgroups are
    worldwide, and not everybody has such connections. Believe it or not,
    there are still users here in the USA who have at best a dialup

    The worst that I have known was someone whose only connection
    was through a mainframe, and he would print out the days feed for the
    newsgroup in which he was interested, and read it at home (when he was
    not on the payroll), and compose his responses to upload the next
    morning. Obviously, a binary produced several inches of printout paper
    of *no* use to him. HTML was something difficult to wade through.
    Plain text was fine.
    Note that there are news servers (including my personal one)
    which receive a limited subset of usenet (by choice). These are all
    non-binary newsgroups. If people started loading them with binaries, it
    would overflow my news spool, forcing me to adjust the expiration time
    on my preferred newsgroups (currently set to 30 days to allow a week
    away from my system without losing anything, and the ability to follow a
    thread back for a month if necessary.

    Before I retired, I was running a news server at work, which got
    all of the primary usenet heirarchies, and none of the alt.* ones (which
    is where the binaries were concentrated). At that time, it was
    necessary to set some newsgroups as low as a single day of expire time
    to keep the spool from overflowing.

    As it turns out -- binaries are less of a problem for me for one
    simple reason. Somewhere upstream, one of the news servers along the
    pipe drops binary postings to discussion newsgroups, so all I see of
    them is comments by others and occasional the "Subject line [1 of 23]"
    for the introduction which does not include any of the attachment.
    Posting of URLs is fine. Requiring that everybody who reads the
    newsgroup have a HTML capable newsreader is not. Usenet was *built* as
    a text-only system, and works best as one.
    You want to make many standard usenet readers (which are better
    for the purpose of reading usenet than anything with HTML built in)
    obsolete? I use a unix-based newsreader which comes in source code
    form, so I can adapt it to my system if necessary. It has *many*
    features which I do not find in the ones built into browsers, including
    the ability to tell it to use *my* choice of editor instead of a
    built-in (which is also available for those who want it).
    Have you ever tried looking at "Rich Text" with an ASCII-only
    viewer? It is less readable than HTML (by far), and requires binary
    No -- it should not. Remember that not everybody will get
    binaries in a discussion newsgroup, because some news servers
    automatically drop them on the floor.

    And binaries are another excellent way to propagate virii.
    Even if the previous comment is demonstrably wrong? I will
    *not* compliment something which is wrong, nor will I remain silent
    about it. How about (a) *or* (b), not requiring both?

    [ ... ]
    That is a reasonable request.
    That also.

    [ ... ]
    Including -- looking for cross-posting. Many flame wars are
    produced by inappropriate cross-posting. (While you're about it, check
    for the presence of a "Followup-To: " header, which sometimes results in
    your reply appearing solely in a newsgroup which you do not read.
    But you are willing to load those of us who choose an excellent
    newsreader which does not render HTML or Rich Text with articles which
    we cannot read, or can read only with difficulty?

    I will now drop out of this debate, having stated my feelings.
    DoN. Nichols, Feb 26, 2005
  7. Many blind users use unix-based newsreaders by necessity, too.
    Ben Rosengart, Feb 26, 2005
  8. Siddhartha Jain

    McLeod Guest

    It reminds me of Jon Waters' movie "Pecker" where the art gallery
    owner discovered the blind photographer after the main character got
    fed up with the New York art scene.
    McLeod, Feb 26, 2005
  9. Siddhartha Jain

    DM Guest

    And that reply would place you in the sub 30 age group?

    DM, Feb 26, 2005
  10. Siddhartha Jain

    DM Guest

    DM, Feb 26, 2005
  11. Siddhartha Jain

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    Yes -- I have a friend who is one of those. I can just imagine
    what an HTML-laden posting would sound like on their text-to-speech

    DoN. Nichols, Feb 27, 2005
  12. Siddhartha Jain

    m II Guest

    DM wrote:

    ...some top posted material...

    Please give this a peek. It explains really clearly WHY top posting is the work
    of the devil.


    Because it disrupts the proper flow of reading

    m II, Feb 27, 2005
  13. ["Followup-To:" header set to poster. AGAIN. And use a
    replyable email address THIS time if you send me email.]

    [lather rinse repeat lather rinse repeat]

    Let me rephrase my question in small words:

    Do YOU get (more) money if film is dead?
    Are you a broken-record prankster?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 28, 2005
  14. Siddhartha Jain

    Patrick Boch Guest

    Not sure what the problem is...But..Great name...

    A+ CERTIFIED TECH...........

    Patrick Boch, Mar 1, 2005
  15. Siddhartha Jain

    some guy Guest

    Please give this a peek. It explains really clearly WHY top posting is the work
    This website gives some good points. But it doesn't mention how convenient top posting is if everyone
    top posted. Yes, its true that its not a normal reader's flow to read something above another, yet the
    bottom line is if you consider that most people's comments are short, and if people didn't have some
    wordy signature that nobody could care less about wasting space/bandwith, you could nrmally see 2 or 3
    responses above your own in a typical half screen display (with the Message Index being on top). Also it
    would help lots if people would trim headers off previous posts.
    some guy, Mar 1, 2005
  16. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Browne Guest

    Top posting sucks and is the work of people who are lazy or egotistical, usually

    Snipping, triming (while keep attribution clear) is good.

    Alan Browne, Mar 1, 2005
  17. Siddhartha Jain

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    *I* don't consider top posting convenient for the *reader*,
    though it may be so for the poster too lazy to properly trim quoted text
    to just what is being replied to.

    And top posting has the "advantage" to such that it does not
    bring home to them how much text they are quoting.
    Mine are typically not short. The really short ones tend to be
    the "me too" posters which is another thing to be discouraged anyway.

    I also follow the practice of interleaving replies with the text
    to which I am replying, so you aren't faced with the problem of bouncing
    between the quoted text and my replies and trying to guess which
    particular quoted text that section of the reply applies to.
    .sig blocks *should* be trimmed anyway -- unless you are
    commenting on the contents of that .sig block.
    *What* "Message Index"? You are talking as though everybody
    uses the same program for newsreading -- or as though all newsreaders
    have the same user interface. Neither is true.
    You mean like the attribution to show who posted? As in the one
    which should have accompanied your two likes of quoted text above
    or something similar. It is also considered impolite to quote without
    including the attribution.

    FWIW -- your line length was also rather extreme. (I've
    reformatted it to eliminate that problem.)

    The standard is for original text is 72 characters to allow for
    a few layers of quoting '>' before the lines start to wrap.

    DoN. Nichols, Mar 1, 2005
  18. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Adrian Guest

    It's about different news reading habits (and software)..... Plain and
    simple... I hate
    having to scroll down through two pages of previous posting that I've
    already read in previous messages. (I also don't like to have to rely on the
    latest poster to present the
    thoughts of other people)...

    I (and many other people like me) think bottom posting, and mixing the reply
    into a long quote is quite rude and thoughtless of other people's time. The
    difference between me and you is that I don't often take the time to berate
    people and try to get them to top post...

    So I think bottom posting sucks and is the work of people with either not
    enough time on their hands to read through the thread properly, or no
    respect for my time (and health... carpel tunnel syndrome...) in that I have
    to scroll every message that I could have read with one simple down arrow

    And since Usenet is almost a dead medium (I get way more useful information
    from, (yuch) web boards, then I get from Usenet these days....) it's all
    irrelevant anyways...

    It's people who always interrupt a heading like
    "Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses " with discussions on
    top/bottom posting that have contributed to the death of the medium

    Al... (Who usually top posts to Usenet, the bastion of many people who like
    to be rude to others and who are engaged in numerous endless and pointless
    campaigns to make everyone conform to their way of doing things...)
    Alan Adrian, Mar 2, 2005
  19. There's another difference. Among the ranks of the bottom-posters
    you will find the people who write the software and build and
    maintain the servers that, collectively, make Usenet possible.

    That's got to be worth something. And not in the cheap, childish
    sense of "if you don't play by my rules I'll take my ball and go
    home". More like, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do".
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 2, 2005
  20. Siddhartha Jain

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    That is not how it is *supposed* to be. The quoted text
    should be trimmed, leaving just enough to give context to the new text.
    The latest poster should simply trim out what is not relevant to
    his current response (other thoughts, as few usenet articles contain
    only a single thought).
    While *I* think that not interleaving the response with the
    quoted text is equally rude and thoughtless.

    Granted -- I've been dealing with Usenet since the mid 1980s, so
    I've seen (and bemoaned) the changes occurring.

    [ ... ]
    A *proper* bottom post would have trimmed out most of that as
    unnecessary. As for scrolling the message -- my newsreader does it with
    repeated hits on the spacebar. The same key which goes from the end of
    the current article to the next one in the thread.

    Perhaps part of your problem is that your newsreader is not
    truly well suited to the standard form of usenet posting. I strongly
    suspect that you are not using a unix-based newsreader, so the odds are
    that it was written by someone with an agenda of re-defining the
    standards without understanding the existing standards.

    DoN. Nichols, Mar 2, 2005
    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.