I am not being disingenious. What don't you understand? They are not to be trusted because of this and the only way to restore the trust is if they put that $5 part back in there! THEY HAVE BETRAYED THEIR CUSTOMERS if the policy is now to disable older legacy products without cause which is what they have done. If its just a temporary thing until they can get a new hgher level model out that restores the $5 part, fine, but they arent saying that's the case which is very BAD... JCO
-----Original Message----- From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 5:32 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) Don't be disingenuous. You have said repeatedly that Pentax has betrayed its customers and can't be trusted. This is not a way to boost a company and encourage people to buy its products. John On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 22:04:31 +0100, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am damaging Pentax? that's a funny one. I am not > doing the damage, They are damaging themselves. > Don't blame the messanger. If Pentax offers a DSLR model with full > support of all PENTAX bayonet lenses they can "FIX" themselves to a > great extent but that's up to them not me. > > What are you guys? "blind faithers". You want people > to worship them while they pull these kinds of formerly unconsiousable > stunts? Great is great and pentax has made some great stuff and had > some great policies that were mutally good policies for them and their > customers but if that it gone there is no sense in > pretending it isnt... > > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:43 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm) > > > I just happen to believe that Herb and JCO are doing their best to > damage Pentax, and that doesn't help you, or me, or any Pentax user. > It's a shame, because they've both got a lot to offer when they're not > in the grip of their respective obsessions. They know much more about > photography than I ever shall, but not a great deal about business, > and neither seem able to make a point without hammering it home a > thousand times. > > John > > On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:45:03 +0100, mike wilson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >>> >>> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: 2005/09/20 Tue AM 11:20:47 GMT >>> 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. >> >> You alright, John? You've been laying about yourself like Thor with >> a particularly vicious hangover for the last two days. Not your >> usual self at all. >> >> m >> >> >> ----------------------------------------- >> Email sent from www.ntlworld.com >> Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software >> Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information >> >> >> >> >> > > > -- 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
