From: pack-news@rattus.net 
  
 Rebecca Ore  writes: 
  
 > In article , 
 >  Bruce Murphy  wrote: 
 > 
 > > > All people who harp on the eliteness of equipment look alike through a 
 > > > $40 twin len reflex's viewfinder. 
 > > 
 > > Well, several of the proponents keep harping on about it, I'm just 
 > > trying to get them to stop using all references to such things. 
 > 
 > No, you're the one who (a) thinks people are clueless because they come 
 > to a rec.photo.digital group to ask questions about cameras they don't 
 > own yet; 
  
 No, I think a startlingly high proportion of them are clueless, but 
 I've never claimed there was any causal relationship. In particular, I 
 think they're incapable of reliably finding the /correct/ group in 
 which to post these questions. 
  
 > (b) accuses Thad of being an elitist when there's vanishingly 
 > little evidence from his posts to news.groups that he is. 
  
 Oh he /says/ he isn't, and then goes on to issue another RFD where he 
 outlines his little prejudices. 
  
 > People post to all the groups asking whether they should buy a Hassey or 
 > a Rollei, whether they should get a 4x5 Speed Graphic or a monorail for 
 > their first large format.  This generally brings out some conversation 
 > about equipment that's more generally interesting.  But I suspect that 
 > the groups I hang out in are less consumer marketing driven and many of 
 > the elite members of the group enjoy scrounging around and playing with 
 > weird old equipment, including helping people restore things like 1899 
 > Seneca view cameras. 
  
 And what you say here is both interesting, and something I generally 
 agree with, see my first comment for where you've diverged in your 
 estimation from my actual position. 
  
 > Try large format -- it's really superior to digital :). 
  
 Oh I agree, digital is the devil. 
  
 B> 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)