Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:33:43 GMT, 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.


I went through the 'first ding' yesterday. What a bitch!

(See response to Reggie.)
--
'Til next time,

John H


In a way I guess it was lucky that my new Ford Ranger came with a paint
flaw. We noticed it before taking it off the dealers lot so they sent it
right over to the bodyshop for repair. It I had been buying instead of
leasing, it would have been a deal breaker.

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On 26 May 2006 13:36:39 -0700, "
wrote:


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.

Ah yes, if I were extremely graceful I would back down and ask Jim to be
friends. I'm simply not yet that graceful. When a person lies to impugn my
integrity, I just don't feel like asking for a truce.

I also see nothing wrong with a comment on inappropriate behavior. You do
it all the time, and I've not disagreed with any of your comments. Personal
attacks are also inappropriate and deserve the same comeuppance. To me,
that's true whether the attacks are instigated by political posts,
successful fund raising, or owning a nice house.

I've killfiled Jim, so the only posts of his I see are those quoted by
others (which I *wish* didn't occur, but...).
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

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

Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 21:35:48 GMT, Don White wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:33:43 GMT, 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.


I went through the 'first ding' yesterday. What a bitch!

(See response to Reggie.)
--
'Til next time,

John H


In a way I guess it was lucky that my new Ford Ranger came with a paint
flaw. We noticed it before taking it off the dealers lot so they sent it
right over to the bodyshop for repair. It I had been buying instead of
leasing, it would have been a deal breaker.

I just picked up the car, and the shop did a great job. I can't tell where
the dings were. Of course, the sun isn't out so I have had a chance to
really look at reflections, but I think it looks good.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

basskisser wrote:

I think it's PMS.......really, take a look. He'll rant, rant, ****
people off, troll, act like an ass for a period of time.........then
come back and stay on topic, never taking blame for his own actions, or
even accepting the fact that he DID such


LOL!

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

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

Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.

--
Reggie

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

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

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

Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I posted a picture of a blue flower, I think it is a lily. I thought it
was not to shabby for a rookie.

--
Reggie

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

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:30:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

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

Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.

So she's seeking a Gaussian distribution of the blur circles as opposed to
a rectangular distribution? I assume she's looking for good background, as
opposed to foreground, bokeh.

If it were my wife, I'd ask what the bokeh she was talking about and let
her buy her own lenses!
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:30:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

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
Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.

So she's seeking a Gaussian distribution of the blur circles as opposed to
a rectangular distribution? I assume she's looking for good background, as
opposed to foreground, bokeh.

If it were my wife, I'd ask what the bokeh she was talking about and let
her buy her own lenses!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
I told her to learn Photoshop. ; )


--
Reggie

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

Open question - Is this appropriate behavior...?
 

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 18:30:50 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Fri, 26 May 2006 17:22:30 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

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
Get that SB-800 flash, and the f3.5 lens will never be a worry.

I don't have a macro capability now, but it's something that may go on the
Christmas list. I'll post a picture of a lily 'over there' that I took with
the 18-70mm. It's not a macro, but it does pretty well unless I wanted to
blow the flower up to an 8 x 10.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************
My wife wants to the have fancy bokeh artistic effects, which in my
limited understanding, you really need a lower f stop to have a quality
bokeh.

So she's seeking a Gaussian distribution of the blur circles as opposed to
a rectangular distribution? I assume she's looking for good background, as
opposed to foreground, bokeh.

If it were my wife, I'd ask what the bokeh she was talking about and let
her buy her own lenses!
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


Yes. It is my understanding she wants it for background, but I am also
sure, she will play around with using it in the foreground. Last night
she was looking over the specs for the 18-200 and she was complaining
about it's inability to have a nice bokeh. I felt like knocking her
upside the head, but I bite my tongue instead.


--
Reggie

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