Dynamic Range -- what it is, what it's good for, and how much you 'need'

Started Oct 17, 2011 | Discussions thread
boggis the cat
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,273Gear list
Like?
Throwing the argument
In reply to mrhodges2, Oct 19, 2011

mrhodges2 wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

mrhodges2 wrote:

The pathetic part is that like some others here, apparently you have trouble distinguishing where the pathetic behavior started

Wait a minute, M'lud Hodges:

Are you really saying that Joe needs to "explain" to us what DR is?

Yes, just as much as John King "needed" to explain to us all what a cat was, or Riley and Bill "needed" to explain to us all what a landscape photo is.

So you start with a strawman / non sequitur.

No one "needs" to post here at all, nor to respond. It's a privilege afforded us by the hosts of this site. When jackasses like you start trying to decide who "deserves" to post here, THAT'S when the trouble starts.

Followed by a misrepresentation of the argument, a personal attack, a lie, and a delusion or lie (hard to tell which).

Not a rhetorical question: do you believe that the OSTF, in particular, does not understand what DR is? No technical BS or recourse to DxO nonsense -- just straight-forward DR as shown by the very example that Joe pointed to.

That question is irrelevant.

It is entirely relevant. It is the only question that need be considered to prove or disprove the dispute, isn't it?

The relevance couldn't be more obvious.

Which ever way I believe would not give me the right to deprive him of doing so. Yet, if he, or you decided to post on why my dead mother was not a great Oly photographer, my reply would be a rebuttal or agreement.

Another strawman, rather than answering the question.

From this, I will assume that you fully understand the point but are simply attempting to work your way around it. This is Joe's tactic, too.

Prove your case.

Done it already.

What you have just proven is that you have no credibility. Just like Joe.

That is, IMO, useful to know.

If your pointing out that the OP is "pathetic" is acceptable forum behavior, certainly pointing out how your patheticness managed to supersede his , complete with support for my opinion, can hardly be faulted.

Support for your opinion? As in "evidence"?

Please do enlighten us all.

I take it your preference is to simply use unsupported accusations and (extremely clumsy and transparent) character assassination instead of trying to find some support for your claim?

My take from your avoidance of misquoting / misrepresentation in this instance is that you may have a reasonable level of personal integrity, but have trapped yourself into this "defender of the indefensible" position. (Feel free to correct me.)

On the contrary though, like others of your ilk, you find it much easier to accuse me of being someone's lawyer rather than face the truth that your OWN behavior is unacceptable, and smacks of the same mentality that people use to defend prejudice, bigotry, racism and other forms of abusive behavior.

You appear to be implying, through this claim, that you support the proposition that we do need to have DR "explained" to us.

My counter is that the bigotry in this case is not on our part, as we did not start a topic with a transparently spurious "educational intent".

You are the one making the accusations. Prove yours.

The "accusation" is sufficiently self-evident that you choose not to dispute it.

Thus you have proven it true and correct by way of avoidance.

I proved mine. The first jerk responded not to the thread topic, but with a personal attack on someone who did NOT attack him.

He attacked everyone on the OSTF, implicitly.

Again: do you seriously think this forum requires Joe to "educate us" about DR? Consider the implications of this.

Same as in the thread I linked with Rriley. Don't try to use smoke and mirrors as this is a public forum, and everyone here can see that you are guilty of the very tactics you attempt to pin on GB.

Everyone here -- yourself included -- can see that there is no justification for Joe starting this topic.

Would it be acceptable for me to start a topic in another brand-specific forum "explaining" what exposure is? Or how about "enlightening" them as to what EFL is?

It would to me, especially after the precedent set by the previous post on the topic.

So your argument is that one trolling / trouble-causing post sets a precedent for further such posts.

Duly noted.

I'm an avid Olympus owner, and forum member, but one who hotly detests idiotic forum members giving this place a bad reputation.

Tell his clown-ship to post somewhere else, then.

His clown-ship has the right to post here, and YOU are proving MY case. You want to be the authority on who should post here as if YOU own this forum.

No, I do not. Nor do Rriley, John King, or any one else that you don't like. (There may be some people on here who would want to restrict posts to "pro-Olympus" only; however nobody you seem to be in dispute with is in that category.)

In fact, it is actually you asserting authority on who may post what on this forum, and claiming that those who disagree do not have a right of response.

This will be the purview of the forum moderators in a few weeks time, so make the most of it I guess.

You and others have a problem with being shown as wrong, or with anyone having a complaint against Olympus. Grow the hell up and stop embarrassing those of us with decent home training.

It is your behaviour that seems to be questionable, and Joe who refuses to acknowledge error.

Being proven wrong is beneficial, and should be embraced.

Problem solved.

You must have been one of those kids whose parents let them get away with whatever they wanted. The ones who slap their parents when they don't give them candy and get away with it.

Not at all. Interesting that you bring that up, though.

It sounds like you believe yourself to be a parental figure / higher authority. Now, who does that remind me of...

(continued...)

 boggis the cat's gear list:boggis the cat's gear list
Olympus E-5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm 1:2.8-3.5 SWD Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
MathNew
You.New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow