Would you buy expensive "Digital Only" lenses

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

  1. Siddhartha Jain

    DM Guest


    Succinctly put. My sentiments exactly.


    DM, Mar 2, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    DM Guest

    Great thing is Alan, we live in a democracy, and have every right to an
    opinion also. Just because it doesn't happen to match your own does not in
    fact make us either lazy, nor egotistical.



    DM, Mar 2, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Frank ess Guest

    Alan: "He means me!"

    Alan: "NO, he means ME!"
    Frank ess, Mar 2, 2005
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    G.T. Guest

    Lazy, ignorant, and inconsiderate then.

    G.T., Mar 2, 2005
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    DM Guest

    As you quote Johnny Dowd in your sig maybe you should take his advice...
    DM, Mar 2, 2005
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Adrian Guest

    I haven't been here since the mid 80's, but I did get online in the early
    90's.... so what... this only means that you and I have gotten to watch this
    pointless guerrilla war for a posting "standard" for more than a decade...

    I usually don't get riled up about it... I try to ignore it... but two or
    three of you here have disrupted a decent thread with this (again) pointless

    I just wanted to make the point that there are experienced people here who
    have a different opinion than you and it's not just newbies that top post.

    My reasons for liking to to read a short top post, with the ability to
    scroll down and read background material (to refresh my memory, or if it
    didn't arrive) are just as valid as yours for wanting it your way.
    While I agree with you about Bill and his MS's wanton changing of
    standards... Usenet is not for unix geeks alone... If you only want to
    speak to network professionals, you could all just join a mailing list
    (these days).... or learn to speak Farsi.

    Alan Adrian, Mar 2, 2005
  7. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Browne Guest

    While all can certainly voice their opinion, if a vote were taken on the
    matter, and everyone were compelled to conform (as democracy requires),
    then top posting would not exist.

    As usenet is a wild frontier, people do as they please. In the end,
    those who insistently post top tend to get less help from the group as
    those who conform to nettiquette begin to simply ignore them.

    Alan Browne, Mar 2, 2005
  8. What part of "trimming" do you not understand?
    There is no guarantee that you'll see the original post before
    the answer or at all.
    That is a most interesting stance.

    How do you express *that* as succinct and thoughtful of your
    time in a top posting mode, and preserve the context? Go ahead:
    show us!
    Except for not having to (maybe) scroll[1] 5 or 7 lines, what
    advantages does top posting have? Speak up! For I see but
    disadvantages there!
    [1]. Do you really expect world+dog to change their ways because
    *your* newsreader is not up to the task? Do you also expect the
    sun to shine at night because you don't want to use flash?


    [1] which means you either can't drive your newsreader or your
    newsreader is feature challenged and thus a bad choice.

    My newsreader (slrn) can both:
    - compress quoted blocks to the first line
    - completely hide quoted text
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 3, 2005
  9. So you have carpal tunnel syndrome and hate "(yuch) web
    boards" and are rude on purpose?

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 3, 2005
  10. Usenet isn't a democracy, it's an oligarchy of newsserver owners.
    You are of course free to set up your own newsserver and do on it
    what you like. It might be a bit harder to get peerings, though.
    Just because you think you have every right does not make that

    Even if you had every right for an opinion that does not make
    you have an opinion.

    Even if you had an opinion, you most certainly not have every
    right to voice it. It may even be blatantly illegal to voice it,
    ask your lawyer about incitement, libel, slander ...

    Even if you had an opinion and the right to voice it, you don't
    have the right to voice it everywhere. You can't come into my
    house to scream out your opinion. And don't talk about free
    speech --- that's US only and refers to political speech.

    Even if you had an opinion, the right to voice it and may voice
    it where you want it to, it does not make it legal to act on it.
    You may opiniate that Bush better be dead, but killing's still

    You may even stumble on the seldom case where you had an opinion,
    the right to voice it, may voice it where you want it to, even
    have people listen to it --- no, that still does not make it
    a good idea. Ask the Taliban and Mr. Hussein if voicing their
    anti-US-opinions did them any good.
    Maybe not. It's upon you to prove your idea is good. (Hint:
    It's not.)

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Mar 3, 2005
  11. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

    A: No.
    Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

    [Sorry, I couldn't resist, attribution to gregkh ...]

    -- Patrick Mansfield
    Patrick Mansfield, Mar 3, 2005
  12. Siddhartha Jain

    some guy Guest

    Please give this a peek. It explains really clearly WHY top posting
    is the work
    I've tried bottom posting for a few days and I must say, in most cases
    it is definitely preferable. Its a little lazy, posting on the top I
    think. Its sure faster, but its really difficult for someone new to the
    thread to float in and enjoy the conversation if its all jumbled. Also
    I think bottom posting helps others trim headers, signatures and make it
    better looking all around.
    Most people use OE or Agent - maybe 90%? And if you do the chances are
    very high your message body is going to be about half of the screen.
    That's how most people view it I believe.
    I myself couldn't care less who posted what. Unless I've got to block
    them. I'm interested in the message - not the messager. It keeps it
    less personal don't you think?
    Others have told me the same and I have corrected it. C'mon people, get
    bigger monitors! Til then, I will bend to your tiny screens....:)
    some guy, Mar 6, 2005
  13. Siddhartha Jain

    some guy Guest

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

    I realize now that when you bottom post, it helps you be more careful in
    eliminating text that is irrelevant. You want to weed out the
    unnecessary to keep the thread as concise as possible. I'm a new
    convert. Thanks you traditional bottom posters.
    some guy, Mar 6, 2005
  14. Siddhartha Jain

    some guy Guest

    I hate having to scroll down through two pages of previous posting
    that I've
    He's right. When you top post, you rarely trim. The message grows to
    huge lengths for nothing. When you bottom post, it encourages you to
    weed out the fat. And the irrelevant. Hail bottom posters!
    some guy, Mar 6, 2005
  15. Still, please leave in the attributions. It aids clarity.
    What's wrong with things being personal? I had a job interviewer
    once tell me that she'd read my posts (on comp.unix.security, I think).
    (I didn't get the job, though.)

    When I started my current job, I already knew one of my coworkers
    from netnews.

    IMO, Usenet wouldn't be as worthwhile without all the personalities.
    Ben Rosengart, Mar 6, 2005
  16. Siddhartha Jain

    Bill Guest

    I find attribution is less important if you keep the quote marks in
    place, however, if you're involved in the discussion and want to make a
    specific point, it helps to attribute relevant parts. It helps to show
    that Elaine said it, not George, or Newman, or Jerry.

    What I like most about organized posting, is the way people can
    individually respond to certain segments of a thread. Like what I've
    done with your post...trimming out the part I'm not interested in, and
    responding to what I consider important in this thread.

    By the way, I love my digital camera. :)
    Bill, Mar 6, 2005
  17. Siddhartha Jain

    DoN. Nichols Guest

    I have now changed the subject line, as should have been done some time
    ago (though it should still map as part of the earlier thread to those
    systems which honor the "References: " header, so it should not get

    I've tried bottom posting for a few days and I must say, in most cases
    it is definitely preferable. Its a little lazy, posting on the top I
    think. Its sure faster, but its really difficult for someone new to the
    thread to float in and enjoy the conversation if its all jumbled. Also
    I think bottom posting helps others trim headers, signatures and make it
    better looking all around.[/QUOTE]

    Thank you.
    Certainly not those using unix to access usenet. And you will
    not find any who are serious about computer security who will be using
    OE -- though Agent appears to be a good choice for the Windows platform.
    Trimming the attribution, followed by someone else quoting your
    article can lead to confusion as to who posted a given bit of text.
    Sometimes, some can get upset at seeing their words apparently
    attributed to someone else -- or others words apparently attributed to
    them. Not everybody knows to count the quoting '>'s, and
    (unfortunately) not all newsreaders *use* them, so they are not always
    Thank you again.
    I've *got* a bigger monitor, but I keep my newsreader window set
    to the 80 column limit, so I can see when I am offending. (Though since
    my editor is set to wrap *my* text when it exceeds that 72 column limit,
    that will be quite seldom -- mostly if I read in text from elsewhere in
    the computer.

    However -- I do find things displaying as follows for those with
    long lines:

    I've *got* a bigger monitor, but I keep my newsreader window set
    to the 80
    column limit, so I can see when I am offending. (Though since my editor
    is set to
    wrap *my* text when it exceeds that 72 column limit, that will be quite
    seldom --
    mostly if I read in text from elsewhere in the computer.

    Which, I am sure that you will agree is more difficult to read smoothly.
    If I can tell that I *care* what is in there, I will stretch my
    newsreader wider so I can see it as full lines. However, I am far more
    likely to decide that I really don't want to bother, and skip that

    And sometimes, someone will still be reading usenet on a plain
    ASCII terminal -- where the option to stretch the window wider does not
    exist. (Some of my servers have only an ASCII terminal for a console,
    though I must admit that I seldom read usenet at one of those machines.
    But the ASCII terminal serves well for when I need to give commands
    directly at the machine, and it draws less power than a nice big color
    monitor (though color LCD monitors do negate that -- if they were just a
    bit more affordable. :)

    DoN. Nichols, Mar 6, 2005
  18. Siddhartha Jain

    jfitz Guest

    Your post, while probably not meant to, proves the advantage of top posting
    over bottom posting. The reader did not need to scroll down through pages
    of quoting before finding your brief, me too, reply. IMO, both top and
    bottom posting is lazy and bad form. The majority of both types of posters
    rarely, if ever, trim the original post. At least with top posting, one
    does not need to endlessly scroll down before finding the poster's words of
    wisdom, whose value usually is in inverse proportion to the amount of quoted
    text above them. My reader is set to show around twenty lines of text. If
    I don't see the start of a reply by then, I move on, experience having shown
    me that I rarely miss anything of importance by doing so.

    I prefer, and use, interleave posting, quoting only the text necessary to
    further the topic. This has been my preference, and the preference of most
    other early users of BBSs, newsgroups, mailing lists and forums. I started
    posting on BBS mailing systems, on my own nickel, in the days of acoustical
    couplers. Those of us that were paying for online time and/or running BBSs
    were very aware of the costly cumulative effects of excess quoting. This
    carried over to Usenet as the initial, government financed, users were
    gradually supplanted by people paying their own way.
    I will go further off topic. Your SIG is a wonderful example of what a SIG
    should be. Short, sweet and to the point. I often wonder why some posters
    feel the need to spend line after line of repetitive and meaningless text
    and graphics in signature files. At least, back in the day, SIGs were
    generally limited to three lines, were often clever, and seldom repetitive.
    jfitz, Mar 6, 2005
  19. Siddhartha Jain

    jfitz Guest

    Thank you. Note, I trimmed you explanation, as you might have done in this
    Tweleve lines of text, which should, and could, have been trimmed, one line
    of answer. A perfect example of sloppy or lazy trimming, typical of many
    bottom posters
    Who account for what percentage of Usenet users? 1% perhaps? Like it our
    not, Windows is the operating system, and OE and Agent are the readers of
    choice for all but a very small, vocal, band of posters.
    If you are unable to follow a simple thread, can't remember the point of
    prior posts, and are easily confused, perhaps Usenet is not for you.
    Darwinism at work. The easily offended, and easily confused, will move on.
    OE and Agent do, if your reader does not, you need a different one.

    As long as you are going to bottom post, as opposed to selectively quote,
    you may as well go to HTML and include a few binaries.
    jfitz, Mar 6, 2005
  20. Siddhartha Jain

    Walt Hanks Guest

    I find the whole top vs. bottom issue to be tiring myself, and of little
    real importance. My other groups have all agreed to let people do what they
    want and not worry about it.

    What I do find annoying is when people hijack a thread to discuss, ad
    nauseum, an issue totally unrelated to the topic of the thread (or the
    group). Marking what was an on-topic thread as off-topic is not sufficient.

    If you must continue this ponderous discussion, please start a new thread so
    the rest of us can ignore it without wondering if we are missing something
    from the original topic.

    Thank you.

    Walt Hanks, Mar 6, 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.