Yes, but when I post a bunch of facts on the history of TV sets and explained exactly why his initial story did not make sense and offer probable explanations as to what his situation really is AND THEN HE PROCEEDS TO TELL ME my opinion/facts are "wrong" and he did, and then its later revealed that I not only was right, my speculation that the set would most likely have been made at later date if it had video input jacks, AND IT WAS, ( he gave false 6 yr earlier mfg date ). That has to be called on and it was. I am not proud of myself, just proving once again to know what the hell I am talking about when I post these kind of things. Its simply a credibility issue. Im just clearing my name on the matter. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bob W Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 3:45 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: The cause of the controversy Well done! You really caught him out on that one. You deserve to feel proud of yourself for not letting it get by and for making sure we all know that once again somebody else was just plain WRONG WRONG WRONG and you were (of course) right. You do a valuable service here - most of us, in our ignorance, or with malicious intent, are either too stupid to remember such things from one post to the next, or are simply evil and intent on spreading lies. A lot of people might have considered that date thing to be trivial, even if they'd had the brains to notice it or the heart to care. But thank God we've got you on the list to pick up on it. Well done, you're making a valuable contribution and enriching all our lives with your concentration on the essential details. -- Bob > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell > Sent: 20 December 2006 02:56 > To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > Subject: RE: The cause of the controversy > > 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 > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
