Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: This is quite amusing..  (Read 16437 times)

Marlyn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 253
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2013, 12:58:53 AM »

I got a laugh out of this one!

http://youtu.be/bqnS9MpOlr8

I watched this video hoping to see the wifi working as it is a really interesting feature, but you don't actually see it in action,
but the video is a real laugh.

The discription is a good start:
The part about being able to see the image upside down to see if the composition is good.....

Also pretending that you can actually see something useful on an ipad out in direct light.....

Not to mention very limited battery life in cold temperatures, as well as the thing just packing up till it's warmed up again.

I think the only real analogy with using an 8x10 and an ipad/MFDB is that you need to go under a black cape to see the image
usefully.

Even in the video that is partly overcast you can barely see the image on the ipad.

You've got to love these marketing videos.... ;)

His pictures are beautiful though...


Troll post  #931.

Don't feed the beast.


Time to use the other forums for MF photography discussion that aren't drowning in this continuous stream of verbal diarrhea from the OP.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14460
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #41 on: April 19, 2013, 03:21:23 AM »


Troll post  #931.

Don't feed the beast.


Time to use the other forums for MF photography discussion that aren't drowning in this continuous stream of verbal diarrhea from the OP.


I know it's all a load of crap, but why do the US crap-specialists write diarrhea where the civilized world has it as diarrhoea? I understand it's only a little oh, but these things make a big difference, as anyone once inflicted with the problem will readily understand.

I had imagined that the use of ancient Latin/Greek was supposed to eliminate confusion, but I suppose that confusion between said condition and gastric flue is too esoteric to admit investigation, never mind the misuse of the dead(ish) lingos.

What a quandry for me to face so early in the morning; I think I shall reconfigure my daily schedule: get up in the evening and go to bed at mid-day. I could become an astro-photographic-specialist or even a stalker of locked cemeteries. But at any rate, I would then be able to face LuLa on a full stomach!

Rob C

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
    • My Flickr page
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #42 on: April 19, 2013, 06:40:18 AM »


I know it's all a load of crap, but why do the US crap-specialists write diarrhea where the civilized world has it as diarrhoea? I understand it's only a little oh, but these things make a big difference, as anyone once inflicted with the problem will readily understand.

I had imagined that the use of ancient Latin/Greek was supposed to eliminate confusion, but I suppose that confusion between said condition and gastric flue is too esoteric to admit investigation, never mind the misuse of the dead(ish) lingos.

What a quandry for me to face so early in the morning; I think I shall reconfigure my daily schedule: get up in the evening and go to bed at mid-day. I could become an astro-photographic-specialist or even a stalker of locked cemeteries. But at any rate, I would then be able to face LuLa on a full stomach!

Rob C

One is correct in British English and the other is correct in American English.  So, both are correct in English.  Ass you well know, there are many differences in both...butt, we can all get along on this topic.  Or, to make things more simple, we could use the term that is commonly used in some rural areas in the Southern United States (Mississippi for example):  "The back-door trots".  This can mean that the inflicted person has to trot for the back door to go to the outhouse, or that you are "running" out your own "back door".  Or, you can shorten it down to simply "the runs".  There also is "the squirts".

The German word for this condition is "Durchfall"  which means literally "to fall through".  I think it describes the situation pretty well too.

I would contribute more to this thread, but I have to run.  ;D
Logged

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #43 on: April 19, 2013, 07:14:20 AM »

One is correct in British English and the other is correct in American English.  So, both are correct in English. 

No. Only one is correct in English, any other parochial affectation/deviation is not proper English and merely an abuse of borrowed language.   ;D
Logged

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
    • My Flickr page
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #44 on: April 19, 2013, 07:35:27 AM »

No. Only one is correct in English, any other parochial affectation/deviation is not proper English and merely an abuse of borrowed language.   ;D

You have it all wrong!  American English is a modern, improved, and updated version of British English.  ;D

http://www.online-literature.com/donne/3276/  is a piece that Mark Twain wrote explaining the differences.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14460
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2013, 08:59:47 AM »

You have it all wrong!  American English is a modern, improved, and updated version of British English.  ;D

http://www.online-literature.com/donne/3276/  is a piece that Mark Twain wrote explaining the differences.




With respect, what would he have known?

;-)

Rob C

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
    • My Flickr page
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2013, 09:12:40 AM »




With respect, what would he have known?

;-)

Rob C

Actually, quite a lot at the time.  Twain lived in Europe for many years.
Logged

JoeKitchen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1220
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2013, 01:17:56 PM »

We all have Webster to thank for this difference in the two types of English.  Shortly after the Revolutionary War (or the War for American Independence, as you Brits call it) Daniel Webster felt for us to be truly free from England's rule, we needed to create our own language.  Knowing that it would be impossible for us to completely change languages, he removed a lot of the "useless" letters in the spelling of words, for instance the "u" in colour to make into color.  He also reversed the french influence of "re" to "er," like theatre to theater.  There are also a bunch of little things too, like replacing "i" sounding Ys to Is (tyre becomes tire). 

Most people of the time thought Webster as being nuts, but he was very good at selling his idea to schools and libraries.  So a generation later American English took hold. 
Logged
Joe Kitchen
www.josephmkitchen.com

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture."  Arnold Newman
“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.”  William Faulkner

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2013, 01:36:23 PM »

Actually, quite a lot at the time.  Twain lived in Europe for many years.

And his opinion on proper English and Americanised English is no longer relevant, it's more a historical comment on the English class system of that time.
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14460
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2013, 02:38:02 PM »

Actually, quite a lot at the time.  Twain lived in Europe for many years.


I've lived in Spain for 32... I wouldn't even dream of thinking myself that au fait with the idiom even though I can battle along most of the time. As a 'foreigner' you always miss things. Hell, the Brits find one another difficult and there aren't even real geographical borders.

;-)

Rob C

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14460
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #50 on: April 19, 2013, 02:55:21 PM »

We all have Webster to thank for this difference in the two types of English.  Shortly after the Revolutionary War (or the War for American Independence, as you Brits call it) Daniel Webster felt for us to be truly free from England's rule, we needed to create our own language.  Knowing that it would be impossible for us to completely change languages, he removed a lot of the "useless" letters in the spelling of words, for instance the "u" in colour to make into color.  He also reversed the french influence of "re" to "er," like theatre to theater.  There are also a bunch of little things too, like replacing "i" sounding Ys to Is (tyre becomes tire). 

Most people of the time thought Webster as being nuts, but he was very good at selling his idea to schools and libraries.  So a generation later American English took hold. 


I didn’t know that. How sad, though, to feel obliged to destroy a language in order to mark a feeling of self. On the other hand, perhaps he just couldn’t spell, either. But if he could, then another fine, if early example of the transatlantic genius in marketing. You don’t need the product, but it sure makes you feel good when others buy it!

Perhaps the vandalism was all to do with legacy: our own dear Mr Blair still searches for his… a few years after office and hardly anybody remembers him.

I look upon the Cajuns with a new respect! Not only did they bring us good swamp pop rock, they survived language fascism!

;-)

Rob C

Bryan Conner

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 526
    • My Flickr page
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2013, 05:01:46 PM »

And his opinion on proper English and Americanised English is no longer relevant, it's more a historical comment on the English class system of that time.


Proper English?  There is not a version of English named proper English.
Logged

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2013, 05:18:23 PM »

There is if you are English, it's a common English phrase.
Logged

Gigi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 477
    • some work
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2013, 08:00:20 PM »

nice to know the common is proper in Merry England.
Logged
Geoff

EricWHiss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2563
    • Rolleiflex USA
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #54 on: April 20, 2013, 01:40:32 PM »

a hah!   ;D

So glad this thread could eventually find a way to fit its title.
Logged
Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA

FredBGG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1633
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #55 on: April 21, 2013, 05:17:38 PM »

Time to use the other forums for MF photography discussion that aren't drowning in this continuous stream of verbal diarrhea from the OP.

When did typed out text become verbal?

Logged

ondebanks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #56 on: April 21, 2013, 07:05:42 PM »

How sad, though, to feel obliged to destroy a language in order to mark a feeling of self.

I think that the deliberate marginalisation and destruction of indigenous languages by colonisers (like the English) was a far greater sin than any tweaking of the colonisers' language by the colonised people.

You may be saddened by Webster's reformulation of American-English spelling...I am more saddened that by 1900, almost no-one in Ireland could speak Irish (Gaelic)...the culmination of a process of cultural and economic attrition which began with the Plantations and the Penal Laws imposed from London in the 17th century.

When you think about it - "to destroy a language in order to mark a feeling of self" - was that not exactly what the British authorities were repeatedly doing as well, as they built their "empire on which the sun never sets"? Linguistic hegemony was central to their sense of imperial self-justification. If one could get the wogs, fuzzy-wuzzies, chinks, pakis, abos, micks and coons to speak the King's/Queen's English, instead of their own barbaric tongue, one was just doing them a favour, right?

Not blaming you Rob, or any other present-day British people, for any of this of course...it's ancient history and attitudes are completely different now. It just needs to be remembered.

And now, back to photography!

Ray
Logged

Rob C

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 14460
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #57 on: April 22, 2013, 04:38:17 AM »

I think that the deliberate marginalisation and destruction of indigenous languages by colonisers (like the English) was a far greater sin than any tweaking of the colonisers' language by the colonised people.

You may be saddened by Webster's reformulation of American-English spelling...I am more saddened that by 1900, almost no-one in Ireland could speak Irish (Gaelic)...the culmination of a process of cultural and economic attrition which began with the Plantations and the Penal Laws imposed from London in the 17th century.

When you think about it - "to destroy a language in order to mark a feeling of self" - was that not exactly what the British authorities were repeatedly doing as well, as they built their "empire on which the sun never sets"? Linguistic hegemony was central to their sense of imperial self-justification. If one could get the wogs, fuzzy-wuzzies, chinks, pakis, abos, micks and coons to speak the King's/Queen's English, instead of their own barbaric tongue, one was just doing them a favour, right?

Not blaming you Rob, or any other present-day British people, for any of this of course...it's ancient history and attitudes are completely different now. It just needs to be remembered.

And now, back to photography!

Ray

Ah, empire.

Well, it’s impossible to come to any single conclusion about empire other than to remark that every single one fades away.

But, on the practicalities, if you are going to have one, then a single, common denominator of language is essential if there is to be understanding. It’s worth noting that in India (Pakistan didn’t exist until 1947) the main language that aids higher employment and foreign business is still English; nobody expects the world to become fluent in Tamil, Urdu, Hind, Telegu nor any of the other hundreds of local idioms.

So yes, in a sense, the legacy of English language, not to mention English education and Law has been invaluable to the newly independent countries, providing a base from which they can exist and even, with luck, grow within this brave new world they all have to face. Those that have turned inwards - well, look at what was Rhodesia, N&S, for one.

Gaelic? I have lived in Scotland about half my life, and I never yet ran into anyone speaking that language for real. Some rural ‘tourist’ towns have introduced the double-naming of streets in order to add to the tourist ‘oferta’ as they would say in Spain, but for many/most (I haven’t counted) it is a stupid business that raises local council expense and achieves nothing. Kilts? Are you joking? They are the national joke except at some weddings. There are even local TV stations that employ, were set up to provide, this expensive isolationist doctrine. The same splinter mentality lies behind much of the political problems of Spain. There was a period a year or so ago, here on Mallorca, where non-Catalan speaking doctors from the mainland of Spain were unable to hold employoment unless they were able to abandon the national language of Castilian and actually work using Catalan! Is that madness, or what? If I get another heart attack I hope the medical staff speak medical, not some prescribed version of localised Spanish, especially as they all speak the national tongue anyway.

Some of the Welsh, as with the Irish and Scots have the same problem of seeking an ‘identity’ different or separate from the national; why? None of that serves to do anything but isolate in a world that, in reality, needs closer integration and common understanding not only of language but of hopes and religion if it is to survive.

From where I stand, any language that becomes the only language is no bad thing. Speech is supposed to be about communication: when we can all communicate with one another without confusion, then we will be that tiny step closer to avoiding trouble. Struggle with a foreign language may amuse on holiday, not so when you live there. Then, it’s more about closed doors than loving thy neighbour in a golden glow of imaginary, sunny beach bliss.

But as for destroying a language that is already spoken and perfectly understood, as Mr Webster apparently felt obliged to do, that is another thing altogether and has more to do with ego than rationality.

;-)

Rob C

MrSmith

  • Guest
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #58 on: April 22, 2013, 05:22:44 AM »

"Not blaming you Rob, or any other present-day British people, for any of this of course...it's ancient history and attitudes are completely different now. It just needs to be remembered"

what also needs to be remembered is the Dutch, Belgian, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (plus others) empire building too, theres no point having a selective memory when looking back at history.
Logged

ondebanks

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 860
Re: This is quite amusing..
« Reply #59 on: April 22, 2013, 06:11:23 AM »

"Not blaming you Rob, or any other present-day British people, for any of this of course...it's ancient history and attitudes are completely different now. It just needs to be remembered"

what also needs to be remembered is the Dutch, Belgian, German, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese (plus others) empire building too, theres no point having a selective memory when looking back at history.

Absolutely. I just gave one example - "colonisers (like the English)". And why single them out? - well we had been talking about post-colonial USA, so staying with that example made the most sense.

Ray
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up