If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Auction: Thermal Imaging Camera - One Day Left | sell2all | Nordic Skiing | 0 | April 29th 04 05:44 PM |
using digital camera on the mountain | Dmitry | Snowboarding | 14 | March 4th 04 03:07 AM |
The Daily Camera | wamu | Nordic Skiing | 0 | October 31st 03 02:02 PM |
The Daily Camera | wamu | Marketplace | 0 | October 31st 03 02:02 PM |
The Daily Camera | wamu | Alpine Skiing | 0 | October 31st 03 02:02 PM |