Peter, I do see a reason to continue this dicussion. As well, it isn't up to you to draw a line under your own message and declare it the last word. You raised issues that I disagree with, and it is my choice to answer them.
Did I start the cheapness and nastiness? I quoted a cheapshot comment that upset me, but you haven't pointed out what prior cheapshot comment of mine upset you, you just made the accusation without substantiation. If you refer to the sarcastic remarks in my recent posts, they were your own comments that I recycled because they were apt for both sides of the debate. It would be treading on thin ice to claim that they were the first offending remarks. Paal's facts are true. It's his conclusion you disagree with, but he should be let draw his own conclusions without being accused of making false claims. Your zeal to protect the truth was misguided. In reality it is you who has misled. You declared that the *ist D would be "unusable". What is obvious is that you don't want to use it. Whether it is in fact usable or unusable isn't defined by your opinion. I never said you didn't like Paal. I never said I didn't like you. Being in disagreement does not equal dislike. This is, after all, a discussion forum and it's expected that contrary views will be exchanged. To tell me that "(I) just don't like (you)" presumes too much. What I do notice is that your opinions come across as canon (excuse the pun) even when the issues in debate are subjective ones. regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > You're the one who started out being cheap and nasty. > > To use your own words "GET THIS" since you don't seem to understand, I > like P�l. > I even agree with him a lot of the time. He is however a Pentax Partisan and > he likes to win, to do so he will, how shall I say this, re-interpret > "facts" to > bolster his argument. Like all good or for that matter bad debaters he > then treats it > as true, I won't let him do that. > > Now I started out to answer your missive point by point since there are > some I agree with > and others I don't, but I realized you just don't like me, and more > importantly nothing > I could say will even have any effect. > > Furthermore based on this one point of your note here, if Pentax knows so > much more about > making and selling cameras then we do, why even discuss it? > > I see no reason to even continue this conversation. > > At 03:34 PM 7/4/03 +1000, you wrote:
