replies

There is a comment in one thread, now not open to additional replies, about taking 17 years to reply.

While one might assume that one is answering the specific question asked, and only for the asker, in most cases I read questions and answers that don't necessarily apply to me. Sometimes it is interesting just to know, and often enough the answer is more generally useful. I have learned a lot from questions asked, and answered, by others.

Not that one shouldn't comment on the time delay, but that one shouldn't be bothered by it.

Not long ago, there was a question about the rewind button for some specific camera.

While it might seem that the question and answer apply to that camera, the rewind mechanism

isn't all that different between different 35mm cameras. It is likely enough to apply generally.

So, please, don't be bothered by slow replies. Just learn from others what there

is to learn, and be happy with it!

Agreed! It's a great resource from the distant past.

I often Google some oddity regarding something photographic and get a photo.net hit or two (or 10!)

For some reason the search function here doesn't find them??

I agree with the sentiment Glen, but the actuality is that many ancient threads are dragged from their slumbering crypt and replied to as if the OP was still eagerly awaiting a response. And often the reviver of said thread adds nothing new to the conversation, nor acknowledges that the thread is well past its sell-by date.

We just need a bit of general awareness of the date-stamp, and relevance to the current state of affairs. For example: there seems little point giving advice to a poster about their Disc-camera and whose status reads - 'Jack Smith was last seen January 19th 1998'

OTOH, some ongoing debates/subjects never seem to die or exhaust themselves, which is fair enough.

P. S. Does anyone want a 2 year collection of British Journal of Photography magazines from 1973-1975? I'm serious, but taker collects from the Midlands area of England.

I agree with the sentiment Glen, but the actuality is that many ancient threads are dragged from their slumbering crypt and replied to as if the OP was still eagerly awaiting a response. And often the reviver of said thread adds nothing new to the conversation, nor acknowledges that the thread is well past its sell-by date.

 

We just need a bit of general awareness of the date-stamp, and relevance to the current state of affairs. For example: there seems little point giving advice to a poster about their Disc-camera and whose status reads - 'Jack Smith was last seen January 19th 1998'

 

OTOH, some ongoing debates/subjects never seem to die or exhaust themselves, which is fair enough.

 

P. S. Does anyone want a 2 year collection of British Journal of Photography magazines from 1973-1975? I'm serious, but taker collects from the Midlands area of England.

I am guilty of posting on dead thread because someone brought it up and I thought it was new.

When someone from 20 years ago pleads for an answer NOW, I think we can assume that the question is moot.

I'm wid' rodeo joe on this one.

This is like a rare stellar conjunction, but there you have it.

20 years ago pleads for an answer

Is 2001 not recent enough?

Good film though....;)

Is 2001 not recent enough?

That depends entirely on YOUR age. When I was 27, twenty would have been ancient, now that I am of a "certain age", it seems like only yesterday...

Is 2001 not recent enough?

 

Good film though....;)

Hmmm. 53 years on I'm still trying to figure it all out.

Maybe I need to find one of them black monolith thingies to boost my brain power.

...and the World is getting more HAL 9000 like every day...:eek:

If i hear "I'm sorry Mike, I'm afraid I can't do that" from an Amazon bot again, I'll scream! ;)

That depends entirely on YOUR age. When I was 27, twenty would have been ancient, now that I am of a "certain age", it seems like only yesterday...

Yes because your entire lifetime is a constant regardless how long you lived. If you are 100 year old 20 years is just 20% and if you're 20 then it's 100% so it much longer.

Hmmm. 53 years on I'm still trying to figure it all out.

 

Maybe I need to find one of them black monolith thingies to boost my brain power.

Too late for this one; Utah monolith - Wikipedia

Time is supposed to be a constant, but I'm sure Nikon Wednesday comes round faster and faster...:D

Time may be constant (debatable in a universe of expanding time-space), but our perception of it most certainly isn't.

Which is the point BeBu was making.

Too late for this one; Utah monolith - Wikipedia

Wow. That story raises all sorts of issues about the definition of 'public' and 'private' property and land.

Wasn't it all public land before some bully layed claim to it?

Wasn't it all public land before some bully layed claim to it?

Well, it actually belonged to the native inhabitants, as the various later governments tacitly acknowledged by signing treaties with them -- even if the Europeans, etc. didn't live up to them.