Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Kodak DX6490 : ANTS

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Kodak DX6490 : ANTS

 
 
Alan D-W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-01-2004

"Fulgencio" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> I have a Kodak DX6490 digital camera with a dock. The camera was on


You are a bloody idiot.
Troll somewhere else.



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
enri
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2004
:> I have a Kodak DX6490 digital camera with a dock. The camera was on
:
:You are a bloody idiot.
:Troll somewhere else.
:
:
What makes you think I am trolling?:
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alan D-W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2004

"enri" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:c4ihff$2jm8uf$(E-Mail Removed)-berlin.de...
> :
> :You are a bloody idiot.
> :Troll somewhere else.
> :
> :
> What makes you think I am trolling?:


OK, if you're not trolling and if therefore your tale is true then you are
still a bloody idiot :

a) for leaving your camera next to an ants' nest,
b) for expecting the manufacturer to rectify your idiocy without charge,
c) suggesting that "It is a case of poor design practice
leaving the camera vulnerable to this kind of situation"

What other problems do you suggest that manufacturers should protect the
camera against? Sand storms, bottles of coca cola being spilt on them,
electromagnetic pulse from a neutron bomb, unexpected falls of little green
frogs from the sky, newborn babies dribbling on it?

Owners have a duty of care with their equipment; I would say that leaving
the camera where there are ants is NOT an example of due care. In another
post you say "I did not do anything unusual with this
camera", but you did, you carelessly left it where there are ants, and ants
don't just suddenly materialise - you MUST have been aware of an ant
problem. Ants are not attracted to cameras, some other substance attractive
to them must have been around the area previously and the little guys just
opportunistically said, hey guys, looks like a nice quiet and safe place to
set up home. None of this is Kodak's fault or responsibility, it is all
entirely your own lack of care.

Perhaps you could refer us all to the number of the page in the camera's
documentation in which reference is made to the device being protected
against insects wishing to turn it into a maternity ward. Frankly, your
question "Why are the effects of dirt due to an ant invasion not covered by
the manufacturer warranty ?" is ludicrous. Why should Kodak warrant against
something which is entirely out of their control and in fact unusual and
unexpected in normal and sensible use.

Sorry matey, it looks like your fault, your problem, your bill, and your
lesson to be more careful next time. Get a spray or some ant-proof plastic
bags.







 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug Kanter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-02-2004
"Alan D-W" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:406dd8d2$0$6557$(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> Perhaps you could refer us all to the number of the page in the camera's
> documentation in which reference is made to the device being protected
> against insects wishing to turn it into a maternity ward. Frankly, your
> question "Why are the effects of dirt due to an ant invasion not covered

by
> the manufacturer warranty ?" is ludicrous. Why should Kodak warrant

against
> something which is entirely out of their control and in fact unusual and
> unexpected in normal and sensible use.
>
> Sorry matey, it looks like your fault, your problem, your bill, and your
> lesson to be more careful next time. Get a spray or some ant-proof plastic
> bags.


Sounds like this numbskull would blame Kodak for anything NOT mentioned in
their warranty. So, it should be OK to leave the camera permanently stored
on a boat, and then complain when it's damaged by salt, which happens to
everything else that's metallic on a boat, eventually.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Fulgencio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2004
> > What makes you think I am trolling?:
>
> OK, if you're not trolling and if therefore your tale is true then you are
> still a bloody idiot :
>
> a) for leaving your camera next to an ants' nest,
> b) for expecting the manufacturer to rectify your idiocy without charge,
> c) suggesting that "It is a case of poor design practice
> leaving the camera vulnerable to this kind of situation"
>
> What other problems do you suggest that manufacturers should protect the
> camera against? Sand storms, bottles of coca cola being spilt on them,
> electromagnetic pulse from a neutron bomb, unexpected falls of little green
> frogs from the sky, newborn babies dribbling on it?
>
> Owners have a duty of care with their equipment; I would say that leaving
> the camera where there are ants is NOT an example of due care. In another
> post you say "I did not do anything unusual with this
> camera", but you did, you carelessly left it where there are ants, and ants
> don't just suddenly materialise - you MUST have been aware of an ant
> problem. Ants are not attracted to cameras, some other substance attractive
> to them must have been around the area previously and the little guys just
> opportunistically said, hey guys, looks like a nice quiet and safe place to
> set up home. None of this is Kodak's fault or responsibility, it is all
> entirely your own lack of care.
>
> Perhaps you could refer us all to the number of the page in the camera's
> documentation in which reference is made to the device being protected
> against insects wishing to turn it into a maternity ward. Frankly, your
> question "Why are the effects of dirt due to an ant invasion not covered by
> the manufacturer warranty ?" is ludicrous. Why should Kodak warrant against
> something which is entirely out of their control and in fact unusual and
> unexpected in normal and sensible use.
>
> Sorry matey, it looks like your fault, your problem, your bill, and your
> lesson to be more careful next time. Get a spray or some ant-proof plastic
> bags.


You do not read well, or perhaps the comprehension of the contents of
what you read is not good or does not last long enough.

No "ant nests" were ever mentioned.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Fulgencio
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2004
> Sounds like this numbskull would blame Kodak for anything NOT mentioned in
> their warranty. So, it should be OK to leave the camera permanently stored
> on a boat, and then complain when it's damaged by salt, which happens to
> everything else that's metallic on a boat, eventually.


It is not assessing blame anymore, nor is it a question of "who pays".
I paid.
It is however curious, at least to me, involved in optics as a living,
how
an incident like this could had ever happened. If I had the remote
suspicion that it "was my fault" I would not had wasted my time or
yours describing the incident.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan D-W
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-04-2004

"Fulgencio" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > Sorry matey, it looks like your fault, your problem, your bill, and your
> > lesson to be more careful next time. Get a spray or some ant-proof

plastic
> > bags.

>
> You do not read well, or perhaps the comprehension of the contents of
> what you read is not good or does not last long enough.
>
> No "ant nests" were ever mentioned.


Ants come from a nest, that's where they live, and they turned your camera
into a nest. Live with it.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug Kanter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
"Fulgencio" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...
> > Sounds like this numbskull would blame Kodak for anything NOT mentioned

in
> > their warranty. So, it should be OK to leave the camera permanently

stored
> > on a boat, and then complain when it's damaged by salt, which happens to
> > everything else that's metallic on a boat, eventually.

>
> It is not assessing blame anymore, nor is it a question of "who pays".
> I paid.
> It is however curious, at least to me, involved in optics as a living,
> how
> an incident like this could had ever happened. If I had the remote
> suspicion that it "was my fault" I would not had wasted my time or
> yours describing the incident.


Send a copy of the complaint to Schneider, who manufactured the lens.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug Kanter
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-05-2004
"Fulgencio" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) om...

>
> No "ant nests" were ever mentioned.


A "nest" can be defined as a place, not necessarily a "thing", like a bird's
nest, or the kind built by insects like bees. Widen your linguistic scope.


 
Reply With Quote
 
enri
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-07-2004
:
:Send a copy of the complaint to Schneider, who manufactured the lens.
:

Duggie, why do you care so much ? Do you reside in Rochester and are
in panic ? For me the incident is over. Do not insist.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters? kensplace Digital Photography 3 10-10-2005 08:25 AM
Re: Kodak DX6490 : ANTS Rudy Garcia Digital Photography 60 04-16-2004 01:08 AM
Kodak DX6490 Why does Kodak not support external filters? Info Digital Photography 10 11-18-2003 06:33 PM
Anyone has Comments on the Kodak DX6490 ? Rudy Garcia Digital Photography 18 10-30-2003 01:31 AM
New Kodak DX6490 Camera Ron Baird Digital Photography 23 08-27-2003 11:44 AM



Advertisments