Trying to improve 35mm slide scans w/1200 dpi scanner

Sigh. Well, gee thanks Mike. You'll note I said FILM scanners in my
post. You were describing flatbeds, yes?

But you effectively defended `me`'s statement that not all film
scanners do negatives. That will help keep him around. Well done. If
you've killfiled him, don't you think it might be a little risky
entering conversations that you only half-see?

wrote in message
ups.com...
Sigh. Well, gee thanks Mike. You'll note I said FILM scanners in my
post. You were describing flatbeds, yes?

But you effectively defended `me`'s statement that not all film
scanners do negatives. That will help keep him around. Well done. If
you've killfiled him, don't you think it might be a little risky
entering conversations that you only half-see?

Your obsession with me is worsening, please seek help, while there's still
time.
Sign,
me

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Sigh. Well, gee thanks Mike. You'll note I said FILM scanners in my
post. You were describing flatbeds, yes?

Ah yes, sorry, I missed that.

But you effectively defended `me`'s statement that not all film
scanners do negatives. That will help keep him around. Well done.
If you've killfiled him, don't you think it might be a little risky
entering conversations that you only half-see?

You're right, I shouldn't have responded to the point at all, which
distracted from my main purpose in responding in the first place, which
was
to ask you not to feed the troll. I shan't do it again. Having said
that,
I wish you'd stop responding to him altogether. I may not see his posts,
but I see your replies, so killfiling him does little to stop cluttering
the
group. If people would just stop responding to him altogether, then he'd
get bored and go away. He long ago mauled his chance to be a constructive
part of the group, and he shouldn't be rewarded for abusing his right to
free speech.

FREE SPEECH? YOU F#CKING HYPOCRITE! You above all people as a full fledged
member of the alt.photography NG gang have no room whatsoever to preach
about free speech. No one has done more to ridicule and attack others than
you and the other gang members of this NG.
Film best,
me

PS: You may look forward to reading responses to my posts for sometime to
come. Enjoy!

The problem with that approach is that newcomers to the group do not
know his `problem`, they see his posts, and may end up with a
photography knowledge like his - ie, completely flawed and limited to
his tiny experience. I think it IS worthwhile to point out his errors,
in detail. Maybe I go overboard sometimes, but I find it hard to
understand how someone can just blandly post an error (eg errors like
- `not all film scanners scan negatives`
- `moving a camera lens away from the body of a camera isn't like an
extension tube`
- `all lenses have independently moving front elements`
- `Agfa Ultra 100 is a great all-purpose film`
...(I could go on and on)

...and then, instead of simply admitting error or listening to
alternative advice or saying `Sorry, I may have misled you`, he turns
it into a torrent of abuse, and tries to twist out of the errors and
misinformation in a manner somewhat like Houdini, but nowhere near as
entertaining.

Obssessed? Yes, but with the truth about photography, and helping
beginners.


Over to `me` now - have the last word by all means. Note the folowing
post as a good example (Mike, fyi - you were called a `F#CKING
HYPOCRITE` by `me`, along with further accusations of the gang
mentality, naturally)

wrote in message
oups.com...
The problem with that approach is that newcomers to the group do not
know his `problem`, they see his posts, and may end up with a
photography knowledge like his - ie, completely flawed and limited to
his tiny experience. I think it IS worthwhile to point out his errors,
in detail. Maybe I go overboard sometimes, but I find it hard to
understand how someone can just blandly post an error (eg errors like
- `not all film scanners scan negatives`
- `moving a camera lens away from the body of a camera isn't like an
extension tube`
- `all lenses have independently moving front elements`
- `Agfa Ultra 100 is a great all-purpose film`
..(I could go on and on)

..and then, instead of simply admitting error or listening to
alternative advice or saying `Sorry, I may have misled you`, he turns
it into a torrent of abuse, and tries to twist out of the errors and
misinformation in a manner somewhat like Houdini, but nowhere near as
entertaining.

Obssessed? Yes, but with the truth about photography, and helping
beginners.


Over to `me` now - have the last word by all means. Note the folowing
post as a good example (Mike, fyi - you were called a `F#CKING
HYPOCRITE` by `me`, along with further accusations of the gang
mentality, naturally)

You have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder chrlz, with medication and counseling
your condition can be treated.
Film best,
me

Dunno what the beef is between you and "me". Don't care.

If your space/life would be better/warmer/happier without any reminder of
his existence, don't killfile only his messages. Also killfile any messages
that contain references to him. It avoids the need for anyone to Net-Nanny
and leaves the choice of your reading to you.
HTH

PS If you need assistance with your filters, you need only ask.

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Sigh. Well, gee thanks Mike. You'll note I said FILM scanners in my
post. You were describing flatbeds, yes?

Ah yes, sorry, I missed that.

But you effectively defended `me`'s statement that not all film
scanners do negatives. That will help keep him around. Well done.
If you've killfiled him, don't you think it might be a little risky
entering conversations that you only half-see?

You're right, I shouldn't have responded to the point at all, which
distracted from my main purpose in responding in the first place, which
was
to ask you not to feed the troll. I shan't do it again. Having said
that,
I wish you'd stop responding to him altogether. I may not see his posts,
but I see your replies, so killfiling him does little to stop cluttering
the
group. If people would just stop responding to him altogether, then he'd
get bored and go away. He long ago mauled his chance to be a constructive
part of the group, and he shouldn't be rewarded for abusing his right to
free speech.

"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:40:44 GMT, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

Dunno what the beef is between you and "me". Don't care.

If your space/life would be better/warmer/happier without any reminder of
his existence, don't killfile only his messages. Also killfile any messages
that contain references to him.

Don't you think I thought of that? Alas, it's going to be pretty
difficult to effectively killfile messages that contain references to
"me" in the body, don't you think? If you have a brilliant idea of
how to do it, I'd love to hear it.

Filter anything with " in the main body of text. Most
newsreaders print the original users email address when replying to a post. This
should filter any immediate replies to "me"s trolls.

The 'me'tard has nothing to offer this group, but will probably hang around like
a bad smell anyways. He is now killfiled on both my machines, and I guess I will
filter as mentioned above as well because people ( including myself - oops )
keep replying to his posts.

grol

On 6 Feb 2005 15:28:41 -0800, wrote:

The problem with that approach is that newcomers to the group do not
know his `problem`, they see his posts, and may end up with a
photography knowledge like his - ie, completely flawed and limited to
his tiny experience. I think it IS worthwhile to point out his errors,
in detail. Maybe I go overboard sometimes, but I find it hard to
understand how someone can just blandly post an error (eg errors like
- `not all film scanners scan negatives`
- `moving a camera lens away from the body of a camera isn't like an
extension tube`
- `all lenses have independently moving front elements`
- `Agfa Ultra 100 is a great all-purpose film`
..(I could go on and on)

..and then, instead of simply admitting error or listening to
alternative advice or saying `Sorry, I may have misled you`, he turns
it into a torrent of abuse, and tries to twist out of the errors and
misinformation in a manner somewhat like Houdini, but nowhere near as
entertaining.

Obssessed? Yes, but with the truth about photography, and helping
beginners.

I think this is a sound method, ignore 'me's stupid posts about truces
and dogs etc and only respond to those posts directly related to
photography.

His photography related posts are usually wrong and shouldn't stand
unchallenged.

Over to `me` now - have the last word by all means. Note the folowing
post as a good example (Mike, fyi - you were called a `F#CKING
HYPOCRITE` by `me`, along with further accusations of the gang
mentality, naturally)

Yes, the gang stuff should probably be ignored too.

--
Owamanga!

"Peter D" [email protected] wrote in message
news:gOyNd.301559$6l.8475@pd7tw2no...
"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Sigh. Well, gee thanks Mike. You'll note I said FILM scanners in my
post. You were describing flatbeds, yes?

Ah yes, sorry, I missed that.

But you effectively defended `me`'s statement that not all film
scanners do negatives. That will help keep him around. Well done.
If you've killfiled him, don't you think it might be a little risky
entering conversations that you only half-see?

You're right, I shouldn't have responded to the point at all, which
distracted from my main purpose in responding in the first place, which
was
to ask you not to feed the troll. I shan't do it again. Having said
that,
I wish you'd stop responding to him altogether. I may not see his
posts,
but I see your replies, so killfiling him does little to stop cluttering
the
group. If people would just stop responding to him altogether, then
he'd
get bored and go away. He long ago mauled his chance to be a
constructive
part of the group, and he shouldn't be rewarded for abusing his right to
free speech.

Dunno what the beef is between you and "me". Don't care.

If your space/life would be better/warmer/happier without any reminder of
his existence, don't killfile only his messages. Also killfile any
messages
that contain references to him. It avoids the need for anyone to Net-Nanny
and leaves the choice of your reading to you.
HTH

The truth is Peter they have OCD.

PS If you need assistance with your filters, you need only ask.

Take pity on them Peter, they need all the help they can get.
Sign,
me

"grol" wrote in message
...
"Mike Kohary" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 00:40:44 GMT, "Peter D" [email protected] wrote:

Dunno what the beef is between you and "me". Don't care.

If your space/life would be better/warmer/happier without any reminder
of
his existence, don't killfile only his messages. Also killfile any
messages
that contain references to him.

Don't you think I thought of that? Alas, it's going to be pretty
difficult to effectively killfile messages that contain references to
"me" in the body, don't you think? If you have a brilliant idea of
how to do it, I'd love to hear it.

Filter anything with " in the main body of text. Most
newsreaders print the original users email address when replying to a
post. This
should filter any immediate replies to "me"s trolls.

The 'me'tard has nothing to offer this group, but will probably hang
around like
a bad smell anyways. He is now killfiled on both my machines, and I guess
I will
filter as mentioned above as well because people ( including myself -
oops )
keep replying to his posts.

grol

I'm always amazed at people who self-righteously ride up on their white
horse and impale their foe with the label "troll". I have come to see that
the use of this word is nothing more than another way to defame the comment
or the commentator. Even if the label troll had retained it's original
meaning what does it say about the culpability of it's user? Are they not
equally guilty of trolling? How does impaling their foe with this label
elevate them above their enemy? To my enemies I say: You may, with my
blessing, continue to troll along behind me impaling me whenever you please.
Sign,
me