Since you want to take me to task over such drivel, I did say it more recently too, and am still stating it now. And, if you read it more carefully, I specifically stated I THINK you are wrong on the date, I didnt say you were definately wrong on the date and its not arrongant to state something with a proviso like I THINK right up front ( I wasnt absolutely sure, and I noted that ) now is it? Its never arrogant to say something in that context. Arrogant is when you state something as for sure when you are not sure. I dont do that, and didn't do that in this case.
jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: NO FS this Friday? ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: NO FS this Friday? > Correct. Nothing has changed since then and I think > you are wrong on the date, I said that in 2006. The DSLR BODIES are > still in the early evolving stage and they ARE "disposable" in that > sense. Lets see if I have this right. You are saying that DSLRs areabout high image quality for the few willing to pay for it, but they are disposable cameras. I'm seeing a tinge of inconsistency here. I am right about the date, it's right at the top of the linked page. You have proven your arrogance once again, by showing that you can't be bothered to look at facts when presented to you. Here, I've cut and pasted the post for you, including the date it was recieved. " RE: DS J. C. O'Connell Wed, 20 Oct 2004 07:26:06 -0700 Does the finish really matter on a camera that will be obsolete in 5 years time? I know I would not want to pay for better finish on temporary (dare I say disposable?) camera... JCO " William Robb -- 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
