QUOTE(Fearless @ Apr 19 2008, 04:55 AM)
some stuff I didn't bother reading
Dude I already conceded defeat, you won the argument! I'm sure everyone else here realizes that you pummeled me into submission with your superior wit and flaming skills!
FINE I know where this is going ... you want something don't you??!? So here's your prize --> not one, but TWO INTERNETS (attachment)!
OK seriously then >> I've been speaking with the only two professional photographers I know (one's a senior photographer for NST Singapore, the other does studios, weddings and concerts full-time and is the "semi-official" photographer for a local artiste), and
neither of them use compact digicams/phone cams in their work.
I don't debate your assertion that some photographers probably do use digicams/phone cams, but evidently even among pro photographers this is hardly common knowledge or common practice.
However I
do take offense at "ignorant" and "at the world." The former is more accurately used when one lacks understanding about some
commonly-known fact. e.g., I
cannot call you ignorant for not knowing that, say, the taiwan stock market settlement cycle is T+1 for stock and T+2 for cash, because that is not something that the
average person would know. Likewise, photography is a
niche profession. And now, among all the pro photographers I know (all
two of them rofl), none use digicams/phone cams. You therefore cannot assume that the average person would know this little tidbit, and thus "ignorant" cannot apply.
Let me also re-quote you one last time, emphasis on the bold:
QUOTE(Fearless @ Apr 17 2008, 01:15 PM)
Are u ignorant or plain clueless
on the real world? 
THE
REAL
WORLD
??!?
Self-explanatory.
I figure I owe it to you to attempt to debate in a civil and intelligent manner. Read that properly, because this is the last bit of effort I'm going to make for this topic.
Attached image(s)