RE: Paal Comes Through Again
On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, tom wrote: We have a ways to go before it's listed anywhere... See, they have to make a date for you to win the camera, but I think they just have to show a prototype to make Bruce eat his pie
RE: Paal Comes Through Again
The pie was related to Photokina; too late for that now. Before every big show, or Pentax anniversary, Paal implies (or states explicitly) that Pentax will make some big announcement. This makes him right about 10% of the time. I'm still waiting for something more substantial than rumor. BR -Original Message- From: gfen [mailto:gfen;infotainment.org] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 8:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Paal Comes Through Again On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, tom wrote: We have a ways to go before it's listed anywhere... See, they have to make a date for you to win the camera, but I think they just have to show a prototype to make Bruce eat his pie
RE: Paal Comes Through Again
I like what I've heard - but as I'm with Bruce on this one. It's been touted by us here and on that JIJ website and on DCresource but it's still rumor until Pentax makes it official (at which time of course that will confirm or renounce Paal's ability at prognostication) :) Cheers, Dave Original Message: - From: Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:14:24 -0400 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Paal Comes Through Again The pie was related to Photokina; too late for that now. Before every big show, or Pentax anniversary, Paal implies (or states explicitly) that Pentax will make some big announcement. This makes him right about 10% of the time. I'm still waiting for something more substantial than rumor. BR -Original Message- From: gfen [mailto:gfen;infotainment.org] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 8:51 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Paal Comes Through Again On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, tom wrote: We have a ways to go before it's listed anywhere... See, they have to make a date for you to win the camera, but I think they just have to show a prototype to make Bruce eat his pie mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ .
RE: Paal Comes Through Again
On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Rubenstein, Bruce M (Bruce) wrote: The pie was related to Photokina; too late for that now. Before every big show, or Pentax anniversary, Paal implies (or states explicitly) that Pentax will make some big announcement. This makes him right about 10% of the time. I'm still waiting for something more substantial than rumor. I thought they were keeping it on ice for the next trade show? I won't comment on Paal's hit/miss ratio, as I haven't been around long enough, but I'm going to side with the disbelief crowd until I see a bit more. Although, truthfully, I thought he was just blowing smoke until someone translated the Japanese page.. Maybe we'll all be wrong.
Re[2]: Paal Comes Through Again
With all due respect to you, Bob, it appears that this particular duck caught some of Paal's lead. By the way, is your middle name Bruce or The Who ? DG At 11:23 PM 10/16/02 +0100, you wrote: Hi, well, with all due respect to Paal, his predictions are rather like horoscope. There's an awful lot of them, usually couched in vague and ambiguous terms, and 99.999% of the time they're wrong. People only remember when they're right because it happens so rarely and because, like that character in the 'X Files', they want to believe. If you fire enough buckshot one piece might hit a duck from time to time, but that doesn't make you a marksman. --- Bob Wednesday, October 16, 2002, 9:56:10 PM, you wrote: I know it's still premature, but Paal is normally pretty accurate (remember his pre MZ-S predictions). And the Japanese news item is zeroing in even closer.
Re: Paal Comes Through Again
Gentlemen, Pål spells his name as I started out this sentence, with the tiny diacritical o mark over the 'a.' Why does everyone spell it Paal? But then, I don't know how to correctly pronounce Paal any more than I do Pål! Just curious...trying to learn something else new today! keith whaley Robert Soames Wetmore wrote: This is of course totally inaccurate. Paal has not predicted .001% correctly - he has predicted something like 25-50% correctly. And where he is incorrect it is usually because after he has heard the news, Pentax changes direction. He has been correct about various lens releases, about the MZ-S and the existence of the MZ-D, and about several other things. That means there has to be something like 500,000 incorrect predictions he has made. Paal is a great source who clearly has good inside connections. Just because half of what is on the drawing boards doesn't make it to production doesn't mean he's making stuff up or that the idea was never on the table. And even if you do want to blame him for all of that, at least be a little more realistic about the percentages. Paal is a great resource to the list. Who else has contributed so much (or any) pre-release news from this cagey company called Pentax??? But I'm sure you will be deeply sorry and apologize if either or both of these news items becomes an official release. Rob Hi, well, with all due respect to Paal, his predictions are rather like horoscope. There's an awful lot of them, usually couched in vague and ambiguous terms, and 99.999% of the time they're wrong. People only remember when they're right because it happens so rarely and because, like that character in the 'X Files', they want to believe. If you fire enough buckshot one piece might hit a duck from time to time, but that doesn't make you a marksman. --- Bob
Re[2]: Paal Comes Through Again
I, for one, am glad that Pål passes on what he hears/finds. Whether they materialize or not, if gives me something to look into and check out that I might otherwise totally miss. A big thanks from me! Bruce Thursday, October 17, 2002, 8:50:02 AM, you wrote: PJ Dave wrote: I like what I've heard - but as I'm with Bruce on this one. It's been touted by us here and on that JIJ website and on DCresource but it's still rumor until Pentax makes it official (at which time of course that will confirm or renounce Paal's ability at prognostication) :) PJ I don't find this discussion very interesting. I just like to point out that I'm not prognosticating anything but simply pass on information. If this information is correct or incorrect it's not PJ really up to me. The information is there and everyone is free to do whatever they want with it. PJ Pål
Re[3]: Paal Comes Through Again
Hi, Thursday, October 17, 2002, 3:38:39 PM, you wrote: With all due respect to you, Bob, it appears that this particular duck caught some of Paal's lead. By the way, is your middle name Bruce or The Who ? we all have the right to be as skeptical or as credulous as we please, and to make our opinions known, but we don't have the right to make unprovoked ad hominem remarks. We've just been through an example of what often happens when people do make such remarks. I've been on this list for some time now, and I was on it while The Who was active. I fail to see how you can make such a comparison based on a couple of skeptical postings about yet another rumour about an unannounced camera. Since you don't have a sound basis for the comparison I can only take the comparison with The Who as an unprovoked insult, which drops you right down to the bottom of my estimation, along with all the other people who toss personal insults around so freely. Bob
Re: Paal Comes Through Again
I'll second this comment... In the absence of a continuos flow of product or product flow from Pentax, a stream of informal clues add an important demension to the list---IMHO. Otis Bruce Dayton wrote: I, for one, am glad that Pål passes on what he hears/finds. Whether they materialize or not, if gives me something to look into and check out that I might otherwise totally miss. A big thanks from me! Bruce Thursday, October 17, 2002, 8:50:02 AM, you wrote: PJ Dave wrote: I like what I've heard - but as I'm with Bruce on this one. It's been touted by us here and on that JIJ website and on DCresource but it's still rumor until Pentax makes it official (at which time of course that will confirm or renounce Paal's ability at prognostication) :) PJ I don't find this discussion very interesting. I just like to point out that I'm not prognosticating anything but simply pass on information. If this information is correct or incorrect it's not PJ really up to me. The information is there and everyone is free to do whatever they want with it. PJ Pål
Re[3]: Paal Comes Through Again
Bob, my sincere apologies if you took this the wrong way. Absolutely not intended as an insult, just a light hearted joke. Please don't take it seriously. DG At 08:21 PM 10/17/02 +0100, you wrote: Hi, Thursday, October 17, 2002, 3:38:39 PM, you wrote: With all due respect to you, Bob, it appears that this particular duck caught some of Paal's lead. By the way, is your middle name Bruce or The Who ? we all have the right to be as skeptical or as credulous as we please, and to make our opinions known, but we don't have the right to make unprovoked ad hominem remarks. We've just been through an example of what often happens when people do make such remarks. I've been on this list for some time now, and I was on it while The Who was active. I fail to see how you can make such a comparison based on a couple of skeptical postings about yet another rumour about an unannounced camera. Since you don't have a sound basis for the comparison I can only take the comparison with The Who as an unprovoked insult, which drops you right down to the bottom of my estimation, along with all the other people who toss personal insults around so freely. Bob
Re[2]: Paal Comes Through Again
Hi, that's nice to know Fred. I developed a theory about the Who, and it recurs from time to time. I think he and several others of our acquaintance may be Turing Tests. Some postgraduate somewhere is doing research into artificial intelligence and trying it out by subscribing it to discussion forums. Just as Eliza was taken seriously as a shrink back in the 60s or 70s, so Who and its avatars. are taken seriously by the guinea pig subscribers. --- Bob Thursday, October 17, 2002, 11:07:12 PM, you wrote: thanks - I'm sorry to have misinterpreted you - email seems to make that easy. C'mon, Bob - no one could seriously mistake you for the Who - g. Fred
Re: Paal Comes Through Again
I developed a theory about the Who, and it recurs from time to time. I think he and several others of our acquaintance may be Turing Tests. Some postgraduate somewhere is doing research into artificial intelligence and trying it out by subscribing it to discussion forums. Just as Eliza was taken seriously as a shrink back in the 60s or 70s, so Who and its avatars. are taken seriously by the guinea pig subscribers. Har !!! Fred
Re: Re[3]: Paal Comes Through Again
This is exactly how I would have responded recently given the opportunity. Sadly, I wasn't given the opportunity and I'm sorry that the list has had to see all that dirty laundry being aired. In future I'll be sending any attempt at humour to my local political correctness consultant for censorship. Regards, Anthony Farr - Original Message - From: dick graham [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bob, my sincere apologies if you took this the wrong way. Absolutely not intended as an insult, just a light hearted joke. Please don't take it seriously. DG At 08:21 PM 10/17/02 +0100, you wrote: Hi, Thursday, October 17, 2002, 3:38:39 PM, you wrote: With all due respect to you, Bob, it appears that this particular duck caught some of Paal's lead. By the way, is your middle name Bruce or The Who ? we all have the right to be as skeptical or as credulous as we please, and to make our opinions known, but we don't have the right to make unprovoked ad hominem remarks. We've just been through an example of what often happens when people do make such remarks. I've been on this list for some time now, and I was on it while The Who was active. I fail to see how you can make such a comparison based on a couple of skeptical postings about yet another rumour about an unannounced camera. Since you don't have a sound basis for the comparison I can only take the comparison with The Who as an unprovoked insult, which drops you right down to the bottom of my estimation, along with all the other people who toss personal insults around so freely. Bob
Paal Comes Through Again
Way to go Paal, keep your ear to the ground and continue getting the real information to us! Some where Bruce should be getting out the salt and pepper for some kind of crow eating dinner. DG
Re: Paal Comes Through Again
Hi, it's still only vapourware. --- Bob Wednesday, October 16, 2002, 9:18:06 PM, you wrote: Way to go Paal, keep your ear to the ground and continue getting the real information to us! Some where Bruce should be getting out the salt and pepper for some kind of crow eating dinner. DG
Re[2]: Paal Comes Through Again
Hi, well, with all due respect to Paal, his predictions are rather like horoscope. There's an awful lot of them, usually couched in vague and ambiguous terms, and 99.999% of the time they're wrong. People only remember when they're right because it happens so rarely and because, like that character in the 'X Files', they want to believe. If you fire enough buckshot one piece might hit a duck from time to time, but that doesn't make you a marksman. --- Bob Wednesday, October 16, 2002, 9:56:10 PM, you wrote: I know it's still premature, but Paal is normally pretty accurate (remember his pre MZ-S predictions). And the Japanese news item is zeroing in even closer.
RE: Paal Comes Through Again
At least we're all on the same page here. I wouldn't mind being wrong on this - it would increase the value of all my unsold Pentax gear. Not to mention the fact that Brad would no longer have the top of the line Pentax SLR any more. BR From: tom Ha! We have a ways to go before it's listed anywhere... tv
RE: Paal Comes Through Again
Not to mention the fact that Brad would no longer have the top of the line Pentax SLR any more. LOL! Lukasz
