bdazel

And the fifth.

Where is the index file? I have only the avchd files from the stream folder. I think the rest of the info is gone, because I subsequently formatted the card.

And there's the fourth. Your blind assumptions reveal your naivety. Try again...

Oh, how sad. Now there's a third. The third being measuring your self-worth by what you can put on your resume.

So your school and/or parents failed you in at least two areas. That is unfortunate. But hey, thanks for making me smile.

Did you learn that nonsensical mantra in third grade when you should have been learning grammar?

I discovered this weekend that the cx100 is much less rain-friendly than my old miniDV cameras. I lost a video due to what looks to be corrupted files that I can only attribute to the moisture. The corrupted files play with obvious glitches in VLC, crash Windows media player, and crash both Vegas and Premiere.

Not dead yet, but dying of a slow, painful, cancer-like disease called liberalism.

(this one's going to get me in trouble. )

Quote

Quote

An example of how smoking mj personally affects me:

For work, I often must spend extra time fixing messes created by people who were too forgetful or lazy or just plain scatterbrained to do the job right.

The problem there is that you guys employ forgetful, lazy people. The correct solution is to fire them and replace them with people who aren't forgetful and lazy.

Agreed. If I had that power, I would make that happen.

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't have to, I'm not the one stating there is a correlation.

Ok... then I don't have to either. I'm not the one stating there is not a correlation.

The onus of proof is placed on the individual making the statement. You stated there is a correlation thus the onus of proof is on you.

Quote

How long do you want to keep this up? I'm getting bored real fast.

Instead of getting bored you should just go back to being bliss (and ignorant) ...

If I were in a courtroom, that MIGHT be the case. It would be dependent on many different variables. BUT, this is a simple online forum. Is there a rule book somewhere that I don't know about? If so, then you are correct, I am ignorant of your stated rule. As for bliss, well I am getting a kick out of how adamant you are to shoot down my comments - but not quite near bliss yet.

For what it's worth, when shooting in TV mode, I used to get the decent results with evaluative metering, then over-exposing by 1/3 to 2/3 stops.

Quote

Quote

Have you performed multiple scientific studies that prove there is not a correlation? I doubt it ...

I don't have to, I'm not the one stating there is a correlation.

Ok... then I don't have to either. I'm not the one stating there is not a correlation.

How long do you want to keep this up? I'm getting bored real fast.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nope. Not making that argument.

In my experience when someone is drunk at work they get fired. When someone is hungover, they don't work, and then there is no problem to fix.

And when someone is under the influence of marijuana at work they get fired. What is your point?

lol. What's your point? Did I suggest anyone was under the influence of marijuana at work?

Yes, you did suggest it ...

Quote

An example of how smoking mj personally affects me:

For work, I often must spend extra time fixing messes created by people who were too forgetful or lazy or just plain scatterbrained to do the job right.

... it appears that you don't have to be under the influence of marijuana to be forgetful.

Ah ha. There's where you screwed up. Effects of mj linger after the 'buzz' is gone.

No disagreement here.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Nope. Not making that argument.

In my experience when someone is drunk at work they get fired. When someone is hungover, they don't work, and then there is no problem to fix.

And when someone is under the influence of marijuana at work they get fired. What is your point?

lol. What's your point? Did I suggest anyone was under the influence of marijuana at work?

Ha, ha. Stop massaging semantics. In Post 81, you clearly implied that the reason you had to clean-up other fuck-ups' fucked-ups is that their fuck-ups are the result of being addled from being fucked-up.

("At work"? Yeah, ok, we're idiots.)

Wrong again. I clearly did no such thing. Re-read post 81. I think you are seeing what you want to see, rather than what is on the screen in front of your face.

Quote

So in other words drunk is OK because the boss can can them, hung over is OK because they're inoperative, but stoned isn't OK because they mess things up?

Uh... not really. I said nothing about what is OK (whatever that means ). I said what affects me personally. Having to fix other people's screw-ups pisses me off and wastes my personal time. When the person is not there to screw anything up, then I don't have to fix it.

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

An example of how an irresponsible individual smoking mj personally affects me:

For work, I often must spend extra time fixing messes created by people who were too forgetful or lazy or just plain scatterbrained to do the job right.

Fixed it for you.

Funny, but wrong. You assume there is no correlation. Thanks for the smile though.

Have you performed multiple scientific studies that prove there is a correlation? I doubt it ... stop blaming the drugs and start blaming the individuals.

Have you performed multiple scientific studies that prove there is not a correlation? I doubt it ...

Sometimes a little simple observation and common sense go long way.

Quote

Quote

Nope. Not making that argument.

In my experience when someone is drunk at work they get fired. When someone is hungover, they don't work, and then there is no problem to fix.

And when someone is under the influence of marijuana at work they get fired. What is your point?

lol. What's your point? Did I suggest anyone was under the influence of marijuana at work?

Nope. Not making that argument.

In my experience when someone is drunk at work they get fired. When someone is hungover, they don't work, and then there is no problem to fix.

Quote

Quote

An example of how an irresponsible individual smoking mj personally affects me:

For work, I often must spend extra time fixing messes created by people who were too forgetful or lazy or just plain scatterbrained to do the job right.

Fixed it for you.

Funny, but wrong. You assume there is no correlation. Thanks for the smile though.

An example of how smoking mj personally affects me:

For work, I often must spend extra time fixing messes created by people who were too forgetful or lazy or just plain scatterbrained to do the job right.

Quote

In a counterinsurgency fight, our popularity among the people is the primary benchmark used to determine if we're "winning" or not. We can't win our War on Terror by just killing people who want to kill us. It's much more important that we build our popularity among the people who might want to kill us in the future and convince them that we're not such bad people and that their interests and ours aren't in conflict. That is what leads to increased safety for the American people. And that seems to be the path that Obama is following on foreign policy.

That sounds so nice. But I disagree. What you describe has merit as a long term solution (meaning many generations). But for now and into the near future the hatred (especially amongst terrorists) goes far too deep. And I stand by my statement that our popularity should not be used as a benchmark for our national security. I'm not arguing whether it IS or IS NOT, I'm arguing that is SHOULD NOT BE.

Quote

Quote

1.a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2.(often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

Those are the two most common definitions of communism. Please pick which of those you think the President fits and then please give examples of why. For example, show how the President has taken all property and made it communally-owned by the state. Or, describe how the President is the head of a totalitarian state that controls all economic and social activity.

See also: Socialism

Quote

1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Again with the black and white. Where did you pull those definitions, Webster? Have you read Karl Marx? If you can't make the connections on your own, then I fear we may simply have fundamentally polarized views of reality.

Quote

You initially stated that people who wanted to kill us would always want to kill us because of their breeding, implying that there was no point in trying to increase our popularity among those people. That is obviously false, given that there are nations that were previously committed to killing us that are now allies. That is the entirety of my point. While there are no doubt people in those nations that may not like us and possibly a very small minority that would like to harm us, as far as I know, nobody from those countries has been a threat to the security of the United States for decades.
Therefore, it is in the interests of the safety and security of the people of the United States to increase our popularity on the world stage. Particularly among those who don't like us or might wish us harm. It's basically modern counterinsurgency strategy on a global scale.

I see what you are saying. The entirety of my point was that our popularity level with the rest of the world should by no means be a major focus of this administration. It could however, be a secondary consideration, if in fact it may help increase our national security. But I think it is a serious mistake to use popularity as a benchmark for national security. Other nations will do whatever advances their own interests. It is not a question of whether they like us or not.

Quote

>Using the phrase "Run! Buy guns and ammo! Head for the hills or Obama will
>come and getcha and GRAB YOUR GUNS!" to characterize people who are very
>concerned (with good reason) about the damage that this man and his party are
>doing to our country: just silly and a gross mischaracterization.

I find it very funny that you agree with the socalist/communist slurs when applied to a political figure, but when a group of people is described as ammo-and-gun-hoarding (which has actually happened) wanting to leave (which some have said) and fearing a gun grab (which has been proven here by several posters) it's a "gross mischaracterization" - even though I have not claimed that those characteristics apply to any specific group.

But if you want a few specifics, here they are:

Stephen Baldwin said he would run away (leave the country) if Obama was elected. Many people on blogs across the US have echoed the sentiment.

There have been any number of pro-gun types talking about the "mass gun seizures" that Obama will implement. Indeed, at least two murderers have gone on shooting sprees fueled by their fears of Obama and/or gun seizures.

There has indeed been a run on guns and ammunition by fearful right-wingers who think such things will soon be illegal.

So that characterization is provably accurate for at least the extremists in the anti-Obama group.

You may, of course, decide to apply that description to any other group you choose. Your choice.

"[E]xtremists in the anti-Obama group" is the key phrase. They are out there, and I imagine some can be described as you mentioned. So often Obama supporters classify any non-Obama supporter as the above, presumably in order to discredit them. You jumped to that characterization in response to non-related anti-Obama responses in this thread. Where is the connection between the posts on this thread and the "group of people" you described?

Slurs? It is unfortunate indeed that Obama's beliefs and actions are disparaging to his character. But if you know of another term that is more politically correct, I'm happy to give it a try.