Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- From: ASAAR <caught@xxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 06:16:36 -0400
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:53:22 -0700, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even
number here)@cox..net> wrote:
> All good points, David (and good info on the $200), but ASAAR is
> just mad at me for kill-filing him a few days ago... If you or Skip had
> written the car comparison as I did, I doubt he'd be carrying on with
> things like "gullible" and "illogical bait," etc.
Your ego is popping up its ugly head again. I haven't complained
about you KFing anyone, and find the more you KF the pleasanter the
ng becomes. You're may be correct about your last point, but not
for the reason you're assuming. They don't have your history of
ridiculous, illogical assertions (among other faults), so I simply
would have disagreed, showing where and why. But even when I have
disagreed with points they've made in the past, it has almost always
been due to a misunderstanding of what I or they have said. They've
never to my knowledge made the kind of absurdly simplistic, apples
vs. oranges comparisons you so often make. To think them capable of
arguing that a car with a bad tire is in any way comparable to a
camera with a broken shutter/mirror mechanism, as you did, it to
demean their intelligence.
One is a trivial matter that can be handled by the owner at little
expense (relative to the cost of the car, but still less than the
cost of repairing a shutter), either by himself or by any
convenient, local service station, and can be accomplished within
minutes. Replacing a shutter costs more (far more relative to the
cost of the camera), takes much longer, so instead of being without
the use of the car for an hour or so, you'd be without the use of
the camera for days or weeks.
And as I said, the value of the camera and its condition is a
factor. Most people would want to repair a Canon 20D. They might
be far less inclined to spend several hundred dollars repairing a
no-longer-new Canon EOS 300D or even the much older Nikon D1.
Despite the fact that it may have been purchased for $5000, the
current value is much less, and with only about 2.5mp, the several
hundred dollars needed to repair it might be much better applied to
a D70 or D50. Your absurd auto-based analogy is just plain tired
and needs to be retired. :)
.
- References:
- So why is the 5D $3200?
- From: Dave R knows who
- Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- From: David J. Littleboy
- Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- From: Linda Nieuwenstein
- Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- From: SMS
- Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- From: Pix on Canvas
- Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- From: ASAAR
- Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- From: David J. Littleboy
- Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- From: MarkČ
- So why is the 5D $3200?
- Prev by Date: Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- Next by Date: Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- Previous by thread: Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- Next by thread: Re: So why is the 5D $3200?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading