Fred, you obviously took it in the spirit it was intended. Hell, I don't even agree with everything if you take it to the nth degree. Just generalizations worth pondering. I think a lot of people here feel they need to pick everything apart and come up with an example to prove someone wrong. I'm not going to respond to some of the responses that attack me and what I had to say. That's how the on-line battles begin... Vic
In a message dated 11/21/02 8:22:36 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << I also reacted in a basically positive manner to the summary, even publicly admitting to my guilt on several of the points (without ever being so forthright as to admit to which ones they are, though - <g>), and I've been a little surprised at some of the negative reactions to the summary. Oh sure, I disagree a bit with some of the points, too, but sometimes those of us who are immutable "gear junkies" still should have to hear an opposing viewpoint once in a while (even if it results in only some all-too-temporary guilt before we revert back to the dark pathway of rare glass addiction once again - <g>. Ultimately, though, if there has to be a choice (and I would hope that such a choice would ~never~ have to be made) as to whether ~equipment~ or ~images~ are the more appropriate fodder for discussion here, I would have to come down on the side of the EQUIPMENT. After all, general photography fora are all over the internet, while the PDML (as in PENTAX DISCUSSION mailing list) is the main ~PENTAX~ forum available, and, as such, there should be no attempt ever to ban the seriously trivial pursuit of Pentax minutiae here. [Please pardon my lame use of a couple of Latin plural forms in a blatant but futile attempt to lend some false credibility to my argument.] But I digress... ;-) Fred >>
