From: Sam on

"Sam" <not(a)thisaddress.net> wrote in message
news:Kf6dnU_ag-ng4KLbnZ2dnUVZ8qSnnZ2d(a)eclipse.net.uk...
>
> "ASAAR" <caught(a)22.com> wrote in message
> news:jsru33dksctv7d39u250p1neot36bkkclh(a)4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 May 2007 18:59:05 +0100, Sam wrote:
>>
>>> Like Pete, I am a little puzzled by your angry defence and sudden
>>> appearance - only one post ever? Forgive the cynicism (and call me a
>>> monkey too if it makes you feel better), but given manufacturers are
>>> known to plant these sort of posts, can you offer anything to prove
>>> you aren't in that category? It is also a tiny bit puzzling that you
>>> claim to be an owner of both cameras (why?), but also say that you
>>> have spent "a couple of years trying cameras from Pentax Nikon and
>>> Fuji" .. Do you buy to try?
>>>
>>> Frankly, if you are after the best quality it is already well known
>>> that (most of?) the Pentaxes give their best from Raw, so I'm not sure
>>> why this is such a huge deal.
>>>
>>> FWIW I own neither camera, so have no axes to grind...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, and without wishing to be unduly rude, I don't actually give a
>>> flying
>>> fukc *what* you think. I have used the Samsung over the bank holiday
>>> and
>>> obtained some really nice jpg's - and that's good enough for me.
>>>
>>> As far as I'm concerned, you, Pete, and every other no-lifer here who
>>> just
>>> wants to create an argument for argument's sake can crawl away and die
>>> (preferably slowly and painfully)
>>
>> If that's an example of not being unduly rude,
>> You're one crazy, mixed up, arrogant dude.
>>
>> In addition, you're confused, and don't appear to be able to
>> properly control your replies. You did NOT reply to Pete. You
>> replied to 'mark.thomas.7(a)gmail.com', and simply copied and pasted
>> from his message, without adding the necessary leading 'quote'
>> characters that distinguish between mark's reply and yours. For
>> anyone unable to see mark's original reply, his words in the above
>> quotes end with :
>>
>> : FWIW I own neither camera, so have no axes to grind...
>>
>> and yours begin with :
>>
>>> FWIW, and without wishing to be unduly rude, I don't actually
>>> give a flying fukc *what* you think.
>>
>>
>>> I posted my views for the benefit of those who might be considering
>>> the GX-10 - not for you and your fellow anal retentives to minutely
>>> examine for ulterior motives.
>>
>> So sorry. A better writer wouldn't have invited such criticism.
>> As long as you're unaware that your replies do this (or don't care),
>> you'll find much more critical examination of your future replies.
>
>
> Ah - I think you must be confusing me with someone who gives a fukc - it
> ain't me babe, no, no no, it ain't me babe, it ain't me your looking for
> babe........


Whoops!! - before the grammar pleece get involved, that's 'you're'.........


From: ASAAR on
On Mon, 7 May 2007 20:57:03 +0100, Sam wrote:

>>> So sorry. A better writer wouldn't have invited such criticism.
>>> As long as you're unaware that your replies do this (or don't care),
>>> you'll find much more critical examination of your future replies.
>>
>>
>> Ah - I think you must be confusing me with someone who gives a fukc - it
>> ain't me babe, no, no no, it ain't me babe, it ain't me your looking for
>> babe........
>
>
> Whoops!! - before the grammar pleece get involved, that's 'you're'.........

Nope, no confusion at all. Perhaps you missed "(or don't care)"?
It's nice to see though that you not only care about Little Bobby D.
but your spelling as well. Kinda like how Condi cared about being
well dressed while N.A. was inundated. :)

"I put a spell on you
Because you're mine
Stop the things you do
Heheheh
I ain't lyin'

Yeah
I can't stand no running around
I can't stand no putting me down

I put a spell on you
Because you're mine, oh yeah" -- Screamin' Jay Hawkins

From: Rich on
On May 7, 2:16 pm, "Sam" <n...(a)thisaddress.net> wrote:
> "RichA" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1178469971.935811.256160(a)n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On May 5, 8:11 am, John Bean <waterf...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 5 May 2007 21:34:26 +1000, "Pete D" <n...(a)email.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >The price difference in the UK is probably the only thing
> >> >he said that was actually correct.
>
> >> Yep. But it's a valid reason to go the Samsung route if
> >> you're not brand-sensitive. The rest was drivel, not worth
> >> the effort of responding.
>
> >> >Pretty good post for his first post, silly me for sounding like a
> >> >fanboi.
>
> >> He baited you - he actually said so up front - and you went
> >> for it. Bad move.
>
> >> "Never wrestle with a pig - you both get dirty but only the
> >> pig enjoys it."
>
> >> "Don't argue with a fool, he'll drag you down to his level
> >> and beat you with experience."
>
> >> Et cetera...
>
> >> >Back to it.
>
> >> Good idea :-)
>
> >> --
> >> John Bean
>
> > The seething anger of those with personal vested interests in products
> > that get criticized (or even mildly compared!) never ceases to amaze.
> > People really do have to learn how to separate their emotions from
> > cameras.
>
> I'm afraid that some of the Pentax crowd get *extremely* pissed when it's
> discovered that Samsung have managed to implement a JPG algorithm that
> solves the perennial complaint about Pentax's own JPGS - that they are soft.
>
> Well, Pentax JPG's *are* soft - soft as butter, when compared to other
> DSLR's. They respond to sharpening (to some degree) but they never equal
> (let alone exceed) the JPG's produced by, for example, Nikon.
>
> Samsung, however, *have* genuinely managed to produce a huge improvement -
> sharper, more defined, not as ultra-sharp as those from a D200 - but pretty
> close.
>
> However, as most Pentax owners are petty camera-snobs at heart, it galls
> them to the point of insanity to think that a johnny-come-lately camera
> company like Samsung could excel Pentax (albeit that almost any JPG could
> excel Pentax ;)
>
> But Samsung have done so - and I know it for a fact, having owned both a K10
> and a GX-10.
>
> What's more, the DNG format used by Samsung produces very little vertical
> noise banding, and that which is present is completely eliminated when the
> DNG is opened in Lightroom - unlike either of the Pentax raw formats, which
> no amount of PP can rescue from unsightly banding.
>
> So, with much better JPG's and an absence of noise banding on the GX-10 - no
> wonder the Pentax crowd are feeling touchy! - I'd be a bit pissed myself if
> I was in their shoes ;)
>
> Go Samsung!!

The fact is, Samsung and Sony with their resources could crush any
camera company outside of Canon if they wanted to.


From: Sam on

"ASAAR" <caught(a)22.com> wrote in message
news:vp4v33phnsv828mdctcqttfds0eule3aa9(a)4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 May 2007 20:57:03 +0100, Sam wrote:
>
>>>> So sorry. A better writer wouldn't have invited such criticism.
>>>> As long as you're unaware that your replies do this (or don't care),
>>>> you'll find much more critical examination of your future replies.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ah - I think you must be confusing me with someone who gives a fukc - it
>>> ain't me babe, no, no no, it ain't me babe, it ain't me your looking for
>>> babe........
>>
>>
>> Whoops!! - before the grammar pleece get involved, that's
>> 'you're'.........
>
> Nope, no confusion at all. Perhaps you missed "(or don't care)"?
> It's nice to see though that you not only care about Little Bobby D.
> but your spelling as well. Kinda like how Condi cared about being
> well dressed while N.A. was inundated. :)
>
> "I put a spell on you
> Because you're mine
> Stop the things you do
> Heheheh
> I ain't lyin'
>
> Yeah
> I can't stand no running around
> I can't stand no putting me down
>
> I put a spell on you
> Because you're mine, oh yeah" -- Screamin' Jay Hawkins<<


On the day I was born, the nurses all gathered 'round
And they gazed in wide wonder, at the joy they had found
The head nurse spoke up, and she said leave this one alone
She could tell right away, that I was bad to the bone
Bad to the bone
Bad to the bone
B-B-B-B-Bad to the bone
B-B-B-B-Bad
B-B-B-B-Bad
Bad to the bone

I broke a thousand hearts, before I met you
I'll break a thousand more baby, before I am through
I wanna be yours pretty baby, yours and yours alone
I'm here to tell ya honey, that I'm bad to the bone
Bad to the bone
B-B-B-Bad
B-B-B-Bad
B-B-B-Bad
Bad to the bone

I make a rich woman beg, I'll make a good woman steal
I'll make an old woman blush, and make a young woman squeal
I wanna be yours pretty baby, yours and yours alone
I'm here to tell ya honey, that I'm bad to the bone
B-B-B-B-Bad
B-B-B-B-Bad
B-B-B-B-Bad
Bad to the bone




From: ASAAR on
On Mon, 7 May 2007 23:16:56 +0100, Sam wrote:

>> Because you're mine, oh yeah" -- Screamin' Jay Hawkins<<
>
> . . .
>
> I broke a thousand hearts, before I met you
> I'll break a thousand more baby, before I am through
> I wanna be yours pretty baby, yours and yours alone
> I'm here to tell ya honey, that I'm bad to the bone
> Bad to the bone
> B-B-B-Bad
> B-B-B-Bad
> B-B-B-Bad
> Bad to the bone

<g> Who's bad? Jay's BAD!!! From the fiction is stranger than
truth is stranger than fiction department :

> Musician Screamin' Jay Hawkins was an eccentric man. He wore outlandish
> outfits, claimed to practice voodoo and carried a skull named Henry on stage
> with him at every gig he played. But when his close friend and official
> biographer, Maral Nigolian, learned that Jay Hawkins had 57 children, she
> was shocked. After his death last February, Nigolian decided to look for the
> children of Screamin' Jay Hawkins to bring them together for a reunion. As
> independent producer Alix Spiegel reports, what seemed like a small simple
> idea, turned into a full-time occupation. The Website Nigolian posted drew
> thousands of responses, most from people who hoped to be connected to the
> man, some from people who actually were. The oldest of what soon became
> perhaps 75 children, Suki Lee Anne Hawkins remembers mostly her father's
> absences. She never knew he had any other children. Another child, Debra Roe,
> was 23-years-old before she learned that Screamin' Jay Hawkins was her
> father. This summer, Nigolian brought together these two women and some of
> the other 33 Hawkins children she has identified. It was a kind if practice for a
> bigger reunion she is planning for March. And it was rough. No one could
> believe Screamin' Jay had fathered so many.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1116345