Testing out my new Oly 45 1.8... I'm Astounded!

Moti wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

A valid position:

• I have not seen it and therefore I do not care that it exists
  You can try that one and see how it flies.

fair enough, totally accepted if that can help you to better understand what I actually meant to say. Apology for hurting your feelings.

Having said that, I have seen some cases where people show blurry photos and complained about SS, where it is clear that the problem is different. The photo I have commented about earlier, is an example.

And again, not an argument against the existence of shutter shock.

Just take it on face value without trying to built up a whole philosophy mish mash on it. That wasn't meant to be an argument against the existence of SS, because I said "some cases"
It was simply an observation of how sometimes, a wrong interpretation can lead to the wrong conclusions, and that applies also to people who see SS which is not always there.

Everything you have written on SS has been dismissive in tone. First, you tried to dismiss SS with "I don't believe". Now, you dismiss my logic with the intentionally insulting "sorry to hurt your feelings." Even your "there might be some cases" is just a dismissive "throwing a bone but still don't really believe it" sort of argument. One term for that is "back-handed" in the form of a complement that is meant as the opposite.

It's all indicative of a defensive attempt to retain a shred of credibility on this topic. It won't work and the attempt should be abandoned quietly

By the way ... I do understand that SS is not always understood. People see blur and say SS automatically. But the fact is that SS is very real. It is entirely possible that you just do not understand how to frame an argument without weaving in your opinions. If so, then I apologize for hurting your feelings