On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Joseph McAllister wrote:
n
>>
>> 1997 was the last time i received a refund.
>
>
>
> But when's the last time you filed?
I have to send something in every year.??
Must have missed that memo.:-)
Dave
>
>
> Joseph McAllister
> Pentaxian
>
> http://gallery.me.com/jo
On Mar 7, 2009, at 13:21 , David J Brooks wrote:
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Graydon wrote:
Then again, I got my refund three days after I filed this year, so I
really don't have it in me to complain.
-- Graydon
1997 was the last time i received a refund.
But when's the last time
om: "Bob W"
Subject: RE: Silly question (enablement)
Luckily for me I don't have to fill in tax returns any more, but when I
did
I could never understand the point. After all, the government doesn't
trust
us to do it right so they calculate our taxes anyway and tell us whet
On 3/7/09, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Dave,
> After years of paying taxes, some US taxpayers simply give up and send
> all spare cash to the government in hopes that it will be enough to
> fulfill their yearly obligation. At this time of year, we begin a
> process of archaic calculations to derive
2009/3/8 David J Brooks :
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Graydon wrote:
>
>> Then again, I got my refund three days after I filed this year, so I
>> really don't have it in me to complain.
>>
>> -- Graydon
>
> 1997 was the last time i received a refund.
My last refund was 5 years ago & it was
In a message dated 3/7/2009 10:13:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rf.sulli...@gmail.com writes:
Dave,
After years of paying taxes, some US taxpayers simply give up and send
all spare cash to the government in hopes that it will be enough to
fulfill their yearly obligation. At this time of year
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 1:56 PM, Graydon wrote:
> Then again, I got my refund three days after I filed this year, so I
> really don't have it in me to complain.
>
> -- Graydon
1997 was the last time i received a refund.
Dave
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.ne
On Mar 6, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Cory Waters wrote:
As a purely hypothetical , lets just say you had maybe $2500 to
spend free and clear of any guilt. Lets also say you were inclined
to spend said clams on new lenses. We'll say you have a K10, the
DA 50-200 & 18-55, a FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5, and a
On Sat, Mar 07, 2009 at 11:52:09AM -0600, William Robb scripsit:
> - Original Message - From: "David J Brooks"
>> Interesting.
>
>> Maybe we should try that up here.:-)
>
>> Dave, who pays and pays, Brooks
>
> Do you think you'd ever get a refund if you had to depend on a beaver
> for deliv
I know, I know. But Obama's gonna fix that for us. More taxes for
all! ;-) Regards, Bob S.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 11:49 AM, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan"
> Subject: Re: Silly question (enablement)
>
>
>>
- Original Message -
From: "Bob W"
Subject: RE: Silly question (enablement)
Luckily for me I don't have to fill in tax returns any more, but when I
did
I could never understand the point. After all, the government doesn't
trust
us to do it right so they calcul
- Original Message -
From: "David J Brooks"
Subject: Re: Silly question (enablement)
Mind you, in theory, some of my tax goes towards health care, but you have
to survive the waiting list long enough to get in.
Or, convince ER doctors, your to sick to be sent
Luckily for me I don't have to fill in tax returns any more, but when I did
I could never understand the point. After all, the government doesn't trust
us to do it right so they calculate our taxes anyway and tell us whether or
not we've got it right, against which decision there seems to be no app
- Original Message -
From: "David J Brooks"
Subject: Re: Silly question (enablement)
Interesting.
Maybe we should try that up here.:-)
Dave, who pays and pays, Brooks
Do you think you'd ever get a refund if you had to depend on a beaver for
delivery?
Wil
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 12:49 PM, William Robb wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Bob Sullivan"
> Subject: Re: Silly question (enablement)
>
>
>> Dave,
>> After years of paying taxes, some US taxpayers simply give up and send
>> all spare cash
Interesting.
Maybe we should try that up here.:-)
Dave, who pays and pays, Brooks
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 1:12 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
> Dave,
> After years of paying taxes, some US taxpayers simply give up and send
> all spare cash to the government in hopes that it will be enough to
> fulfill
- Original Message -
From: "Bob Sullivan"
Subject: Re: Silly question (enablement)
Dave,
After years of paying taxes, some US taxpayers simply give up and send
all spare cash to the government in hopes that it will be enough to
fulfill their yearly obligation. At this ti
Dave,
After years of paying taxes, some US taxpayers simply give up and send
all spare cash to the government in hopes that it will be enough to
fulfill their yearly obligation. At this time of year, we begin a
process of archaic calculations to derive what we owe. We send these
off to our govern
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
> Sounds like a tax refund to me
Wazzz that.??
Dave
>
> Kenneth Waller
> http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
>
> - Original Message - From: "Cory Waters"
> Subject: Silly question (enablement)
>
>
&g
Cory, I'd go for a set of primes, such as DA 15 Ltd, DA 21 Ltd, FA 31
Ltd, FA 43 Ltd, and FA 77 Ltd. And I would go for A 50/1.2 as well.
As well I would suggest a Katz Eye screen and a good flash unit.
In zoom department you might want to replace your 18-55 with 17-70/4
which is said to be qu
Looking at your kit, I'd start with the DA* 16-50 and 50-135. Both are
almost as fast as primes and autofocus faster than Pentax FA primes.
I'd probably add the DA 200 as well or perhaps the Sigma 70-200. I
would then sell the three zooms you own now and add the 31 Limited or
the FA 35/2.
Cory Waters :
> > As a purely hypothetical , lets just say you had maybe $2500 to spend free
> > and clear of any guilt. Lets also say you were inclined to spend said clams
> > on new lenses. We'll say you have a K10, the DA 50-200 & 18-55, a FA 28-105
> > f3.2-4.5, and a FA 50 1.7 (there are some
Get the 16-50mm.
Of the FA limited's I strongly recommend the 77mm. My fave lens.
Macros, well if you can find a Voigtlander 125mm I'd say that, but I
hear the D-FA 100mm & Smegma 105mm are good too (and more importantly
still available :-)
Cheers,
Dave
2009/3/7 Cory Waters :
> As a purely hyp
On 3/6/09, Cory Waters wrote:
> As a purely hypothetical , lets just say you had maybe $2500 to spend free
> and clear of any guilt.
The 3 Limited lenses (31, 43 and 77) plus the DFA 100/2.8 Macro works
out to $2490 from B&H.
--
Scott Loveless
Cigarette-free since December 14th, 2008
http://www
Sounds like a tax refund to me
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: "Cory Waters"
Subject: Silly question (enablement)
As a purely hypothetical , lets just say you had maybe $2500 to spend
free and clear of any guilt.
Lets also sa
On 6/3/09, Cory Waters, discombobulated, unleashed:
>As a purely hypothetical , lets just say you had maybe $2500 to spend
>free and clear of any guilt.
Best of the year so far! Mark!
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
__
Message: 9
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2009 22:42:43 +0100
From: Thibouille
Subject: Re: Silly question (enablement)
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
As for 70-200/2.8, basicaly the choice is between Sigma (and potential
problems including
Were I buying a new Pentax kit today, I'd buy
K20D body (but the K10D does fine too)
DA21 Limited
FA43 Limited
DA70/2.4 or FA77 Limited (another toss up)
DA12-24 or DA14 (toss up)
DA*50-135/2.8
Pentax dedicated flash unit and remote extension cord
I already have the A50/2.8 Macro and matching Re
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 04:16:08PM -0500, Cory Waters wrote:
> As a purely hypothetical , lets just say you had maybe $2500 to spend
> free and clear of any guilt. Lets also say you were inclined to spend
> said clams on new lenses. We'll say you have a K10 . . .
Been there, done (most of) tha
The DA*55 seems a must have to me if it really is as sharp as the test
I read and the purpose is family shots but you may refrain from buying
it since you already have a 50mm. IMO it is a different beast
altogether.
The 16-50 would also be something I'd buy or if you are afraid of a
bad reputation
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 1:16 PM, Cory Waters wrote:
> As a purely hypothetical , lets just say you had maybe $2500 to spend free
> and clear of any guilt. Lets also say you were inclined to spend said clams
> on new lenses.
Well, for the great outdoors you need a real wide-angle prime: There's
the
As a purely hypothetical , lets just say you had maybe $2500 to spend
free and clear of any guilt.
Lets also say you were inclined to spend said clams on new lenses.
We'll say you have a K10, the DA 50-200 & 18-55, a FA 28-105 f3.2-4.5,
and a FA 50 1.7 (there are some other manual focus lenses
32 matches
Mail list logo
