Pixels are a pain...

In article <1201746062.589915@ftpsrv1>, frederick <lost.RemoveThis@sea.com> wrote:

> "Pixels are a pain. Do you know that I own a $5,000 D3, and usually
> shoot it set down to 6MP, not its native 12 MP?"
>
> Ken Rockwell, January 2008
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

<http://kenrockwell.com/about.htm>

While occasionally inspired by actual products or experiences, if you
aren't a personal freind or lack a sense of humor or lack a decent BS
detector, you're best off treating this site as a work of fiction. If
you can't take a joke, please consider this entire site a joke, and any
resemblance to any actual people, places, products or anything as
purely coincidental.

I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many
deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up
things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither
legally binding nor guaranteed and the only thing I do guarantee is
that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does
The Onion.
 >> Stay informed about: Pixels are a pain... 

On Jan 31, 4:37 pm, ASAAR <cau....RemoveThis@22.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:49:08 -0800 (PST), Scott W wrote:
> >> "Pixels are a pain. Do you know that I own a $5,000 D3, and usually
> >> shoot it set down to 6MP, not its native 12 MP?"
>
> > But then Ken is an idiot.
>
> He'd seem to be an idiot to some of the readers that take him too
> literally and are too annoyed to realize when he's writing with
> tongue in cheek.
('t-i-c' henceforth..)

A few questions for Asaar:
1. At what point did you become aware that Rockwell wrote a lot of
stuff t-i-c? Immediately you first encountered him? After you were
shown that about-page disclaimer?
2. What exactly gave the game away? Would a newbie be likely to spot
this, and how?
3. What makes you think the quoted line is t-i-c?
4. Does this appear to you to be a serious review? If not, why not?
5. Are there ads for Nikon suppliers on that page?
6. Do you think he really has elephant phallus hide on his left-handed
Nikon?

Anyway, Scott was clearly writing tongue in cheek. Me too for that
matter. Didn't you notice, ASAAR? Yes, it's too easy to read our
writings and come away with things that we didn't actually say. But
then we're obviously not writing specifically for those such as you,
that have formed your own strong opinions...

(O;

So count me in - I too think Rockwell is an idiot. An irresponsible,
possibly even immoral one, given all the advertising he does - he
should know better.

"there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright
foolish and made-up things lurking"
"the only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I
simply make up out of thin air"
- Ken Rockwell.
 >> Stay informed about: Pixels are a pain... 

On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 18:49:08 -0800 (PST), Scott W wrote:

>> "Pixels are a pain. Do you know that I own a $5,000 D3, and usually
>> shoot it set down to 6MP, not its native 12 MP?"
>
> But then Ken is an idiot.

He'd seem to be an idiot to some of the readers that take him too
literally and are too annoyed to realize when he's writing with
tongue in cheek. It's too easy to read his writings and come away
with things that he didn't actually say. But then he's obviously
not writing specifically for those such as you that have formed your
own strong opinions. The anti-Rockwell lynch mob has a good share
of lemmings, including those that on some topics seem bright, and
some that often appear as idiots. None, as far as I've seen, sink
to the depths inhabited by our own Br'er RichA, who'd make Rockwell
or almost anyone else seem to be a true genius by comparison.
 >> Stay informed about: Pixels are a pain... 

On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 01:10:08 -0800 (PST), an unusually snarky
marky.thomas.7.RemoveThis@gmail.com wrote:

> Anyway, Scott was clearly writing tongue in cheek. Me too for that
> matter. Didn't you notice, ASAAR? Yes, it's too easy to read our
> writings and come away with things that we didn't actually say. But
> then we're obviously not writing specifically for those such as you,
> that have formed your own strong opinions...

Sorry, Mark. Scott has long had a bug up his butt about Rockwell,
so it's you that's misreading his intent. Clearly, Rockwell isn't
an idiot, and Scott probably doesn't literally think that he is one,
but tongue in cheek? Hardly. It probably wouldn't be too difficult
to verify this is you want to waste a little time checking out
archived messages.


> So count me in - I too think Rockwell is an idiot. An irresponsible,
> possibly even immoral one, given all the advertising he does - he
> should know better.

Hey, so he's doing very well at the capitalist pig game. I'll bet
that some of his detractors covet his success. Der Bush would
probably love his entrepreneurial spirit and all of the really hard
work (can't say that enough - "really hard work"), but I couldn't
say if Kenny Boy would reciprocate the love. Is this good or bad?
Is Rockwell immoral or is his Randian greed a very good thing? If
so, I hope you're not a U.S. citizen, because it would seem that the
country isn't big enough for both you and Rockwell, considering the
state of advertising, politics, car and cell phone contracts, as
well as the contempt banks (notice the current mortgage mess?),
pharmaceutical and insurance companies have for the public.
Compared to them, Rockwell comes off as a saint. If you want to tag
Rockwell as an immoral idiot, go for it (oh, I see that you already
have). But it seems that you're also taking him much too seriously.
He's not aiming to be another DPreview, ya know, or a Consumer
Report, both of which also get flamed here regularly. Rockwell's
just filling his own little niche which provides a different type of
information, and nobody's forcing you to read any of his web pages.
I don't agree with all of his opinions, but even those that I take
with a grain of salt often make interesting reading. I usually
enjoy reading your posts (and many of Scott's as well), so what does
that say about idiocy in these newsgroups?
 >> Stay informed about: Pixels are a pain... 

"frederick" <lost RemoveThis @sea.com> wrote in message
news:1201746062.589915@ftpsrv1...
> "Pixels are a pain. Do you know that I own a $5,000 D3, and usually shoot
> it set down to 6MP, not its native 12 MP?"
>
> Ken Rockwell, January 2008
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm

Anyone who has half a brain doesn't take him serious. His raving on about
the MP's that do not count are just plain stupid. If he can't tell the
difference, he should save for a seeing eye dog...
If he was working for any company, he'd be fired on the spot with all his
BS.
Just a few days ago he was saying that the D60 was likely to replace the
D80, now it's the D40.

Look what he writes about the D60:

"The D60 is an excellent camera, but for most of the people who will buy it,
it's the same thing as the $300 less expensive D40.
The D60 is really just a $460 D40 with slightly different, but not better,
internal electronics."

So what he is saying here? The D40 costs $160.- !!! Great! Give me a truck
load, now!

Most people who know him, don't take him serious, but I do feel sorry for
the poor people that do take his ill advice.


--
Sosumi
 >> Stay informed about: Pixels are a pain... 

On Jan 31, 4:42 am, "Sosumi" <sos....DeleteThis@home.nl> wrote:
> "frederick" <l....DeleteThis@sea.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1201746062.589915@ftpsrv1...
>
> > "Pixels are a pain. Do you know that I own a $5,000 D3, and usually shoot
> > it set down to 6MP, not its native 12 MP?"
>
> > Ken Rockwell, January 2008
> >http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm
>
> Anyone who has half a brain doesn't take him serious. His raving on about
> the MP's that do not count are just plain stupid. If he can't tell the
> difference, he should save for a seeing eye dog...
> If he was working for any company, he'd be fired on the spot with all his
> BS.
> Just a few days ago he was saying that the D60 was likely to replace the
> D80, now it's the D40.
>
> Look what he writes about the D60:
>
> "The D60 is an excellent camera, but for most of the people who will buy it,
> it's the same thing as the $300 less expensive D40.
> The D60 is really just a $460 D40 with slightly different, but not better,
> internal electronics."
>
> So what he is saying here? The D40 costs $160.- !!! Great! Give me a truck
> load, now!
>
> Most people who know him, don't take him serious, but I do feel sorry for
> the poor people that do take his ill advice.
>
> --
> Sosumi

But like sleazy magazines like "People" the guy attracts an audience
and because of that, he's been granted audiences by the camera
makers.
 >> Stay informed about: Pixels are a pain... 

On Jan 31, 4:42 am, "Sosumi" <sos....TakeThisOut@home.nl> wrote:
> "frederick" <l....TakeThisOut@sea.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1201746062.589915@ftpsrv1...
>
> > "Pixels are a pain. Do you know that I own a $5,000 D3, and usually shoot
> > it set down to 6MP, not its native 12 MP?"
>
> > Ken Rockwell, January 2008
> >http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d60.htm
>
> Anyone who has half a brain doesn't take him serious. His raving on about
> the MP's that do not count are just plain stupid. If he can't tell the
> difference, he should save for a seeing eye dog...
> If he was working for any company, he'd be fired on the spot with all his
> BS.
> Just a few days ago he was saying that the D60 was likely to replace the
> D80, now it's the D40.
>
> Look what he writes about the D60:
>
> "The D60 is an excellent camera, but for most of the people who will buy it,
> it's the same thing as the $300 less expensive D40.
> The D60 is really just a $460 D40 with slightly different, but not better,
> internal electronics."
>
> So what he is saying here? The D40 costs $160.- !!! Great! Give me a truck
> load, now!
>

Leave out the money, i.e., read it like this: "The D60 is really just
a D40 with slightly different, but not better, internal electronics."

The $460 refers to the price of the D40. I agree, it's poorly
written.

--
www.mattclara.com
 >> Stay informed about: Pixels are a pain...