I am only sorry that some have encouraged this by suggesting that it's okay. Shame on you. I will have nothing more to say. I hope others will do the same. Paul
On Dec 19, 2006, at 9:56 PM, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I hate to say it but GRAYWOLF is sorta busted > and my statements on that topic were > not wrong at all. That set clearly is stamped 1989 > and he initally claimed it was from 1983. I told > you all that in 1983 you couldnt get > any sets with video inputs on them except > on top line Sony and I stated that the set > most likely did not have any video inputs > or was made at a later date, and there > it is folks " 1 9 8 9 " stamped right on it > not 1983 as initially reported and discussed > and being told wrong by him when there > is nothing wrong with what I said at all. > Maybe we had a mixup on the date, I dont > recall 1989 ever being mentioned, only 1983, but I stated > 1983 in my reply posts and he didnt correct the > discussion to 1989 like he should have. > Six years makes a on what a set could have > and couldnt have as far as features. > > P.S. I get a big kick out of the air/circuitry > ratio on the rear view shot! Unbelieveable. > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:21 PM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: The cause of the controversy > > > graywolf wrote: >> http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/TV.html >> > > Looks like a nice unit. I miss those console TV's, you don't need a TV > stand with them. > > -Adam > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
