I agree with Cotters.
But larger file sizes would be good. Bandwidth costs very little these
days, and I for one would be willing to contribute to the cost.
Also a reminder for the incompetent and disorganised - like me - would be
helpful.
John
On Sun, 29 Jan 2006 23:16:45 -0000, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks like I'm the only dissenting voice, and I haven't contribute to
the PUG for quite a while. However...
This is a Pentax list, yes? Why would anyone want to display pics, in
the PUG or as a link from an email posted to the list, that were shot
using equipment other than Pentax?
If I post a link to a web page of mine containing an all-Canon image,
then I label it as OT because it is off topic, because it seems the
sensible thing to do, not because anyone has ever told me that this is
how it must be done.
I remember a few years ago there being some discussion about what
equipment qualifies a shot for the PUG. Someone asked about a Ricoh body
with a Pentax lens, and the general consensus was that it was to be
allowed. This list, although owned, is effectively unmoderated, and as
such develops as a community with general agreement by contributors on
the way it is run.
I dare say that if the majority feeling is that any gear should be
allowed for the PUG, then that is what will happen, but for my part it
seems plain daft. It's a Pentax list. Show Pentax pictures. Talk about
Pentax gear. QED.
.02
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=====| http://www.cottysnaps.com
_____________________________
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
