On 2023-01-04 19:38, chop wrote:

>>>> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?
>>>  Irrelevant to your stupidity.
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

Yeah... ...you've lost.

Now try to be a man about it.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:41:23 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 19:38, chop wrote:
>
>>>>> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?
>>>> Irrelevant to your stupidity.

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On 2023-01-04 19:58, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 14:41:23 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 19:38, chop wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Are you admitting that "chop" is just another nym, then?
>>>>>  Irrelevant to your stupidity.
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where
> it belongs>

So you can't handle what a 2 year old could handle.

Got it!

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where
> it belongs>

You couldn't make your losing more clear, loser.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:35:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On 2023-01-04 21:53, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:35:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

Go ahead.

Lose harder if you must.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 17:02:02 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 21:53, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:35:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On 2023-01-04 22:29, chop wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 17:02:02 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2023-01-04 21:53, chop wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:35:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
> <reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
> belongs>

We get it:

You're a loser and that is literally your cleverest line.

On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 17:31:56 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

> On 2023-01-04 22:29, chop wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 17:02:02 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-01-04 21:53, chop wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 16:35:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-01-04 20:49, chop wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 05 Jan 2023 15:01:06 +1100, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

<reams of your shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs>

On 2023-01-03 16:41, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:

>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so many
>> pixels that you could professional print the image as a full-size
>> advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count went way past
>> the usefulness range for the average person years ago and is now
>> simply a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new device they
>> don't really need.
>
>
> Utterly wrong.
>
> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that is
> too far away to fill the frame.

Only if the optics are up to it.

Not to mention that high pixel density means lower signal/noise at each
pixel.

Why, generally, professional photographers use higher end cameras, often
full frame (lower pixel density) with high end optics.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee

On 2023-01-06 12:47, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-01-03 16:41, Alan wrote:
>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>
>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so
>>> many pixels that you could professional print the image as a
>>> full-size advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count
>>> went way past the usefulness range for the average person years ago
>>> and is now simply a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a new
>>> device they don't really need.
>>
>>
>> Utterly wrong.
>>
>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that
>> is too far away to fill the frame.
>
> Only if the optics are up to it.

Well that's blindly obvious.

>
> Not to mention that high pixel density means lower signal/noise at each
> pixel.

Perhaps, but you imagine that there aren't continual improvements in
this area?

>
> Why, generally, professional photographers use higher end cameras, often
> full frame (lower pixel density) with high end optics.

That last isn't even a parseable sentence.

But the argument you're advancing remains specious.

By your argument, you should use a 4x3 pixel sensor.

Each pixel can therefore be exquisite, right?

On 2023-01-06 16:10, Alan wrote:
> On 2023-01-06 12:47, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2023-01-03 16:41, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2023-01-03 13:34, Your Name wrote:
>>
>>>> Picture quality is important. The ability to take a photo with so
>>>> many pixels that you could professional print the image as a
>>>> full-size advertising billboard, not really. The 'megapixel' count
>>>> went way past the usefulness range for the average person years ago
>>>> and is now simply a marketing gimmick to con people into buying a
>>>> new device they don't really need.
>>>
>>>
>>> Utterly wrong.
>>>
>>> A high pixel count means you can get a useful image of something that
>>> is too far away to fill the frame.
>>
>> Only if the optics are up to it.
>
> Well that's blindly obvious.
>
>>
>> Not to mention that high pixel density means lower signal/noise at
>> each pixel.
>
> Perhaps, but you imagine that there aren't continual improvements in
> this area?
>
>>
>> Why, generally, professional photographers use higher end cameras,
>> often full frame (lower pixel density) with high end optics.
>
> That last isn't even a parseable sentence.

For lower IQ's, you're possibly right.
>
> But the argument you're advancing remains specious.
>
> By your argument, you should use a 4x3 pixel sensor.

Not at all what I said. That you're dragging it somewhere else seems to
be par for you.

>
> Each pixel can therefore be exquisite, right?

Only you would contort things that way.

--
“Donald Trump and his allies and supporters are a clear and present
danger to American democracy.”
- J Michael Luttig - 2022-06-16
- Former US appellate court judge (R) testifying to the January 6
committee