Bifurcator wrote:
But some people are saying I used the word idiot. I didn't. I said "very limited intellect" and that really shouldn't be so insulting. I mean we all have "limited intellects" (unless you're a god or something) and only specifying a more severe degree just means that thinking things through thoroughly and logically from many points of view, isn't one of their passtimes or not very important to them. How many people does that describe here? Most I would say. It shouldn't be taken as an insult or put-down unless one is expecting to be perceived as a great thinker just from commenting on a slightly ingenuous blog.
The two terms are quite different! A person with a "very limited intellect" misses dry humor, is generally mundane, assumes too much (like that idiot is meant when limited intellect was used), and is probably uninteresting at parties. An "idiot" drives the wrong way on the freeway, ignores even assumption, lights bottle-rockets from his butt-crack, and is probably very amusing at parties. Two very different things!...Show more →
TonyBeach wrote:
Some people like to dissemble by parsing. When you capitalize VERY in front of limited intellect, you are clearly saying more than average limited intellect -- you are in fact suggesting someone is an idiot or perhaps just a blockhead.
What I find particularly amusing though is that your description of an idiot looks a lot like what KR does on his blog. After all, Stephen Colbert is no fool, but he tells his guests before they go on that he is a "professional idiot".
Your last sentence shows the difference fairly well I think. Stephen Colbert has a very high intellect yet is a self-proclaimed idiot. The two terms are not even close to meaning the same things. Blockhead is yet again different and means neither idiot nor VERY limited intellect but at least there is SOME overlap with the term blockhead. There's almost none between idiot and VERY limited intellect. What you're attempting to do is commonly known as putting words into someone's mouth. And in this case you're basing the justification for doing so on a false assumption of what a capitalized word implies. You've kinda got a double-mistake thing going on there.
Bifurcator wrote:
What you're attempting to do is commonly known as putting words into someone's mouth. And in this case you're basing the justification for doing so on a false assumption of what a capitalized word implies. You've kinda got a double-mistake thing going on there.
No, what I'm doing is taking offense to be told I have "a VERY limited intellect". If you want to say at least you didn't call me an "idiot" and that makes it okay, then you are just as guilty of compounding your mistakes as anyone here. Perhaps I should have written stupid instead of idiot, then we could watch you dissemble by parsing that term. Bottom line is: don't go around calling other people names and expect that you can weasel your way out of it by claiming you didn't intend to be insulting.
TonyBeach wrote:
No, what I'm doing is taking offense to be told I have "a VERY limited intellect". If you want to say at least you didn't call me an "idiot" and that makes it okay, then you are just as guilty of compounding your mistakes as anyone here. Perhaps I should have written stupid instead of idiot, then we could watch you dissemble by parsing that term. Bottom line is: don't go around calling other people names and expect that you can weasel your way out of it by claiming you didn't intend to be insulting.
That's interesting! You insult Ken and then take offense to what you think is an insult which can only be owned by insulting him (Ken) in the first place! That's about as bad as it gets! Seriously! You must have a VERY limited intellect indeed.
"As far as feeling goes whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect" relentless and indefatigable in pursuit or as if in pursuit; "impossible to escape the dogging fears"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So, if someone are relentless in their pursuit of better, more factual, less bullshit oriented, less provocative photography news, and therefore critisize Ken Rockwell on a factual, rational and mature basis, they are "persons with a VERY limited intellect".
And you wonder how you manage to come over as trollish, rude and less than... capable rethorically? I have no strong opinions about KR what so ever, if people like his.. "blog" or what you want to call it, great! I prefer Thom Hogan and Bjørn Rørslett, who have a more fact-based and no-bullshit approach to photography blogging. But I do have strong opinions about people that religiously claims that "If you don't share my views, you have a very limited intellect". That is rude, dogmatic and... ironically enough, proof of a somewhat lacking intellect.
ulrikft wrote:
"As far as feeling goes whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect"
So, if someone are relentless in their pursuit of better, more factual, less bullshit oriented, less provocative photography news, and therefore critisize Ken Rockwell on a factual, rational and mature basis, they are "persons with a VERY limited intellect".
I think it's very obvious that you only want to keep this going so you can sling more insults. They don't even make sense. Go ahead and take everything out of context, replace every sentence with your own meanings, change and add words, and misquote or misread texts so that you can justify yourself. It's of course severely lacking in common courtesy, common sense, and shows the nature of a true troll but you knew that. How I feel about stupid people or rude people with VERY low intellects is just how I feel about them! If I wish to think that all people who jump off buildings onto their heads are stupid I will. Likewise if I wish to believe that people who go around insulting blog writers are of little account and not worth reading I will. I think it's very interesting that you take ownership of these feelings of mine. You must believe they apply to you and that you are such a person. At least you have said so many times now. Your grammar is quite telling at least.
Bifurcator wrote:
I think it's very obvious that you only want to keep this going so you can sling more insults. They don't even make sense. Go ahead and take everything out of context, replace every sentence with your own meanings, change and add words, and misquote or misread texts so that you can justify yourself. It's of course severely lacking in common courtesy, common sense, and shows the nature of a true troll but you knew that. How I feel about stupid people or rude people with VERY low intellects is just how I feel about them! If I wish to think that all people who jump off buildings onto their heads are stupid I will. Likewise if I wish to believe that people who go around insulting blog writers are of little account and not worth reading I will. I think it's very interesting that you take ownership of these feelings of mine. You must believe they apply to you and that you are such a person. At least you have said so many times now. Your grammar is quite telling at least.
Bifurcator wrote:
I think it's very obvious that you only want to keep this going so you can sling more insults. They don't even make sense. Go ahead and take everything out of context, replace every sentence with your own meanings, change and add words, and misquote or misread texts so that you can justify yourself. It's of course severely lacking in common courtesy, common sense, and shows the nature of a true troll but you knew that. How I feel about stupid people or rude people with VERY low intellects is just how I feel about them! If I wish to think that all people who jump off buildings onto their heads are stupid I will. Likewise if I wish to believe that people who go around insulting blog writers are of little account and not worth reading I will. I think it's very interesting that you take ownership of these feelings of mine. You must believe they apply to you and that you are such a person. At least you have said so many times now. Your grammar is quite telling at least.
I don't understand how the grammar of my third language is telling, but you using it as an argument is, again, ironically, quite telling..
You state, quite clearly, that people that you disagree with on the topic "ken rockwell" have a VERY limited intellect That is a blanket statement, a broad insult and quite foolish. And of course, you are free to say that people disagreeing with you are of "low intellectual capacity" and flame bait all you want, but then you have to accept that you get the "troll"-stamp firmly planted in your forehead.
So far you have yet to respond to your own actual wording, if you want to actually clarify what you mean by "people that don't share my views on Ken Rockwell have a VERY limited intellect", you are welcome, but weasel-wording, strawman-charging and generally jumping on every logical fallacy in the book is not helping your case. You are obviously and naturally trying to change the focus away from your own error, and I understand that, it is perfectly natural, but I won't let that point go that easy..
Are you on drugs? You weasel-worded yourself into this. Why should I have to clarify? If you can't read, don't know how to use quote marks, and cannot form a coherent sentence then that's all on you. I don't have the time to teach you.
Bifurcator wrote:
Are you on drugs? You weasel-worded yourself into this. Why should I have to clarify? If you can't read, don't know how to use quote marks, and cannot form a coherent sentence then that's all on you. I don't have the time to teach you.
I see that you are unable to respond, and that is quite alright I think my point is well proven and I'll quit here!
Bifurcator wrote:
But some people are saying I used the word idiot. I didn't. I said "very limited intellect" and that really shouldn't be so insulting.
Saying that someone is of very limited intellect is equivalent to calling them an idiot, a moron, or a cretin. The latter three terms used to have precise meanings associated with them, generally equating to limited intellect. Today they have become general terms of abuse.
Ken has worked in marketing, which at worst is a very cynical profession. I find it hard to accept that he genuinely believes what he writes, which is often complete tripe. Take this quote: "Like most serious shooters, I'm so done with digital. All I shot was film, and it was so much more fun, easy and inexpensive — and gives better results to skilled users." If he wants to shoot film, great. But why mislead casual photographers who are daft enough to regard him as an expert, which unfortunately many do. I think Ken uses a maxim that is often attributed to Goebbels, that "If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it.". Well, if he can get aware with such bare faced nonsense, and earn a good living, he certainly has chutzpah.
LeifG
Did you ever read Ken's intro?
Looks like he is having the last laughed...
This is my personal website. I do it all by myself. I'm just one guy with a computer who likes to take pictures. I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.
This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, and a way for me to goof around.
While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction.
This site is provided only for the entertainment of my personal friends, dogs, family and myself. I've never promoted this site. If you're reading this, you got here on your own.
Read this site at your own risk. I make a lot of mistakes. I have no proof-reader and there are plenty of pages, like this one, which have been around since the 1990s and may no longer apply or be correct. I'm just one guy. No mater how stupid something may be, if I don't catch it, it gets out there anyway and stays wrong for years until someone points it out. I can't track everything; I've written thousand of pages and write a few more every day.
Maybe, you might be right - If I were to call someone that. I never called anyone anything. I said a flag is raised when I see people bagging on Ken. Consider r.gil's post above and indeed what kind of people bag on others.
This thread has turned out to be a great testament and vindication to and of my opinion about that.
Oh dear it looks like the DP forums are leaking into here. Like I said there, people seem keen to perpetuate the perception that photograpers are dull, humorless bores.
Why so many get their tits in a wringer over him is beyond me. And I can't understand why people don't get it when he's being deliberately silly. What, so some of you thought he was being serious when he was talking about killer robots taking over the world??
As Mr. T might say,
I pity the fool who obtains self esteem by deriding Ken Rockwell.
Bifurcator wrote:
That's interesting! You insult Ken and then take offense to what you think is an insult which can only be owned by insulting him (Ken) in the first place! That's about as bad as it gets! Seriously! You must have a VERY limited intellect indeed.
Just to be clear, this is what I wrote:
"Well, I'm not going to go and look at KR's "comparisons" to check, mainly because I don't have the time to waste and from what I've checked in the past his tests are flawed and I suspect they are deliberately biased to reinforce whatever he wants them to "prove".
Regarding screwing up exposure as the only reason to shoot RAW, that's a myth propagated by JPEG shooters. Getting exposure right with RAW is different than getting it right with JPEG; and you can get a stop more DR when shooting in RAW, you can probably get even more than that if you use the whacky image settings KR uses."
You think I'm insulting him when I say his website is a waste of my time, his tests are flawed, his motivations are suspect, and his setting are whacky; such an interpretation is I think a sign of someone with a "VERY low intellect", I'm sure KR is laughing all the way to the bank as yet another thread with him in it spins out of control, helped along by his legions of dittoheads.
Bifurcator wrote:
How I feel about stupid people or rude people with VERY low intellects is just how I feel about them!
Just as I suspected, you are calling those of us that take issue with KR "stupid". Like I said in my first reply to you, I prefer not to engage in such name calling with people I disagree with; I do realize though from everything you've written in this thread that you are someone not worth taking seriously, especially as it relates to photography.
"Well, I'm not going to go and look at KR's "comparisons" to check, mainly because I don't have the time to waste and from what I've checked in the past his tests are flawed and I suspect they are deliberately biased to reinforce whatever he wants them to "prove".
You just called him "A waste of time", "A lier", "a cheater" and,
Regarding screwing up exposure as the only reason to shoot RAW, that's a myth propagated by JPEG shooters. Getting exposure right with RAW is different than getting it right with JPEG; and you can get a stop more DR when shooting in RAW, you can probably get even more than that if you use the whacky image settings KR uses."
you also just called him "stupid".
You think I'm insulting him...
If I process text like you do then yes there's no question about it. I however am not that corrupt that I would twist what you say into another meaning. You can do that if you want - that's not me! I simply said that people who do insult others (really anyone in any way) send up a flag which tells me that I'm reading someone with a VERY limited intellect. If you want to own that description and therefor own the slight attached to it then that's up to you.
Here's yet another case in point where it seems your reading comprehension is distorted beyond reasonability:
TonyBeach wrote:
Just as I suspected, you are calling those of us that take issue with KR "stupid". Like I said in my first reply to you, I prefer not to engage in such name calling with people I disagree with; I do realize though from everything you've written in this thread that you are someone not worth taking seriously, especially as it relates to photography.
That doesn't even make sense! You're being combative, rude, snide, and completely disingenuous for no other reason than to deliver insults to someone you don't agree with. Why? Your meds need refilling or something? The sentence you quoted is out of context, has nothing to do with Ken nor people who like/dislike him and couldn't possibly reflect on my skill level as a photographer. Even you have to admit that what you've written here appears to be the drivel of an insane person.
Two very different things!
That's about as bad as it gets! Seriously! You must have a VERY limited intellect indeed.