ROTFLMAO. What's that cavelike smell?
Jostein On 12/20/06, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well done! You really caught him out on that one. You deserve to feel > proud of yourself for not letting it get by and for making sure we all > know that once again somebody else was just plain WRONG WRONG WRONG > and you were (of course) right. > > You do a valuable service here - most of us, in our ignorance, or with > malicious intent, are either too stupid to remember such things from > one post to the next, or are simply evil and intent on spreading lies. > A lot of people might have considered that date thing to be trivial, > even if they'd had the brains to notice it or the heart to care. But > thank God we've got you on the list to pick up on it. > > Well done, you're making a valuable contribution and enriching all our > lives with your concentration on the essential details. > > -- > Bob > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell > > Sent: 20 December 2006 02:56 > > To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' > > Subject: RE: The cause of the controversy > > > > I hate to say it but GRAYWOLF is sorta busted > > and my statements on that topic were > > not wrong at all. That set clearly is stamped 1989 > > and he initally claimed it was from 1983. I told > > you all that in 1983 you couldnt get > > any sets with video inputs on them except > > on top line Sony and I stated that the set > > most likely did not have any video inputs > > or was made at a later date, and there > > it is folks " 1 9 8 9 " stamped right on it > > not 1983 as initially reported and discussed > > and being told wrong by him when there > > is nothing wrong with what I said at all. > > Maybe we had a mixup on the date, I dont > > recall 1989 ever being mentioned, only 1983, but I stated > > 1983 in my reply posts and he didnt correct the > > discussion to 1989 like he should have. > > Six years makes a on what a set could have > > and couldnt have as far as features. > > > > P.S. I get a big kick out of the air/circuitry > > ratio on the rear view shot! Unbelieveable. > > jco > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of > > Adam Maas > > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:21 PM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: The cause of the controversy > > > > > > graywolf wrote: > > > http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/TV.html > > > > > > > Looks like a nice unit. I miss those console TV's, you don't > > need a TV > > stand with them. > > > > -Adam > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > PDML@pdml.net > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
