In a message dated 11/28/2005 6:17:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Frank's $6000 figure was disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW.
Herb... ============ I think I missed something here. Part of a thread or something. Okey, dokey. There is one thing Herb you may have forgotten, having been poor a large portion of my adult life (no more, thankfully), or having limited funds, anyway, I haven't forgotten it. It is MUCH, MUCH harder to come up with $1000 or so in one lump sum than to come up with $10 a week. Or whatever. Sure, over time, the bit by bit may actually cost more, but the funds may only be available in bit by bit amounts, not in large lump sum. That is just the way it is. I am really finding some of your comments lately too elitist, sorry. Not everyone has the financial resources to do what you think they should. And why should you care, really, what others do? Or how they spend their own money? I don't. And I don't care if finances are not their only reason, either. I've personally spent a lot on digital. Camera, cards, printer, paper, inks, PS, Spyder, etc. I don't even want to look at the total figure. But it certainly doesn't stop just with the camera. It can be a little cheaper if one wants to compromise, or it can be quite expensive. Oh, well, the above really rubbed me wrong. Seems sort of silly to argue against someone else's decision. Or whatever explanations they offer for their own decisions. Marnie aka Doe
