Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Don White wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Chuck,
Can you hear the music in the background? Listen closely, I think
it is Kumbaya, but I am not sure.

Have a great day, and your boat's paint job really looks nice, can
you imagine how slow and careful you will be docking and hauling
your anchor for the next few years.

Like that first ding in your new autos paint.
I'd be afraid to sail on that boat until a few scratches show up.

Chuck's boat only goes slow.

Harry,

Then he will only get slow dings and dents in his boat. ;)

Harry, when I was younger, I always was in a rush to get somewhere,
now that I am older and dumber, I try to enjoy the trip as much as the
destination.

I was surprised that you would really consider spending $12,000 so you
can go 5 mph faster on the few days when the bay is calm enough so you
could actually go 30mph at 4000 rpm. Between the wind,, and the wake
chop, that must be 3 or 4 days a year. ; )

Where did you come up with $12,000?

I pulled the number out of my ass, was I close?

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Digital Cameras and Boating
 

I have gotten hooked on taking Digital pictures with my new D50. I just
ordered the new Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6g IF-ED AF-S DX VR
(http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/...m_brochure.pdf)
and am trying to figure out if I should buy lens filters. I am curious
what the other shutterbugs use? I contacted Nikon because I kept
getting conflicting recommendations from the sales reps both online and
in the stores. Some say you should use a UV/Haze filter to reduce the
'washout effect" others said this was a waste of time and only use a
polarized filter (and whatever you do, make sure it is a circular
polarized and not linear, linear polarized lens will eat your digital
camera alive) and finally whatever you do, only use a clear filter, all
the others screw with the auto focus and auto settings of the very
expensive lens and your pictures will all be useless.

The Nikon rep. at the 800 number told me not to use any lens filter for
protection, and I can do everything I want to do with a filter using
Photoshop.

So I am interested to see what everyone else has ended up using

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Digital Cameras and Boating
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:56:49 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

I have gotten hooked on taking Digital pictures with my new D50. I just
ordered the new Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6g IF-ED AF-S DX VR
(http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/...m_brochure.pdf)
and am trying to figure out if I should buy lens filters. I am curious
what the other shutterbugs use? I contacted Nikon because I kept
getting conflicting recommendations from the sales reps both online and
in the stores. Some say you should use a UV/Haze filter to reduce the
'washout effect" others said this was a waste of time and only use a
polarized filter (and whatever you do, make sure it is a circular
polarized and not linear, linear polarized lens will eat your digital
camera alive) and finally whatever you do, only use a clear filter, all
the others screw with the auto focus and auto settings of the very
expensive lens and your pictures will all be useless.

The Nikon rep. at the 800 number told me not to use any lens filter for
protection, and I can do everything I want to do with a filter using
Photoshop.

So I am interested to see what everyone else has ended up using

Clear, solely for protection. If I'm out and about and get some crap on the
lens, I want to be able to clean it with what's handy, which may be my
dirty t-shirt. If I scratch it, I'll spend the $10 bucks on a new filter.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:



******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.

No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote: :

Chuck, perhaps you are seeing things that don't exist. I'm referring to a
behavior pattern. You call it a 'personal attack'. I have no desire to
perpetuate a feud with JimH. I do find his venomous attacks on Rich to be
despicable. I think anyone should be able to post pictures of their house,
boat (s), horses, dogs, or whatever, without the name-calling and envy
being displayed by JimH.

You seem to disregard the behavior in question and, instead, focus on the
personalities. Forget the personalities for a minute. Do you find the
behavior appropriate?


No, the behavior isn't appropriate. Nor are a lot of things that pass
for behavior here.
My point is that at some point we have to get beyond the he said/ she
said, did so/ did not,
your fault/ no, your fault, flame ya/ flame ya back, nonsense. Might as
well be sooner rather than later.

We know for a fact that nobody will ever *win* an argument or prevail
in a personal ****ing match on the internet. I've been on the receiving
end of my share of crap here, and survived.
There have been times when I've lobbed back at least as good as I've
been clobbered with- and lo and behold all of those guys on the
receiving end of a Gould's mean spirited "zinger" seem to have survived
as well. But that type of behavior damages the group, and it's why the
majority of previous participants have seriously cut back on it or
stopped completely.

The problem with peeing matches is that they infect the whole group.
The participants choose to make it public business. Battlers should
take it to email, or demonstrate who is the more adult person and stand
down. The adult will always win, if only by refusal to be dragged down
to the level of the delinquent 4th grade playgournd nonsense.

The most graceful thing is for both sides to declare a no-fault truce
and carry on until one side or the other screws up again. Be assured
that somebody eventually will- but at least then it's a fresh violation
and not another incident in an escalating and unresolved problem.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JIMinFL wrote:
"RCE" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...



Plenty of peace pipe to go around. :-)

We see the best and the worst of ourselves reflected in the people
around us. It's my opinion that if we expect to grow and improve as
individuals, we have to get past the point where we dwell on the
(perceived) faults of others. Two reasons; 1) if we can't forgive our
worst faults personified by others we will never get free of the burden
those same faults place on our own spiritual or pyschological progress.
2) Just as we all, individually, combine some extremely worthy as well
as some extremely unworthy aspects so do the people we encounter
throughout life. If we focus on the unworthiness of others we cannot
adequately appreciate their worth- and it is only the worthiness of our
brothers and sisters that enriches our own lives. As I said, that's my
opinion. Your mileage may vary, and if it does that's still pretty much
OK.


Good grief, Chuck.

A swift kick in the ass is just as effective and works a heck of a lot
faster.

RCE



More Psycho babble from the Chuckster. Please pardon my bluntness.

Send me an email listing the concepts you are having any difficulty
comprehending, and I'll send you an alternative version in a more basic
vernacular. No need to apologize for your bliuntness, how else would we
know that it's so far outside your ken it sounds like "babble"? Good
for you, Florida Jim. More people should speak out when they aren't
following along.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 15:58:24 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I thought you had this lens? You were the SOB who started me reading
those damn reviews.

No, I've got this one:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70200vr.htm

My D-70 came with the 18-70mm zoom, I didn't want to overlap, and the
18-200mm wasn't built yet. I suggested the 18-200 'cause I'd heard good
things about it. Also, it's much smaller, lighter, and more convenient than
the monstrosity I've got. Plus, it's less than half the price I paid. I
think you'll be thrilled with it.

I'm planning to take the daughter with breast cancer on a cruise next fall,
and I just may have to get that lens for the cruise. The one I've got
stayed home last time just because it was so bulky. I do like the fact that
it's an f2.8 lens though!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

That is the only complaint I have with the 18-200 is it is a f3.5.

I know we will love this lens, but i am sure the next thing my wife is
going to want is a "macro/portrait" lens such as :

http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php...productNr=1987



--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Digital Cameras and Boating
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
I have gotten hooked on taking Digital pictures with my new D50. I
just ordered the new Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6g IF-ED AF-S DX VR
(http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/...m_brochure.pdf)
and am trying to figure out if I should buy lens filters. I am
curious what the other shutterbugs use? I contacted Nikon because I
kept getting conflicting recommendations from the sales reps both
online and in the stores. Some say you should use a UV/Haze filter to
reduce the 'washout effect" others said this was a waste of time and
only use a polarized filter (and whatever you do, make sure it is a
circular polarized and not linear, linear polarized lens will eat your
digital camera alive) and finally whatever you do, only use a clear
filter, all the others screw with the auto focus and auto settings of
the very expensive lens and your pictures will all be useless.

The Nikon rep. at the 800 number told me not to use any lens filter
for protection, and I can do everything I want to do with a filter
using Photoshop.

So I am interested to see what everyone else has ended up using


If you live in a decent-sized city, sign up for a good visiting
Photoshop workshop and then sign up for a more advanced workshop six
months or a year later. Even if you think you know Photoshop, you don't.
Most of the pros I know enroll in at least one Photoshop workshop a year.

The advice you got filters was correct, though I use a UV filter and
a polarizing filter. About everything else is do-able with Photoshop and
the zillions of Photoshop add-ons.

I find my D-70 perfect for snapshots. But I still prefer larger format
cameras for "work" work.

Do you use a clear filter to "protect" the lens or is that what you use
your UV filter for?

Since the filter is a nice one, I really need to purchase a nice filter
and a Nikon clear filter is $70.

I have putz around with Photoshop, and use PaintShop Pro for quick touch
ups. I can tell I really do need to sign up for a class to begin to get
my hands around Photoshop.

--
Reggie

That's my story and I am sticking to it.

Digital Cameras and Boating
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:27:08 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
I have gotten hooked on taking Digital pictures with my new D50. I
just ordered the new Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6g IF-ED AF-S DX VR
(http://www.nikonusa.com/fileuploads/...m_brochure.pdf)
and am trying to figure out if I should buy lens filters. I am
curious what the other shutterbugs use? I contacted Nikon because I
kept getting conflicting recommendations from the sales reps both
online and in the stores. Some say you should use a UV/Haze filter to
reduce the 'washout effect" others said this was a waste of time and
only use a polarized filter (and whatever you do, make sure it is a
circular polarized and not linear, linear polarized lens will eat your
digital camera alive) and finally whatever you do, only use a clear
filter, all the others screw with the auto focus and auto settings of
the very expensive lens and your pictures will all be useless.

The Nikon rep. at the 800 number told me not to use any lens filter
for protection, and I can do everything I want to do with a filter
using Photoshop.

So I am interested to see what everyone else has ended up using


If you live in a decent-sized city, sign up for a good visiting
Photoshop workshop and then sign up for a more advanced workshop six
months or a year later. Even if you think you know Photoshop, you don't.
Most of the pros I know enroll in at least one Photoshop workshop a year.

The advice you got filters was correct, though I use a UV filter and
a polarizing filter. About everything else is do-able with Photoshop and
the zillions of Photoshop add-ons.

I find my D-70 perfect for snapshots. But I still prefer larger format
cameras for "work" work.

Do you use a clear filter to "protect" the lens or is that what you use
your UV filter for?

Since the filter is a nice one, I really need to purchase a nice filter
and a Nikon clear filter is $70.

I have putz around with Photoshop, and use PaintShop Pro for quick touch
ups. I can tell I really do need to sign up for a class to begin to get
my hands around Photoshop.

You don't need a 'Nikon' filter! Any clear filter will work fine, as long
as it screws on.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************