Exposure basics, lesson two point one (& ISO)

Started Mar 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP texinwien Veteran Member • Posts: 3,326
Re: Of course, i already told you this

texinwien wrote:

They're spread across a number of his replies, so I suggest you have a look at the original thread.

Here an early post from me to jack (linked for the second time in this thread)

I do not find a single statement by Jack quoted in that post that seems in any way "ad hominem".

Nor did I suggest there was one in this link. It's the prelude to the following quote, to show that I was nothing but polite, factual, and, as far as I can see, had not made any errors in thinking or communication that would justify any ad hominem or any suggestion that I would not understand any case that would need to be made. As a matter of fact, it was the other party who had, up until this time, made mistakes in his thinking, as has been shown in this thread - the very mistakes I was attempting to point out to him.

And here the beginning of his reply (quoted and linked, for your convenience):

That is just so cruel and heartless of Jack to even imply that he might be "wasting his time".

Sorry, I never said anything about cruel and heartless. I said ad hominem and hubris, and, in my eyes the quoted statement (and the joke sample at the linked post) qualify. Thus, the standard is met (for me, for this one of several statements).

I must say that I have seen far more severe statements posted on these forums in my time.

Certainly. I've never argued otherwise.

Is that all ?

It is not, as I have stated multiple times.

Why would it not "make much sense" for you to present statements substantiating your allegations ?

Because I will not recreate an entire conversation here, in this thread, when it is mostly confined to two other threads on this very board, the main one of which I have provided you a link with. If you don't wish to have a look into it, well then, you're not informing yourself, and whatever conclusion you come to is based on one side of the story - that which you have chosen to read.

You've made your point clear - you find the personal angle of some of the exchanges distasteful. Thanks for sharing your opinion - it has been duly noted.


The person had, indeed made an error in thinking when I approached him politely about it. He brought that error forward into this thread - once in the thought example of his creation, which I referenced in the third post in this thread, and once in another person's thought example, which he took up as his own and defended as a proof of his claims.

The person has since admitted that the second thought example was flawed, and the first thought example (entirely of his making) is also flawed, based on the same grounds. This was my point, I was correct about this point, I tried to remain polite about this point. My point has been proven, and the other party had no grounds to attack me or question whether I could understand his reasoning when, indeed, I correctly understood that his reasoning was erroneous.

Furthermore, I do not criticize others for holding opinions that differ from mine. I will, however, criticize others who argue fallaciously (including personal attacks) in defense of factually incorrect positions.

That's about all I have to say on the matter, and I will now sit back and watch as the new case that is being made is put to the test. It will be most interesting to see whether false ISO labeling extends to metering hijinks in the E-M5. Of course I hope it doesn't, since I own the camera and would feel cheated, but I would prefer to know the truth, whatever that truth may be.



 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
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow