You rang, ;-)
Doug Brewer wrote:
> =damn=
>
> At 12:27 AM -05001/11/03, Otis Wright, Jr. wrote, or at least typed:
> >I don't think this sells. It may be true, but the general or periodic use
> >of profanity "for effect" is not effective in general, in my opinion.
> >I've worked with
=damn=
At 12:27 AM -05001/11/03, Otis Wright, Jr. wrote, or at least typed:
>I don't think this sells. It may be true, but the general or periodic use
>of profanity "for effect" is not effective in general, in my opinion.
>I've worked with exceptional people all my life. They account for a s
Yes. There is a very large difference in field view for a very small change
in focal length when you go wide.
At 05:01 PM 1/10/2003 -0800, you wrote:
Hi again all,
I just acquired the SMC-M 28mm F/3.5 lens. I will
also soon be acquiring the SMC-M 35mm, F/3.5 lens. Do
you think it is worth keep
On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 00:27:58 -0500, Otis Wright, Jr. wrote:
> Today, those using profanity consistently [...]
I didn't say using it consistently, though that may have been implied
by the reference to Tom's message. Short words and long words are both
tools.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Do you have an ISBN number on that?
At 05:31 PM 1/10/2003 +, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> > Vic
>
> I agree with Vic on this. I've never taken a course on Photoshop, never
read
> the manual (I've tried; I just can't seem to pay attention). But I find
that
> if I explore
I don't think this sells. It may be true, but the general or periodic use
of profanity "for effect" is not effective in general, in my opinion.
I've worked with exceptional people all my life. They account for a small
percentage of the general scene and for the rest much stiffer get applied
--
It's used as a coolant in image capture devices.
At 12:07 AM 1/11/2003 +0200, you wrote:
Really I meant to ask what it had to do with photography, last time i heard
they use it
to break into safes and locks, and cut warts off too
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED
Alright then, that settles it! I'm definately keeping
both, atleast for awhile. Just wanted to make sure.
Thanks everyone for your thoughts!
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Keep them both. They are not that close and they are
> exceptional lenses.
> Vic
>
___
If we ever wondered what Bob's problem was we can make a guess now. :)
At 05:46 PM 1/10/2003 -0600, William Robb Pounded Out:
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely
Subject: Re: Really?
> I saw one of those when I was a child. No one's EVER going to
put one of
> those up there again!
Bob, I'm with you. I have the two 28s/3.5s K and M, the K30/2.8 and the
K35/3.5. I wouldn't sell them. Once you have them hold on to them. You can't
get much for them but they might be hard to find. Itreat them like insurance.
If one ever breaks I always have the others.
Vic
In a message date
Keep them both. They are not that close and they are exceptional lenses.
Vic
eactivist wrote:
(about an FA 400mm f/2.8)
> I'd go with that -- something good for wild life photography that would
> not also break the bank.
Nevermind the bank... I want a fast AF 400mm that won't break my *back*.
Hence my desire for a 400mm f/4.0. The f/5.6 is a bit slow for my
liking. I'v
Shaun Canning wrote:
> What HTML editors or web page creation software are PDMLer's using
> for their web sites? I am still using Frontpage 2000, which does the job,
> but is an idiosyncratic little bugger...
I used to use Pico (a simple non-graphical unix-based text editor).
Coded everything b
Fred wrote:
> And, in my opinion, with good reason. As much as I love the M*/A*
> 300/4's for their compactness and speed, it is hard not to like the
> optically superb and well-built F* 300/4.5. It's my favorite
> autofocus lens (used primarily as a manual focus lens).
I would have to agree wi
Mike Johnston wrote:
> If you could direct Pentax to make and market one lens it currently does
> not make, what would it be?
I'm going to bend the rules and specify one for each format I use.
35mm: 400mm f/4.0 AF, image stabilising is optional. Close focus to 3m
(2m would be nice). Variable
That might be the case but there is no beating a tripod.
Vic
In a message dated 1/10/03 2:43:18 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Not so. IS still helps on a tripod. In fact, the modern IS lenses
>recognize when they are on a tripod.
>
>-R
Oh, liguid helium, that's fun stuff. Hard to keep around though.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:44 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Can digital capture do TIME
How about a 55 and a 35 for the 645n that coupled to a bellows system that
allowed for swings and tilts for architectural photography while keeping all
automation and metering systems and at least focus confirmation if not full
autofocus.
BUTCH
"Each man had only one genuine vocation - to find t
That reminds me of a story. When I was in basic training there was a guy who
had an extremely foul mouth. The TI as punishment told him to write a 1000
word essay on why people with poor vocabularies used profanity. The TI sat
up half the night with a dictionary reading it. Sometimes ones assumptio
I vaguely remember something to do with jumpering wires between holes in the
panel, but perhaps that is just the remnant of an old nightmare. The first
computer I worked on had a lot of gears and cams in it. It was a nightmarish
thing used for a nightmarish task.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodig
Hi Guys:
This is for the people that think the Brotherhood shoots weenie size negs.
Goerz Dagor 9.5" (not red or gold dot) F6.3 in an ACME #3 synchro shutter.
This is an early lens, I believe uncoated Glass is clean, no marks or
scratches that I can see. I don't think the shutter is working but I
I just acquired the SMC-M 28mm F/3.5 lens. I will
also soon be acquiring the SMC-M 35mm, F/3.5 lens. Do
you think it is worth keeping both focal lengths?
35/3.5 (K, not M by the way) is an exceptionnal lens. Very high
resolution and very low flare. I would keep it, and... also the
28/3.5: li
http://www.skinsite.com/info_liquid_nitrogen.htm
You could have done the google search yourself you know.
Ciao,
Graywolf
http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto
- Original Message -
From: "Feroze Kistan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 6:28 AM
I have the SMC-M 28mm F/3.5 lens and the SMC Pentax 35mm, F/3.5 (K
version) and have switched back and forth between the two on several
jobs. It is that or get a zoom, which do you prefer? When I have
time, I prefer the primes.
On Saturday 11 January 2003 01:01 am, Steve Pearson wrote:
> I ju
I would like to see the 31mm Ltd in a smaller version, similar in size to
one of my favorite optics, the K 30mm 2.8
It is foolish to think - to dream - that Pentax would introduce again
something like the wonderful K mount lenses, with their wonderfeel feel and
excellent optical qualities
Also
This is a lot like asking if you need black shoes and brown shoes. It is
all a matter of subject and taste.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi again all,
I just acquired the SMC-M 28mm F/3.5 lens. I will
also soon be acquiring the SMC-M 35mm, F/3.5 lens. Do
you think it is worth keeping both foca
Hi again all,
I just acquired the SMC-M 28mm F/3.5 lens. I will
also soon be acquiring the SMC-M 35mm, F/3.5 lens. Do
you think it is worth keeping both focal lengths? Are
there actually times where you can say you had to have
the 28mm?
Are there any advantages of one over the other, that
wou
Well, I'm not really interested in greater depth of field.
I want to be able to do more "creative" stuff, like the things that I do
with my Linhof Technika, but much easier and faster. I need tilt lens
movement to get an effect which is directly oposite to achieving greatest
possible DOF. I want
- Original Message -
From: frank theriault
Subject: Re: Really?
> Hi, Bill,
>
> That ~is~ the baby version. You should see the adult version!
Sorry, it's hard to tell in the photo as there is no size
reference.
Good thing you know enough about this stuff to set me straight.
Thanks Fran
Hi, Bill,
That ~is~ the baby version. You should see the adult version!
-frank
William Robb wrote:
> They didn't use the baby version?
> WW
--
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert
Oppenheimer
Pentax LX with fa-1 finder recently cla $480
Pentax Fa 300mm 4.5 telephotot lens $480
tokina 28-70mm atx pro 2.6-2.8 lens $250
tazmron 90mm autofocus 2.8 macro $310
pentax 20mm Fa 2.8 $480
pentax mz-6/zx-l with tamron 28-105mm lens and fg grip $360
sigma ef 430 flash $130
all values in USD and inc
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 11:53:38 -0500, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> Yes, but "con" should be "con:"
> and we still depend on ddt, stat, etc.
Works with or without the ":" character in many versions of MS/PC-DOS
and Windows. IIRC, OS/2 was a bit more picky about it.
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
Hmmm... Why not a Horseman type shift, tilt swing attachment and provide a
few lenes optimised for it? One of the reasons I still have and use my
Horseman VHR.
Bob Rapp
- Original Message -
From: "A K" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2003 9:45 AM
Sub
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Really?
> Bill,
>
> I'm not going to ask how you know such detailed information on
this product
> ;-)
General knowledge never hurts, especially when it comes to home
medical devices.
William Robb
>
> Dave
>
> Original Message
- Original Message -
From: Bob Blakely
Subject: Re: Really?
> I saw one of those when I was a child. No one's EVER going to
put one of
> those up there again!
They didn't use the baby version?
WW
Tilt is not really an asset at 28mm on a 35mm camera. At 24mm, I consider it
a tremendous waste of money. You already have tremendous depth of field at
28mm so this function usually only adds weight and poorer lens performance.
If you need to be faster than f/4, there may be some benefit. Poorer le
Thanks for all the comments regarding peoples HTML editors etc. I have
never had the time to learn HTML coding beyond the basics, so I will
have to stick with a bit of WYSIWYG program. I hace just discovered that
Dreamweaver 3.0 combined with Fireworks 3.0 does exactly what I want,
and I have
A shift AND TILT lens, like Canon's 24, 45 & 90!
_
Help STOP SPAM: Try the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Really I meant to ask what it had to do with photography, last time i
heard
they use it to break into safes and locks, and cut warts off too<
oh, all right. they refrigerate the digital sensor and the amplifiers to
lower thermal noise. works best
Mike Johnston wrote:
>
> > Vic
>
> I agree with Vic on this. I've never taken a course on Photoshop, never read
> the manual (I've tried; I just can't seem to pay attention). But I find that
> if I explore, I begin to see what does what, and as that knowledge accrues I
> can figure out ways to
I feel sorry for the turkey...
cheers,
frank
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" wrote:
> Turkey Baster
> that's a classy turkey baster
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> Original Message:
> -
> From: Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:10:00 -0500
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
How do you guys know these things is what worrys me most
Feroze
Oh No I'm a member of a list that will have me as a member
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Really?
> Available free i
Really I meant to ask what it had to do with photography, last time i heard
they use it
to break into safes and locks, and cut warts off too
- Original Message -
From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Can digi
That is strange, I just looked at the Adobe website, and it is explicitly
stated the upgrades are not for Photoshop LE, deluxe or elements. Did it work
for you from LE?
Frits
On Thursday 09 January 2003 13:34, Leonard Paris wrote:
> Here's a somehow little known fact about PhotoShop 7. Chances
Ahh, wellOZ7AFP, class A/1 licence (i.e. HF) - however lost most
of my rig in a fire (no cameras got hurt) and currently living where
I cannot put up anything more than 144MHz antennas :( Gotta hope for
serious scatter to reach all the way over the pond with that
--thomas
On Thu, 9 Jan 2
In a message dated 1/10/2003 4:37:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> In a message dated 1/9/2003 9:00:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>writes:
> >>
> >> > An FA 400 2.8 for 35mm.
> >>
> >> I'd go with that -- some
On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 09:12 AM, Mike Johnston wrote:
It depends what you like. If you tend to like lenses with high
large-structure contrast, you may not take to the 43mm particularly.
If you
like lenses with very high small-structure resolution, you will
probably
love the 43mm. I t
"Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Don't get me wrong, I love the Sigma 17-35, 100-30/f4 EX and 28-70/f2.8
>lenses that I own, but for the wide in particular some more flare
>resistance wouldn't go amiss. I think the 20-35 is probably better at
>20mm and above, but I often go wider than th
Pål Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In a message dated 1/9/2003 9:00:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>
>> > An FA 400 2.8 for 35mm.
>>
>> I'd go with that -- something good for wild life photography that would not also
>break the bank.
>
>A 400/2.8 that would not b
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
01/10/03
at 03:08 PM, Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
|>Really hard for me to understand how these megacorporations can't do
|>as well.
not a can't its a won't. new hardware sells new software and new
software sells new hardware. An hardware company that is s
Don't get me wrong, I love the Sigma 17-35, 100-30/f4 EX and 28-70/f2.8
lenses that I own, but for the wide in particular some more flare
resistance wouldn't go amiss. I think the 20-35 is probably better at
20mm and above, but I often go wider than that and for a DSLR with 1.5*
crop 20 is not wid
One and all:
I'd have to differ on the merits of IS, having recently moved from Pentax to
Canon for my main photo system. I own the 28-135 IS and 100-400 IS zooms.
My son, a bird photographer, owns the 300/4 IS. (You Oregonians on the list can
see some examples of his work in the current issue
On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 04:59 AM, Mark D. wrote:
--- Dan Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Mark,
I had problems with Epson's driver, too, until I
suddenly realized
problems only happened when OS 9 was running in the
background?you
might check if it's the same for you.
The print driv
Pål Jensen wrote:
>
> Henry wrote:
>
>
> > From expertise point of view, Casio appears to compliment well with Pentax.
> > One is an experienced manufacturer for consumer electronics product but they
> > know nothing about optical design. Pentax has declared their intention on
> > shifting th
Steve,
Is Rolla still the school of mines?
--
Ken Archer Canine Photography
San Antonio, Texas
"Business Is Going To The Dogs"
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 3:19 AM
Subject: Re: What Lens Do YOU Want?
> In a message dated 1/9/2003 9:00:48 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > An FA 400 2.8 for 35mm.
> >
> > -R
>
> I'd
Henry wrote:
> From expertise point of view, Casio appears to compliment well with Pentax.
> One is an experienced manufacturer for consumer electronics product but they
> know nothing about optical design. Pentax has declared their intention on
> shifting their camera line to digital which
Mike wrote:
> If you could direct Pentax to make and market one lens it currently does not
> make, what would it be?
400/4 with or without IS.
Pål
I'm surprised Henry would do that. I've had quite a few dealings with B&H
with no problems. The only thing I dislike about B&H is that they bill your
credit card at the time of order instead of at the time of shipment. This
goes for stuff on back order, too. However, they tell you they are goi
> It comes up periodically that someone is looking for the F*
> 300/4.5.
And, in my opinion, with good reason. As much as I love the M*/A*
300/4's for their compactness and speed, it is hard not to like the
optically superb and well-built F* 300/4.5. It's my favorite
autofocus lens (used primari
What is the purpose of liquid nitrogen and where is it used?
Feroze
- Original Message -
From: "T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:50 AM
Subject: Re: Can digital capture do TIME exposures?
> Yep, a little liquid nitrogen will do wo
Okay, I just ordered the FA 24 f2.0 from Adorama. Thanks to everyone for
your advice.
My gadget bag is full. Adding this lens will probably mean that my FA 50
f1.7 has to come out. I spent November in France with six lenses. The 50
was the only one that didn't get used. I could have used the 24.
Apparently everyone's mileage varies. I'm using ME for it's disaster recovery
capabilities, I'm constantly doing something that causes systems lockups.
ME recovers from a re-boot after a lockup more often. (I hate to think the
number of times I've had to re-install 95 and 98 because they got so b
It comes up periodically that someone
is looking for the F* 300/4.5.
KEH has one listed.
http://www.keh.com/shop/product.cfm?bid=PK&cid=06&sid=newused&crid=4351225
Collin
Peter Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That depends on your OS as well.
Yep. The original Win95 won't do USB at all. Win 95 OSR2 had USB capability
but it was a bit shaky. Win98 seems to be rock solid with USB as far as I
can tell - at least, since I updated my chipset drivers after I bought m
I tend to agree. I moved to to Photoshop late last year after using PD and PE
for a few years. The added horsepower has me to reduces my overall costs and
generally improve the overall quality of the photos I use in my work. I've found
the learning exercise to be interesting and helpful in other
Antti-Pekka Virjonen wrote:
At 00:08 10.1.2003 -0600, you wrote:
hey- don't laugh- I've got a f/3.5 1050mm (fl) telescope that has a 70mm image circle. I have yet to use it with the 67 for anything terristrial.
-Ryan Brooks
Hmm... a Takahashi ;-) ?
Ding Ding! Epsilion 300.
-R
Antti-
Ah, you kids and your HTML editors.
In my day we used sticks to scratch out our code in the dirt...
('course, we had to photograph the result with a digital camera and OCR the
image into a text file, but still...)
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
I could use a rig.
Anyone got one to partial/trade for some of my good stuff?
Collin
I've got an Icom 737 gathering dust. Let's talk off list.
-Ryan
"Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I'd still like to swap my Sigma 17-35 for one with SMC glass though and
>would have bought the 80-200f2.8 if it werent so damn big & heavy.
How is the Sigma?
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
I never said that I never made a syntax error in my life, but I do spell
pretty darned good anyway. :^)
I miss that old Dynamic Debugging Tool. But Super Utility was a lot better.
;-)
Len
---
From: Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMA
- Original Message -
From: Collin Brendemuehl
Subject: Really?
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1951053760&ca
tegory=15240
>
> Is this truely for cleaning cameras?
> It's appearance reminds me of some medical function. ;)
Whether it's original design was medical or p
And he specifically said "Pentax" cameras. I wonder if this isn't a bit of
humor posted to eBay by someone on the PDML that we all know and love. What
do you think?
Len
---
From: Collin Brendemuehl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Really?
Date: Fr
That's an evil wicked looking thing.
At 12:16 PM 1/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Turkey Baster
that's a classy turkey baster
Cheers,
Dave
Original Message:
-
From: Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:10:00 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Rea
I think I've mentioned it many times as well, nevertheless I second it:
high quality, constant F4 70/80-200/210 tele zoom. I think it is missing
in the lineup and yes, I'd buy it.
Matjaz
> I think I mentioned it far too many times, but since someone asked
> again, I don't mind to say it again.
Mike,
I'm not sure what you mean by large-structure contrast and
small-structure resolution. Could you please elaborate?
Michael Cross
Mike Johnston wrote:
It depends what you like. If you tend to like lenses with high
large-structure contrast, you may not take to the 43mm particularly. If yo
Turkey Baster
that's a classy turkey baster
Cheers,
Dave
Original Message:
-
From: Christian Skofteland [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:10:00 -0500
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Really?
On Friday 10 January 2003 11:51, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>
http://cgi
AMEN TO THAT!!
I'd still like to swap my Sigma 17-35 for one with SMC glass though and
would have bought the 80-200f2.8 if it werent so damn big & heavy.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 10 January 2003 16:40
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subj
These are all AF lenses. Many are updates of existing
lenses:
-FA* 17/20-35mm f3.5 AL: NO power zoom, all metal,
same optical characters (generally) as the 20-35 mm f4
AL
-FA*80-200mm f2.8 & f4: NO power Zoom
-updated FA version of the F 70-210 f4-5.6: the one
with ED glass; the current crop of
On Friday 10 January 2003 11:51, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1951053760&category=1524
>0
>
> Is this truely for cleaning cameras?
> It's appearance reminds me of some medical function. ;)
>
> Collin
Medical or... otherwise
Christian
I could use a rig.
Anyone got one to partial/trade for some of my good stuff?
Collin
Yes, but "con" should be "con:"
and we still depend on ddt, stat, etc.
Collin
***
From: "Doug Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Personally I like: copy con index.htm
real programmers use: copy con program.com
;-)
TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1951053760&category=15240
Is this truely for cleaning cameras?
It's appearance reminds me of some medical function. ;)
Collin
Peter wrote:
PA> You must be kidding. Every SLR they've introduced since 1987, except for
PA> LX and K1000 variants were highly dependant on electronics and
PA> software, (usually in the form of firmware). The days of
PA> mechanical or even electro-mechanical cameras with a bit of add on
PA> ele
No, I haven't. I'll give it a look/see and find out what it's all about.
Thanks for the pointer.
Len (KD9S)
-
Have you tried Echolink?
www.echolink.org/el
Alan (G1gop)
Those who do not learn from Dilbert are doomed to repeat it.
__
I'd just like to get the time to use what I have more often...
Vic
I don't agree. Photoshop is as complicated or uncomplicated as you make it.
There are many features that you may not use and may never use but once you
start exploring there is no limit to the creativity it offers. I regularly
read through my manual, not because I have to but because I want to p
I was amused that the recent Pop Photo had an article on shooting with
the sun in the picture and the author was using a Spottie II with SMC
Lenses. Of course, when they compared the new Rebel to the competition,
no Pentax camera was even mentioned.
Steven Desjardins
Department of Chemistry
Wash
At 19:27 2003-01-09 -0600, Mike Johnston wrote:
If you could direct Pentax to make and market one lens it currently does not
make, what would it be?
Funny, we were just moaning about this on the Cosina Voigtlander list:
> In the same series as the "Limited edition" 1.9/43 lens there are also
Keith Whaley wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> >
> > The PhotoShop tutorials are quite adequate. You just have to see them
> > through from start to finish.
> > Paul
>
> All facetiousness aside, I do believe you.
> My single objection to PhotoShop is it's massiveness & complexity,
> similar to late
Could people mark replies to Bruce in the topic line so I can ignore them
entirely?
At 09:15 AM 1/10/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> No shit.
>
> BR
"Habitual profanity is the inarticulate mind attempting to express itself
forcefully."
--Mike
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Insid
That's true any editor you extend in LISP had to be written by a sadist.
At 08:59 AM 1/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jan 2003, Peter Alling wrote:
> I'm opposed to most wysiwig editors on principal but you're just sick. :)
Don't look at me, Mishka said _emacs_!
(although I wonder if someo
See my response to Dan.
You know I honestly thought about whether or not to re-skin it. With three
normal ones, it will become difficult to tell them apart. Except for the
one from Italia, it has a special little badge on its front.
Chances are it will remain as it is though. But just in case
You don't know how true this was to be...
I had an invitation to attend the high school all-star football game held at
the Alamodome last Sunday. I would have had a press pass and access to the
field.
Alas, there was no reasonable air fare to be found. And, sorry guys, that
was just a bit too f
Have you tried Echolink?
www.echolink.org/el
Alan (G1gop)
Those who do not learn from Dilbert are doomed to repeat it.
-Original Message-
From: Leonard Paris [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 2:32 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Brotherhood
I can unde
VI the editor that time forgot, as if someone had turned edlin from
dos into a full screen editor.
At 07:06 PM 1/10/2003 +1100, you wrote:
I'm using JEXT for HTML, PHP, Java and so on. It's free and works well
enough, but is strictly a coding tool. The only hassle I have had is that
you have to f
Worse, I use K-edit a X-edit emulator for the PC. (I cut my teeth programming
ForTran on Mainframes).
At 01:50 AM 1/10/2003 -0500, you wrote:
Peter Alling commented:
> > > What HTML editors or web page creation software are PDMLer's using for
> > > their web sites? I am still using Frontpage 200
> I wouldn't mind doing that. I'd have to get an antenna up, but a long
wire
> and a tuner should do.
>
> Len (KD9S)
That's what I use Len. Due to antenna restrictions, I run wire around the
edge of the house and use an auto tuner for my Alinco DX-70
Bill
"T Rittenhouse" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No problem. I have it working now. It was a dumb blonde catagory error. e.g.
>PS won't recognise the USB printer if the printer wasn't on when PS was
>open. BTW, according to USB standards, it should. I usually leave the
>printer off unless I am going to
Dave xm4245855 ( I know its not 'real' radio
Dave Brooks
Begin Original Message
From: Jeff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 20:53:15 +
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Brotherhood
Jeff, Tokayer.
Bill Owens wrote:
> Bill, KG4LOV
>
>
>
>
>>QRZ?
>>
>>-Mat, N2NJZ
1 - 100 of 133 matches
Mail list logo
