# What does mm mean on lenses. What is it actually measuring



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

So I know that the higher the number the farther the zoom. Like a 200mm wont see as far as a 300mm one. But what is it actually measuring. What is 300mm exactly. At first I thought It was the distance the lens extends its front glass.


----------



## Malone (Jul 13, 2011)

It's measuring magnification.  There probably is a formula for the actual distance, but I'm sure there are way too many variables and factors for my mind to even begin to comprehend.


----------



## fokker (Jul 13, 2011)

Not your personal wikipedia. You should know by now not to ask questions like that on here.


----------



## Dao (Jul 13, 2011)

mm on the lens, one of them is the filter ring size and the other one is focal length (or effective focal length).  And don't mix up with the word zoom.  i.e.  Tamron 18-270mm lens is 15x zoom while Sigma 150-500mm only have 3.3x zoom.


----------



## analog.universe (Jul 13, 2011)

Instead of complaining about your question, I'll refer you to this helpful diagram: Focal Length: Optical: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review

(this forum sure is good at complaining though!)


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

Cool thanks. I know its an random question but It was just bugging me.


----------



## fokker (Jul 13, 2011)

Boy, that was hard.

If you couldn't find that information then good luck understanding it


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

fokker said:


> Boy, that was hard.
> 
> If you couldn't find that information then good luck understanding it


 You know the time you spent coming here being a smartass you could have answered the question by now. It shows what type of person you really are.


----------



## fokker (Jul 13, 2011)

Well no, I couldn't have answered it because to do so would have require typing a very long a complicated explanation, about something which has already been written about in great detail by people who understand it a lot better than I do. Did you even go to the wikipedia link?

It's just plain lazy and bad forum etiquette to expect people to bend over backwards and answer your questions in a way tailored to your personal level of understanding, when the information is all out there for you to find yourself.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 13, 2011)

Here we go again!


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> Instead of complaining about your question, I'll refer you to this helpful diagram: Focal Length: Optical: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review
> 
> (this forum sure is good at complaining though!)


 


fokker said:


> Well no, I couldn't have answered it because to do so would have require typing a very long a complicated explanation, about something which has already been written about in great detail by people who understand it a lot better than I do. Did you even go to the wikipedia link?
> 
> It's just plain lazy and bad forum etiquette to expect people to bend over backwards and answer your questions in a way tailored to your personal level of understanding, when the information is all out there for you to find yourself.


 Its also bad forum etiquette to complain and not contribute to a thread. If you dont like it dont look at it. If everyone just researched by themselves then this site would only be c&c. Is this not a beginners forum for those beginners who seek help. Am I not at a beginner skill level? I would rather be a lazy man than a smartass trying to start fights. At least I will contribute more because can read this thread if they are wondering he same thing. You on the other hand contribute nothing but sarcasm and complaints. So go ahead spend your time being a jerk its your loss. Just dont do it on my threads.


----------



## fokker (Jul 13, 2011)

Once again, I refer you to the wikipedia link that I posted, and once again I will say good luck understanding it.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 13, 2011)

After a quick search.........


Google Image Result for http://kidswestalberton.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/photolibrary_rm_photo_of_baby_being_fed_with_spoon.jpg


----------



## RauschPhotography (Jul 13, 2011)




----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

fokker said:


> Once again, I refer you to the wikipedia link that I posted, and once again I will say good luck understanding it.


 so then why could you have not just posted it without any smartass sarcastic complaints. Because its in your nature to be a smartass. this is what I meant by "it shows the type of person you are".


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 13, 2011)




----------



## RauschPhotography (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> fokker said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, I refer you to the wikipedia link that I posted, and once again I will say good luck understanding it.
> ...



And asking simple questions that have very simple answers is also in _your_ nature. Can you see where it's a little irritating sometimes, having to baby someone through every little thing?


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

480sparky said:


>


 No I got my answer so im done. fokker can cry and moan about spoon feeding he likes.


----------



## Malone (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> so then why could you have not just posted it without any smartass sarcastic complaints. Because its in your nature to be a smartass. this is what I meant by "it shows the type of person you are".



It also shows what type of person you are to continue arguing..


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

RauschPhotography said:


> Kbarredo said:
> 
> 
> > fokker said:
> ...


 THEN DONT CLICK ON THE THREAD. I find being electrocuted irritating but I dont stick my finger back in the socket.


----------



## RauschPhotography (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> RauschPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Kbarredo said:
> ...



I just do it for the lulz, honestly. Isn't that what you're here for?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 13, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Here we go again!



on our own! Down the only road I've ever known!!! And like a drifter I was born to walk alone!!!! But I've made up my mind, I ain't wastin no time on answering your question?


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> RauschPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Kbarredo said:
> ...



Sometimes the finger just slips in.


----------



## RauschPhotography (Jul 13, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> Kbarredo said:
> 
> 
> > RauschPhotography said:
> ...



Hey now.. that sounds dirty!!


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 13, 2011)




----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> fokker said:
> 
> 
> > Once again, I refer you to the wikipedia link that I posted, and once again I will say good luck understanding it.
> ...


 Threads like this also show the type of person you are. But you won't ever see that.


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> Kbarredo said:
> 
> 
> > fokker said:
> ...


 What someone who asks questions? the intent of the thread was not to start a fight. The intent of his comment was to start an argument.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 13, 2011)

RauschPhotography said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Kbarredo said:
> ...



I was an electrician's helper. I had experience.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 13, 2011)

Like I sad. You won't ever see that.


----------



## RauschPhotography (Jul 13, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> RauschPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



So I'm sure you had the magic touch then, right? :lmao:


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> RauschPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


Arent you supposed to shut off the power when you mess around with the socket?


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jul 13, 2011)

Why can't I have a thread that shows me what type of person I am?  I mean, I know I'm an asshole, but I'm not the kind of asshole to ask someone what kind of asshole I am.  I'm a completely different, yet to be identified asshole.


----------



## dgadams2 (Jul 13, 2011)

bentcountershaft said:


> Why can't I have a thread that shows me what type of person I am?  I mean, I know I'm an asshole, but I'm not the kind of asshole to ask someone what kind of asshole I am.  I'm a completely different, yet to be identified asshole.



So... an unidentified asshole starting an asshole thread to find out what kind of asshole they are...

_*INCEPTION!!!!!!!!



*_


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 13, 2011)

bentcountershaft said:


> Why can't I have a thread that shows me what type of person I am?  I mean, I know I'm an asshole, but I'm not the kind of asshole to ask someone what kind of asshole I am.  I'm a completely different, yet to be identified asshole.


You clearly don't post enough for judgements to be made. You are in community judgement limbo.


----------



## Stryker (Jul 13, 2011)

Its the distance between the front of the lens and the camera sensor measured in millimeters (mm).  The closer the front of the lens to the sensor, the wider the image and vice versa.  That was the first thing I tried to learn before I bought my DSLR.  In case you still find that difficult to understand,  read this one:   What do numbers letters on digital camera lens mean (Website Design Tips)


----------



## Dao (Jul 13, 2011)

Stryker said:


> Its the distance between the front of the lens and the camera sensor measured in millimeters (mm).



Are you sure about that?


----------



## Stryker (Jul 13, 2011)

correct me if i was wrong...


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jul 13, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> You clearly don't post enough for judgements to be made. You are in community judgement limbo.



Well, sh!t. Now I guess I'll have to go to the wiki page for different types of assholes and do a self analysis. You dirty bastages.


----------



## analog.universe (Jul 13, 2011)

Stryker said:


> correct me if i was wrong...



I was pretty sure it was the distance from the no-parallax point at infinity focus to the sensor plane...  although I'm not sure that's the correct term for the spot I'm thinking of.  The place where the rays all cross in the lens when it's focused at infinity.


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

So my question was not that simple at all.


----------



## vtf (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> analog.universe said:
> 
> 
> > Instead of complaining about your question, I'll refer you to this helpful diagram: Focal Length: Optical: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review
> ...



*I would sure miss the drama, trolling threads.

And btw the way mm stands for Mighty Mouse!*


----------



## bazooka (Jul 13, 2011)

Stryker said:


> Its the distance between the front of the lens and the camera sensor measured in millimeters (mm). The closer the front of the lens to the sensor, the wider the image and vice versa. That was the first thing I tried to learn before I bought my DSLR. In case you still find that difficult to understand, read this one: What do numbers letters on digital camera lens mean (Website Design Tips)



If that were true, than many zoom lenses aren't zoom lenses at all, and I totally got ripped off on my 70-200.


----------



## shortpants (Jul 13, 2011)

I believe it's the distance from somewhere in the center of the lens, to the sensor, but I don't know really.


----------



## Dao (Jul 13, 2011)

Stryker said:


> correct me if i was wrong...



Image quoted from "http://www.the-digital-picture.com"







As you can see, the first 3 lenses from the left are 70-300mm lens.  And they are set at 300mm in the photo.  The front element (although cannot be seen from the photo because of the hood) extend differently.


----------



## analog.universe (Jul 13, 2011)

It's simple for a lens with a single element, but camera lenses have many elements, as you can read from their spec sheets.  The important part of the theory is that when you draw an isosceles triangle with the sensor at the base, and the focal length for the height, the resultant angles determine your field of view.


----------



## Dao (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> So my question was not that simple at all.


The question is simple, because the answer is the focal length.  
Or effective focal length since lens has multiple elements and each of them has it's focal length.

But of course, if you ask what is focal length, that's different story.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jul 13, 2011)

<puts serious hat on for a moment>

Isn't advertised focal length at least partially more of a marketing ploy than actual fact though? Something akin to not all 70-200's are created equal as some are closer to 170/180ish on the long end or whatnot.  I'm fairly certain I've read that somewhere but can't remember if it was a credible source or not.

<removes serious hat due to poor fit and extreme heat buildup>


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > RauschPhotography said:
> ...



Nah, just make sure you try not to touch the live part with something conductive, like a screw driver or a finger.


----------



## vtf (Jul 13, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> Kbarredo said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...



That's why we call my Father-in-law "Sparky".


----------



## MissCream (Jul 13, 2011)

God the poor guy can't even ask a question anymore!


----------



## subscuck (Jul 13, 2011)

MissCream said:


> God the poor guy can't even ask a question anymore!



Yeah, credibility kinda cuts both ways.


----------



## Dao (Jul 13, 2011)

bentcountershaft said:


> <puts serious hat on for a moment>
> 
> Isn't advertised focal length at least partially more of a marketing ploy than actual fact though? Something akin to not all 70-200's are created equal as some are closer to 170/180ish on the long end or whatnot.  I'm fairly certain I've read that somewhere but can't remember if it was a credible source or not.
> 
> <removes serious hat due to poor fit and extreme heat buildup>



Yes, the advertised focal length may not be the actual focal length.
In this article, assuming the data are correct, it shows that 18-270mm is actually a 18-230mm while the 18-250mm is actually a 18-220mm ....

Also, I remembered one forum member took 2 photos with 2 lenses at the same location. One with 24-70mm at 70mm and the other is 70-200mm at 70mm.  The photos looks different as far as angle of view concern.  So yes, focal lengths of lenses are different.


----------



## MissCream (Jul 13, 2011)

subscuck said:


> MissCream said:
> 
> 
> > God the poor guy can't even ask a question anymore!
> ...



True, I think his best bet is to delete his account and start over.


----------



## behanana (Jul 13, 2011)

I'm sad, the basic question still hasn't been answered, mm on a lense is the same everywhere else. It stands for milimeters and is a metric unit of length measurment.  I'm such an ass.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 13, 2011)

MissCream said:


> True, I think his best bet is to delete his account and start over.



Ooh! That's a great idea! We should all make new accounts and see how long it takes us to figure out who each other are.
We _all_ have our tells, don't we?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 13, 2011)

bentcountershaft said:


> <puts serious hat on for a moment>
> 
> Isn't advertised focal length at least partially more of a marketing ploy than actual fact though? Something akin to not all 70-200's are created equal as some are closer to 170/180ish on the long end or whatnot.  I'm fairly certain I've read that somewhere but can't remember if it was a credible source or not.
> 
> <removes serious hat due to poor fit and extreme heat buildup>



"Is this tinfoil hat yours, Benny?"

Anwayyyy, yes, focal length is usually within 10 Percent of specified.


----------



## subscuck (Jul 13, 2011)

MissCream said:


> subscuck said:
> 
> 
> > MissCream said:
> ...



Like Karissa?


----------



## sleist (Jul 13, 2011)

MissCream said:


> God the poor guy can't even ask a question anymore!



The problem is he asked a question that has likely been asked and answered thousands of times before in the interwebs.
A google search would have given him the correct answer in any language he wanted faster than posting it in a beginners section of a photo forum.

Very few people have unique problems or questions.

RTFM*, then JFGI**, then ask for clarification on what you don't understand.

Failing to do even the smallest amount of research on your own is just lazy and will dictate how far you get in anything - not far at all.

*  read the f'ing manual
** just f'ing google it


----------



## fokker (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> So my question was not that simple at all.




That was kinda my point. Nobody wants to sit here typing a novel about a complicated subject when _it has been written about already by people who actually know what they're talking about_. By posting your 'simple' question you've effectively just asked someone to google your own question for you and spoon feed the answer to you like the baby you are, and you've managed to create another 5-page greasy horror show in the process. Congratulations, troll.


----------



## fokker (Jul 13, 2011)

sleist said:


> MissCream said:
> 
> 
> > God the poor guy can't even ask a question anymore!
> ...



Bingo


----------



## 480sparky (Jul 13, 2011)

Threads like this are a reminder why I shut off cable TV.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 13, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> MissCream said:
> 
> 
> > True, I think his best bet is to delete his account and start over.
> ...



I'd be outed before post 1.

Who would ever think that Kommander Kronk or Mayor McnASSty would be me?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 13, 2011)

fokker said:


> Kbarredo said:
> 
> 
> > So my question was not that simple at all.
> ...



Now, c'mon, that's kind of harsh. The thread is only FOUR pages long,so your accusation rings kind of hol....oh, wait, it's already up to five pages. Nevermind.Carry on.


----------



## fokker (Jul 13, 2011)

Derrel said:


> fokker said:
> 
> 
> > Kbarredo said:
> ...



I had a feeling it wouldn't take much longer . I'm going to bed now, I bet it's up to 8 pages by the time I wake up tomorrow.


----------



## OrionsByte (Jul 13, 2011)

Google is for research.  Forums are for discussion.

You cannot have intelligent discussion without research.

Therefore, your path to learning is:

Google it
Read about it
Discuss it
There is a world of difference between being self-taught and expecting others to teach you.


----------



## bentcountershaft (Jul 13, 2011)

Derrel said:


> "Is this tinfoil hat yours, Benny?"
> 
> Anwayyyy, yes, focal length is usually within 10 Percent of specified.



   I guess I do come off as a bit paranoid there, oops.  Generalized specs are often rounded for marketing purposes in a variety of different industries so cameras shouldn't be any different.


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> Kbarredo said:
> 
> 
> > Village Idiot said:
> ...


  I would hate to be your health insurance provider.


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

Why is this thread still going I stopped talking at page 3?


----------



## sleist (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> I stopped talking at page 3?



Maybe no one can tell because they stopped listening to you.


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

sleist said:


> Kbarredo said:
> 
> 
> > I stopped talking at page 3?
> ...


 there is no maybe its the truth. They just call me troll and continue to fill my threads with their useless banter and smartass comments. I do appreciate the few who actually are discussing the question instead of bitching for 2 pages instead of just leaving.


----------



## RauschPhotography (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > Kbarredo said:
> ...



Troll? Probably not. Cheap entertainment? You betcha!


----------



## Raian-san (Jul 13, 2011)

And the other day someone asked how come some threads only get a few comments and some has 5 pages everytime.


----------



## Compaq (Jul 13, 2011)

^^ Yea, that ^^ 

Kbarro (that correct?), stop preventing people commenting my noob flower shots


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 13, 2011)

I'm not on here as often as I like. So, imagine my joy, when I log on to see a 5 page thread, started by Kbarredo, asking a question that would better be answered by Google. I just knew there would be some Internet, comedy/drama gold within!

The things I miss since worked blocked TPF.  Thanks for the fun 5 pages, hopefully we'll squeeze 5 more out of it.


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

What they blocked tpf those bastards.


----------



## fokker (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> sleist said:
> 
> 
> > Kbarredo said:
> ...



Get over it you queen. You asked a dumb question (again) and got some responses that you didn't like but instead of stopping to think about why this is you've just chosen to ignore rational arguments because you think we're being mean to you. The result is that you will probably do this again in another 2 days time, because you've learned nothing about why your threads always end up like this.


----------



## kundalini (Jul 13, 2011)

fokker said:


> Get over it you queen. You asked a dumb question (again) and got some responses that you didn't like but instead of stopping to think about why this is you've just chosen to ignore rational arguments because you think we're being mean to you. The result is that you will probably do this again in another 2 days time, because you've learned nothing about why your threads always end up like this.


I'm in the camp of "There are no dumb questions".





However, asking a question such as this one, on an open international forum is kinda dumb instead of doing searches beforehand.


----------



## fokker (Jul 13, 2011)

kundalini said:


> I'm in the camp of "There are no dumb questions".



I'm usually in the same camp, because it's normally newbies to the forum that ask these sorts of questions, in which case we cut them some slack. This guy has been here long enough to know better, especially since he has been the centre of so much drama that you'd think he would pull his head in by now. Hence troll queen.


----------



## flea77 (Jul 13, 2011)

kundalini said:


> I'm in the camp of "There are no dumb questions".



You obviously have not spent enough time in customer service :er:


Allan


----------



## subscuck (Jul 13, 2011)

Well, at least our dastardly plan to turn him into a pedo worked.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 13, 2011)

analog.universe said:


> Instead of complaining about your question, I'll refer you to this helpful diagram: Focal Length: Optical: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review
> 
> (this forum sure is good at complaining though!)


 


Kbarredo said:


> Cool thanks. I know its an random question but It was just bugging me.



Yes indeed, it must have been bugging you, since you enlisted the help of this forum. 



fokker said:


> Boy, that was hard.
> 
> If you couldn't find that information then good luck understanding it



True, through top notch hyperlinkage, Fokker proves that the most simple  of internet searches, that there is a plethora of information out there  pertaining to focal length in the rawest form. 



Kbarredo said:


> fokker said:
> 
> 
> > Boy, that was hard.
> ...



And this is where you went wrong, because the acceptance of the  hyperlink that analog.universe as a valid explanation for your query  thus proves that you do not have the required mental capacity to render a  google search for the topic at hand. 

At least that's what I gathered from the first 8 posts. I'll continue to  read on though just in case your argument gains some kind of ground  through the shifting of actual tectonic plates in the earth crust.  Because honestly, I don't see you coming out of this one.

edit: 



bentcountershaft said:


> <puts serious hat on for a moment>
> 
> <removes serious hat due to poor fit and extreme heat buildup>



I found this so funny. 



MissCream said:


> God the poor guy can't even ask a question anymore!



No.



sleist said:


> MissCream said:
> 
> 
> > God the poor guy can't even ask a question anymore!
> ...


 


fokker said:


> Kbarredo said:
> 
> 
> > So my question was not that simple at all.
> ...


 


OrionsByte said:


> Google is for research.  Forums are for discussion.
> 
> You cannot have intelligent discussion without research.
> 
> ...



Yeah Kburrito, you got told where the bear shits in the buckwheat. I guess that's life though.


----------



## BNHPhotography (Jul 13, 2011)

All of this could've been avoided by just saying, 'thank you for directing me to the correct information.'   Being a meany gets people no where, and cussing pushes you to the end of the line!  Smile, it's hump day!!


----------



## Derrel (Jul 13, 2011)

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> I'll continue to  read on though just in case your argument gains some kind of ground  through the shifting of actual tectonic plates in the earth crust.  Because honestly, I don't see you coming out of this one.



Indeed. Pure gold, o hey tyler. You could be a Vegas oddsmaker!!! Anyway, I was perusing some funnies on the GQ web site after having scanned the new Mila Kunis pictorial shot by super-pervy fashion photographer Terry Richardson, and found this pic in a story detailing the 40 worst-dressed cities in the USA ,and I thought fondly of you...for some odd reason, I was thinking you were from Vermont, like this guy is...

http://www.gq.com/images/entertainment/2011/07/worst-dressed-cities/burlington.jpg

But then I realized you're from that OTHER desolate, sparsely-populated, frozen most of the year NE state, Maine!!!


----------



## Kbarredo (Jul 13, 2011)

fokker said:


> Kbarredo said:
> 
> 
> > sleist said:
> ...


 because there are always dicks like you who like to cause trouble. I would love to see you call me a queen in real life. Hide behind your computer tough guy.


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 13, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> because there are always dicks like you who like to cause trouble. I would love to see you call me a queen in real life. Hide behind your computer tough guy.



That's it!

 Keep it going!


Good job!


----------



## joealcantar (Jul 13, 2011)

So did we ever get the OP an answer?
-
Shoot well, Joe


----------



## kundalini (Jul 13, 2011)

> because there are always dicks like you who like to cause trouble. I would love to see you call me a queen in real life. Hide behind your computer tough guy.





&#x202a;Florida State Seminoles War Chant!&#x202c;&rlm; - YouTube


----------



## Stryker (Jul 13, 2011)

"mm" on the lens really means "minnie mouse" or is it "micky mouse" or "mighty mouse" or "mother mucker".  choose which one you like, they are all correct. so lets close this thread and C&C the photo I posted.  Or, will someone post a photo of a dead cat ran over by a bulldozer for C&C?  that would be a lot more interesting that this one.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 13, 2011)

Stryker said:


> Or, will someone post a photo of a dead cat ran over by a bulldozer for C&C?  that would be a lot more interesting that this one.


Looks like it was probably a car...  But check out this awesome toy!


----------



## SabrinaO (Jul 14, 2011)

fokker said:


> Kbarredo said:
> 
> 
> > So my question was not that simple at all.
> ...


 Why is it so bad to ask a question??? Could kbarredo have searched google for the answer? Yeah but does it really make a difference? People ask questions because they just wanna learn and maybe have a discussion about it. If you don't like the questions then hit the damn back button. There's no need to carry on, cry and whine because of your exaggerations on you thinking you have to write a "novel"  in response, or "spoon feed" someone the answers. Dramatic much? You are in the beginners section bitching and insulting a person that asked a question because they just want to learn. Who's the troll again??


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 14, 2011)

There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who find the answers to their questions, and those who ask others to find the answers to their questions. Those that find their own answers learn much more in the process, the others are just standing on the shoulders of giants.


----------



## Stephen.C (Jul 14, 2011)

Kbarredo said:


> fokker said:
> 
> 
> > Kbarredo said:
> ...



Well I mean, whos being E-tougher now? Its like a paradox and never ending cycle of E-thug. You're trying to taunt someone who called you a queen because of your internet behavior, in which you return with calling him a name, and challenging him. 
You're out E-toughing an E-tougher while slandering E-toughers.....MindBlown. E-THUG INCEPTION. 
I need to read TPF more often, some of this stuff is funnier than 4chan.


----------



## SabrinaO (Jul 14, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who find the answers to their questions, and those who ask others to find the answers to their questions. Those that find their own answers learn much more in the process, the others are just standing on the shoulders of giants.


I don't like how you worded that. Generally I don't think anyone would ever ask someone to "go find the answer for me".  If a person knows the answer to a question he'll answer. If he doesnt he will simply say "i dont know" and they both move on. This is how the world works. Here on TPF though... god forbid if someone asks a question. If you don't know the answer to respond immediately then hit the back button. Don't research the question on your own and then come back to ***** about you having to waste your time in searching and writing a "novel" in response. Just hit the back button!


----------



## Bitter Jeweler (Jul 14, 2011)

Pro Tip #1735: Be the Giant.



Sabrina, would you like me to bring up the color space thread that you asked to have condensed because you didn't have time to read it all? Remember that? That's standing on the shoulders of giants.


----------



## Bend The Light (Jul 14, 2011)

Bitter Jeweler said:


> ...standing on the shoulders of giants.



A great quote...but generally taken in a completely different way to which it was intended.

Apparently when Newton said to Hooke "I am where I am today by standing on the Shoulders of Giants" he was countering accusations of plagiarism from Hooke. The comment was in fact a big dig at Hooke, who was a very short man, compared to Newtons large stature...Newton wasn't bigging himself up, he was effectively "putting down" the little guy.

Bye


----------



## enzodm (Jul 14, 2011)

joealcantar said:


> So did we ever get the OP an answer?
> -
> Shoot well, Joe



yes, in the first page. However, OP is more interested in the other 6 pages.


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 14, 2011)

Right, so since an answer has apparently been given, this thread can best be considered "done". You've had time enough to have your fun with it. Now off to bed (or so... I've got up again).


----------

