Ho-Ho. This thread is getting incredibly funny!


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 7:52 AM
Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)


> ARE YOU RETARDED are ARE YOU JUST PLAYING DUMB?
> because either way you have got to me really
> dumb to say that since K/M lenses cant do programmed
> AE (which they don't/cant) , then it makes sense to remove the only AE
> they do have without cause? That's your postion on the matter?
> IF it is, you are beyond dumb you are really sick...
> You have got some major backpeddling or clarifying
> to do because you have now painted yourself into a corner
> with your bullheaded stupidity on taking 2 postions
> that don't agree with each other.. That's called a contradiction.
> and in this case it's a big one you are pretending doesn't
> exist. Get real because nobody with half a brain is going
> ot buy into your BS if you try to argue in opposite directions
> on the same feature needs and that's exactly what you are doing.
> JCO
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 1:40 AM
> To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "J. C. O'Connell"
> Subject: RE: Camera engineering (This is signifigant)
> 
> 
> >answer the question how
> > can you say the program AE is important but COMPLETELY  DROPPING AE 
> >ALTOGETHER from K/M lenses with zero compatablity  issues is fine?
> 
> Since K/M lenses on their own do not support programmed AE (they lack the 
> all important "A" setting), I don't see any contradiction.
> If K/M lenses supported programmed AE, and support for that was dropped, we 
> would have a point of discussion.
> 
> Meanwhile, you try to create contradictions in your own small, obtuse mind, 
> then call others dumb for not playing your stupid little game.
> 
> Don't you have a swimming pool to take pictures of?
> 
> William Robb 
> 
> 
> 


Reply via email to