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: 6,286Gear list
Like?
Starting a different argument? (part 1)
In reply to mrhodges2, Oct 19, 2011

mrhodges2 wrote:

boggis the cat wrote:

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, I started with a valid point, if you have a brain.

Assertion and personal attack.

If you are out to justify bad behavior at all costs, then it is pretty pointless to have a discussion with you, as we have had this same discussion in private, a discussion in which I would be more than happy to make public.

Go for it, if you think that adds to your argument. I have that discussion, too, though, so do be careful of any selective quoting.

Your lame attempts at misrepresentation are useless and only expose you for the blind idiot you are. you'll justify YOUR behavior at all costs.

Assertion and personal attack.

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).

The ONLY personal attack came from Jolly Oly.

I'm pretty sure that's you making personal attacks aimed at me.

Look real hard. See them?

that fact is key in what followed. The misrepresentation of the argument came from you. That fact is also key.

No misrepresentation was involved in pointing out that Joe feels the need to "explain" to the OSTF -- exclusively -- what DR is.

You have failed to respond adequately to this point.

The further fact is that after you and he shut your freaking mouths, a normal, civil conversation ensued amongst those who were interested in the topic, a subtle clue as to who was originally screwing everything up.

Right... I take it that this is an entirely "reasonable" position to take, in your view.

I see that Joe and his followers have had to resort to asserting that Canon are a bunch of liars, too. Is that my fault, or Jolly Oly's?

Oh, and are either of us disrupting that threads that are keeping to a point? Would such a conversation be more relevant in a forum other than the OSTF?

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?

Because it is relevant to YOU, does not make it "entirely" relevant.

It is relevant to what you are disputing .

You are ignoring the salient point and pursuing a line of personal attack and ranting. I take it that you do not see the irony in this, given what you like to accuse others of?

As usually happens when you or another person decides they have a right to attack someone without cause, they start by manufacturing a cause.

I didn't start the topic nor choose the wording, that was Joe's decision and thus of his manufacture.

When I posed the same question back to you, I didn't get an answer either because you know that your question has nothing to do with whether a person may post here. Your attempt at placing a stipulation on GB's right to post that you do not apply to EVERYONE that posts here is a straw man, and YOU know it. You are just counting on me to be too stupid to know it, but you crapped out on that one.

Let's examine the "stupid" point.

So you actually believe that Joe's post "explaining" DR was necessary and entirely without malicious intent? Something on the same order of reasonableness as "The Sunday Cat" topic?

If your genuine answer is "yes"; then yes, Robert, you are stupid. If, OTOH, your answer is "yes", but disingenuous , then you are perpetrating a fraud to cover for trolling. I can only see those options.

That's what's so funny about your even attempting to rebut me, you justify tactics for your own use that you declare are wrong for others. A classic move that only lets one know that you knew you were wrong in the beginning. GB never said that OSTF does not know what dynamic range is. He posted the topic so that those who DON'T know or those who would like to discuss it would have that option.

But only those in the OSTF. Curious.

Now, Robert, why do you think it may be that Joe chooses to post in this forum constantly? He doesn't own Olympus equipment, nor have any interest in it. What is his motivation? As I've said to you before: it comes down to the motive.

You wade in and attempt to assign GB a motive, and then ask ME if I think the motive YOU assigned HIM is what I think. If you do know what a straw man is, how is it you don't recognize it when YOU build one?

I asked you to argue for a different motive.

You posted some nonsense about photos of cats and flowers being taken as evidence of intent to educate us as to what a cat or flower is.

(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