Cant you see some ( many actually ) of my posts are the same repeat reply arguments disproving or proving irrelanvance of the SAME argument over and over again by different people who havent read the whole thread?
That's no my fault, but if 4 different people have the exact same misunderstanding an put forth the same wrong argument, then I have no choice but to respond the same way four times. Blame that on people who don't follow the thread carefully or at all and try to throw in something new that has aready been hashed out 3 times . that not me repeating myelf, that's 4 same wrong arguments and 4 same counterpoints... jco -----Original Message----- From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:36 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) What you sow, you reap. You have done far more damage to your own reputation by your angry, rude, petulant, and repetitive, and obsessive posts than I ever could. If you stopped for a moment to think, you would realise that everybody on the list agrees that it was an unfortunate decision on Pentax's part to drop full support of older lenses. Perhaps they didn't realise how many people still used old lenses. Perhaps they did it to save money. Perhaps they did it to encourage people to buy new lenses. Probably it was all three. But what's done is done. There's no point in posting 400 messages to the list repeating yourself in every one. We ALL know your views. If you want to persuade Pentax to change course, you would do better if you don't appear to be barking mad. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:15:47 +0100, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JOHN - STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME- > reply to my posts and on-topic or don't > reply at all. that's basic netiquitte. > I don't call you an idiot but you are > one if you continue that behavior. this > is a discussion list about pentax. if > you cant discuss pentax and would rather > prefer to personally attack people instead > then you don't belong here because > the the purpose of the list is not to > make personal public attacks. Its to discuss pentax. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:21 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) > > > Herb, > > You are a photographer. You know less than nothing about finance, or > about marketing, or about how large corporations operate. You read a > few handouts and come on here posturing as an expert on Pentax and the > business world in general. > > As you yourself concede, Pentax as a company makes money. What you > haven't cottoned onto is the value that the company attaches to the > brand name, which may well cause them to stay in the camera business > just to keep the name in the public eye. > > What you also know absolutely nothing about is the manner in which > companies cost the different parts of their business, and how they > choose to release this information to the public. You don't have the > first idea how well or badly the imaging business is doing. What > Pentax choose to tell the public may be completely different from the > underlying reality, and if you were an accountant you would know that > there is no single version of the underlying reality. > > But what really irritates me about you is your obsession with trawling > the > net to find bad news about Pentax and then reporting it here. You are > even worse than that other obsessive idiot, JCO, because he restricts > himself to periodic apoplectic outbursts, whereas you are a constant > thorn > in the flesh, like Chinese water torture. > > And the worst of it is, it's so self-defeating. If you spent a tenth > of the time that you spend denigrating Pentax on promoting the > company, you might help it to sell more products and thus stay in > business and perhaps make the bodies you want. As it is, your wholly > negative and destructive attitude is designed to do the opposite. You > are a sad and unpleasant person, and I wish you would go away, or at > least restrict your contribution to subjects you know something about. > Photography, for instance. > > John > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:49:43 +0100, Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> you haven't figured it out yet, my position represents the same as >> that of people who manage hundreds of millions of dollars of Pentax >> stock. Pentax's camera business is in serious trouble, not the >> company. if Pentax pulls out of the camera business, then all the >> money have i have put into Pentax dead-ends. if they want to stay in >> the camera business they have to do much better than they are doing >> now. Olympus and Konica Minolta are in the same boat. those are the >> major players. Fuji is one of the minor players also in the same >> boat. these are just the DSLR manufacturers. this coming year is it. >> anyone who is not profitable in the digital camera game by 1Q 2006 >> isn't ever going to be. most camera companies didn't make their 1H >> fiscal 2005 sales figures, some by significant amounts but haven't >> lowered their YE 2005 forecasts. everyone is counting on a large 2H >> gain. keeping a division running that always loses money and has not >> hope of making any is really stupid. >> >> Herb.... >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:48 AM >> Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) >> >> >>> Thank God for that. Then perhaps you can move on from your >>> obsession with Pentax's financial downfall. >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
