From: DRS on
"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)> wrote in message
> "DRS" <drs(a)> wrote:
>> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd(a)> wrote in message
>> news:87ljjlnohh.fld(a)
>>> "DRS" <drs(a)> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> According to you. Not according to everybody else. You maintain
>>>> you're the only one here who understands what's going on but that's
>>>> not supported by the evidence so I'm quite happy to let you drift
>>>> off in your fantasy world.
>>> The evidence is rather extensive, and nothing I'm saying
>>> is unique. Everyone who does understand it says
>>> basically the same things...
>> Except you. Go read your own tutorials. I already have.
> Do it again. The point is to understand. You don't.

So you say. Whatever. Get a life.

From: Hilarity Ensues on
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 10:44:52 -0800, floyd(a) (Floyd L. Davidson)

>And do note that later today I'll post an extensive analysis
>of each, showing exactly what can be understood from them.

Oh, this is going to be good. Let me go get some popcorn, and a milkshake.
So when I laugh real hard the milkshake will come streaming out of my nose.

From: Porte Rouge on
On Oct 8, 3:04 pm Floyd L. Davidson wrote

"which is ridiculous!"

It is. My apologies. I miss aligned the thread and saw the other link.
Also, I could not see that all the messages in the thread were being
forwarded. Google Groups hides them in the posts.


From: Charles on

A link for your enjoyment.

From: John McWilliams on
Kyle D. wrote:

> (To enlighten the ignorant: There is zero difference in the amount of noise
> in a 2 minute exposure in low light and a 1/2000s exposure in bright light.
> Photons are photons. If you collect enough to get over the base
> noise-threshold then all those parts of the image that are properly exposed
> will be noise-free in any image, no matter the initial light levels.)

Flat out wrong.