oVo wrote:StiffMittens wrote:Oh come on, it wasn't that hair-splitting.
Sure it was... now I'm a verbally twisted up baldy.
StiffMittens wrote:LZ had a reasonable point.
Oh did he... was it that, if we eliminate the actual meaning expressed with words all things are joined at the hip?
Viva "linguistic contortions", I'm not a literary gymnist and made a very simple attempt to show how photosynthesis and digital photography are not related via basic definitions.
They killed Kenny... YOU BASTARDS!
Well, sure if you want to get right down to it, every post in this thread is related by the fact that they are all in this thread. That's a silly and obtuse line of reasoning, however. LZ's point was a straightforward and reasonable comparison.
He made a very simple attempt to show how photosynthesis and digital photography
are related. You responded with an overly wordy definition of a digital camera that conspicuously left out the fact that a digital camera is first and foremost a camera. And the fundamental idea of a camera is to make an image by capturing light reflected from the subject, on a light sensitive medium. That in this case the camera uses digital technology to store the image data is irrelevant. It is related to photosynthesis in the sense that both involve light reactive elements that make use of available light to create something. A very simple and obvious similarity.