[newfie ghost]

There are a lot of BF binocular regulars, but who is the most recognized name?

This person must be universally known to old timers and newbies alike. They must have been on BF for a long time and have a significant number of posts.

Now cast your votes.....

[edwincjones]

I would vote for the one with the most posts

edj

[BrightIdea]

Everyone seems to get pretty excited and appreciative when Henry Link posts.

Does Holger Mlerlitz post here? you see his name held in revere as well.

I tended to have gravitated towards lilcrazy, FrankD, and Steve99's posts.

That Brock character is someone I imagine I'd enjoy sitting back and having a few drinks with.

Tero used to post here a lot... lots of old posts with his name but nothing anymore.

Howard Stern-er-Dennis seems to have his moments of forum posting diarrhea.

Jaymoynihan and Stereotruckdriver seem to have lots of useful input as well.

Koshkin doesnt post here, does he? thats the other forum. He's held in very high regard.

I am forgetting a few, no doubt. No offense meant. This is just off the top of my head.

funny thread, this one.

[stephen b]

"famous" or "infamous"

[ceasar]

K. C. Foggin has over 97,000 posts and still counting since 2002.

I'll enter her name. And I move that the nominations be closed!

Bob

[KCFoggin]

LOL! I believe this is all about bins but thank you ceasar

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by newfie ghost

There are a lot of BF binocular regulars, but who is the most recognized name?

This person must be universally known to old timers and newbies alike. They must have been on BF for a long time and have a significant number of posts.

Now cast your votes.....

That's easy! ME! But it would have to be infamous. Maybe we could have individual awards like the Academy Awards. Brock would win for the most "Long Winded Posts" or "Most posts about his love affair with the EII" and Henry(where is he anyway he hasn't posted in a long time) would win for "Person if he took his binocular apart would most likely get it back together correctly" and Frank for "Person most likely to be bidding against you on a vintage porro on E-bay" and I would win for "Most likely to dump his favorite binocular on E-bay within 2 months for a profit" and you Newfie would win for "Most Prolific Newbie Poster"

[FrankD]

Atomic Chicken or Leif.

How is that for a blast or two from the past?

Dennis gets my vote followed closely by Brock if we are talking most widely recognized. Brock skyrocketed to stardom after his monumental "discussion" with Henry on why the E II appears brighter than the SE followed subsequently with his Amish fable.

Dennis continues to prove his status every time he dumps his current favorite and proclaims he has found the new "best" binocular currently available.

[denco@comcast.n]

"Brock skyrocketed to stardom after his monumental "discussion" with Henry on why the E II appears brighter than the SE followed subsequently with his Amish fable."

That was Academy Award winning material.

I would also have to nominate Henry for any of his discussions with Dr.EDz. That has got to be the biggest battle of the Ego's I have ever seen. Funny stuff! Where is Henry anyway? Henry you out there? The last time I heard from him he was on the vintage binocular thread talking about submarine binoculars.

[David Swain]

Originally Posted by FrankD

Brock skyrocketed to stardom after his monumental "discussion" with Henry on why the E II appears brighter than the SE followed subsequently with his Amish fable.

That was certainly a high (low?) point for Brock, but I'll submit that his circular arguments for the merits of leaded glass in the SEs, as well as his conjectural dating schemes, have had the most widespread impact. He's graciously admitted defeat several times, but the man knows the staying power of repeated narrative!

David

[brocknroller]

Well, it's an honor just to be nominated even if I don't win (the Academy made me say that, otherwise they said they would drown me out with music if I went on too long).

Oddly enough I agree with Dennis. Most famous for what? If it's just most famous, that can be pretty superficial. Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton are "just famous" but in their case the term is pejorative, suggesting that they have no particular talents or abilities, they are famous for being famous.

So I think we need some categories to avoid the taint of mink. I have some ideas but I see Gary Sinise in the wings running his finger across his throat, which either means that it's hot back there and he doesn't know how to fan himself, or that I have to cut this short because the Lt. Dan Band is coming on next to play "For the Common Good".

Btw, for those in the eastern part of PA, Gary and his band will be playing at the State Theatre Center For the Arts in Easton, Pa. on Aug. 17.

Before I go, I just want to thank my Aunt Petuna for.... oh, crap, they already started playing....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xi-IK...embedded#at=40

[mooreorless]

Originally Posted by ceasar

K. C. Foggin has over 97,000 posts and still counting since 2002.

I'll enter her name. And I move that the nominations be closed!

Bob

Bob I second that!

[Robert Wallace]

I would like to vote for Brock for his wonderful advertising jingle linking Lagavulin Malt whisky with my family name and illustrious ancestor and for his support for porros.
Also Dennis for making me feel that my binoculars are "past it" and need upgrading, in order for me have any credibility at the birding honey pots.
But most of all to all the regular contributors who give me so much information to consider, that making a satisfactory choice is impossible, so I keep my old kit.
Thank you all for your informative and entertaining contributions.

[Mark9473]

Originally Posted by FrankD

Brock skyrocketed to stardom after his monumental "discussion" with Henry on why the E II appears brighter than the SE followed subsequently with his Amish fable.

Do you have a link for that? Sounds like a fun read.

[Dorian Gray]

Brock's obviously a bit of a writer, and a man who can write can't be all bad. He's famous to me, at least. I even clicked on his username yesterday to see what he'd been up to! (Answer: complaining about his deep-set eyes and high-bridge nose. Weirdo.)

[Sandy Leng]

Although I have only been a member for a short time, I have enjoyed reading the posts on this forum for a few years.

I would like to vote for ELKCUB (Ed). He has got a great knowledge of optics and the research that he did with RENZE on the Swift Audubon was superb.

I also agree that BROCK is brilliant, (Man can he type!)

FRANKD is always willing to help, and you can tell he really loves his Porros.

DENNIS, this forum wouldn't be anything like as good as it is without him. I bet you all secretly love it when he posts!

I could go on and on, but all you regular posters are brilliant. This forum is always a good read, keep it up guys.

Sandy.

[David Swain]

Originally Posted by Mark9473

Do you have a link for that? Sounds like a fun read.

It's a classic thread, full of all that makes BF great reading. The fun begins on p. 2 where Brock uses some sleight of hand to "demonstrate" why EIIs have better contrast and saturation than SEs; then, based on one of those Allbinos transmission curves, makes his claim on p. 3 that EIIs are brighter than SEs. What follows illustrates what Brock eventually claims to be the ultimate incommensurability of rival claims by "quants" and "intuitives."

http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=209889

Enjoy!

David

[Mark9473]

Thanks for the link! I gave up on page 7; perhaps something for a rainy day.

[dwatsonbirder]

Great idea for a thread guys! I think FrankD, Brock and Dennis are the most entertaining and informative out there on the equipment threads. I may not agree with some of the conclusions of all of the above, but they provide great value (to use a birding term)... I would also cast a vote for mayomayo, as he writes very detailed (and occasionally amusing) posts.
Great to see a positive and light hearted thread on BF, just compare this with any of the rare bird/suppression threads in case you needed the proof....

[etudiant]

Originally Posted by Mark9473

Thanks for the link! I gave up on page 7; perhaps something for a rainy day.

Clearly not a current UK resident.

[brocknroller]

Originally Posted by Mark9473

Thanks for the link! I gave up on page 7; perhaps something for a rainy day.

David's motives for bringing up this thread can be assessed by reading his posts in it.

The thread takes some philosophical turns, however, the debate has continued on other threads, and since that time, I've found "further testimony" by both experts and average joes who agree that color balance affects apparent contrast and apparent contrast affects perception of brightness.

As long as you stick in the word "apparent" in there, most "quants" won't argue with you, because they don't know what to do with that word. Some diehards might try to equate "apparent" with "illusion" as their way of discrediting perceptual results.

A lot of debates turn out to be over "semantics," and this one was no exception. I used the term "brightness" generically, as any average joe would talking about how bright something looks to his eyes rather than how much light the optics transmits. Hence, the philosophical tangent.

As Frank D. pointed out if I had used the word "apparent" in front of brightness, the entire debate might have been moot.

The debate behind the debate was about the difference between what is measurable/quantifiable and what is not (or perhaps "not yet").

To some mindsets, if an observation is not measurable or if ALL observers cannot confirm it, it either does not exist or it is outside the realm of science (see Carl Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" for hundreds of examples). I wouldn't argue with the latter interpretation, but I would with the former.

Perceptions do exist and to ignore them or devalue them, because they do not jive with a quantified measurement when talking about optics is like listening to a stereo recording through one speaker. You miss half the information that's coming to you.

Take out all the perceptual observations and opinions about optics that are not quantified from BF threads, and 90% of the posts would vanish! This includes posts by some very experienced and astute observers, and dare I say, even some post by the "quants" themselves.

That was my philosophical objection to those who devalue human perception in favor of quantifiable "results". Even at the quantum level, human observation influences the results!

Okay, that premise (hopefully) out of the way, my assertion is that color balance can influence one's perception of apparent brightness and even "sharpness" (another non-quantifiable concept, not to be confused with "resolution").

You don't need to do any "bench tests" or have a Ph.D. in visual physics to figure this out for yourself. All you need to do is to spend some "quality" time beyond a number of different bins, with at least one that has a "warm" bias, and compare them back and forth on different objects and under different lighting conditions to experience this "truth" for yourself.

In fact, this "truth" is so "self-evident," I'm surprised it was not included in the U.S. constitution. :-)

<B>

[Mark9473]

Thanks for the executive summary, Brock. I have no doubt there is some truth in what you state; you only have to put on one of those yellow driver's sunglasses to experience that even when you're filtering out part of the light, the resulting image can appear brighter.

That said, I'm also thinking I need to look through those binoculars with my own eyes to make my own conclusions.

[David Swain]

Originally Posted by brocknroller

David's motives for bringing up this thread can be assessed by reading his posts in it.

Ah, Brock. My motives were that Mark asked for a link, and that I recalled with a smile your very best phrase in the entire thread: "given these facts, ... " No animosity intended; I'd agree that EIIs do show remarkable contrast in dense foliage--great for locating pesky warblers.

David

[jaymoynihan]

Originally Posted by denco@comcast.n

That's easy! ME!

Yes indeed, who else could it be? Our resident troll who resides under our binocular bridge? Fanboy extraordinaire, devotee of the Zeiss FL, ooops, EDG, of which all who do not follow in fashion, are in lamentation, crying and smearing ashes on their sloven objective lens.

[denco@comcast.n]

Originally Posted by jaymoynihan

Yes indeed, who else could it be? Our resident troll who resides under our binocular bridge? Fanboy extraordinaire, devotee of the Zeiss FL, ooops, EDG, of which all who do not follow in fashion, are in lamentation, crying and smearing ashes on their sloven objective lens.

What are you a wannabe poet. Whew that was bad!