Camera

id wrote:
Arvin wrote:

average, better for some, worse for others. The last time Iain
and I engaged in a calculation-intensive thread, it was on this
very topic




I'm am not getting anywhere near Iain's pseudo-physics subthread!
================================================

See the smiley face? The comment was made in a light-hearted joking

manner. But you took it fully serious and became very defensive
immediately.

What's underlined is Arvin's original comment; but *that* smiley was
put
there by Mike, not by Arvin. And I think the resulting discussion
showed

You are correct in that I wasn't 100% joking and I did have some
sentiment, behind my comment. But on a separate single point - I find
it very hard to believe that you assumed that the smiley face I added
was in fact written by Mike when first reading the post.

I may have stole the smiley face from Mike's post, but I definitely
recalled intentionally adding it there in my several revisions of my
post. I initially had a more strongly opinionated comment, but I
decided the point wasn't really worth debating (a somewhat new thing
for me) and so I edited it, included the smiley face (which might have
been taken from Mike's post). Now you don't have to believe me, just
look at the post more closely.

This might get into a bit of typographical forensics (a la CBS). But If
you look, the smiley face has no '' quote prefix (which would have
been automatically been added) and it actually has an extra empty line
seperating it from Mike's quoted passage. No matter how you play with
the word wrapping, it is impossible that you can make the smiley face
appears on its own that way.

So I would find it hard to believe that you went to the trouble to
recompare post the Mike original post with my post... noted that the
smiley face was shifted over, the quote prefix remove, and then spaced
apart from the original quoted passage, and then *not* given me the
benefit of the doubt for not putting it there before coming back at me.

Even so, like you said, there was a little bit of "sentiment" in the
post that definitely could have warranted a reply. I just felt the
smiley face should have helped avoided the tone that it took.

that there was some sentiment behind Arvin's original comment -
sentiment that Arvin had every right to express, and I to respond to.
As
Arvin pointed out, it was a civil exchange except for:

Iain wrote:

I look forward to meeting you at Kirkwood and I hope the
face-to-face
impression is better than the one I have right now!

That sounds angry and agressive, and I apologise for that.
For me some cool things have come out of posting to this newsgroup.
One
was writing a technical paper with Jack Michaud (who I've still never

met in the flesh) - I remember working on that on my PC whilst
waiting
for the road to re-open to get out of Kirkwood. The response to it on

Bomber Online was heartening, with good carvers saying how the
understanding that it gave them genuinely helped their riding.
Someone
even took the trouble to translate it into Russian!
But the main benefit has been through the friends that I've made
who've
become best riding buddies. I genuinely hope I get to share a day's
powder with Arvin some time - I'm sure I can learn something from his

riding.

Iain

A couple of years ago, I might have continued to escalate the
situation, which despite some disagreeing opinions, was really just a
misunderstanding. While I'm still a rather opinionated debater, I've
learned to accept that my sharp style may be taken in the wrong way and
try to compensate for that fact. I think I really have to thank Mike
T's wife Bonnie, who I met a couple of years ago. When I introduced
myself to hershe was like "Oh... YOU'RE THAT Arvin Chang... I've read
your posts on R.S.S.." I was 19 at the time and have since then worked
on avoiding similar reactions That's not to say I no longer have
strong opinions, I just always try to think first before I write now a
days, instead of letting my fingers fly. Still, the sharp retorts may
not always come out sufficiently blunted.

Hi Arvin ;-)

You are correct in that I wasn't 100% joking and I did have some
sentiment, behind my comment. But on a separate single point - I find
it very hard to believe that you assumed that the smiley face I added
was in fact written by Mike when first reading the post.

I've skimmed the rest of your post and must admit I don't have the
energy to follow it - anyone help me out? I remembered Mike's orginal
smiley because I responded to his post. So if you'd added a smiley,
there should have been two. And since you've admitted it wasn't a joke
anyway, I don't see there's any more to say.
Ride on!
Iain

id wrote:
Hi Arvin ;-)

I've skimmed the rest of your post and must admit I don't have the
energy to follow it - anyone help me out? I remembered Mike's orginal

smiley because I responded to his post. So if you'd added a smiley,
there should have been two. And since you've admitted it wasn't a
joke
anyway, I don't see there's any more to say.
Ride on!
Iain

No worries, all these posts take energy to read. I have to keep telling
myself that if I'm too tired up to write a coherent reply - that I can
take some time (even a day or two) to reply as there is nothing that
forces me to reply to a post immediately. In skimming my posts, you are
essentially repeating yourself without listening to what I'm trying to
say in response, and that's doesn't really help move the discussion
along. You could miss important subtle details... and nuances, and
smiley faces :]

You are incorrect in saying that I wasn't joking, I was joking to keep
the tone light despite a difference of opinion (there is a subtle
difference). Yes, there should have been two smileys... and that would
have been incontrovertible, I agree I wasn't completely clear. Hence
why I mentioned it in this sub-topic on how one needs to be careful to
make sure one's comments are read in the proper context.

However, you claim that it was it was clearly still part of Mike's post
is shaky in my opinion. I'm not saying that's not how you interpreted
my post when you first read it. Even though I had specifically pointed
out the smiley face before in trying to convince you that I did not
intend any malice in my original comment and you didn't contest that
point until now; I believe that you actually just didn't see the
smiley face for what it was.

I am saying that I believe most people would conclude that the smiley
face was not randomly moved out of the quoted passage from Mike's post,
down a few lines and closer to my comments by some digital fluke. As
such I feel like most people read my comments with my intended lighter
tonebecaquse they understand that the smiley face was added by me. From
that I am suggesting that if you had noticed the smiley face properly
and understood the context it provided, you probably wouldn't have
reacted in the same way since that was the only line I wrote at the
time. I knew you would be sensitive to such comments, and would react
negatively - hence why I tried to take extra care so as note to ruffle
your feathers with my opinions.

"lonerider" wrote in message
ups.com...
I am saying that I believe most people would conclude that the smiley
face was not randomly moved out of the quoted passage from Mike's post,
down a few lines and closer to my comments by some digital fluke. As
such I feel like most people read my comments with my intended lighter
tonebecaquse they understand that the smiley face was added by me. From
that I am suggesting that if you had noticed the smiley face properly
and understood the context it provided, you probably wouldn't have
reacted in the same way since that was the only line I wrote at the
time. I knew you would be sensitive to such comments, and would react
negatively - hence why I tried to take extra care so as note to ruffle
your feathers with my opinions.

You guys are putting *way* too much effort into this :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
(extra smileys because I am joking but also being serious).

Michael

Dmitry wrote:
"lindygrundy" wrote

pocket. It is rather small and flat (like my pocket) so it doesn't
have much wiggle room. That works well for me.

It's not very likely that you take good action shots with a camera
that fits comfortably in you pocket. Been there, it's just too much
effort to set up for a shot without a decent zoom.

I spent some time with Andy Tullis, a professional snowboard
photographer who runs a snowboard photography workshop at Mt.Hood and I
was surprised to find out that he often likes using a nice wide angle
or even fisheye lens for some shots (like in skateboard magazines).
Here are some of the photos he's took of my friend and me (just the
last one) with a wide angle lens.

Blake
http://tinyurl.com/6kle9
http://tinyurl.com/59t3o
http://tinyurl.com/4eyh2

Me (not as impressive)
http://tinyurl.com/6aylx

While having a long zoom lens is always nice, I wouldn't say that ALL
action shots require over 100mm (normal 3x) tele to be taken. Really
getting good action shots is all about spending that extra effort, in
general only use zoom if you have to... otherwise get as close as
possible. This usually is better in terms of getting nicer shots
(although might be bad in other respects such as safety and legality,
which you should always pay heed to first). Also using too MUCH zoom
will just leave you with a snowboard floating in limbo sky... you can't
tell how high in the air he is, what big gaps he's hitting, etc... so I
noticed that while I had a 380mm lens (about 10x) I was only using
about half that much at most (180m) and most the time even less than
that. As such my current "snowboard action camera" has a 28-100m lens
and fits into my pocket (trying to go with the really close and wide
angle effect).

http://www.dotphoto.com/go.asp?l=ChangArvin&AID=1380965


I can't imagine
carrying a backpack snowboarding or skiing...much too restrictive
for
me!

I have something close


Stuff I carry:
- 1.5l camelback hydration pack
- 0.8L camelback Zoid hydration pack (smallest winter model)

- Extra fleece layer in case it gets really cold, plus a fleece neck
band
- Fleece neck warmer, I leave the fleece in my car, or locked to a rack
with my board lock

- Screwdriver and some emergency repair bits and pieces
- Multi-tool, allen wrenches

- Goggles or sunglasses (I only ride in goggles if I absolutely have
to)
- Goggles always

- Board lock
- Board lock (I usually lock it to the fence with my lunch sack though)

- Sometimes a camera (Panasonic FZ1 nowdays) in a special shell
- Sometimes a camera (BIG Oly 2100UZ BIGGER Sony F707 small Canon
S60)

- Misc junk like sunblock, board leash in case resort asks for one,
etc.
- In my bag at the bottom of the hill

- Cell phone and/or FRS radio
FRS radio sometimes.

- A small flask with Jagermeister
- Ah... not for me

I was riding with no hydration and tried to just suff everything in
my
pockets last season, but found it to be actually more restrictive and
MUCH less convinient than a well made and fitting backpack.

Well if I don't wear my hydration pack, I lock it to the ski rack at
the bottom of the hill, so I can pull stuff out of it if I need. I
usually only do that if I'm on the front side of the mountain though.
--Arvin

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:58:23 GMT, "lonerider"
allegedly wrote:

I am saying that I believe most people would conclude that the smiley
face was not randomly moved out of the quoted passage from Mike's
post, down a few lines and closer to my comments by some digital
fluke.

Arvin

On my newsreader, Mike's original postscript has 3 lines of text which
terminates with said smiley.

On your response which includes Mike's quoted text, the first line is
wrapped at the word "Incline", and the last line is wrapped at the
smiley. Both of these wrapped lines have no greater than sign as a
quote prefix.

Upon first glance, it seemed to me that the smiley was definitely part
of Mike T's post, and that your newsreader wrapped things badly. (My
newsreader by default does not wrap messages being read - so it's not at
my end :-).

Later, when you quoted your reply in between the equals signs, there was
an additional blank line between Mike's last line and the smiley. It
did seem to me that you added that and claimed it as your own - however,
I can understand that you thought the smiley was yours, given that your
intention was to keep things friendly.

- Dave.

--
The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky.
http://www.vpas.org/ - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow -
Securing your e-mail

The Snowboard FAQ lives here - http://rssFAQ.org/

Switters wrote in message .. .
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:58:23 GMT, "lonerider"
allegedly wrote:

I am saying that I believe most people would conclude that the smiley
face was not randomly moved out of the quoted passage from Mike's
post, down a few lines and closer to my comments by some digital
fluke.

Arvin

On my newsreader, Mike's original postscript has 3 lines of text which
terminates with said smiley.

On your response which includes Mike's quoted text, the first line is
wrapped at the word "Incline", and the last line is wrapped at the
smiley. Both of these wrapped lines have no greater than sign as a
quote prefix.

Upon first glance, it seemed to me that the smiley was definitely part
of Mike T's post, and that your newsreader wrapped things badly. (My
newsreader by default does not wrap messages being read - so it's not at
my end :-).

Later, when you quoted your reply in between the equals signs, there was
an additional blank line between Mike's last line and the smiley. It
did seem to me that you added that and claimed it as your own - however,
I can understand that you thought the smiley was yours, given that your
intention was to keep things friendly.

- Dave.

Hmm. Ok, I will concede the point then I was wrong and guilty of revisionism!

--Arvin

Switters wrote in message .. .
On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:58:23 GMT, "lonerider"
allegedly wrote:

I am saying that I believe most people would conclude that the smiley
face was not randomly moved out of the quoted passage from Mike's
post, down a few lines and closer to my comments by some digital
fluke.

Arvin

On my newsreader, Mike's original postscript has 3 lines of text which
terminates with said smiley.

On your response which includes Mike's quoted text, the first line is
wrapped at the word "Incline", and the last line is wrapped at the
smiley. Both of these wrapped lines have no greater than sign as a
quote prefix.

Upon first glance, it seemed to me that the smiley was definitely part
of Mike T's post, and that your newsreader wrapped things badly. (My
newsreader by default does not wrap messages being read - so it's not at
my end :-).

Later, when you quoted your reply in between the equals signs, there was
an additional blank line between Mike's last line and the smiley. It
did seem to me that you added that and claimed it as your own - however,
I can understand that you thought the smiley was yours, given that your
intention was to keep things friendly.

- Dave.

And a strong, unconditional apology to Iain as well.

--Arvin