Hi Rob, yes, I was just using the term "SLR" as an illustration of why you cannot take some terms literally - yes I know it is used to differentiate SLRs from TLRs. Thanks. I was not arguing otherwise.
As to exercising restraint, I believe I have shown great restraint in this and other threads over the past weeks and months - despite the mobbing and abuse. That I have used stronger language in this instance is regrettable yes, I would agree with that, but as pointed out in the faq, now and then one sometimes looses one's cool in the face of trolling & flames. It is very hard when people are outright abusive like ERN has been. >From the faq: "People who can not keep from continually attacking others, or who insist on trying to incite folks to anger should be totally ignored, these are the only folks I filter out of my mail stream, and I would suggest everyone else do the same. .... Note: losing your cool now and then is not the same thing at all..." Antonio On 15/8/04 10:41 am, "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you are going to use terms for point gain in an argument at least get it > right. The "single" in SLR refers to a single taking/viewing lens it has > nothing to do with the number of elements used in the construct of that lens. > The term simply differentiate between cameras such as TLRs or cameras with > auxiliary finders like most PnS and range-finders. > > I've no problem with the rest of your argument but for the poor way you seem > to > deliver it and the lack of constraint you display. It's a pity all round.
