SleepyWill

​Yes, you have - to some people in this world, not using derogatory terms for black people absolutely is "that reprehensible". But to move away from extremes, how do you drive on your way to work? Yesterday I mortally offended a group of cyclists because I dared pull over to use my phone, causing them to have to go in single file past me. He screamed through my window that the "fucking road is empty, why couldn't I take my call while driving like every one else". But when I see people on mobiles while driving, I get angry. So which do you do? Answer your mobile while driving, or pull over safely to answer it? Either way, you're going to piss someone off, to the point of screaming abuse at you through your car window. And yes, I did scream abuse at someone through their car window once as they were on a mobile driving. They had clipped me with their wing mirror. We're all different, what makes you such a special little flower that your sensibilities are the ones we have to adhere to? You're trying to be objective about subjective stuff, and while I admire that on a shallow level, you believe you are trying to make the world a better place, what you are really doing is trying to make the world a better place for you, fuck everyone else. Trust me, your own parents have said and done things you would find disgusting. I promise it's true, and you know what? It's OK. Some people find the idea that white people can say the word "nigger" a problem, some people do not. This is a matter of personal opinion and while you've made yours perfectly clear, you really do seem to be trying desperately to tell others who believe differently that their opinion is wrong. People who tell other people that the opinion their brain has formed based on chemistry and the release of hormones that a person is unable to control or influence in any way what so ever are trying to censor freedom of expression. You're asking them to say things that they do not believe to satisfy your own hormones, which is why this behaviour is so ridiculous. The brain chemistry will not change unless that person changes the nodal link pattern in their neural net. One way that can happen is through saying words that prompt an "epiphany" in a person. (If the epiphany is caused by a fundamentalist who convinced someone that murder is a good thing, we don't call it an ephiphany, we call it brainwashing.) If your words are not doing that, then that is not the targets deficiency, it's your inadequacy. Maybe you can explain what harm a white middle aged man saying the word in a private context, that is not meant to be seen by anyone but his cronies and deleted promptly actually does. Me, I'm saying the person who actually caused the harm was the person who published that white man saying the word to a global audience. You publish it, you take the responsibility, simple as that in my world. Us of all people know how you can edit the same data to tell two wildly different stories. I can never watch any video of anyone and assume that I know anything about that person. I can make judgements as to what the person who published the video wanted me to think, however, which tends to make me ask questions like "Why do you want me to think Clarkson is racist". When people try to control what you think, it's usually down to them trying to use you to get more power, money or make themselves more attractive to a potential partner. By the way, why do Clarksons detractors constantly bring up his personal wealth and reference their own in a negative way, this isn't all rooted in jealousy, is it?

​I've got a secret for you, a horrible dirty little secret that no-one is going to like, but sadly it's true. Everyone in this world holds a view, has said something or done something that will offend you. No not only you Damphousse but each and every person reading this. Jeremy Clarkeson once said nigger. I find this disgusting and reprehensible. I'm sure plenty of stuff I've done or said, you will find disgusting and reprehensible, just like you will have done stuff that I find. Do you see how it works, all you nose pickers out there, you know who you are, you literally make me feel sick. People who speed past primary schools, I would subject you to prison, you are filth and scum. Petty thieves, you nearly bankrupted me in the 80's, prison for you too. The people who push wheelchairs or hang coats on them without asking the permission of the person in the wheelchair, that is no different and no less offensive than if you push someone physically out of your way without looking or talking to them, or just walking up to them and hanging a coat from their head, it's just rude. Tailgaters, people who hog the middle lane, people who overcharge for their services, people who cough into their hands then touch surfaces that other people touch, people who go to work with the flu, people who cut lines, streakers, people who beat their partners, people who smack their children, people who don't look after their children properly, people who don't disinfect their bins, people who leave vermin attracting waste in their gardens, people who don't clear up dog faeces, people who tax dodge and avoid, benefit fraudsters, people who fart on public transport, people who smoke near kids, people who smoke in public places... I could go on forever! You are all jerks. or.... You can accept that everyone is a jerk, stop focusing in the negative aspects that you do not like about them and instead realise that we are all human beings, and there is an equal amount of good attributes we can list that make me want to shake your hand and give you a hug. Every human is a complicated mixture of jerks and saints, most people are in the privileged position of being able to keep our foibles to ourselves, presenting only the public image we wish to. So what if Jeremy Clarkson said Nigger, does it make him a complete idiot, yes. Does it make him racist, probably, at some level. What would happen if we banned all people who held reprehensible views/said disgusting things/did disgusting things from being in the public eye? No-one would be in the public eye, and that's assuming we go off just your sensibilities dear reader, don't forget, each one of us reacts differently to the different triggers. Some of you may think "speeding past a primary school, what's the big deal", but then maybe you get wound up by my hard acceleration once out in the countryside, or by my overtaking if you will insist on going 40 on a 60mph road, or whatever. Now I know that some things are worse than others and I think the vast majority of us will agree that nosepickers are not worse than racists, however, each of us ranks these problamatic behaviours differently and none of us is supreme arbitor of what is better or worse. You'd better believe that there are a significant number of people out there who do in fact believe that racism is less of a problem than nosepicking. And who is going to be so arrogant as to declare their ranking of problems the one we should all abide by. So what am I really saying? Eveyone is a jerk. You are a jerk, I am a jerk. But we are all amazing too. If you are so blind as to be unable to find any redeeming qualities about any human on this earth, then, well, you're a jerk. Each of us is amazing. So go ahead, rant and rage on the internet about Jeremy Clarkson, I know I have, but don't write off everything that is amazing about a person just because you saw their jerk side. And the television he produces is amazing - it may not be to your taste, but it's ok to not like stuff and admit that it's good. I like top gear, but I don't like hearing Nigger. I have no idea what slope is or refers to, but I assume it's a racist term. I use the word all day every day, so I guess lots of people think I am racist. Fortunately I am a glass half full person, I know Clarkson isn't perfect, but I'm going to enjoy the positive things he does on tv, mostly making me laugh. You glass half empty lot, the "he said Nigger when he thought he wasn't going to be broadcast, therefore sacrifice him to the tabloid gods", you're all jerks and I love you!

​Personal attack??? WTF??? I said, did you take your meds today, clearly a light hearted statement, which could have been replaced with, if it were my style "U Mad, Bro" or "it's tinfoil hat time" or "you're coming across as one sandwich short of a picnic". But I chose "did you take your meds today" because it was a light hearted little statement to demonstrate that I am not seriously attacking you, merely challenging your viewpoint with my own and I mean no ill by it. I also chose it because I was watching an Alan Partridge sketch and he said it in that precise same context. I mean if Saint Coogan says it, it can't be offensive right? Ohhh... you took offence though.... Turns out he does say offensive stuff as comedy after all. (Or maybe you're the exact type mentioned in this article, the type who goes out looking to be offended, as long as it's not someone you are a fanatic... er fan over, of course) And yeah, there is a world of difference between characters darkening their skin and playing a role with sympathy and the Tony Ferrino character who is designed to play on lazy stereotypes of European bad taste that the British seem so hell bent on holding. If you didn't parse that character as sleezy, then you are a sexist deviant, that is not normal or acceptable behaviour (unless your name is Steve Coogan apparently). Oh and don't worry about "classy", we've both stayed up all night long trolling each other. There is literally no class to be found. Difference is, I'm comfortable with that, happier for the fun and laughs this has generated. You've given me a good old giggle this night while I watched the GP and watched my transcoding - you just seem upset and angry. Stay classy? don't bother - stay happy!

​Really, you're going with the manipulation of "the system" and foreign markets angle. Did you take your meds today?

​dan, on being unable to refute any accusation, ignores it and relies on deflection and tired old internet memes. I sure sign that I am, once again exactly right about his level of intelligence!

​We? What a strange choice of word. It's almost like you have less interest in a civil debate and more in "winning" which is decidedly odd because having an opinion isn't a competitive sport. Well, go on then, please defend someone applying makeup to change their skin colour, then in direct reference to that cultures most popular pop icon, play a deliberately sleezy and stupid character. But while you defend that behaviour, pretend we have a video of clarkson doing exactly that, and it is this video you are defending. You're a hypocrite, you defend entertainers who use racial differences to make an English audience laugh, but only if you enjoy their product. People like things that you don't like, sorry if you have a problem with that. I do have an ideal solution though. Live and let live.

Here we establish you making an assumption as to my colour ​Here you use that assumption that I am white to stereotype me as someone who has staff and beats them ​Further stereotyping - You think I'm white, therefore you think I can never have experienced abuse or mistreatment. ​Here you assume something no-one is talking about hasn't affected me. Why would you assume that - is it cos you fink I is white? Yeah, If I was white, you were pretty vile towards me, you are racist. What's really sad is that your type of racism is so much more insidious than anything Clarkson said. Your type of institutional stereotyping actually causes more harm than a tv show ever did, and it's pure out and out tribalism. You look different to me, therefore I will stereotype you. Vile.

​Pfft.... don't google Tony Ferrino, unless you don't mind seeing your shining beacon of anti racism blacked up and playing a slow and sleezy foreigner!

​But dan, you made an assumption as to my skin colour earlier today, and used that assumption to stereotype me.... that's racism. You were racist to me. So that makes you, by your mind, a violent man. So by your own judgement, you are toxic, you are not clever or talented. You are just a big mouth, a big ego. Your toxicity may be funny to some observers of this thread, but it has long gone to your head, you are like a basil fawlty clutzing around the internet, and despite your superior education, you are spouting pseudo-intelligent rhetoric. You are a hangover from the heydays of anonymous trolling on the internet. A dinosaur if you will, a museum piece. By your very own words... Let me guess, you're going to deny your racism towards me, you're going to justify prejudging me based on my (wrong) ethnicity and stating things as fact that you gleaned from the skin colour you imagined I had. 3 more thoughts: Signing each post you make atb. makes you look pretentious. Or attention seeking, in the most passive way. Your grasp of English, for someone who identified themselves as a British national - given away by describing Clarkson as "our" beloved presenter - is pretty bad. This tells me you are immature or an idiot. You've wasted a lot of energy making me laugh.

​I'm not white, but thanks for proving me absolutely correct about you and your inability to separate fact from the fictional narrative inside your own head. Unless you can share your source that confirms Clarkeson actually hit someone, and did so in a manner that was "beating the staff when not up to scratch" then I would suggest that this is part of your imagination too. FYI, I married a Romany woman, probably the most reviled ethnic origin in the world, please don't talk to me about my "loved ones not being from a visual minority with long and painful memories of abuse", you know nothing, Jon Snow.

​And here you have the reason why you don't fling words around like assault. The narrow context of how you used it is unimportant compared to the wider context, you've already stated that you are wide open to the idea that not everyone who reads your posts, reads it properly, by telling me to re-read your words, I had misunderstood them. The Dan's of this world take your word as sacrosanct, maybe without having read or understood them properly and make statements as fact when he doesn't actually know the truth and the end result of this misinformation creep can be potentially serious.

​Well, yes you covered yourself, but I acknowledged that you did. I took issue with you deciding that something is assault, and insinuating that any time someone hits someone else, it is appropriate to accuse them of a serious crime or even using the word assault in the context of the incident without waiting for the legal process, which spends a great deal of energy, with privileged access to establish the facts. If that wasn't what you were saying, I hope you will accept my apology, I got my wires crossed - the rest of it, talking about the assumptions we have all made was not aimed at you, but everyone, including myself.

​No worries! All I'm saying is that we don't know what he's done. We've had limited information released by the BBC and I'm afraid I smell a rat. Why release such a statement but not the full facts, if it was an unprovoked attack, then why did they not say it was an unprovoked attack. If there was a cause, why not tell us the cause. It stinks, and I can only think of one reason for releasing a sensationalist, incomplete version of events, they wanted to justify the suspension and didn't believe the full story would. But if it turns out he did assault the producer, I will about-face so quick, your head will spin. I've done it in the past and I'll do it again. I have no special attachment to him that I would not stick up for the rights of the non "starring" crew. After I heard the Christian Bale abuse to the guy who walked on set during a scene, I lost work I was so outspoken about what a moron he had been. EDIT: That guy turned out to be shane hurlbut, the things you learn!

​Because as I said in my first post, I have worked with him. When I worked with him, he was pleasant. He was hard working. These are things I know. I also know that the character he plays on top gear is fictional, he is not that person, he is acting, in the same way that Brad Pit is not Tyler Durden.

​I understand that you disclaimered yourself by stating that you were talking about the hypothetical scenario and that you have no knowledge of what really happened, but I still take issue with this statement. Only the courts get to decide what is and is not assault, and in a limited respect, a police officer in terms that he would not be charged with wrongful arrest for pre-empting a courts decision and arresting a person for a crime he has reasonable grounds to suspect they have comitted. We, the public do not get to shout assault at will, the UK is not a lynch mob state. A person is guilty of assault when and only when they have had a fair and impartial trial. We don't know the circumstances, we can make assumptions, as we all already have, but it's just noise. A court, with all the facts at their command, may rule that it was not assault because the facts may make it clear that it was not. This will probably never go to court, and while we can make up assumptions as to why the producer chose not to press charges, it can't be denied that one assumption that it is possible to make is that maybe the producer threw the first punch. Maybe he misinterpreted an action as aggression, maybe there was a colossal misunderstanding between colleagues after a long and stressful day. Or maybe the guy made a mistake and some monster child man threw his toys out of his pram and broke the guys jaw over nothing. Until we know, let's stop prejudging him and go by what we do know. I know that at work he's a pleasant, hard working chap and I would be surprised if he deserved the suspension. It is perfectly fair to say that if he did assault this producer he absolutely should be suspended, probably sacked. That would be unacceptable, but if you accept that then you also need to accept that if he didn't do anything that any other reasonable human being would have done and his suspension was as a result of his public standing not his true actions, then it is wrong.

Pretty sure indianajones was being sarcastic... I mean, surely he must be! Thankyou for this post! I know the british public have to pay for the BBC, but surely that doesn't give them the right to have this level of transparency? I enjoy Top Gear very much and surely it is obvious that they are playing characters, I mean, these people who believe that Top Gear is a factual program don't believe that The only way is essex is real, and they say far more offensive stuff than that. I've worked with Jeremy Clarkson, and he was a genuinely decent chap, nothing like the caricature he presents of himself on the show. What's nice is that he cares about the production so much, he wants the product to be quality and works hard to help however he can. Whatever the truth of this situation, I can say without any qualms that it must have been an extraordinary situation, and I can't imagine he wouldn't have made right however he could at a later time. We all know how it feels to have worked hard and then faced disappointment, we've all made huge mistakes when stressed and we've all done things we regret, probably more frequently that we care to admit. Only difference with us is that our laundry isn't thrust into the public eye for every idiot to judge us on. And I agree with so much else that you wrote - I'm all for better representation of women, ethnic backgrounds et al, bring it on, but instead of shoehorning it into entertainment made for a different audience, make quality content that the demographic you wish to represent would like to watch. I'm sorry, my wife still isn't going to watch QI just because you force a woman onto every show. Make something she actually wants to watch, you'll actually solve the problem like that, rather than ticking the "diversity" box in your "have we avoided criticism" checklist.

​Yeah, I was going to be nice to you until this. Don't be such a weasel, it is not an option to attack the person if you can't fault the argument. How about I call you a shill for panasonic, out to troll forums to hurt the opposition. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof and if you are going to try to drag my (deliberately fake) name through the mud, then you'd better come packing the big guns in terms of evidence for your claims. Put up your evidence that I am "damage control for samsung" or shut up and sit down. By the way, you don't want to change lenses? Then why are you looking at interchangeable lens cameras, where you pay a premium to be able to... I don't fecking well care, I really don't.

​You're right, sorry. Alex, do notice though that Ebrahim said exactly the same thing as you without: 1) Spreading the fallacy that amateurs are less skilled than professionals. 2) Describing a camera that he hasn't tried to use yet as "unusable". 3) Dismissing the opinion of the many who could work around the crop factor with ease just because he can't or doesn't want to.

​Wait, this makes even less sense. Before I was grouching over your choice of language, even though I thought I understood what you were saying. Now you're claiming that the samsung 12-24mm lens is too long to be reasonable, on an apc camera. What in gods name is your wife (who I'm sure is more able than you assume) shooting that needs wider than 4k crop equiv of 26ish mm? Does she need to get her feet and nose in the same shot, from behind the lens? Good god, if she went any wider, she wouldn't need to focus anyway, set it to infinity and shoot everything in perfect focus! Do you really have to shoot all your scenes in 4k? The mind boggles when someone uses such extreme language to describe something. Unusuable - seriously, you literally cannot make a good shot with a camera that doesn't have 4K on at least an apc sized sensor, yet you demand that quality in full auto for less than $1000. Good luck with that! You do understand that getting 4k in aps-c won't suddenly make your hyper extreme wide angles beautiful right? If you can't make them look good in 1080p, you can't make them look good in 4k either, fact. Also, never pre-order. Ever. Especially as you are an amateur (which I regard as being a compliment, I have more respect for those who do something simply for the love and pleasure of doing that thing than I do those who do it because it is their job) and won't lose money if yiu have to wait a month for the camera to be back in stock at your preferred outlet.

​Unusable??? Really??? Isn't that a bit embarrassing to write? I mean, I understand that there are products that you prefer on the market, that's entirely your decision but to publicly admit that, no matter how you earn your income, you couldn't use a camera because it crops the 4k mode is.. well, let's hope Oliver Stone never reads this!

Well, that is most definitely their loss. I find you, your words and your work an inspiration as I'm sure, do many other people and your name next to a post is a sure mark of quality.

​The UK seems to be going this way, at least the places where people are feeling vulnerable for whatever reason - financial, areas of minorities etc, they instantly assume the worst of any camera.

​Not a smartphone As for shooting position, my son was having an absence seizure (He has Doose syndrome, hence the soft protective hat), which was lucky because it saved you from having to see my ugly mug on the skintones "smooth" rendering test. Detail rendering, and everything else - I deliberately resized to obliterate methods other than sensor size characteristics to tell, especially as I know these cameras instantly from a 1 to 1 crop, I guarantee you guys do too. They are photographs, not video clips. When someone gets it right you can see the originals and you may be a lot less impressed. Do remember, if I was trying to cheat, I would have just shown ungraded ff and graded crop sensor, stuck subtle lights around the place stuff like that as all I am trying to demonstrate is that things like "smooth rendering" and "good separation" as claimed by monkey puzzle, when he finally conceded there is nothing unique about the ff fov or dof are a function of the lens and the sensor technology, not the sensor size.

​Feel free to ask someone you trust, who has known ability to reproduce this test. I've just put in a great deal of effort to offer evidence that what I'm saying is accurate, but if even that's not enough for you, I guess you'd have to be with me at the time while I did it and even then, I bet you would find some other way to argue. I'm pretty much going to ignore you now, I hope you do the same for me. For everyone else, the challenge still stands!

​I used a monopod, and you don't know who I am or what I do. You don't know who I work with or what I've worked on, nor how much I earn. Besides which, I don't think they are matched all that well actually. In fact the blacks are really bad, shamefully bad!