So... I finally come to a decision to go with the OM-D... Is there any big hand users out there?

Started Mar 13, 2013 | Questions thread
texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: Admitting you're the problem is the first step

Jack Hogan wrote:

texinwien wrote:

Jack Hogan wrote: Duck, duck, duck. All I can say is that when people run out of arguments they shoot the messenger.

Your statement makes no sense. I have shot down your argument, but I've never aimed at you, personally. Ad hominem isn't my style.

Really? I must have misread what consitutes about half of the words in your message then:

Indeed - I only addressed your misconceptions, your erroneous conclusion and your errors in logic - all parts of your argument. None of these were attacks on your person.

I am several steps ahead of you, in that I understand the error in logic you're making that brings you to your erroneous conclusion - the very misconception of yours that...

And this is your misconception.

I'll answer your misconception...

Yes, saying you've run out of ideas is, again, attacking the insufficiency of your argument.

Jacks' run out of ideas is more like it, amiright?

So, yes, I'm not sure which of my words you misunderstood, since none of them (at least none of the ones you quoted here) have anything to do with ad hominem.

Wait - are you shooting the messenger now? Didn't you say that's the last thing someone does when they run out of arguments? Does that mean you're admitting, in a round about way, that you've run out of arguments?

Fact is, tex, amongst all the words explaining that I am full of misconceptions and out of ideas,

No. The words mention ONE misconception that you have, and that misconception forms a crucial part of your false argument - again, attacking the argument, and not you.

And yes, it seems all you are coming up with now are attacks against me and ridiculous fictitious examples, since I've THOROUGHLY destroyed (perhaps in a way you found humiliating?) your first 'example' by pointing out the fact that you forgot about exposure when preparing a 'proof' in a discussion about photography.

Jack Hogan's thoroughly discredited example, for those in the peanut gallery who are following along.

Tex's total, thorough and overwhelming destruction of Jack Hogan's example  (which Mr. Hogan has refused to even respond to, almost a full day later).

And by the way - your primary misconception, the one I have mentioned from my very first post to you on this subject, is that you think (thought?) you can (could?) compare two images based on their saturation sensitivities when those two images were exposed based on camera ISO Settings - a HUGE misconception, indeed, friend.

I am having trouble understanding what they are and what argument you have supposedly shot down.

Ah, see above. I thought it was clear to you since you dropped your obviously erroneous G3 vs. E-M5 example (the one I creamed) and have started posting fictitious fairy tale 'examples' now, where you say nothing about exposure or anything else that might be tricky

Can you reread the two posts I made in this thread and tell me exactly what my misconceptions are and the argument that you have supposedly shot down?

I've done it else where and linked to it above, for America. For the world.

America wants to know




 texinwien's gear list:texinwien's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 Olympus E-M5 II Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 OnePlus One Canon EOS 300D +20 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow