I wouldn't want to wear it out. Perhaps I'll put in a digital
simulation of a bell to preserve the original... ;-)
G
On Oct 19, 2007, at 8:24 AM, Y. Rowe wrote:
> Please, ring it daily!
>
>> If I may ring the Luddite bell, relying upon AF for critical focus is
>> a foolish idea.
--
PDML Pen
Please, ring it daily!
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Godfrey DiGiorgi
> Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 09:52
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even unde
P. J. Alling wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
>> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:
>>>
>>>
I know a lot of digiRebel users... none of them would EVER
consider the
50/1.8. "It doesn't zoom" is the most often heard reason. sheesh.
Adam Maas wrote:
> Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
>> On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I know a lot of digiRebel users... none of them would EVER
>>> consider the
>>> 50/1.8. "It doesn't zoom" is the most often heard reason. sheesh.
>>>
>> Yup.
>>
>>
>>> It
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Blakely"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> When I was a Boy Scout, I made my own 4x5 pinhole camera from
> cardboard.Some
> folks have made them from those cylindrical Quaker Oatmeal boxes.
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:
>
>> I know a lot of digiRebel users... none of them would EVER
>> consider the
>> 50/1.8. "It doesn't zoom" is the most often heard reason. sheesh.
>
> Yup.
>
>> It is a noisy flimsy little lens, but wow, is it ever va
s the reality of a reflection."
-Jean Luc Godard
- Original Message -
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under
On Oct 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM, Christian wrote:
> I know a lot of digiRebel users... none of them would EVER
> consider the
> 50/1.8. "It doesn't zoom" is the most often heard reason. sheesh.
Yup.
> It is a noisy flimsy little lens, but wow, is it ever value for money.
Bokeh is also very cr
On 10/18/07, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: Adam Maas
> > Cory Papenfuss wrote:
> >> Wow. Impressive thread. Let me know if I missed any controversies:
> >>
> >> - WR vs. JCO AND WR+JCO vs PDML.
> >> - Sensor sizes defying physical laws
> >> - Whether Pentax will ever rele
> From: Adam Maas
> Cory Papenfuss wrote:
>> Wow. Impressive thread. Let me know if I missed any controversies:
>>
>> - WR vs. JCO AND WR+JCO vs PDML.
>> - Sensor sizes defying physical laws
>> - Whether Pentax will ever release a FF-DSLR
>> - Canikon vs. Pentax
>> - Emacs vs. VI
>> - Firefo
Christian wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
>> William Robb wrote:
>>> - Original Message -
>>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>>>
>>>
>>
Adam Maas wrote:
> William Robb wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>>
>>
>>> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet
>
> From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2007/10/18 Thu AM 07:08:07 GMT
> To: "pentax list"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
> On 17/10/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >(She
On 17/10/07, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
>(She's
>thrilled with the DOF scale next to the focusing ring.)
Got her number ? ;-))
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
PDM
William Robb wrote:
> One of things I am being asked to do quite often at the shop is to fix
> pictures taken by supposed pros that should have been easy images to make if
> the person had a clue about what they were doing.
So charge the shit out of them and laugh all the way to the bank. A lo
William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Adam Maas"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
>
>>> Yeah, we are. Canon 50 f1.8's are the cheapest lens in the system, they
>> run less than $80 U
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> > Yeah, we are. Canon 50 f1.8's are the cheapest lens in the system, they
> run less than $80 USD new, and are a lens that many recommend to Canon
From: "P. J. Alling"
> Sorry my text editor of choice is KEdit, a windows version of XEdit.
> Extensible using REX, (I think I have a REX manual around here
> somewhere), a language that is one understandable by mere mortals and
> doesn't lead me to trying to rewrite the editor entirely, so I
> ac
William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
>
>> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus
>> for everyth
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Blakely"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> Students should be required to make and use their first camera - a
> pinhole.
> After this, students should be required to use cameras without batter
Students should be required to make and use their first camera - a pinhole.
After this, students should be required to use cameras without batteries.
Camera won't work without batteries? Get one that does! Light meters should
be forbidden until at least half way through the course.
Regards,
Lud
William Robb wrote:
>From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use
autofocus
>> for everything.
>
>So we aren't speaking of people with lenses faster than f2.8 then, are
we.
True. I just convinced one of my students, a digi-rebel user, to buy a
p
Good point.
On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:59 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under
> NDA) ?
>
>
>> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> We were speaking of Rebel users. I'll bet nine out of ten use autofocus
> for everything.
So we aren't speaking of people with lenses fast
Cotty wrote:
>Selective focus portraiture has been in vogue here in Europe for several
>years, almost passe now. The latest fashion seems to be shooting sharp
>and blurring in PS in areas that would have been impossible to do at
>shooting stage. From landscapes to product shots - they're all at it
Steve is both vain and insecure:-).
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >
> > -- Original message --
> >From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >l>
>
On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:59 PM, Cotty wrote:
> On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4159763
>>
>> Love both of those portraits you showed, by the way. Particularly the
>> old coot!
>
> The pic of Steve I like very much, but personally
On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Cotty wrote:
>> Shooting with either at f/2.8 or larger lens openings creates
>> unsharpness in the foreground (at the nose) of a H&S portrait, which
>> is distracting and looks bad.
>
> Godders Godders Godders
>
>
> Selective focus portraiture has been in vogue h
On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> -- Original message --
>From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>l>
>>
>> Regarding style and fashion, I realise that cutting edge European trends
>> take a while to filter across the pond ;-)))
>>
>
>Bite yo
Right on the money, Bruce. :-)
G
On Oct 17, 2007, at 11:11 AM, Bruce Dayton wrote:
> When shooting paid portaits, I rarely shooter faster than f4, usually
> more towards f5.6.
>
> There are cases where faster is useful, but they are more the
> exception than the rule. On trick is to not put the
On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's all very true of conventional portraiture. But I've seen
> many lovely shots with critical focus on the eyes only.
Certainly. Conventional portraiture is what I was referring to.
Blurry bits in the foreground, however, are distra
So i was watching TV on the Labour day weekend, and wound up giving a
dollar to Jerry's squids.
Dave
On 10/16/07, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >On 16/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
> >
> > >I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
> >
> >There's something fishy going on here
>
-- Original message --
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
l>
>
> Regarding style and fashion, I realise that cutting edge European trends
> take a while to filter across the pond ;-)))
>
Bite your tongue, young fellow. My pic of Steve at f2.5 with the K85/1.8:
http
Everyone has their likes and dislikes. I prefer razor sharp eyes and
eyelashes, nose just soft enough that pores aren't disturbing, soft ears,
very soft forground (if any) and background so soft that it only hints of
something. Bokeh is important. But that's just me.
Regards,
Bob...
---
No, no, Bruce. You know that you have to have auto-focus for portraiture. I
mean
that subject may move a couple of inches or so between shots.
Excellent advice, by the way.
Bruce Dayton wrote:
> When shooting paid portaits, I rarely shooter faster than f4, usually
> more towards f5.6.
>
> T
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> That's all very true of conventional portraiture. But I've seen many lovely
> shots with critical focus on the eyes only.
> Paul
yeah but what do you, cotty and I know about portraiture! apparently
about as much as we know about "street" photography... :-)
--
Chri
If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
> Word is used as the wrong tool for so many jobs it's
> incredible.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit
When shooting paid portaits, I rarely shooter faster than f4, usually
more towards f5.6.
There are cases where faster is useful, but they are more the
exception than the rule. On trick is to not put them too close to the
background - that way they are all in focus and the background is not.
Or yo
That's all very true of conventional portraiture. But I've seen many lovely
shots with critical focus on the eyes only.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Cotty wrote:
>
> > On 17/10/07, [EMAIL
On 17/10/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Shooting with either at f/2.8 or larger lens openings creates
>unsharpness in the foreground (at the nose) of a H&S portrait, which
>is distracting and looks bad.
Godders Godders Godders
Selective focus portraiture has been in
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Cotty wrote:
>
>> On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>>
>>> And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture.
>> or even 1.4 ;-)))
>
> Huh? I dunno about anyone else, but I need about 1-1.5 feet DoF
On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:49 AM, Cotty wrote:
> On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>
>> And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture.
>
> or even 1.4 ;-)))
Huh? I dunno about anyone else, but I need about 1-1.5 feet DoF as a
minimum at 7' focus dista
On 17/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed:
>And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop of choice for portraiture.
or even 1.4 ;-)))
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
_
--
On 16/10/07, William Robb, discombobulated, unleashed:
>Point taken. It really is the high end Canons that are so blisteringly fast.
>If I find myself shooting a lot of agility, I might have to consider one of
>them and some sort of a zoom lens for it, though an improved Pentax would
>suit me b
On 10/18/07, Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> William Robb wrote:
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "mike wilson"
> > Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> >
> >
> >>> From: Adam Maa
William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "mike wilson"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
>
>>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>
>>> The 30D/40D are pretty good though.
For those who may be interested:
Most of the editors mentioned in this sub-thread are from the Unix/Linux world
although most of them are available for Windows these days (Unix stuff should
run natively on OS-X for the Apple fans). Emacs started out as a text editor
but
has over time evolved i
;
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
>
> > Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different things.
> > If you're shooting portraits, for example, you want the eyes to be THE
> > focal point, not just withi
- Original Message -
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different things.
> If you're shooting portraits, for example, you want the eyes t
If I may ring the Luddite bell, relying upon AF for critical focus is
a foolish idea.
Godfrey
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
- Original Message -
From: "mike wilson"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
>>
>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, bu
Indeed,
Which leads to a lot of frustrated Rebel owners(well, except for those using
the XTi, which has the more accurate AF unit from the 20D/30D).
-Adam
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different things. If
> you're shooting portraits, for
Focus within the range of DOF and critical focus are two different things. If
you're shooting portraits, for example, you want the eyes to be THE focal
point, not just within range of DOF. And less than 2.8 is frequently the stop
of choice for portraiture.
Paul
-- Original message
Doug Franklin wrote:
> Adam Maas wrote:
>
>> Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
>> they get there a fair bit faster.
>
> Getting to the wrong place quickly rarely helps anyone.
>
> :-)
>
It's fine as long as they're covered by DoF. That's why you hear all the
Rebel owners whining that thei
Not a good analogy, more like running the hundred yard dash, beating the
those who finished to the 90 yard mark, stopping there and declaring
yourself the winner.
mike wilson wrote:
>> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's,
>
> From: Adam Maas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> The 30D/40D are pretty good though. Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
> they get there a fair bit faster.
Isn't that like running 100yards in the opposite direction to a marathon start
then claiming you've won?
-
In a message dated 10/16/2007 11:30:42 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Let's see:
1. Word Processing software
2. Political orientations
3. Sci Fi quotes
4. Some discussion of DSLR design.
5. Some name calling
Yep, typical PDML thread.
Actually, this one i
William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Doug Franklin"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
>> Getting to the wrong place quickly rarely helps anyone.
>
> Not getting there at all [or] slowly is just
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Blakely"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
> The only thing we really lack is a "Prime Directive"... Leave other
> species
> alone until they join the present century by themse
- Original Message -
From: "Doug Franklin"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> Adam Maas wrote:
>
>> Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
>> they get there a fair bit faster.
>
> Getting to the wrong
Adam Maas wrote:
> Less accurate than the Pentax's, but
> they get there a fair bit faster.
Getting to the wrong place quickly rarely helps anyone.
:-)
--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from
How the heck did I miss that?
David Savage wrote:
> At 10:22 AM 17/10/2007, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
>> You're being a piker, we still haven't covered religion and guns!
>>
>
>
> Religion was last week.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
>
--
Remember, it’s pillage then burn.
--
PDML Pentax-D
At 10:53 AM 17/10/2007, P. J. Alling wrote:
>How the heck did I miss that?
Just lucky I guess.
Cheers,
Dave
>David Savage wrote:
> > At 10:22 AM 17/10/2007, P. J. Alling wrote:
> >
> >> You're being a piker, we still haven't covered religion and guns!
> >>
> >
> >
> > Religion was last week.
>
And make it the size of a Rollei 35S and cost $100, of course.
Godfrey
On Oct 16, 2007, at 7:35 PM, Tom C wrote:
> I want a digital 6x7III with interchangeable backs so I can keep
> increasing the MP as noise goes down, oh yes, and it should be able
> to take a newly developed film back also
At 10:22 AM 17/10/2007, P. J. Alling wrote:
>You're being a piker, we still haven't covered religion and guns!
Religion was last week.
Cheers,
Dave
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the li
Don't forget evolution vs. creation, broadly falls under religion though I
guess.
Tom C.
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under ND
J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA)?
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:22:15 -0400
You're being a piker, we still haven't covered religion and guns
I'm reading this sub-thread and it's all whistling over my head. (I know
about LISP, as Autocad uses it, but the rest is gobbledygook :-) .
You guy's are such computer geek's
For the record, if I need to write a letter, report etc & it can't be hand
written, I used MS Word/Excel at work & the
You're being a piker, we still haven't covered religion and guns!
Though I think the K1 should have an aperture simulator..(But I don't
have to wish for that the K1 or MZ-D or MR-52, or whatever, already had
one).
David Savage wrote:
> At 02:22 AM 17/10/2007, Steve Desjardins wrote:
>
>> Let
At 02:22 AM 17/10/2007, Steve Desjardins wrote:
>Let's see:
>
>1. Word Processing software
>2. Political orientations
>3. Sci Fi quotes
>4. Some discussion of DSLR design.
>5. Some name calling
>
>Yep, typical PDML thread.
Hmmm, but I feel we are still missing something.
...Ah yes!...
Who
:49 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
>
> On Oct 16, 2007, at 5:05 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
>>
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "Paul Stenquist"
>> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under
>> NDA) ?
>>
&g
You brought it up so...
The main part of the Constitution does not and did not intend to limit
government power. It only grants certain specific powers. In the context in
which it was written, government has no power save that which it's given.
All power that the government wields and laws whic
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
> Switch to manual focus and do it the right way.
Unfortunately, I'm not as fast as the K10..
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Ma
On Oct 16, 2007, at 5:05 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Paul Stenquist"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under
> NDA) ?
>
>
>> Pentax autofocus keeps up quite nicely in CAF mode.
>>
William Robb wrote:
> - Original Message -
> From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
>
>> On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:55 PM, William Robb wrote:
>>
>>>> So buy a Canon. They'
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Maas"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> William Robb wrote:
>> - Original Message -
>> From: "David Savage"
>> Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Roberts"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> Adam Maas wrote:
>>
>>Tom C wrote:
>>
>>> It'll likely be a matter of attrition. What % of people here use
>>
- Original Message -
From: "Godfrey DiGiorgi"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
>
> On Oct 15, 2007, at 11:55 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
>>> So buy a Canon. They're good for that sort of thing.
>>
>> I&
- Original Message -
From: "Tom C"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> Oh I don't know. :-) My statement was a little different. I'm saying
> that
> they have gained a little respect with the K10D and now is the
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Stenquist"
Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax: anyone in the know (even under NDA) ?
> Pentax autofocus keeps up quite nicely in CAF mode.
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4834217&size=lg
> http://photo.net/photodb/p
Cory Papenfuss wrote:
> Wow. Impressive thread. Let me know if I missed any
> controversies:
>
> - WR vs. JCO AND WR+JCO vs PDML.
> - Sensor sizes defying physical laws
> - Whether Pentax will ever release a FF-DSLR
> - Canikon vs. Pentax
> - Emacs vs. VI
> - Firefox vs. Internet Exploite
Wow. Impressive thread. Let me know if I missed any
controversies:
- WR vs. JCO AND WR+JCO vs PDML.
- Sensor sizes defying physical laws
- Whether Pentax will ever release a FF-DSLR
- Canikon vs. Pentax
- Emacs vs. VI
- Firefox vs. Internet Exploiter
- Policitcal conservatism vs. libera
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Steve Desjardins wrote:
> Let's see:
>
> 1. Word Processing software
> 2. Political orientations
> 3. Sci Fi quotes
> 4. Some discussion of DSLR design.
> 5. Some name calling
>
> Yep, typical PDML thread.
>
DAMN! My email client ordered them wrong so you beat me to
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Adam Maas wrote:
> Actually it's just ingrained muscle memory, years of having to use vi
> while maintaining services on Unix machines means that the basic editing
> commands are pretty much automatic. vi is ideal for that use, it's
> lightweight and everything has it.
>
> I s
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Gonz wrote:
> emacs.
>
> unless i absolutely have to send a doc, then MS word.
>
If someone *requires* a Word doc, I'll embed a TIF of my LaTeX
document into Word. Word is used as the wrong tool for so many jobs it's
incredible.
-Cory
--
***
The original document severely limits the Federal Governments powers.
The major problem was the authors left a small loophole to take care of
the unexpected which let the camels nose into the tent...
graywolf wrote:
> Actually the Constitution itself does not limit the governments powers, it is
Christian wrote:
>Cotty wrote:
>>>
>> I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>>
> There's something fishy going on here
>
>
Well it certainly smelts like it.
>>
>>> Better get your ducks in a roe
>>
>> I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.
True, bu
Actually the Constitution itself does not limit the governments powers, it is
the Bill of Rights that does that. And the revolutionary fathers forced that
through against quite a bit of opposition, if I remember my history correctly.
Tom C wrote:
>> From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>
which
differentiates them again from the populace they may 'serve'.
A cynical view of course.
Tom C.
>From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
>Subject: Re: Next move from Pentax:
Cotty wrote:
>>
> I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>
There's something fishy going on here
>>> Well it certainly smelts like it.
>
>> Better get your ducks in a roe
>
> I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.
>
>
>
>
These pun threads are so b
At that time, we were a union of separate states. The states chose to ratify
the Constitution as they saw fit via the representation methods they had.
Remember, they were independent. We became, essentially, a country of
countries.
Regards,
Bob...
---
>From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>In the US, the document from the people granting specific powers to the
>government for the >sake of liberty is called The Constitution. It's a
>great document, even allowing for amendment
>should times change and the need arise. I wish it was used here
Bob Blakely wrote:
> It's a hard roe for him to hoe.
>
> Regards,
> Bob...
>
> "Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection."
> -Jean Luc Godard
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROT
It's a hard roe for him to hoe.
Regards,
Bob...
"Art is not a reflection of reality. it is the reality of a reflection."
-Jean Luc Godard
- Original Message -
From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I'm a Doctor not a Stu
>
>On 16/10/07, P. J. Alling, discombobulated, unleashed:
>
> >I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>
>There's something fishy going on here
>
>Cheers,
> Cotty
>
You're spawning new ones.
Tom C.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNS
On Oct 16, 2007, at 13:30, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> But this all seems so ridiculous. I mean, heck, if you're looking
> through the viewfinder and you can't see whether the image is in
> focus, why bother with an SLR? Are you that dependent upon auto focus
> systems?
>
When I was on a trip to Chi
-- Original message --
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >
> I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>
> >>>
> >>> There's something fishy going on here
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Well it certainly smelts like it.
>
> >Better get your ducks in a roe
>
> I d
>
I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>>>
>>> There's something fishy going on here
>>>
>>>
>>Well it certainly smelts like it.
>Better get your ducks in a roe
I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Pl
On Oct 16, 2007, at 1:21 PM, Cotty wrote:
>
>>
> I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>
There's something fishy going on here
>>> Well it certainly smelts like it.
>
>> Better get your ducks in a roe
>
> I don't think you understand the scale of the problem.
Oh jeez, anot
Cotty wrote:
>>
>>
> I'm a Doctor not a Sturgeon.
>
>
There's something fishy going on here
>>> Well it certainly smelts like it.
>>>
>
>
>> Better get your ducks in a roe
>>
>
> I don't think you understand the
1 - 100 of 267 matches
Mail list logo
