|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2006 11:00:52 PM · #1 |
I present page 3 of a discussion as to the ergonomic benefits of a vertical grip for the D200:
*Linkage!*
Wow. There are full essays and paragraphs involving personal attacks and elaborate strategic arguments as to whether or not the vertical grip for the D200 has any merit.
Just wow.
To quote(and this is one of the smaller responses in the thread):
Originally posted by Tom Christiansen:
You've got some time-sequencing off, but there's no reasonable way for you to know that, so for that I will cut you some slack. Nevertheless, I'll also sketch the real sequence for you to chase away your confusion.
This thread right here was where I first committed my write-up of the problems plaguing the MB-200. I only later copied my response to a new top-level thread because I have long felt that prospective buyers of the MB-200 were unfairly underinfomed as to its problems.
Thom Hogan responded to that new top-level thread, but I had not yet read that response of his when I wrote of a vague memory of his having somewhere written that he didn't use the grip. Again, I conjectured why this might be without ever reading his recent posting about this. If I cared enough -- and I do not, nor should I -- but if I did, I am 100% positive I could with suffiicient research find the specifics on the distant antecedent of his.
What I'm saying is that I had *NOT* yet read Thom's reply telling me I was preaching to the choir at the time that I wrote about having a vague memory of his having said something which was at best lukewarm (nonplussed, unimpressed) related to the MB-200 add-on grip for the D200. You didn't know that I had not read it yet, and so I can almost see why you may perhaps have thought you were dealing with someone with a mind like a steel sieve.
I trust you are by now disabused of that particular error.
I will confess that once I finally got around to reading Thom's choir-preaching response from hours ago, I did draw from that some small measure of confidence in the soundness of my essential argument--which, to repeat myself for the logic-impaired, is simply this: that upon a more careful analysis supported with concrete issues, the grip turns out to be not at all so fine an adjunct to one's kit as it in these parts is almost universally purported to be.
> either you're insane or just plain crazy...
Kindly distinguish "insane" from "crazy". Define "insane". Define "crazy". Define "plain crazy". Is "plain" merely an emphatic, or does it confer a different status than "crazy" when unmodifed by "plain"?
Obviously you hold these terms to be separate and different things, for otherwise you would not have asked your question is such an either-this-or-that sort of way. So what then would be the difference--in your mind? And yes, I do realize that a word means just what you say it means, Humpty, which is why I'm asking you what it is that you're saying you're meaning to say. Notice how I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. I'm working on the generous assumption that you actually meant to say something, but that for whatever reason, I just didn't understand whatever it was you were saying. Obviously less charitable possibilities also exist, but there's no reason to go there, or even to allege that you were there in the first place, which I have not done. But I don't know where you are going with all that, so do please do me the courtesy of elucidating your true and intended meaning currently lost in the shadows, for I do so hate being in the dark.
> go on with your crusade but your arguments hold no water anymore..
Precisely which arguments are you referring to as NO LONGER holding water, and for what reason would the water once held have now slipped through the possibly rusty sieve of interlocking reason? Are you saying that you accept certain old arguments, but not certain other new ones, or are you saying that the arguments you once accepted are ones of which you now find yourself convinced of the contrary assessment? Just what *are* you saying, really? Insofar as I can make out, you're just waving your hands about in my general direction; you're not supplying anything substantial that a man of reason can understand. Until you do, you're just a nebulous detractor, not someone with a contrary position one can actually inspect for the strength of that position.
> i think you just like to hear yourself type..
Think what you will.
Like a Frisbeetarian or any other anti-rational faith-based adherent you don't care to name, you're of course completely free to *think* anything you'd like.
But that doesn't make your "thinking" something that's rational, logical, reasonable, enlightening--or even intelligible. To stand any chance of hoping to convince through honest reason instead of through illogical and wholly irrelevant ad hominem attacks hurled up into the stage of public scrutiny as from some cackling monkey cavorting about unsupervised in the peanut gallery, then you'll need to address the point itself. That means you'll need to produce a thesis of your own, or at a bare mininum respond to mine with your own persuasive counterthesis, with points of fact and reproducible observations. You haven't done that yet, and I have no interest in meaningless peanuts.
Only then can all justly weigh the soundness of each respective position using their own gifts of understanding, such as those may--or may not--be. |
|
|
|
|
09/06/2006 11:02:13 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 11:10:16 PM · #3 |
| I guess some people take photos because they are crazy about cameras and lenses |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 11:19:17 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by crayon:
I guess some people take photos because they are crazy about cameras and lenses |
You mean there's another reason to do it?
j/k :P
I'm a gear junkie I guess, in all of my hobbies I love learning about the equipment involved and helping people with advice about it when I can. But, if I don't have fun with a hobby, I don't stick with it - photography really is a lot of fun, if you have reasonable equipment that doesn't make you think about what you *can't* do all the time. |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 11:29:31 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Originally posted by crayon:
I guess some people take photos because they are crazy about cameras and lenses |
You mean there's another reason to do it?
j/k :P
I'm a gear junkie I guess, in all of my hobbies I love learning about the equipment involved and helping people with advice about it when I can. But, if I don't have fun with a hobby, I don't stick with it - photography really is a lot of fun, if you have reasonable equipment that doesn't make you think about what you *can't* do all the time. |
don't worry about it. Myself, I can get nuts about the gear I use too. Just days ago I bought a new computer table to suit my new laptop - talk about gear/tool obsession! lol |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 11:46:44 PM · #6 |
| Frisbeetarian? You mean there's actually a religion out there I might be willing to believe in!?! |
|
|
|
09/06/2006 11:48:16 PM · #7 |
To know your camera is to love your camera. I love my camera.
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 03:13:16 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/22/2025 03:13:16 PM EDT.
|
