I think you saying his site is 90% crap is indeed your opinion and fine and dandy.
To say someone you do not know is dishonest and a mindless twit while also your opinion is ignorant. You say his review is dishonest.. but he even says in his own review that "I haven't seen one yet." Seems pretty honest to me. You are calling his review dishonest only on the basis that he calls it a review, but you have yet to point out one point in the article itself that is not true. --- "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > His site shows up in search engines as test reviews. > That's dishonest. > I'm expressing my opinion. His site is 90% crap. > Get over it. > > Jamie Walling wrote: > > >It's amazing you call him dishonest for expressing > his > >opinion. Please search his article and find one > >factual error. And I mean a factual error, and not > a > >point where you disagree with his opinion. > > > >His site is opinion, it is editorial. Get over it. > > > >And I do read leica lists all the time because I > love > >Leica's but try posting anything anti-leica. > > > > > >--- "Peter J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: > > > > > > > >>Jamie Walling wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>WOW. It's amazing how defensive this list gets. > >>> > >>> > >>For a > >> > >> > >>>moment i almost thought I was on a Leica list. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>You obviously don't hang out on the Leica list > much. > >> > >> > >> > >>>It's also amazing how much people here slam Ken > >>>Rockwell about not including facts, and then they > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>We're not an authority publishing a supposedly > hands > >>on review. He > >>reviewed a camera > >>apparently a number of cameras authoritatively > >>without ever having seen > >>them. That's like > >>doing anatomical drawings of an elephant after > >>hearing rumors of such a > >>beast. Totally > >>dishonest. > >> > >> > >> > >>>themselves do not tell the facts. Some general > >>> > >>> > >>info > >> > >> > >>>on Ken's site and this review in general (BTW ... > I > >>> > >>> > >>do > >> > >> > >>>not know him at all, but have read his site for > >>> > >>> > >>years > >> > >> > >>>since I used to use Nikon MF and he has one of > the > >>>better lens sections on the web) > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>For Nikon maybe. If he wrote a glowing review of > a > >>Nikon product, would I > >>believe that either. Probably not. > >> > >> > >> > >>>He wrote this review BEFORE anyone had access to > >>> > >>> > >>the > >> > >> > >>>istDs. It is a preview, not a review. He even > >>> > >>> > >>said > >> > >> > >>>his opinion might change if he uses one. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>He slammed it in a preview. He slammed Canon > >>cameras in previews. _I > >>don't care._ > >>The most you can do in a preview is list features > >>and give a first > >>impression. He went > >>a lot farther than that and regularly does so. It > >>wasn't billed as a > >>preview by the way, > >>he bills it as a test review, and I quote: > >> > >>"**Pentax *ist DS *istDS Test Review"** > >> > >>He should get a new headline writer. > >>Disclaimers on another page don't cut it either. > >> > >>By the way he now has a disclaimer on the main > page > >>for this "review" > >>due to the "hate" mail > >>he's received. It wasn't there before. > >> > >> > >> > >>>His site is an opinion site, and he goes out of > his > >>>way to make that perfectly clear. He also makes > it > >>>perfectly clear what he is looking for in a > camera > >>> > >>> > >>and > >> > >> > >>>that he is ONLY judging cameras based on what he > is > >>>looking for in a camera... > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Yes it is an opinion site. That becomes obvious > >>when you read it. > >> > >> > >> > >>>If you read his pages... based on what he is > >>> > >>> > >>looking > >> > >> > >>>for, the Pentax istDs does not cut it. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>That's not his recommendation. He doesn't > dismisses > >>it just for > >>himself, he dismisses it for everyone. > >>Even if they are just starting out and don't have > a > >>large investment in > >>other manufactures lenses. > >>Even if I didn't own a bunch of Pentax lenses the > >>*ist-Ds would be > >>viable competition for the > >>Rebel-D and the D70 which don't really cut it by > his > >>criteria either. > >>(Ok, the Nikon cut it because > >>it says Nikon on the prism housing, but then he > had > >>to ignore a lot of > >>other things). > >> > >> > >> > >>>FYI .. he gave the istD a favorable review when > it > >>> > >>> > >>was > >> > >> > >>>introduced, and personally uses Pentax spot > meters. > >>> > >>> > >>>Hard to say he is anti pentax. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>I don't think anyone said he was anti Pentax. I > >>believe the consensus > >>was that he was > >>in my words an opinionated idiot, but I'm just > being > >>judgmental, kind of > >>like he is. > >> > >> > >> > >>>===== > >>>Jamie Walling > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>__________________________________ > >>>Do you Yahoo!? > >>>Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage > >>> > >>> > >>less. > >> > >> > >>>http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>-- > >>I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. > >>During a war you get to drive tanks through the > >>sides of buildings > >>and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually > >>frowned on during peacetime. > >> --P.J. O'Rourke > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > >===== > >Jamie Walling > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > > > > > > > > -- > I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. > During a war you get to drive tanks through the > sides of buildings > and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually > frowned on during peacetime. > --P.J. O'Rourke > > ===== Jamie Walling __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
