What you sow, you reap. You have done far more damage to your own
reputation by your angry, rude, petulant, and repetitive, and obsessive
posts than I ever could.
If you stopped for a moment to think, you would realise that everybody on
the list agrees that it was an unfortunate decision on Pentax's part to
drop full support of older lenses.
Perhaps they didn't realise how many people still used old lenses.
Perhaps they did it to save money. Perhaps they did it to encourage
people to buy new lenses. Probably it was all three.
But what's done is done. There's no point in posting 400 messages to the
list repeating yourself in every one. We ALL know your views. If you
want to persuade Pentax to change course, you would do better if you don't
appear to be barking mad.
John
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 14:15:47 +0100, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
JOHN - STOP THE PERSONAL ATTACKS ON ME-
reply to my posts and on-topic or don't
reply at all. that's basic netiquitte.
I don't call you an idiot but you are
one if you continue that behavior. this
is a discussion list about pentax. if
you cant discuss pentax and would rather
prefer to personally attack people instead
then you don't belong here because
the the purpose of the list is not to
make personal public attacks. Its to discuss pentax.
jco
-----Original Message-----
From: John Forbes [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 7:21 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
Herb,
You are a photographer. You know less than nothing about finance, or
about marketing, or about how large corporations operate. You read a few
handouts and come on here posturing as an expert on Pentax and the
business world in general.
As you yourself concede, Pentax as a company makes money. What you
haven't cottoned onto is the value that the company attaches to the brand
name, which may well cause them to stay in the camera business just to
keep the name in the public eye.
What you also know absolutely nothing about is the manner in which
companies cost the different parts of their business, and how they choose
to release this information to the public. You don't have the first idea
how well or badly the imaging business is doing. What Pentax choose to
tell the public may be completely different from the underlying reality,
and if you were an accountant you would know that there is no single
version of the underlying reality.
But what really irritates me about you is your obsession with trawling
the
net to find bad news about Pentax and then reporting it here. You are
even worse than that other obsessive idiot, JCO, because he restricts
himself to periodic apoplectic outbursts, whereas you are a constant
thorn
in the flesh, like Chinese water torture.
And the worst of it is, it's so self-defeating. If you spent a tenth of
the time that you spend denigrating Pentax on promoting the company, you
might help it to sell more products and thus stay in business and perhaps
make the bodies you want. As it is, your wholly negative and destructive
attitude is designed to do the opposite. You are a sad and unpleasant
person, and I wish you would go away, or at least restrict your
contribution to subjects you know something about. Photography, for
instance.
John
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 11:49:43 +0100, Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
you haven't figured it out yet, my position represents the same as
that
of people who manage hundreds of millions of dollars of Pentax stock.
Pentax's camera business is in serious trouble, not the company. if
Pentax pulls out of the camera business, then all the money have i have
put into Pentax dead-ends. if they want to stay in the camera business
they have to do much better than they are doing now. Olympus and Konica
Minolta are in the same boat. those are the major players. Fuji is one
of the minor players also in the same boat. these are just the DSLR
manufacturers. this coming year is it. anyone who is not profitable in
the digital camera game by 1Q 2006 isn't ever going to be. most camera
companies didn't make their 1H fiscal 2005 sales figures, some by
significant amounts but haven't lowered their YE 2005 forecasts.
everyone is counting on a large 2H gain. keeping a division running that
always loses money and has not hope of making any is really stupid.
Herb....
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: How Pentax Could Survive (was:Re: Pentax K 2.5/200mm)
Thank God for that. Then perhaps you can move on from your obsession
with Pentax's financial downfall.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.3/106 - Release Date: 19/09/2005
