http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2014593,00.asp
--
Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
www.robertstech.com
412-687-2835
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
@pdml.net
> Subject: John Dvorak (via Mike J's blog)
>
> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2014593,00.asp
>
> --
> Mark Roberts Photography & Multimedia
> www.robertstech.com
> 412-687-2835
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Dis
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Mark Roberts
>> Sent: 01 October 2006 17:44
>> To: pdml@pdml.net
>> Subject: John Dvorak (via Mike J's blog)
>>
>> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2014593,00.asp
>>
>> --
>>
Bob W wrote:
> Who's John Dvorak that anyone should take any notice of him? That
> article is so shallow it's laughable.
>
> --
John Dvorak is one of those self-proclaimed pundits. His articles have
been shallow for decades.
Carlos
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.ne
Agreed - 100%
Dvorak is a columnist for one of the major US computer mags. He should
stick to writing about computers and the computer industry
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Bob W <
> Who's John Dvorak that anyone should take any notice of him? That
> article is so shallow it's laughable
Shel,
He doesn't know anything about the computer industry either. His entire
modus operandi is to make bombastic claims about stuff. When he gets
close to getting canned, he'll do that about Apple to drive up the
responses to his column.
-Adam
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
> Agreed - 100%
>
> Dvor
> Bob
>
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>Behalf Of Mark Roberts
>>Sent: 01 October 2006 17:44
>>To: pdml@pdml.net
>>Subject: John Dvorak (via Mike J's blog)
>>
>>http:/
any notice of him? That
>>article is so shallow it's laughable.
>>
>>--
>>Cheers,
>> Bob
>>
>>
>>
>>>-Original Message-
>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>>>Behalf Of Mark Roberts
>
In truth, I've not picked up a computer magazine in a couple of years. I'm
not really too interested in reading page after page of hype. I feel
somewhat similar about most current photo mags as well.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Adam Maas
> He doesn't know anything about the computer i
Bob W wrote:
> Who's John Dvorak that anyone should take any notice of him? That
> article is so shallow it's laughable.
Am I missing something? Shallow? In what way? He wrote what I've been
saying for a long time. Every photograph is a manipulation of the
"truth." How is that shallow?
--
e of him? That
> article is so shallow it's laughable.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Bob
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
>> Behalf Of Mark Roberts
>> Sent: 01 October 2006 17:44
>> To: pdml@pdml.net
>
Christian wrote:
>Bob W wrote:
>> Who's John Dvorak that anyone should take any notice of him? That
>> article is so shallow it's laughable.
>
>Am I missing something? Shallow? In what way? He wrote what I've been
>saying for a long time. Every photograph is a manipulation of the
>"truth."
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Christian
> Sent: 01 October 2006 19:24
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: John Dvorak (via Mike J's blog)
>
> Bob W wrote:
> > Who's John Dvorak t
Bob W wrote:
>>
>>Am I missing something? Shallow? In what way? He wrote
>>what I've been
>>saying for a long time. Every photograph is a manipulation of the
>>"truth." How is that shallow?
>>
>
>
> Then I guess you are missing something. I'm not going to waste my time
> explaining it - I
I guess it's just that Dvorak is stating the obvious. A photograph
isn't reality. It's just a photograph, subject to the whims of the
person who takes it and the person who processes it. We already knew
that.
Paul
On Oct 1, 2006, at 6:50 PM, Christian wrote:
> Bob W wrote:
>>>
>>> Am I miss
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I guess it's just that Dvorak is stating the obvious. A photograph
> isn't reality. It's just a photograph, subject to the whims of the
> person who takes it and the person who processes it. We already knew
> that.
Well, duh. But how is that "shallow"? And why is
I don't think Bob was angry. He was just rude. We all agree with
Dvorak. But it isn't worth repeating. If a columnist can't think of
something more interesting and unique than this old saw, he shouldn't
write at all.
On Oct 1, 2006, at 7:12 PM, Christian wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> I g
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>I don't think Bob was angry. He was just rude. We all agree with
>Dvorak. But it isn't worth repeating. If a columnist can't think of
>something more interesting and unique than this old saw, he shouldn't
>write at all.
He has to come up with *something* every week :)
Paul Stenquist wrote:
> I don't think Bob was angry. He was just rude. We all agree with
> Dvorak. But it isn't worth repeating. If a columnist can't think of
> something more interesting and unique than this old saw, he shouldn't
> write at all.
Gotcha. It was lack of originality. Thanks.
Mark Roberts wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>
>>I don't think Bob was angry. He was just rude. We all agree with
>>Dvorak. But it isn't worth repeating. If a columnist can't think of
>>something more interesting and unique than this old saw, he shouldn't
>>write at all.
>
>
> He has to
>
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> > I guess it's just that Dvorak is stating the obvious. A photograph
> > isn't reality. It's just a photograph, subject to the whims of the
> > person who takes it and the person who processes it. We
> already knew
> > that.
>
>
> Well, duh. But how is that "sh
Mark Roberts wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
>> I don't think Bob was angry. He was just rude. We all agree with
>> Dvorak. But it isn't worth repeating. If a columnist can't think of
>> something more interesting and unique than this old saw, he shouldn't
>> write at all.
>
> He has to co
On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 07:12:31PM -0400, Christian wrote:
> Paul Stenquist wrote:
> > I guess it's just that Dvorak is stating the obvious. A photograph
> > isn't reality. It's just a photograph, subject to the whims of the
> > person who takes it and the person who processes it. We already k
: "John Francis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: John Dvorak (via Mike J's blog)
> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 07:12:31PM -0400, Christian wrote:
>> Paul Stenquist wrote:
>> > I guess it's just that Dvorak is stating the obvious. A photograph
>> > isn&#
Christian wrote:
> Bob W wrote:
>> Who's John Dvorak that anyone should take any notice of him? That
>> article is so shallow it's laughable.
>
> Am I missing something? Shallow? In what way? He wrote what I've been
> saying for a long time. Every photograph is a manipulation of the
> "truth
On 10/3/06, keith_w <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Well, in that case, you're BOTH wrong.
> His ongoing tirade about how photographs are simply not any truth at ALL, is
> wearing, and of itself, untrue.
>
> People who think of photos taken of Uncle Joe and Aunt Mattie, and passed
> around for fami
> Well stated Keith!
>
> Especially the part about Bob W. and Christian being ~both~
> wrong.
>
Keith's wrong about us both being wrong. Keith and Christian are both
wrong, so obviously you're wrong about Keith being right - he's wrong.
Right?
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdm
Bob W wrote:
>
> Keith's wrong about us both being wrong. Keith and Christian are both
> wrong, so obviously you're wrong about Keith being right - he's wrong.
> Right?
>
> Bob
>
Wrong.
--
Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pd
On 10/3/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Keith's wrong about us both being wrong. Keith and Christian are both
> wrong, so obviously you're wrong about Keith being right - he's wrong.
> Right?
I have a French surname. The French are never wrong. As for the
others, I really don't care.
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:01:08PM -0400, frank theriault wrote:
> On 10/3/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Keith's wrong about us both being wrong. Keith and Christian are both
> > wrong, so obviously you're wrong about Keith being right - he's wrong.
> > Right?
>
> I have a French
John Francis wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:01:08PM -0400, frank theriault wrote:
>
>>On 10/3/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Keith's wrong about us both being wrong. Keith and Christian are both
>>>wrong, so obviously you're wrong about Keith being right - he's wrong.
>>>Right
On 10/3/06, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Does this mean knarf is a loof?
If you want me to be.
cheers,
frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006 21:56:48 +0100, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:01:08PM -0400, frank theriault wrote:
>> On 10/3/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Keith's wrong about us both being wrong. Keith and Christian are both
>> > wrong, so obviously
If knarf is a loof, would frank be a fool?
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: John Francis
> Does this mean knarf is a loof?
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
On Oct 3, 2006, at 5:20 PM, mike wilson wrote:
> John Francis wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 04:01:08PM -0400, frank theriault wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/3/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
Keith's wrong about us both being wrong. Keith and Christian are
both
wrong, so o
>
> From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2006/10/03 Tue PM 11:20:29 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: John Dvorak (via Mike J's blog)
>
>
> On Oct 3, 2006, at 5:20 PM, mike wilson wrote:
>
> > John Francis wrote:
>
Bob W wrote:
>> Well stated Keith!
>>
>> Especially the part about Bob W. and Christian being ~both~
>> wrong.
>>
>
> Keith's wrong about us both being wrong. Keith and Christian are both
> wrong, so obviously you're wrong about Keith being right - he's wrong.
> Right?
>
> Bob
Uhhh, yes.
kei
37 matches
Mail list logo
