rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Rotating photos on PC - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/085e2aefce113426?hl=en
* Adobe gone crazy? - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
* Freeware to mix photos & music & video to create a DVD slide show - 2
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/36fb5056ac2af2c5?hl=en
* Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700 - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
* Palestinians Under Attack - 11 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
* Surprised at Adorama! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b0cfeb7007e0c100?hl=en
* Anyone Recognize This Lens - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0e9822ab5626980d?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Rotating photos on PC
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/085e2aefce113426?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 12:07 am
From: tapyeno
Why do photos I have rotated correctly on my pc, still come up the
wrong way around when copied to disc?
The photo may have been taken vertically with the camera. so I have
rotated it to be horizontal. It mysteriously goes back to vertical
when put on CD.
How can this be corrected?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 9:44 pm
From: "D.Mac"
"tapyeno" <patmahoney@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:487406bd-860b-433b-b295-f1c49f4ae178@x6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> Why do photos I have rotated correctly on my pc, still come up the
> wrong way around when copied to disc?
>
> The photo may have been taken vertically with the camera. so I have
> rotated it to be horizontal. It mysteriously goes back to vertical
> when put on CD.
>
> How can this be corrected?
>
>
It's a windows display thing. The file isn't actually rotated, just what you
see on the screen.
More Microsoft trickery or magic, whatever suits.
What you need is a "lossless" image rotation program like Irfanview. or
"Photographer's power tools to do the job in the file, not explorer.
--
Visit my site: D-Mac.info
My photos, Information about trolls
and a little bit of fun too!
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 5:17 am
From: Keith nuttle
D.Mac wrote:
>
>
> "tapyeno" <patmahoney@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> news:487406bd-860b-433b-b295-f1c49f4ae178@x6g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>> Why do photos I have rotated correctly on my pc, still come up the
>> wrong way around when copied to disc?
>>
>> The photo may have been taken vertically with the camera. so I have
>> rotated it to be horizontal. It mysteriously goes back to vertical
>> when put on CD.
>>
>> How can this be corrected?
>>youle isn't actually rotated, just what
> you see on the screen.
> More Microsoft trickery or magic, whatever suits.
>
> What you need is a "lossless" image rotation program like Irfanview. or
> "Photographer's power tools to do the job in the file, not explorer.
>
If you have jpg's you must do a "lossless" rotation as stated by the
previous poster. With other image files they also can be rotated
usually with the image handling software.
While doing this process, the most IMPORTANT thing, is to save the
rotated image back to the disk as a new file. (I never destroy the
original image, and save any processed images as a new file. )
You need to get a book on the basic of digital images and photography,
or look online.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe gone crazy?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 12:22 am
From: "J. Clarke"
John McWilliams wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> nospam wrote:
>>> In article <rNSdnSlApuhd8RzUnZ2dnUVZ_ggAAAAA@giganews.com>, Ron
>>> Hunter
>>> <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> The main reason Macs don't have much such malware is that it is
>>>>>> a
>>>>>> very small target in a very large sea of Windows machines.
>>>>> no, it's because it's very difficult to write a mac virus that
>>>>> propagates on its own.
>>>> Yes, but then hackers ARE the experts at this, and what is
>>>> possible
>>>> WILL be done, sooner or later.
>>> and despite all that hacker expertise, os x has been out for 8
>>> years
>>> (and unix for *much* longer) and there's still nothing more than a
>>> few
>>> lame attempts.
>>
>> One of the worst attacks in history affected Unix servers, so,
>> sorry,
>> but the "attempts" have been anything but "lame".
>>
>>> where are these so called expert hackers?
>>
>> Maximizing reward. Why attack Macs? There aren't many of them and
>> few are doing anything interesting. Kill every Mac on earth and a
>> few nerds and college kids are inconvenienced. Kill every PC and
>> business comes to a screeching halt.
>
> Wow, JC, really?!
>
> At least artistic expression wouldn't take much of a hit if all PCs
> died tomorrow.
Don't bet on it. Macs don't have the same hold on the artistic
community that they used to.
>>> the first
>>> one to successfully do it will gain instant fame among his hacker
>>> peers.
>>
>> Nahh. Not worth the effort.
>
> Don't know why you've become so bitter and occasionally nasty since
> you came back.
> Virus?
Came back? Huh?
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 12:59 am
From: Ron Hunter
ray wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:34:28 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Why not try GIMP instead - it's a piece of cake.
>>>> HARDLY!
>>> Really? I've never had an issue getting GIMP installed.
>> Easy to install, HARD to learn to use.
>
> Really? I've not used photoshop that much, but a few times and I have
> read about it. Seems to me that GIMP is a lot easier to use - but then
> I've been a computer professional for 30 years - that could make a
> difference. I expect that to a person unknowledgable about either program
> it would be six of one, half dozen of the other.
Both have a rather steep learning curve, but I found the GIMP interface
to be so unconventional as to boggle the mind. BTW, I started in
computers in 1964, so I have a long perspective as well. Any program
with the power and flexibility of either program will take some time and
effort to learn, but the rather strange, from Windows users point of
view, user interface of GIMP would probably confuse more than the more
'Mac-like' interface of Photoshop.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 2:19 am
From: Sir John Howard
Ron Hunter wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:34:28 -0600, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>> Why not try GIMP instead - it's a piece of cake.
>>>>> HARDLY!
>>>> Really? I've never had an issue getting GIMP installed.
>>> Easy to install, HARD to learn to use.
>>
>> Really? I've not used photoshop that much, but a few times and I have
>> read about it. Seems to me that GIMP is a lot easier to use - but then
>> I've been a computer professional for 30 years - that could make a
>> difference. I expect that to a person unknowledgable about either
>> program it would be six of one, half dozen of the other.
>
> Both have a rather steep learning curve, but I found the GIMP interface
> to be so unconventional as to boggle the mind. BTW, I started in
> computers in 1964, so I have a long perspective as well.
Then you should realise that the interface GIMP uses is a long way from punch
cards and magnetic drums.
> Any program
> with the power and flexibility of either program will take some time and
> effort to learn, but the rather strange, from Windows users point of
> view, user interface of GIMP would probably confuse more than the more
> 'Mac-like' interface of Photoshop.
So you're saying you have no Unix/Linux experience or perhaps GNU experience?
--
"The Labour Party is corrupt beyond redemption!"
- Labour hasbeen Mark Latham in a moment of honest clarity.
"Silly old bugger!"
- Well known ACTU pisspot and sometime Labour prime minister Bob Hawke
responding to a pensioner who dared ask for more.
"God save the Queen because nothing will save the governor general!"
- Egotistical shithead and pompous fuckwit E.G. Whitlam whining about his
appointee John Kerr.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:30 am
From: "Toby"
"Focus" <not@nowhere.pt> wrote in message
news:I56dnUTQXcOQ_uLUnZ2dnUVZ8v-WnZ2d@novis.pt...
> After downloading PS CS4, which was next to impossible, because they have
> a new download manager that doesn't work on my computer in: Firefox,
> Internet Explorer and Opera.
> I finally managed (NOT thanks to the help of very "unknowledgeable"
> helpdesk workers) to download it, by copying the text into two parts in
> the window of FF.
> Now I have it on the hd, I try to open setup but it refuses to open:
> "Windows cannot access the specified device, path or file. You may not
> have the appropriate permissions to access the item."
> I even tried it with administrator and password, but still the same.
> Also very funny: AVG sees a virus in the setup.exe file!!!
> Way to go Adobe!
> What's next? After starting install, you have to put your passport on the
> screen, run around the house three times and shout: Adobe, Adobe company
> don't leave me in misery...
>
> Does anyone know *how* to get this thing to work? Or do I need to get a
> cracked version?
> I've been trying this for 4 days now and Adobe support doesn't have a
> clue...
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> Focus
Strange, I had no problem at all with the dowload in FF. If worse comes to
worst, download a cracked version and don't use the crack--just install with
your legitimate SN.
Toby
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Freeware to mix photos & music & video to create a DVD slide show
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/36fb5056ac2af2c5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 1:45 am
From: "Jerry"
"Bill Wells" <hammer29@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:gOvgl.9729$8_3.7561@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
<snip>
:
: Maybe I should just bite the bloate bullet and allow quicktime to
install
: wherever it wants to ('cuz it sure doesn't install where it
belongs).
AIUI "Quicktime Alternative" and "Quicktime" can't co-exist on the
same system/OS.
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 1:41 am
From: "Jerry"
<TruthSquad@hope.com> wrote in message
news:fqhrn4d3rijf7cot1jorlerbc34q56sskc@4ax.com...
<snip most of your utter clap-trap>
: The reason why not, which I'm again repeating is really
: very simple to grasp. A "real" MPEG-2 encoder/decoder is not given
: away,
And is a 'real' MPEG-2 encoder/decoder, or any codec for that
matter?... I'll tell you, a mathematical algorithm, if that same
encoding/decoding results can be obtained via a different algorithm
then it does the same job whilst _NOT_ infringing any property right.
It's you who doesn't understand, MPEG-2 codecs are just like MPEG-4 in
this respect and well demonstrated by the *different* Dvix and Xvid
codecs.
Please feel free to f*ck off and find a clue...
--
Wikipedia: the Internet equivalent of
Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'...
Sorry, mail to this address goes unread.
Please reply via group.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 2:36 am
From: RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:27:47 -1100, "D.Mac" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
>
>
><blackmanblues@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:96f9558d-5ecf-4f81-93cd-b0995c904e70@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 28, 5:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
>>> This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
>>> does work!!
>>>
>>> First - Download ACPCS4 Trial from Adobe
>>>
>
>It never fails to amaze me the gullibility of people.
>
>Do you really thing Adobe are that stupid?
>
>Sure it works but just wait a few weeks and see what happens to your system.
>
>Adobe haven't gotten to be the best and most reliable by letting pirates
>win. We all pay in the end for the theft of a few idiots who don't have the
>brains to use the stuff anyway.
D.Mac are you on crack?
Sorry man but you are the gullible one. Nothing happens to the
computer. That's just some fairy tale you came up with. I've been
using it for months and so have many other people I know. PS just
keeps chuggin along. The system is just fine!
>Sure it works but just wait a few weeks and see what happens to your system.
I CHALLENGE you to come up with some FACTS to support that dumb
statement. You don't know much about computers or software do you?
I'm sorry man but you are frickin du-uumb!
Repeat: Nothing at all happens to your computer!
>Do you really thing Adobe are that stupid?
And yes I really 'thing' Adobe IS that stupid. Every version of PS has
been availble on the net for years. Usually before it hits the store.
If Adobe used better protection it wouldn't happen.
Pfft! a simple bit of text in the hosts file to authenticate PS.
Serial numbers are all over the net. Not very smart or secure!
Pirates DO win every day and that is a fact!
>We all pay in the end
Explain how you pay. Adobe would charge exactly the same price even if
there were no 'free' copies. I would never buy it for $700 so they
didn't lose a dime on me. I don't use it commercially, I'm a home
user. I think commercial users should buy the software, for sure. They
use it to make money. I use it for pleasure.
BTW: Why do you 'thing' we don't have the brains to use it? I'm as
good as anyone with PS. and undoubtedly better than you. I have had
every version of PS since it came out....for FREE! Also you probably
paid $700+ for it, but I use it for free, so I know I have more brains
than you!
Have a nice day!
Robin Hood
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:26 am
From: "Toby"
<RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com> wrote in message
news:5th5o4pk6pr77i6llbicitntvfh6mp7uio@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 16:27:47 -1100, "D.Mac" <invalid@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>><blackmanblues@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:96f9558d-5ecf-4f81-93cd-b0995c904e70@s1g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Jan 28, 5:51 pm, RobinHood@Sherwood_Forest.com wrote:
>>>> This is a copy of some info that I found on the web. Tried it and it
>>>> does work!!
>>>>
>>>> First - Download ACPCS4 Trial from Adobe
>>>>
>>
>>It never fails to amaze me the gullibility of people.
>>
>>Do you really thing Adobe are that stupid?
>>
>>Sure it works but just wait a few weeks and see what happens to your
>>system.
>>
>>Adobe haven't gotten to be the best and most reliable by letting pirates
>>win. We all pay in the end for the theft of a few idiots who don't have
>>the
>>brains to use the stuff anyway.
>
> D.Mac are you on crack?
>
> Sorry man but you are the gullible one. Nothing happens to the
> computer. That's just some fairy tale you came up with. I've been
> using it for months and so have many other people I know. PS just
> keeps chuggin along. The system is just fine!
>
>>Sure it works but just wait a few weeks and see what happens to your
>>system.
>
> I CHALLENGE you to come up with some FACTS to support that dumb
> statement. You don't know much about computers or software do you?
> I'm sorry man but you are frickin du-uumb!
>
> Repeat: Nothing at all happens to your computer!
>
>>Do you really thing Adobe are that stupid?
>
> And yes I really 'thing' Adobe IS that stupid. Every version of PS has
> been availble on the net for years. Usually before it hits the store.
> If Adobe used better protection it wouldn't happen.
>
> Pfft! a simple bit of text in the hosts file to authenticate PS.
> Serial numbers are all over the net. Not very smart or secure!
>
> Pirates DO win every day and that is a fact!
>
>>We all pay in the end
> Explain how you pay. Adobe would charge exactly the same price even if
> there were no 'free' copies. I would never buy it for $700 so they
> didn't lose a dime on me. I don't use it commercially, I'm a home
> user. I think commercial users should buy the software, for sure. They
> use it to make money. I use it for pleasure.
>
> BTW: Why do you 'thing' we don't have the brains to use it? I'm as
> good as anyone with PS. and undoubtedly better than you. I have had
> every version of PS since it came out....for FREE! Also you probably
> paid $700+ for it, but I use it for free, so I know I have more brains
> than you!
>
> Have a nice day!
> Robin Hood
You may find that eventually you will get a screen saying that the licensing
for the product has stopped working.
Good luck,
Toby
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b67efe4fc4caba22?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:17 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 29 Jan 2009 07:03:46 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>>You whine but I provide proof.
>>>>
>>>>You clip away evidence of your lies again.
>>>
>>>Your lies are not proof of anything, bigot.
>>>
>>>THIS is proof. YOUR own words.
>>>
>>> The West Bank [...] is just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>>> Stephen Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>>>
>>> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>>> Stephen Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
>>
>>You still rely on out of context quotes
>
>Show us the context that makes your statement be not a lie.
I've explained that several times. You've already clipped it away.
You are really getting to be tiresome.
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:19 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:01:51 -0600, George Kerby
<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 1/28/09 2:37 PM, in article c6g1o4h76kssev218ngj94nari29cefjsj@4ax.com,
>"Stephen Bishop" <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>
>> On 28 Jan 2009 07:00:18 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> On 27 Jan 2009 03:40:05 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 26 Jan 2009 05:24:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25 Jan 2009 03:43:31 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 24 Jan 2009 20:37:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Jan 2009 18:09:14 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Jan 2009 08:37:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22 Jan 2009 04:15:08 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you need to get a life and learn to do independent research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have. Including going to the ME. My parents have travelled in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Israel and Palestine. Your experience is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sounds like you were more on a sight seeing tour than a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finding mission as your thesis is ludicrous at best.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> My "experience" is precisely this: I think that ALL/ANY sovereign
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nations have the RIGHT to defend themselves against unwarranted
>>>>>>>>>>>>> attacks without resorting to bullshit arbitration by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> international community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No you don't. You totally reject the Palestinian's right to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything of the sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Palestinians are NOT a sovereign nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How convenient doe you to make such an excuse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Excuse? That's simply a fact that cannot be disputed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> And WHY aren't they a nation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because Israel doesn't allow it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Israel is still illegally expanding settlements in the West Bank and
>>>>>>>>>>> refuses to withdraw.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why is it illegal?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you think wikipedia is a reliable source, you are a fool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Translation: Any source that isn't pro-Israel must be biased.
>>>>>>> But I notice no denial or refutaton from you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No translation needed. Virtually nobody considers Wikipedia to be a
>>>>>> trustworthy source.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
>>>>> Attacking the Person
>>>>> (argumentum ad hominem)
>>>>>
>>>>> Definition:
>>>>>
>>>>> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument
>>>>> itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character,
>>>>> nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be
>>>>> pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome.
>>>>> Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the
>>>>> company he keeps.
>>>>> There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
>>>>>
>>>>> ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument
>>>>> attacks the person who made the assertion.
>>>>> ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the
>>>>> author points to the relationship between the person making the
>>>>> assertion and the person's circumstances.
>>>>> ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a
>>>>> person does not practise what he
>>>>> preaches.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They captured that land from Jordan during the
>>>>>>>>>> 1967 Arab-Israeli war when they won that war of Arab aggression. They
>>>>>>>>>> have every right to it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just like the nazis had every right to Poland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Poland never started multiple wars against Germany for the purpose of
>>>>>>>> removing them from Europe, knucklehead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And until the Zionists started using terrorism to drive out
>>>>>>> Palestinians, neither did the Arabs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, you are ignoring history,
>>>>>
>>>>> Evidence? What "history" do you believe is being ignored?
>>>>
>>>> You tell me.
>>>
>>> You make an accusation you can't even justify.
>>>
>>> That makes you a stupid liar.
>>
>> Ray, you've already demonstrated that you view any source that
>> supports Israel's right to exist as propaganda. You just aren't
>> worth my time trying to educate you.
>>
>> You've already refused to answer multiple direct questions.
>>
>> You've already demonstrated that you don't have a clue about what is
>> really going on over there other than what you are spoon-fed on the
>> news. You don't even know or you lie about what party is in charge
>> of Israel and you confuse the West Bank with Gaza.
>>
>> All you have are reports of hundreds of dead civilians so therefore
>> everything Israel has ever done is evil and anyone who doesn't agree
>> with your conclusion is a murderous bigot.
>>
>> That, my insulting friend, makes you a pretty stupid, uniformed and
>> downright offensive bigot who refuses to see the whole picture.
>>
>> End of line.
>>
>Should have happened days ago. Geeze!
True. My apologies for not kill-filing this lunatic a long time ago.
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:22 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 29 Jan 2009 07:06:40 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 28 Jan 2009 07:00:18 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 27 Jan 2009 03:40:05 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:24:02 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 25 Jan 2009 03:43:31 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 24 Jan 2009 20:37:39 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 18:09:14 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 23 Jan 2009 08:37:55 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 22 Jan 2009 04:15:08 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HEMI - Powered <none@none.supernews> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Chris H added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then you need to get a life and learn to do independent research
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have. Including going to the ME. My parents have travelled in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Israel and Palestine. Your experience is?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Sounds like you were more on a sight seeing tour than a fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>finding mission as your thesis is ludicrous at best.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>My "experience" is precisely this: I think that ALL/ANY sovereign
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nations have the RIGHT to defend themselves against unwarranted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>attacks without resorting to bullshit arbitration by the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>international community,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>No you don't. You totally reject the Palestinian's right to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>anything of the sort.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The Palestinians are NOT a sovereign nation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>How convenient doe you to make such an excuse.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Excuse? That's simply a fact that cannot be disputed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>And WHY aren't they a nation?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Because Israel doesn't allow it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Israel is still illegally expanding settlements in the West Bank and
>>>>>>>>>>>refuses to withdraw.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Why is it illegal?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settlement
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If you think wikipedia is a reliable source, you are a fool.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Translation: Any source that isn't pro-Israel must be biased.
>>>>>>>But I notice no denial or refutaton from you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No translation needed. Virtually nobody considers Wikipedia to be a
>>>>>>trustworthy source.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/attack.htm
>>>>> Attacking the Person
>>>>> (argumentum ad hominem)
>>>>>
>>>>> Definition:
>>>>>
>>>>> The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument
>>>>> itself. This takes many forms. For example, the person's character,
>>>>> nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be
>>>>> pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome.
>>>>> Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the
>>>>> company he keeps.
>>>>> There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:
>>>>>
>>>>> ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument
>>>>> attacks the person who made the assertion.
>>>>> ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the
>>>>> author points to the relationship between the person making the
>>>>> assertion and the person's circumstances.
>>>>> ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a
>>>>> person does not practise what he
>>>>> preaches.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They captured that land from Jordan during the
>>>>>>>>>>1967 Arab-Israeli war when they won that war of Arab aggression. They
>>>>>>>>>>have every right to it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Just like the nazis had every right to Poland.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Poland never started multiple wars against Germany for the purpose of
>>>>>>>>removing them from Europe, knucklehead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And until the Zionists started using terrorism to drive out
>>>>>>>Palestinians, neither did the Arabs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Again, you are ignoring history,
>>>>>
>>>>>Evidence? What "history" do you believe is being ignored?
>>>>
>>>>You tell me.
>>>
>>>You make an accusation you can't even justify.
>>>
>>>That makes you a stupid liar.
>>
>>Ray, you've already demonstrated that you view any source that
>>supports Israel's right to exist as propaganda.
>
>And now you're lying your bigoted ass off again. You lie, you get
>challenged, you come up with some new lie.
>
>It's a sickness with you.
Those aren't lies.
If those are mistaken impressions that people have of you, you can
easily remedy that by simply answering the questions I've asked
instead of diverting all discussion to personal attack and false
accusations of "murderous bigot who wants to see people dead."
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:29 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 29 Jan 2009 17:36:21 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Even when you condemn yourself with your own words
>>>>>
>>>>>These are YOUR words, liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> The West Bank [...] just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>>>>> Stephen Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>>>> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>>>>> Stephen Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
>>>>
>>>>Ray, when will you learn that your taking words out of context,
>>>
>>>Explain the context that justifies your statements.
>>
>>I did so.
>
>Liar.
We all know you are sleazy, Ray.
Move it back into the thread where this belongs. Nobody else wants
to see your baseless accusations and my refutations of your
distortions.
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:32 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 29 Jan 2009 17:32:26 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Even when you condemn yourself with your own words
>>>>>
>>>>>These are YOUR words, liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> The West Bank [...] just as much a part of Israel as California is a part of the U.S.
>>>>> Stephen Bishop in <36rcn4h5k7k7g271u7oojn06q2gibpirga@4ax.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> >You claimed that the West Bank is part of Israel.
>>>>> You are a pathetic liar. I never said that.
>>>>> Stephen Bishop in <hgmgn41dpgb93jeda2un9cf849ihbc1moj@4ax.com>
>>>>
>>>>Ray, when will you learn that your taking words out of context,
>>>
>>>Explain the context that justifies your statements.
>>
>>I did so, abundantly.
>
>And the lying coward runs away again.
>
>Nobody is surprised.
Why should anybody be surprised? I explained everything and asked
you some simple questions to illustrate, but you ran away by ignoring
what I wrote and then clipping away the evidence.
Sleazy, sleazy Ray.
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:33 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 29 Jan 2009 17:32:49 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 29 Jan 2009 06:52:58 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 28 Jan 2009 06:48:05 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On 26 Jan 2009 05:04:29 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On 25 Jan 2009 01:10:26 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>But what can you expect from someone who thinks FAUX News is a reliable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>news source.....
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>State owned or not, the BBC has admitted to its liberal bias.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>No they have not, liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Liar liar pants on fire, Ray.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>That's not evidennce, coward.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>I know you have difficulty accepting evidence that doesn't support
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Ad hominems also are not evidence, liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Clipping and dodging is evidence,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>... that you have no facts to justify
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The fact that *you* clip and dodge is evidence of *someone else's*
>>>>>>lack of facts?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. I snip at the first lie.
>>>>
>>>>Finally you admit that you snip.
>>>>
>>>>Now you need to admit that what you snip are not lies,
>>>
>>>But that would be a lie.
>>
>>Unfortunately for you, the record shows otherwise.
>
>The record shows that you are a lying, hypocritical, bigoted coward.
If you think so, then prove it by answering the questions that you
sleazily clipped away.
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:36 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 29 Jan 2009 17:33:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>HEMI-Powered <none@none.gn> wrote:
>>Ray Fischer added these comments in the current discussion du jour
>>...
>>
>>> Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>> No, that's another lie. The Palestinians have already accepted
>>> Israel's right to exist. Israel refuses to accept a Palestinian
>>> state.
>>
>>Hmmm. Let me see, the Palestinians from the PLO to Hamas have
>>steadfastly said they intend to utterly destroy Israel,
>
>And the Israelis have said that all of Palestine belongs to the Jews.
And you even clip away much of Hemi's text before you post your
one-sided blathering.
Ray = SLEAZE
But I take it that by leaving in part of what he wrote that you do
indeed agree that they intend to utterly destroy Israel. That's
progress.
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:37 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:14:11 -0800, Gaston Ryan Coake
<Poppa_de_Top@blasted.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 05:17:21 -0600, HEMIROID-Powered wrote:
>
>> You need a major course in remedial reading
>> comprehension and world history
>
>Just as you need a course in basic social politeness and a reduction in ad
>hominem behavior.
Hemi's evil alter ego and shadow speaks again!!
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:48 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>>>Hmmm. Let me see, the Palestinians from the PLO to Hamas have
>>>steadfastly said they intend to utterly destroy Israel,
>>
>>And the Israelis have said that all of Palestine belongs to the
>>Jews.
>
> And you even clip away much of Hemi's text before you post your
> one-sided blathering.
>
> Ray = SLEAZE
>
> But I take it that by leaving in part of what he wrote that you
> do indeed agree that they intend to utterly destroy Israel.
> That's progress.
>
Stephen, one of the many euphemisms I HATE is "spin", which today
means to tell a story to be most favorable to your side when in
reality, it is really a LIE. Ray and some others attempt to spin the
truth to make it sound more believable and more palitable to normal
folk but succeed in neither.
Have a happy TGIF!
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:50 am
From: "HEMI-Powered"
Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...
>>> You need a major course in remedial reading comprehension and
>>> world history
>>
>>Just as you need a course in basic social politeness and a
>>reduction in ad hominem behavior.
>
> Hemi's evil alter ego and shadow speaks again!!
>
This one made me laugh! Except when someone replies to him, I don't
bother to look at Gaston's bilge.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"The government that governs least, governs best" - Thomas Jefferson
"Government is NOT the solution to our problems, it IS our
problem!" - Ronald Reagan
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:55 am
From: Stephen Bishop
On 29 Jan 2009 17:35:03 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>On 29 Jan 2009 06:55:58 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>On 28 Jan 2009 06:49:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>>>>>>There is no nation of Palestine.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because Israel refuses to allow it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> They refused the partition that
>>>>>>would have created their own nation
>>>>>
>>>>>Israel refused to give them the West Bank.
>>>>>
>>>>>>It would be nice to see a nation of Palestine.
>>>>>
>>>>>Israel refuses to allow it.
>>>>
>>>>Israel rightly refuses to allow any nation to be formed on its borders
>>>>unless that proposed nation first recognizes its own right to exist
>>>
>>>No, that's another lie. The Palestinians have already accepted
>>>Israel's right to exist. Israel refuses to accept a Palestinian
>>>state.
>>
>>Read the charters of Hamas and the PLO, bigot.
>
>Hamas has said that they will recognize Israel. The PLO is
>irrelevant.
>
>>>>>> But first they will
>>>>>>have to give up their insane and fanatical beliefs that the Jews have
>>>>>>no right to a state in that part of the world.
>>>>>
>>>>>The Palestinians have no such belief, you evil, lying bigot.
>>>>
>>>>Just read the charters of Hamas and the PLO.
>>>
>>>And AGAIN you spew lies and then run away when challenged.
>>
>>And AGAIN you spew charges of lying
>
>Because you're a liar. You make claims with NO evidence.
The evidence is in their own words. Have you read their charter? Have
you listened to what they preach to their own people?
No, instead you believe a statement to willing ears in the media where
they say that they finally will consider Israel's right to exist. But
liars like you believe other people's lies. They have yet to prove
that they have actually changed their policy toward a Jewish presence
in Palestine. Renouncing all terrorism and rocket attacks would be a
wonderful place to start.
>>>>You also don't know or ignore radical Muslim ideology that any land
>>>>that has ever been controlled by Islam remains Muslim land forever.
>>>
>>>And to illustrate what a rabid bigot you are ...
>>>
>>> "You also don't know or ignore radical [Jewish] ideology that any land
>>> that has ever been controlled by [Jews] remains [Jewish] land forever."
>>
>>Do you deny that bit of Muslim theology/ideology ?
>
>Do you deny that Jewish ideology?
If you really want to compare the two, the Jews were there first.
But no, there is no such fundamental belief in Jewish theology, though
no doubt many think that way. Why do you call them bigots but not
the other side?
But the fact is that the land of Palestine was stolen from them long
ago, and the West Bank and Jerusalem did indeed belong to them. The
center of their religion, the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, has been
covered by a mosque. Why wouldn't they want their land back?
Wouldn't you?
While you are on your self-righteous high horse, Ray, I trust you will
tell us all how you are moving from your house and land to return it
back to the American Indian tribe that you stole it from. Where will
you go? Where is your homeland, Ray?
Now, prove that you aren't a sleazy liar by not clipping what I wrote
above and answering my questions instead of responding with a lame
personal attack.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Surprised at Adorama!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b0cfeb7007e0c100?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:48 am
From: Helen Oster
On Jan 29, 5:30 pm, aquadiver <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 9:19 am, glenz...@xmission.com (GMAN) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <40747aed-d18a-4ff7-a9cf-e4d91de8f...@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, Helen Oster <osterhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >On Jan 28, 9:48=A0pm, "Sharp Dressed Man" <s...@zz.net> wrote:
> > >> Went on their website to check an item I decided to buy and saw that thei=
> > >r
> > >> price was the same as another usually reliable online vendor I often buy
> > >> from-- but Adorama was offering free shipping. So I put one in my cart an=
> > >d
> > >> start to check out-- only to see shipping charges listed. I retried the
> > >> order from the beginning and got the same result so I called them and
> > >> explained the problem.
>
> > >> I gave the guy the SKU number and he tells me-- no, that item doesn't hav=
> > >e
> > >> free shipping. No I said, I'm looking right at it and your web page says
> > >> it's free. Well he says in his best New York way, maybe you're reading it
> > >> wrong or maybe they just took free shipping off that item. No problem I
> > >> say-- as long as you take the $6.95 shipping off my order.
>
> > >> Then he says $6.95 wasn't all that much money and he wouldn't remove it a=
> > >nd
> > >> I said OK, if that's the way you do business now, goodbye. I hung up and =
> > >did
> > >> not complete the order.
>
> > >> Is that just an uncooperative CSR-- or a new business model based on bait
> > >> and switch? I've made many purchases from them and other than the occasio=
> > >nal
> > >> required "confirmation call" so they can try to sell me unwanted add-ons,
> > >> I've never had any problems.
>
> > >I was extremely concerned to read your posting, and at this point can
> > >only apologize that you have been so inconvenienced.
>
> > >Could you please contact me directly, with the details of the item you
> > >wanted to order, the date and time of your call, plus the number you
> > >called from. I'd like to listen to the tapes of the call and find out
> > >who spoke to you in this way - and why!
>
> > >Adorama absolutely forbids any kind of bait and switch approach to
> > >selling; the chances are it was a website error - nevertheless, the
> > >sales associate should certainly not have addressed you in the way you
> > >describe, and I would have expected an error of this kind to be
> > >honored.
>
> > >I do look forward to hearing from you.
>
> > >Sincerely
>
> > >Helen Oster
> > >Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
> > >helen.os...@adoramacamera.com
> > >www.adorama.com
>
> > I wish there were more companies and people like you who took the time to care
> > like you are!!!!
>
> Helen's postings in this thread are just what I've come to expect from
> Adorama, ...............My only complaint about
> Adorama is that they don't tell you on the Web site whether an item is
> in stock. .............> I think the OP got hold of one bad apple, very unusual for Adorama.
>
> gc- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
A valid point; firstly I would like to apologize that we caused you
inconvenience, and then attempt to clarify how the stock situation
works.
With high demand items, frequent delivery and dispatch times mean that
items can come in one door, be packaged, and out of another within a
couple of hours, so real time inventory is often not possible.
This means that you could see an in-stock indication on the site if a
shipment was expected into the warehouse within the next 24 hours -
but receive an automated message in response to your order, indicating
that it is out of stock.
We are currently working on our systems to be able to handle this more
efficiently.
The reverse can apply, ie, an item may show on our site as out of
stock, because the shipment we are expecting has already been
allocated by way of pre-orders. If a customer who has pre-ordered
cancels his order, the item is physically in the warehouse but hasn't
yet entered the part of the inventory that relates to the website.
Finally, even with the website inventory, it is entirely possible that
we could receive several dozen orders for a popular item such as this
at the same time - by telephone or via our website; if we have 29 in
stock but receive 30 orders, it isn't always going to be immediately
obvious that one customer is going to be disappointed.
Hope this makes sense!
Sincerely
Helen Oster
Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
helen.oster@adoramacamera.com
www.adoramacamera.com
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 4:28 am
From: aquadiver
On Jan 30, 6:48 am, Helen Oster <osterhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 5:30 pm, aquadiver <george.cathc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 9:19 am, glenz...@xmission.com (GMAN) wrote:
>
> > > In article <40747aed-d18a-4ff7-a9cf-e4d91de8f...@p36g2000prp.googlegroups.com>, Helen Oster <osterhe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >On Jan 28, 9:48=A0pm, "Sharp Dressed Man" <s...@zz.net> wrote:
> > > >> Went on their website to check an item I decided to buy and saw that thei=
> > > >r
> > > >> price was the same as another usually reliable online vendor I often buy
> > > >> from-- but Adorama was offering free shipping. So I put one in my cart an=
> > > >d
> > > >> start to check out-- only to see shipping charges listed. I retried the
> > > >> order from the beginning and got the same result so I called them and
> > > >> explained the problem.
>
> > > >> I gave the guy the SKU number and he tells me-- no, that item doesn't hav=
> > > >e
> > > >> free shipping. No I said, I'm looking right at it and your web page says
> > > >> it's free. Well he says in his best New York way, maybe you're reading it
> > > >> wrong or maybe they just took free shipping off that item. No problem I
> > > >> say-- as long as you take the $6.95 shipping off my order.
>
> > > >> Then he says $6.95 wasn't all that much money and he wouldn't remove it a=
> > > >nd
> > > >> I said OK, if that's the way you do business now, goodbye. I hung up and =
> > > >did
> > > >> not complete the order.
>
> > > >> Is that just an uncooperative CSR-- or a new business model based on bait
> > > >> and switch? I've made many purchases from them and other than the occasio=
> > > >nal
> > > >> required "confirmation call" so they can try to sell me unwanted add-ons,
> > > >> I've never had any problems.
>
> > > >I was extremely concerned to read your posting, and at this point can
> > > >only apologize that you have been so inconvenienced.
>
> > > >Could you please contact me directly, with the details of the item you
> > > >wanted to order, the date and time of your call, plus the number you
> > > >called from. I'd like to listen to the tapes of the call and find out
> > > >who spoke to you in this way - and why!
>
> > > >Adorama absolutely forbids any kind of bait and switch approach to
> > > >selling; the chances are it was a website error - nevertheless, the
> > > >sales associate should certainly not have addressed you in the way you
> > > >describe, and I would have expected an error of this kind to be
> > > >honored.
>
> > > >I do look forward to hearing from you.
>
> > > >Sincerely
>
> > > >Helen Oster
> > > >Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
> > > >helen.os...@adoramacamera.com
> > > >www.adorama.com
>
> > > I wish there were more companies and people like you who took the time to care
> > > like you are!!!!
>
> > Helen's postings in this thread are just what I've come to expect from
> > Adorama, ...............My only complaint about
> > Adorama is that they don't tell you on the Web site whether an item is
> > in stock. .............> I think the OP got hold of one bad apple, very unusual for Adorama.
>
> > gc- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A valid point; firstly I would like to apologize that we caused you
> inconvenience, and then attempt to clarify how the stock situation
> works.
>
> With high demand items, frequent delivery and dispatch times mean that
> items can come in one door, be packaged, and out of another within a
> couple of hours, so real time inventory is often not possible.
>
> This means that you could see an in-stock indication on the site if a
> shipment was expected into the warehouse within the next 24 hours -
> but receive an automated message in response to your order, indicating
> that it is out of stock.
> We are currently working on our systems to be able to handle this more
> efficiently.
>
> The reverse can apply, ie, an item may show on our site as out of
> stock, because the shipment we are expecting has already been
> allocated by way of pre-orders. If a customer who has pre-ordered
> cancels his order, the item is physically in the warehouse but hasn't
> yet entered the part of the inventory that relates to the website.
>
> Finally, even with the website inventory, it is entirely possible that
> we could receive several dozen orders for a popular item such as this
> at the same time - by telephone or via our website; if we have 29 in
> stock but receive 30 orders, it isn't always going to be immediately
> obvious that one customer is going to be disappointed.
>
> Hope this makes sense!
>
> Sincerely
>
> Helen Oster
> Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador
>
> helen.os...@adoramacamera.comwww.adoramacamera.com
Thanks Helen. Yes, that makes perfect sense. I think I was lucky to
call when I did yesterday to get the one item in inventory (which will
be delivered this afternoon, thank you very much). In any case, close
calls, like your example of getting 30 orders all at once with 29
items in stock, will happen, and the important thing then is the
attitude and approach of your customer service folks.
And, BTW, the salesman I talked with yesterday, who did a great job,
was Mike F, according to the invoice.
Cheers, and have a great weekend.
gc
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anyone Recognize This Lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/0e9822ab5626980d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 3:59 am
From: "ad607"
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:3Dwgl.1102$Lr6.831@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Richard J Kinch wrote:
>> Paul Furman writes:
>>
>>> http://patternassociates.com/rico/leica/misc/ouago4.jpg
>>
>> The "Leica M-EOS" indicates a Leica M mount to Canon EF mount converter.
>> This would have to have optical element(s) since the flange distance of
>> the former is much shorter than the latter.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M_mount
>>
>> The "OUAGO" item looks to be converting Leica M39 screw mount to some
>> bayonet with focusing, and the item on the left looks to be another
>> focuser.
>
> The last link explains the Visoflex SLR adaptation of some sort,
> for Leica lenses (roughly translated):
> http://elshaw.tripod.com/Visoflex/Visoflex.html
>
> So this is apparently two glass 'teleconverters' attached to a pre-leica
> lens to make them focus on a 35mm DSLR?
>
Visoflex lenses will infinity focus on a dSLR body without extra optics as
the Visoflex unit added a couple of inches to the Leica body. To use those
lenses on a body with out the Visoflex relex unit they were mounted on a
spacer tube like an extension tube, designed for that lens.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 30 2009 4:04 am
From: dj_nme
Paul Furman wrote:
> Richard J Kinch wrote:
>> Paul Furman writes:
>>
>>> http://patternassociates.com/rico/leica/misc/ouago4.jpg
>>
>> The "Leica M-EOS" indicates a Leica M mount to Canon EF mount
>> converter. This would have to have optical element(s) since the
>> flange distance of the former is much shorter than the latter.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_mount
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leica_M_mount
>>
>> The "OUAGO" item looks to be converting Leica M39 screw mount to some
>> bayonet with focusing, and the item on the left looks to be another
>> focuser.
>
> The last link explains the Visoflex SLR adaptation of some sort,
> for Leica lenses (roughly translated):
> http://elshaw.tripod.com/Visoflex/Visoflex.html
>
> So this is apparently two glass 'teleconverters' attached to a pre-leica
> lens to make them focus on a 35mm DSLR?
>
I doubt that the Leica Visoflex to Canon EOS adapter has any optical
elements in it.
Leica produced special long register distance lenses which could only be
focused via the use of a Visoflex on a Leica RF camera.
The Visoflex is a reflex housing which attaches to the front of a Leica
RF camera (there were versions for both M39 and M bayonet) and turns it
into a clunky SLR camera.
The registration (mount to film plane) distance for the Visoflex is much
greater than the registration distance for EOS.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment