On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 08:13:51 -0800, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understood it to mean all ongoing auctions ... and, if there's to be a > "prohibition" about Pentax gear and third-party lenses, then the > prohibition should be extended to cameras that use Pentax lenses, filters > that fit on lenses that can be used on Pentax cameras, straps, cases, caps, > and so on, including ephemera.
Reductio ad absurdum. Are you suggesting that since many Takumar screwmount lenses have a 49mm filter-ring that any filter of that size, or indeed, any lens by any other manufacturer that has a 49mm ring can't be mentioned? Likewise for any camera that has the same type of strap-connecting mechanism as a Pentax - that can't be mentioned either? Any lens that has a cap that could potentially fit on any Pentax lens or lens that would fit a Pentax is also off-limits? Let's take it further, shall we? No computers, because a *istDs could potentially download images onto it. No cars, 'cause I could put my LX in the trunk (boot, for you Brits). No clothing, because one could put an MX with pancake in the pockets (is that a Pentax in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?). I mean, really, I don't care personally. I don't eBay anymore. Haven't for a couple of years. So, I don't care. It seems that what the "no ongoing Pentax auctions" thing is somewhat of a limit on free speech, so we have to have reasonable limits to it; it really ought not be absolute. LImiting it to Pentax gear and ~major~ components that might attach to Pentax gear seems to work. OTOH, if we want to limit it as you suggest, then perhaps no ongoing eBay auctions at all would be easiest. It would certainly make deciding what's proper and what's out of bounds easier. As I said, it means nothing to me - just thinking of list harmony is all. Please note, what may be perceived as sarcasm is really just my way of lightening things up, and no personal malice is intended. <g>. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
