I have no ill will towards you, Doug. I don't even know you. My comment " ...who have not provided information that I have found wanting in the past..." means just that. Certain people have recommended lenses, film, gear, whatever, and over time i have come to learn that they see things in a way that's similar to the way i see things, so when they tell me something I can pretty much rely upon their judgement. However, when someone i don't know, or someone whose tastes and interests run counter to mine, tells me something, I remain cautious or skeptical until such time as I've had a chance to check out their views.
It's like when reading a movie review. Maybe you have the same taste in movies as one or two reviewers, and if s/he says such and such movie is a good one, you can be pretty sure you'll like it. OTOH, you may have discovered that another reviewer has a much different take on things, and so you are cautious about rushing out to see a file that s/he recommends. The word smirk does not connote silliness necessarily, or even humor. Had you added a more standard smiley, the oft used <LOL>, or any of a number of other emoticons or acronyms that have become the defacto standard to connote humor or silliness or a genuine smile, there'd have been no question in my mind that your comment was intended as good natured. Smirk does not do that - at least for me. So, just to be clear - I harbor no ill will towards you, never have ... Shel > [Original Message] > From: Doug Brewer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 5/13/2005 5:54:50 PM > Subject: Re: Wonderful > > > On May 13, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > I'm not sure how to take your post - whether you're trying to be > > funny, > > sarcastic, caustic, condescending, or judgmental. Maybe all of those > > things. > > hmmm, I guess I could say the same thing about the rest of your message. > > > > > So, just to be clear, I like the way the lens looks on the camera, > > but more > > important, I like the way to feels. Its size, the focus feel, the > > way it's > > layed out where I can focus with a finger and my hand in a comfortable > > position, its weight, its construction, the way it feels on the MX > > - all of > > these things are considerations for me and would cause me to choose > > one > > lens over another as long as the optical qualities were to my liking. > > Considering that the comments about the qualities of the lens, from > > people > > whose opinions I appreciate and respect because we have similar > > tastes, > > and who have not provided information that I found wanting in the > > past, and > > based upon images that I've seen that have been made by various > > samples of > > the 77mm, I'm pretty damned sure that "The lens could very well end up > > being my favorite 35mm SLR lens." Note also the qualifier - could. > > > > Shel > > Interesting phrase, where you said, "...who have not provided > information that I have found wanting in the past..." > > Whatever do you mean? Is this a dig at me? Such convolution can't be > an accident. > > For what it's worth, I have owned and used a 77 pretty much since the > day they came out, even ran a few frames past one before they came > out, and I love the lens. > > And you can take my comment the way it was intended. Note the <smirk> > in my message, which indicated I was just being silly. > > Apparently you harbor some ill will toward me, for whatever reason. > That's up to you, If it's true, I can tell you it's pointless, > because it won't affect me at all. If not, no worries either. > > Have a great day. > > Doug
