«

On 13 Jun 2007, Yoshi <> wrote:

>
> "Sammy" <no-> wrote in message
> news:Xns994E9644AA0C0451E7A@127.0.0.1...
>
>
> You apparently didn't even read the original post... or else you
> are the one who English comprehension is impaired. The OP
> specifically mentions rebranding Nikkormat lenses as Nikkor. This
> precludes your interpretation.
>
>
>

Yoshi, not only do you struggle with English but your eyesight must be
poorer than is acceptable for taking part on the Usenet.

Are you sure photography is the right hobby for you if can see so
little?

You write to me, "You apparently didn't even read the original post". I
have to tell you that I did in fact read the original post because I
wrote it.

On Jun 13, 8:39 pm, "=\(8\)" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Rich" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news: ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
> >> On 2007-06-13, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
> >> > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
> >> > lenses on those cheap cameras.
>
> >> ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
> >> and are going to share them with us, right?
>
> >> nb
>
> > The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
> > made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
> > remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
> > a Chinese made Panasonic?
>
> Panasonic nor Leica ever claimed that they did. What both companies have
> claimed is that in order for Panasonic to put the Leica name on their
> cameras they lenses have to meet Leica's specifications. If you think that
> lenses makers only have one grade of lens then once again that makes your a
> dumb ass.

Kind of proves the point that their nameplates on those cameras MEANS
NOTHING.
"Uh, we'll reserve the GOOD standard for Summicron lenses for Leica
cameras. For the sheep buying the Panasonic P&S, we'll permit a
boatload of chromatic aberration." You might as well slap "Magnicon"
on the front bezel.

On Jun 14, 5:33 am, John Bean <waterf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:06:06 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
>
>
>
> <s...@trash.com> wrote:
> >In article <1181766854.296227.36...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups. com>,
> >rander3...@gmail.com says...
> >> On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
> >> > On 2007-06-13, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
> >> > > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
> >> > > lenses on those cheap cameras.
>
> >> > ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
> >> > and are going to share them with us, right?
>
> >> > nb
>
> >> The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
> >> made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
> >> remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
> >> a Chinese made Panasonic?
>
> >The Panasonic cameras are made in Japan. (check it out)
>
> Don't confuse Rich by introducing facts to one of his
> worthless rants.
>
> --
> John Bean

Explains why Panasonic's best pocket cameras cost more than a Nikon
D40 body.

In article <5945a$467280d5$3e18e6cb$>,
lid says...
> Frank ess wrote:
> >
> >
> > Allen wrote:
> >> Irwin Peckinloomer wrote:
> >>> In article <4670a4e5$0$8073$>,
> >>> says...
> >>>
> >>>> Not in regard to this specific issue, but why would anyone ever
> >>>> believe that a person who can't spell "lens" is much of an expert
> >>>> on lenses? Allen
> >>>>
> >>> If you took everybody who can't spell (or use a spell checker) off
> >>> Usenet you'd lose 85% of the morons, and 75% of the posters.
> >> To me, the issue isn't spelling in general, but in consistently
> >> misspelling a word that is a vital part of the area of expertise of
> >> the subject. Anyone can maker typos, but consistency is the issue
> >> here. Let's say that a person who claims to be an expert in the
> >> chemistry of combustion consistently spells "oxygen" as "oxagen".
> >> Would you respect their postings?
> >> Allen
> >
> > Would you respect the opinion of a person whose world view doesn't
> > account for societies whose language includes "colour" and "behaviour"
> > as correct spellings for familiar phenomena?
>
> The words "colour", "color" are perfectly acceptable spellings. "Lense" is not.
>
> >
> > How about someone who refers to "a person" and "their postings"?
>
> Sounds good to me. Why do you ask?
>
Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
(or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
postings"
Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
correct.

In article <. com>,
says...
> On Jun 13, 8:39 pm, "=\(8\)" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > "Rich" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news: ups.com...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
> > >> On 2007-06-13, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
> > >> > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
> > >> > lenses on those cheap cameras.
> >
> > >> ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
> > >> and are going to share them with us, right?
> >
> > >> nb
> >
> > > The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
> > > made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
> > > remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
> > > a Chinese made Panasonic?
> >
> > Panasonic nor Leica ever claimed that they did. What both companies have
> > claimed is that in order for Panasonic to put the Leica name on their
> > cameras they lenses have to meet Leica's specifications. If you think that
> > lenses makers only have one grade of lens then once again that makes your a
> > dumb ass.
>
> Kind of proves the point that their nameplates on those cameras MEANS
> NOTHING.
> "Uh, we'll reserve the GOOD standard for Summicron lenses for Leica
> cameras. For the sheep buying the Panasonic P&S, we'll permit a
> boatload of chromatic aberration." You might as well slap "Magnicon"
> on the front bezel.
>
>
Nikon P&S cameras are made in China, Panasonics are made in Japan.

In article <>, Irwin
Peckinloomer
says...

> Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
> together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
> (or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
> postings"
> Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
> correct.
>
Political correctness tends to indicate woolly thinking or weasel words.

As for grammatical niggles, how about "none of ... are ..."?
GRRR

On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:08:59 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
<> wrote:

>Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
>together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
>(or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
>postings"

Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=their

>Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
>correct.

It was gramatically correct usage according to a
well-respected dictionary.

--
John Bean

On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:30:23 -0700, Rich
<> wrote:

>On Jun 14, 5:33 am, John Bean <waterf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:06:06 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
>>
>>
>>
>> <s...@trash.com> wrote:
>> >In article <1181766854.296227.36...@o11g2000prd.googlegroups. com>,
>> >rander3...@gmail.com says...
>> >> On Jun 13, 2:43 pm, notbob <not...@nothome.com> wrote:
>> >> > On 2007-06-13, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > Schneider on Kodaks, Zeiss on Sony's. It's the use of names for names
>> >> > > sake, and has nothing to do with the actual quality or design of the
>> >> > > lenses on those cheap cameras.
>>
>> >> > ...and of course you have irrefutable proof of all these accusations
>> >> > and are going to share them with us, right?
>>
>> >> > nb
>>
>> >> The proof is in the results you see. Leica sells a real West German
>> >> made 50mm lens for around $3,000. Do you honestly think anything
>> >> remotely related to that kind of engineering and production ends up in
>> >> a Chinese made Panasonic?
>>
>> >The Panasonic cameras are made in Japan. (check it out)
>>
>> Don't confuse Rich by introducing facts to one of his
>> worthless rants.
>
>Explains why Panasonic's best pocket cameras cost more than a Nikon
>D40 body.

So which specicif models do you consider to be Panasonic's
"best pocket cameras" and how much do they actually cost? Or
is this yet another case of avoiding facts?

Of course if you are now claiming that the D40's plastic
construction makes it intrinsically better than the un-named
Panasonic (all their pocket cams are metal) then that's a
good start to becoming cured of your fear of plastic. Keep
it up.

--
John Bean

"John Bean" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 10:08:59 GMT, Irwin Peckinloomer
> <> wrote:
>
>>Because "a person" is singular, and "their" is plural, so can't be used
>>together in the same statement. The correct usage is "a person ... his
>>(or her, or his or her) postings. Or "several persons ... their
>>postings"
>
> Merriam-Webster disagrees with you.
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=their
>
>>Trying to be politically correct does not trump being grammatically
>>correct.
>
> It was gramatically correct usage according to a
> well-respected dictionary.
>
> --
> John Bean

As is true of the word lense being an acceptable variant to lens, which was
the complaint that brought this futile word game to the surface once again.

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary - Cite This Source
Main Entry: lens
Variant: also lense /'lenz/
Function: noun
1 : a curved piece of glass or plastic used singly or combined in eyeglasses
or an optical instrument (as a microscope) for forming an image
2 : a device for directing or focusing radiation other than light (as sound
waves, radio microwaves, or electrons)
3 : a highly transparent biconvex lens-shaped or nearly spherical body in
the eye that focuses light rays entering the eye typically onto the retina,
lies immediately behind the pupil, is made up of slender curved rod-shaped
ectodermal cells in concentric lamellae surrounded by a tenuous mesoblastic
capsule, and alters its focal length by becoming more or less spherical in
response to the action of the ciliary muscle on a peripheral suspensory
ligament -lensed adjective -lens·less adjective

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


Now that the group has dispensed with its weekly round of dueling
dictionaries might I suggest a cessation of the pretentiousness and a return
to the discussion of photography, which is itself a form of communication
that transcends the limitations of written and/or spoken language?

JoeT wrote:
>
> As is true of the word lense being an acceptable variant to lens, which
> was the complaint that brought this futile word game to the surface once
> again.
>

No, it's not acceptable here, with a handful of eccentrics or
contrarians being exceptions.

--
john mcwilliams

She grew on him like she was a colony of E. coli and he was
room-temperature Canadian beef.