Lets examine this post -
---Why not examine what I actually wrote (you did include it below), and not
what you felt like writing about.
you are stating that I am correct and logical in this premise
---Actually I said that it made sense and it would have not cost Pentax any
'significant' money to continue with the enabling of K & M lenses.
but that's just a religion of mine
---Neither what I said nor what I meant. I said that maybe we should treat
Pentax like religion and not expect it to be logical.
I am asking people to follow "vainly"
---Where did I say this? I said you were vainly trying to convince us of the
validity of [your] logic by iteratively presenting the same material in a
similar manner. The vainness has nothing to do with vanity, but has to do
with the apparent lack of success you've had in getting a substantial number
of people to recognize the validity of your logic. Thus your attempt may
have been valid, but it was in vain.
and PENTAX is illogical.
---Here their behavior has not met your logical standards. They have behaved
illogically in the past.
so **I am insane*** because I don't expect illogical behavior from PENTAX?
---Did I call you insane? I don't see that in the text. If you read it into
the text, I'm sorry. I described a continuous performance of an activity
expecting a different result. I was not arguing ad hominum. I even included
myself as a practitioner of this type of activity.
I think you need medical help if you are serious.
You've mentioned your engineering background. I had no idea that your
background also included medical training.
And I am dead serious.
I think this is the crux of the issue. Lighten up. Sure it would be nice if
Pentax produced a DSLR that fully enabled usage of K & M lenses. In the
grand scheme of your life or mine, how important is it.
You've certainly seriously tried to convince us of how important it is.
1 - We are not the appropriate target. Pentax is.
2 - Most of us really agree with you. You may be pressing the issue so hard
that some find it more enjoyable to disagree.
JCO
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Levy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 10:30 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: JCO is right, so ...
OK! JCO's premise makes sense, and it would have not cost Pentax any
'significant' money to continue with the enabling of K & M lenses. They
didn't do it. Now what?
I think one of his premises is falacious. He seems to be attributing logic
to their choice of what to include. If recent past is prelude, we should
not
expect logical behavior from Pentax. Was it logical to pre-introduce a
full-sized sensor seemingly based on the MZ-S before being absolutely sure
that they would produce such a much-desired (at least within this list)
DSLR? It certainly wasn't prudent.
Maybe we should treat Pentax like religion. (And to some of us, this might
not be much of a stretch.) Then we wouldn't expect it to follow logical
laws, and simply have faith.
Of course JCO is vainly trying to convince us of the validity of his logic
by iteratively presenting the same material in a similar manner. I
remember
consistently performing the same activity while expecting different
results
as being a definition of something. Oh well, we all do that at times.
Larry in Dallas
------------------------------
