From: John Navas on
On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:55:27 -0500, George Kerby
<ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
<C822BCAF.46247%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>:

>On 5/26/10 11:29 AM, in article 91jqv59vrfgmqq71n7stn63vqrfkpmkh23(a)4ax.com,
>"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:42:16 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote
>> in <dmupv5duisj3h2dsvtsjt2bj478hja4p7u(a)4ax.com>:
>>
>>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:37:06 -0400, "Larry Thong"
>>> <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote:
>>>> Even the shiest of models will pose for the 24/1.4G. I can't believe it,
>>>> but this lens works really well at f/5.
>>>>
>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Breaking_Out.jpg>
>>>
>>> Cute subject, but a smaller aperture would surely have delivered a far
>>> more attractive result ...
>>
>> To some people. Not to others. I rather like it the way it is.
>> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
>
>In that case, you need to see an Optometrist.

You need to see a psychiatrist. Seriously.
--
Best regards,
John

"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman
From: George Kerby on



On 5/26/10 12:48 PM, in article qlnqv5t4jb95ft0870qfm615ep0fb9sm3h(a)4ax.com,
"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:55:27 -0500, George Kerby
> <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
> <C822BCAF.46247%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>:
>
>> On 5/26/10 11:29 AM, in article 91jqv59vrfgmqq71n7stn63vqrfkpmkh23(a)4ax.com,
>> "John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 11:42:16 +0100, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote
>>> in <dmupv5duisj3h2dsvtsjt2bj478hja4p7u(a)4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:37:06 -0400, "Larry Thong"
>>>> <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote:
>>>>> Even the shiest of models will pose for the 24/1.4G. I can't believe it,
>>>>> but this lens works really well at f/5.
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Breaking_Out.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> Cute subject, but a smaller aperture would surely have delivered a far
>>>> more attractive result ...
>>>
>>> To some people. Not to others. I rather like it the way it is.
>>> "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."
>>
>> In that case, you need to see an Optometrist.
>
> You need to see a psychiatrist. Seriously.

Spoken as one who has intimate knowledge.

So, did your lithium prescription run out and you have come back in here to
spread your vast wealth of intellectual superiority, NavAss?

From: John Navas on
On Wed, 26 May 2010 13:14:21 -0500, George Kerby
<ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
<C822CF2D.46267%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>:

>On 5/26/10 12:48 PM, in article qlnqv5t4jb95ft0870qfm615ep0fb9sm3h(a)4ax.com,
>"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> You need to see a psychiatrist. Seriously.
>
>Spoken as one who has intimate knowledge.
>
>So, did your lithium prescription run out and you have come back in here to
>spread your vast wealth of intellectual superiority, NavAss?

To be insulted by the village idiot is a mark of distinction.
Thanks!
--
Best regards,
John

"There are three kinds of men.
The one that learns by reading.
The few who learn by observation.
The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves."
-Will Rogers
From: George Kerby on



On 5/26/10 1:28 PM, in article jvpqv554mqr68gvvd3b6sbgqaculfk80kv(a)4ax.com,
"John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 May 2010 13:14:21 -0500, George Kerby
> <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote in
> <C822CF2D.46267%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>:
>
>> On 5/26/10 12:48 PM, in article qlnqv5t4jb95ft0870qfm615ep0fb9sm3h(a)4ax.com,
>> "John Navas" <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>> You need to see a psychiatrist. Seriously.
>>
>> Spoken as one who has intimate knowledge.
>>
>> So, did your lithium prescription run out and you have come back in here to
>> spread your vast wealth of intellectual superiority, NavAss?
>
> To be insulted by the village idiot is a mark of distinction.

And you do that job so well, too!


> Thanks!

No. Thank YOU!

From: George Kerby on



On 5/27/10 11:23 AM, in article 5u6tv51aciu2i8d6c28j59v3epdbhuci4o(a)4ax.com,
"John A." <john(a)nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 25 May 2010 19:37:06 -0400, "Larry Thong"
> <larry_thong(a)shitstring.com> wrote:
>
>> Even the shiest of models will pose for the 24/1.4G. I can't believe it,
>> but this lens works really well at f/5.
>>
>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Breaking_Out.jpg>
>>
>
> Very nice.
>
> And to those complaining about the main subject appearing fuzzy - well
> I'm thinking that's because the *subject* is fuzzy. It's a baby bird,
> folks - they're almost always fuzzy. looking closely it's obviously in
> focus.

Looking closely, most folks will recognize that 'Rita' has been messing with
the file in post-production.

And it just doesn't work.