>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4aed04c1$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:30:03 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>>>>>>> I'm a well accomplished professional. 50,000 photos on some  years is
>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>> out of the question, >75% of that being of marketable quality.
>>>>>> And yet you can't show us a single one of them. Imagine that.
>>>>> On checking my "Scrapshots that beat DSLRs" folder, I find 14 images that
>>>>> I
>>>>> posted this year
>>>> ROTFL! - I saw most of those images, & they weren't all that good for P&S
>>>> shots, much less DSLR shots.

>>>> PS: No, screwing with the follow-ups line won't work on me.
>>> I'm glad you pointed that out. I tend not to notice that sort of sleazy
>>> trick. This jerk seems determined to be as much of a pest as he can, in
>>> every way he can.
>> That trick is very common with net-kooks. The P&S troll is a classic
>> net-kook.

> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
> Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
> alt.kook.lionel-lauer  (established on, or before, 2005)
> Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a group where he'll stay on topic.

>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4aed04c1$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
>>>>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:30:03 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylar...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>> Curiouser and Curiouser wrote:
>>>>>>>> I'm a well accomplished professional. 50,000 photos on some  years is
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> out of the question, >75% of that being of marketable quality.
>>>>>>> And yet you can't show us a single one of them. Imagine that.
>>>>>> On checking my "Scrapshots that beat DSLRs" folder, I find 14 images that
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> posted this year
>>>>> ROTFL! - I saw most of those images, & they weren't all that good for P&S
>>>>> shots, much less DSLR shots.

>>>>> PS: No, screwing with the follow-ups line won't work on me.
>>>> I'm glad you pointed that out. I tend not to notice that sort of sleazy
>>>> trick. This jerk seems determined to be as much of a pest as he can, in
>>>> every way he can.
>>> That trick is very common with net-kooks. The P&S troll is a classic
>>> net-kook.

>> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
>> Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
>> alt.kook.lionel-lauer  (established on, or before, 2005)
>> Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a group where he'll stay on topic.

>Hi kook! ;^)

>Still trying to sucker me into posting to a non-existant group, I see. ;^)

>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 29, 3:19 pm, Curiouser and Curiouser <question...@anyisp.net>
>>> [...]
>>>>> That's about all you'd ever be good for..." absolutely must explicitly
>>>>> mean that you have extensive first-hand experience with male strangers
>>>>> giving you blowjobs.
>>>> Or vice versa, of course.

>>>>> In actuality, the answer to the OP's question is quite simple, and it
>>>>> has actually already been provided elsewhere.  Apparently you've
>>>>> overlooked it, which isn't anyone's fault other than your own.
>>>> I think he has overloaded and burned out. I'm not reading his posts any
>>>> more, but the last ones I glanced at seemed to be just the same fatuous
>>>> drivel pasted in over and over.
>>> It is. In fact, he's spamming. I'll be interested to see what his NSP
>>> has to say about it.

>> Are you aware that you and others of your ilk have now proved yourselves
>> beyond a shadow of all doubts to be nothing but inexperienced and
>> ignorant
>> trolls, again?

>> Stay on topic, you ignorant and inexperienced know-nothing thread
>> hijacking
>> trolls. Catch-22. If you stayed on topic you wouldn't be a troll.
>> Continue
>> going off topic and you have precisely proved my point.

>> Sucks to be as stupid as you, doesn't it.

>> Read it again. Here it is again for your perusal. Can you answer it
>> without
>> your usual off-topic trolling? The challenge is on. (Guess who's going to
>> win. Once a troll, always a troll. Asking a troll to not act like a troll
>> is like asking a slug to not travel by use of its exuded slime layer
>> discharge.)

>>> I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative
>>> comments
>>> on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even
>>> considered
>>> as part of their camera gear.

>>> There have been outlandish claims being made. Mostly by dSLR proponents
>>> over what can and cannot be done with the myriad P&S cameras available
>>> for
>>> the last decade. Yet, when pressed for clarity, you find out they've
>>> never
>>> even been near the cameras they are commenting on so strongly,
>>> assuredly,
>>> and adamantly with their self-appointed authoritative and seemingly (to
>>> themselves) concrete stance. They will loudly and incessantly claim that
>>> some camera does not have a feature, when in fact a large range of
>>> cameras,
>>> sometimes all of those styles of cameras do indeed have that feature or
>>> capability. They would instantly know this if they would only go out and
>>> test it for themselves with real cameras. But no, to them they have
>>> imagined something about some equipment that they've never touched which
>>> is
>>> nothing but a total fabrication in their own minds. Believing their
>>> imaginations as if it is some kind of fact. Like any psychotic religious
>>> zealot would.

>>> What causes them to do this? I've never commented on nor given advice
>>> about
>>> anything in life other than that with which I have had first-hand
>>> knowledge
>>> and experience of my own in that field. If I haven't personally tested
>>> something for myself, then I am in no position to make comments about
>>> it.
>>> Even reading about something doesn't mean what I am reading is true
>>> representation of whatever might be in question. I MUST test things for
>>> myself before I feel I can comment on anything with any sense of
>>> authority
>>> whatsoever. I also never strongly rely on some "credible"(?) 3rd-party's
>>> review of photography equipment. I learned long ago after having
>>> purchased
>>> equipment that even those well-meaning reviewers failed to understand
>>> how
>>> to use a camera, a feature of that camera, or other equipment properly.
>>> Or
>>> their simplified testing methods to begin with had huge faults in them.
>>> (GIGO) Which I only discovered later when my findings didn't match their
>>> findings, and I started to wonder why. Their testing methods were to
>>> blame.

>>> So what causes this need for people to pretend to be authorities on
>>> things
>>> that they have no real knowledge about?

>>> Are they just psychotic trolls? And I'm not using the term "psychotic"
>>> pejoratively. I believe they really are psychotic if they can so
>>> adamantly
>>> believe what they say, when in fact, reality and genuine experience
>>> proves
>>> them out to be in complete error. If so, if that's all they are,
>>> psychotic
>>> trolls, they seem to be wall-to-wall in these newsgroups. Far more in
>>> abundance than those who have genuine experience and knowledge about the
>>> subjects at hand.

>> We all wait with bated breath for your non-troll response. (Apostrophe
>> left
>> off of "bated" to see how many apostrophe-trolls are in abundance.)

>> Since you failed to address or answer the question, there it is again.
>> Any
>> further off-topic trolling without addressing the question and you will
>> prove, beyond all doubt, that you are nothing but an ignorant troll,
>> again.
>> It's just that simple.

>> Sucks to be you, doesn't it.

>> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
>> Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
>> alt.kook.lionel-lauer
>> Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a
>> group where he'll stay on topic.

> Looks like I've got a new fanboy. Aw, how cute.

>>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>>> -hh wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 29, 3:19 pm, Curiouser and Curiouser <question...@anyisp.net>
>>>> [...]
>>>>>> That's about all you'd ever be good for..." absolutely must explicitly
>>>>>> mean that you have extensive first-hand experience with male strangers
>>>>>> giving you blowjobs.
>>>>> Or vice versa, of course.

>>>>>> In actuality, the answer to the OP's question is quite simple, and it
>>>>>> has actually already been provided elsewhere.  Apparently you've
>>>>>> overlooked it, which isn't anyone's fault other than your own.
>>>>> I think he has overloaded and burned out. I'm not reading his posts any
>>>>> more, but the last ones I glanced at seemed to be just the same fatuous
>>>>> drivel pasted in over and over.
>>>> It is. In fact, he's spamming. I'll be interested to see what his NSP
>>>> has to say about it.
>>> Are you aware that you and others of your ilk have now proved yourselves
>>> beyond a shadow of all doubts to be nothing but inexperienced and
>>> ignorant
>>> trolls, again?

>>> Stay on topic, you ignorant and inexperienced know-nothing thread
>>> hijacking
>>> trolls. Catch-22. If you stayed on topic you wouldn't be a troll.
>>> Continue
>>> going off topic and you have precisely proved my point.

>>> Sucks to be as stupid as you, doesn't it.

>>> Read it again. Here it is again for your perusal. Can you answer it
>>> without
>>> your usual off-topic trolling? The challenge is on. (Guess who's going to
>>> win. Once a troll, always a troll. Asking a troll to not act like a troll
>>> is like asking a slug to not travel by use of its exuded slime layer
>>> discharge.)

>>>> I sometimes wonder why people feel the need to make authoritative
>>>> comments
>>>> on equipment they've never used, never touched, and never even
>>>> considered
>>>> as part of their camera gear.

>>>> There have been outlandish claims being made. Mostly by dSLR proponents
>>>> over what can and cannot be done with the myriad P&S cameras available
>>>> for
>>>> the last decade. Yet, when pressed for clarity, you find out they've
>>>> never
>>>> even been near the cameras they are commenting on so strongly,
>>>> assuredly,
>>>> and adamantly with their self-appointed authoritative and seemingly (to
>>>> themselves) concrete stance. They will loudly and incessantly claim that
>>>> some camera does not have a feature, when in fact a large range of
>>>> cameras,
>>>> sometimes all of those styles of cameras do indeed have that feature or
>>>> capability. They would instantly know this if they would only go out and
>>>> test it for themselves with real cameras. But no, to them they have
>>>> imagined something about some equipment that they've never touched which
>>>> is
>>>> nothing but a total fabrication in their own minds. Believing their
>>>> imaginations as if it is some kind of fact. Like any psychotic religious
>>>> zealot would.

>>>> What causes them to do this? I've never commented on nor given advice
>>>> about
>>>> anything in life other than that with which I have had first-hand
>>>> knowledge
>>>> and experience of my own in that field. If I haven't personally tested
>>>> something for myself, then I am in no position to make comments about
>>>> it.
>>>> Even reading about something doesn't mean what I am reading is true
>>>> representation of whatever might be in question. I MUST test things for
>>>> myself before I feel I can comment on anything with any sense of
>>>> authority
>>>> whatsoever. I also never strongly rely on some "credible"(?) 3rd-party's
>>>> review of photography equipment. I learned long ago after having
>>>> purchased
>>>> equipment that even those well-meaning reviewers failed to understand
>>>> how
>>>> to use a camera, a feature of that camera, or other equipment properly.
>>>> Or
>>>> their simplified testing methods to begin with had huge faults in them.
>>>> (GIGO) Which I only discovered later when my findings didn't match their
>>>> findings, and I started to wonder why. Their testing methods were to
>>>> blame.

>>>> So what causes this need for people to pretend to be authorities on
>>>> things
>>>> that they have no real knowledge about?

>>>> Are they just psychotic trolls? And I'm not using the term "psychotic"
>>>> pejoratively. I believe they really are psychotic if they can so
>>>> adamantly
>>>> believe what they say, when in fact, reality and genuine experience
>>>> proves
>>>> them out to be in complete error. If so, if that's all they are,
>>>> psychotic
>>>> trolls, they seem to be wall-to-wall in these newsgroups. Far more in
>>>> abundance than those who have genuine experience and knowledge about the
>>>> subjects at hand.
>>> We all wait with bated breath for your non-troll response. (Apostrophe
>>> left
>>> off of "bated" to see how many apostrophe-trolls are in abundance.)

>>> Since you failed to address or answer the question, there it is again.
>>> Any
>>> further off-topic trolling without addressing the question and you will
>>> prove, beyond all doubt, that you are nothing but an ignorant troll,
>>> again.
>>> It's just that simple.

>>> Sucks to be you, doesn't it.

>>> Bob Larter's legal name: Lionel Lauer
>>> Home news-group, an actual group in the "troll-tracker" hierarchy:
>>> alt.kook.lionel-lauer
>>> Registered Description: the "owner of several troll domains" needs a
>>> group where he'll stay on topic.
>> Looks like I've got a new fanboy. Aw, how cute.

> LOL, excellent.....

>He'll have to join the queue though - he's only about the 35th net-kook
>who thinks he can scare me off Usenet. ;^)