> Pal didn't directly respond to the case presented in the original post. > He responded to what Pal thinks about what Pal does.
Oh, bull. Another fat, bright red herring from our local Muddier of the Waters. Look at the thread below: Pal quoted my argument and then said that he doesn't buy it. He was _directly_ responding to it. That's why he quoted it right above where he said "I don't buy this argument for a moment." "This argument." What argument, Bruce? The one he quoted, of course. Christ, you are the world champion coat-holder. You either want to pick fights, or promote them. No wonder they kicked your grumpy ass off the Nikon list. --Mike > If we stick to > granny, then we're talking about 4x6 prints, and a $500 P&S digital will > be adequate until it wears out. A computer isn't even needed for doing > your own inkjet prints: hook the camera/plug in the memory card, preview > it on the printer's built in LCD and go. It's probably at lest as good > as what grandma has been getting from drugstore prints all these years. > If granny does have a computer, then she doesn't even need a printer, > because you can get prints done by an online service. > Watching you two guys is like watching a used car salesman sell to a 3 > Card Monte dealer. > > BR > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>>> I know a grandmother who shoots film with a point-and-shoot. She goes >>>> through about one camera every five or six years, and she paid about $150 >>>> for her last camera. But she shoots 80 rolls of film a year and pays $14 a >>>> roll for film and processing. That's $30 a year for the camera and $1120 a >>>> year for film and processing. Now, would she be better off buying a $500 >>>> digicam and incurring no film and processing costs for the next five years? >>>> You do the arithmetic. Would she be "saving" money? Of course she would. >>>> It's no illusion. It's not a trick. It's an actual savings that would be >>>> realized in the ongoing operational costs--savings that would far more than >>>> offset the increase in the initial investment. >>>> >>>> >>> I don't buy this argument for a moment. Firstly, theres something call >>> consumerism and consumer society. If you change into the digital workflow >>> and >>> infrastructure you can bet you want to ugrade and stay current with the >>> digital progress (which means that any digital camera becomes obsolete in >>> six >>> months). >>> >>> >> >> Well, for the record, I don't buy _your_ argument for a moment either. Just >> run the numbers above. She pays an extra $350 for the camera and saves $1120 >> in film and processing costs the first year. That means she recovers the >> cost of the camera in three months and three weeks. I don't care HOW zealous >> you are about keeping up with the times, anybody can be expected to keep any >> camera for just short of four months at a minimum! If she keeps the camera >> for just one year, her saving are substantial.
