Should all smokers be taken out and shot?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Aug 8, 2010.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens
    had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns
    out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The
    whole lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front
    element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed.
    It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera. But I've seen this before
    on optics. How can anyone do this to a camera?
     
    RichA, Aug 8, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens
    >had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    >usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    >tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns
    >out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The
    >whole lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front
    >element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed.
    >It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    >of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    >I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera. But I've seen this before
    >on optics. How can anyone do this to a camera?


    Except for the FACT that condensation from tobacco smoke is a
    brownish-yellow, not "light blue". A mistake perhaps from thinking that
    just because tobacco smoke looks bluish in air that it should look the same
    condensed on surfaces? Or is it just because you're a fucking moron
    control-freak that wants parrot the "second-hand smoke kills" nonsense
    started by useless idiots that was proved totally untrue.

    Many substances outgas. (This is why it's so very difficult to pull
    lab-level vacuums, <.0001 torr, in a low-pressure system, from the
    vapor-pressure of all the components in the system.) Do you have a DVD
    recorder/player for your entertainment set that started to report lots of
    recording errors or failing to load DVDs? The heat from the laser causes
    plasticines to outgas from the discs and the lubricants used in the
    carriage assembly. Wipe the haze off the laser lens and you're good to go.
    OH, and that condensation from outgassing compounds IS a light-blue color.

    One more important thing.

    YOU'RE A FUCKINGLY USELESS MORON TROLL.

    That's no guess from your color, that's a FACT.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Aug 8, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens
    >had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    >usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    >tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns
    >out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The
    >whole lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front
    >element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed.
    >It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    >of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    >I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera. But I've seen this before
    >on optics. How can anyone do this to a camera?


    Except for the FACT that condensation from tobacco smoke is a
    brownish-yellow, not "light blue". A mistake perhaps from thinking that
    just because tobacco smoke looks bluish in air that it should look the same
    condensed on surfaces? Or is it just because you're a fucking moron
    control-freak that wants to parrot the "second-hand smoke kills" nonsense
    started by useless idiots that was proved totally untrue.

    Many substances outgas. (This is why it's so very difficult to pull
    lab-level vacuums, <.0001 torr, in a low-pressure system, from the
    vapor-pressure of all the components in the system.) Do you have a DVD
    recorder/player for your entertainment set that started to report lots of
    recording errors or failing to load DVDs? The heat from the laser causes
    plasticines to outgas from the discs and the lubricants used in the
    carriage assembly. Wipe the haze off the laser lens and you're good to go.
    OH, and that condensation from outgassing compounds IS a light-blue color.

    One more important thing.

    YOU'RE A FUCKINGLY USELESS MORON TROLL.

    That's no guess from your color, that's a FACT.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Aug 8, 2010
    #3
  4. Re: Should all RichA TROLLS be taken out and shot?

    One extra post to correct a typo. This third time to correct the subject
    heading.


    On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    wrote:

    >I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens
    >had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    >usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    >tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns
    >out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The
    >whole lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front
    >element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed.
    >It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    >of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    >I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera. But I've seen this before
    >on optics. How can anyone do this to a camera?


    Except for the FACT that condensation from tobacco smoke is a
    brownish-yellow, not "light blue". A mistake perhaps from thinking that
    just because tobacco smoke looks bluish in air that it should look the same
    condensed on surfaces? Or is it just because you're a fucking moron
    control-freak that wants to parrot the "second-hand smoke kills" nonsense
    started by useless idiots that was proved totally untrue.

    Many substances outgas. This is why it's so very difficult to pull
    lab-level vacuums, <.0001 torr, in a low-pressure system, from the
    vapor-pressure of all the components in the system. Do you have a DVD
    recorder/player for your entertainment set that started to report lots of
    recording errors or failing to load DVDs? The heat from the laser causes
    plasticines to outgas from the discs and the lubricants used in the
    carriage assembly. Wipe the haze off the laser lens and you're good to go.
    OH, and that condensation from outgassing compounds IS a light-blue color.

    BTW: That haze on the lens could have come from anything, even its original
    packaging if stored in it long enough.

    One more important thing.

    YOU'RE A FUCKINGLY USELESS MORON TROLL.

    That's no guess from your color, that's a FACT.
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Aug 8, 2010
    #4
  5. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Aug 8, 1:30 am, Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one.  I noticed the lens
    > >had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    > >usually brown-purple.  At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    > >tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off."  Turns
    > >out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue.  The
    > >whole lens was coated with it.  When I cleaned the entire front
    > >element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed.
    > >It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    > >of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    > >I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera.  But I've seen this before
    > >on optics.  How can anyone do this to a camera?

    >
    > Except for the FACT that condensation from tobacco smoke is a
    > brownish-yellow, not "light blue". A mistake perhaps from thinking that
    > just because tobacco smoke looks bluish in air that it should look the same
    > condensed on surfaces? Or is it just because you're a fucking moron
    > control-freak that wants parrot the "second-hand smoke kills" nonsense
    > started by useless idiots that was proved totally untrue.
    >
    > Many substances outgas. (This is why it's so very difficult to pull
    > lab-level vacuums, <.0001 torr, in a low-pressure system, from the
    > vapor-pressure of all the components in the system.) Do you have a DVD
    > recorder/player for your entertainment set that started to report lots of
    > recording errors or failing to load DVDs? The heat from the laser causes
    > plasticines to outgas from the discs and the lubricants used in the
    > carriage assembly. Wipe the haze off the laser lens and you're good to go..
    > OH, and that condensation from outgassing compounds IS a light-blue color..
    >
    > One more important thing.
    >
    > YOU'RE A FUCKINGLY USELESS MORON TROLL.
    >
    > That's no guess from your color, that's a FACT.


    The coating was browish yellow. It combined with the lens coating
    colour to create the bluish coating I saw. But what came off was
    brownish yellow.
     
    Rich, Aug 8, 2010
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 8, 10:42 am, George Kerby <> wrote:
    > On 8/7/10 10:56 PM, in article
    > , "RichA"
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one.  I noticed the lens
    > > had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    > > usually brown-purple.  At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    > > tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off."  Turns
    > > out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue.  The
    > > whole lens was coated with it.  When I cleaned the entire front
    > > element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed.
    > > It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    > > of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    > > I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera.  But I've seen this before
    > > on optics.  How can anyone do this to a camera?

    >
    > Bitch, was this at your "camera store", or did you steal it from a sick
    > cancer-stricken senior citizen?
    >
    > Either way, go out and smell the roses. I really don't know which is more a
    > complete useless whiney ****, you or troll of many nicks. Maybe you both
    > could have a whine-off?


    Smoker, huh?
     
    RichA, Aug 8, 2010
    #6
  7. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 8, 3:44 am, Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 8 Aug 2010 00:17:54 -0700 (PDT), Rich <> wrote:
    > >On Aug 8, 1:30 am, Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > >> wrote:

    >
    > >> >I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one.  I noticed the lens
    > >> >had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    > >> >usually brown-purple.  At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    > >> >tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off."  Turns
    > >> >out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue.  The
    > >> >whole lens was coated with it.  When I cleaned the entire front
    > >> >element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed..
    > >> >It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    > >> >of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    > >> >I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera.  But I've seen this before
    > >> >on optics.  How can anyone do this to a camera?

    >
    > >> Except for the FACT that condensation from tobacco smoke is a
    > >> brownish-yellow, not "light blue". A mistake perhaps from thinking that
    > >> just because tobacco smoke looks bluish in air that it should look the same
    > >> condensed on surfaces? Or is it just because you're a fucking moron
    > >> control-freak that wants parrot the "second-hand smoke kills" nonsense
    > >> started by useless idiots that was proved totally untrue.

    >
    > >> Many substances outgas. (This is why it's so very difficult to pull
    > >> lab-level vacuums, <.0001 torr, in a low-pressure system, from the
    > >> vapor-pressure of all the components in the system.) Do you have a DVD
    > >> recorder/player for your entertainment set that started to report lots of
    > >> recording errors or failing to load DVDs? The heat from the laser causes
    > >> plasticines to outgas from the discs and the lubricants used in the
    > >> carriage assembly. Wipe the haze off the laser lens and you're good to go.
    > >> OH, and that condensation from outgassing compounds IS a light-blue color.

    >
    > >> One more important thing.

    >
    > >> YOU'RE A FUCKINGLY USELESS MORON TROLL.

    >
    > >> That's no guess from your color, that's a FACT.

    >
    > >The coating was browish yellow.  It combined with the lens coating
    > >colour to create the bluish coating I saw.  But what came off was
    > >brownish yellow.

    >
    > Try again TROLL. You would have said that in the first place. LIE much?
    >
    > You fuckingly useless TROLL. Not getting enough attention so now you're
    > going to bring in the pro vs. anti smoker bullshit too into a photography
    > forum too, eh?
    >
    > LOL!
    >
    > You are *SO* fuckingly transparent as a useless motherfucking TROLL.
    >
    > LOL!


    Smoker, huh?
     
    RichA, Aug 8, 2010
    #7
  8. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:41:51 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
    <> wrote:

    >We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    >drugs began to take hold. I remember RichA <> saying
    >something like:
    >
    >>I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens
    >>had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    >>usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    >>tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns
    >>out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The
    >>whole lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front
    >>element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed.
    >>It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    >>of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    >>I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera. But I've seen this before
    >>on optics. How can anyone do this to a camera?

    >
    >Vandal!
    >You've destroyed many years of patina, puffed out by tens of thousands
    >of cigarettes and the cost of many thousands of dollars.
    >That nicotine coating was responsible for the prize-winning portraiture
    >that lens could make.
    >


    Exactly. The original owner was renowned for his portraiture using a
    nicotine density filter.

    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 8, 2010
    #8
  9. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 8, 2:53 pm, George Kerby <> wrote:
    > On 8/8/10 12:01 PM, in article
    > , "RichA"
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > On Aug 8, 10:42 am, George Kerby <> wrote:
    > >> On 8/7/10 10:56 PM, in article
    > >> , "RichA"

    >
    > >> <> wrote:
    > >>> I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one.  I noticed the lens
    > >>> had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    > >>> usually brown-purple.  At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    > >>> tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off."  Turns
    > >>> out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue.  The
    > >>> whole lens was coated with it.  When I cleaned the entire front
    > >>> element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed..
    > >>> It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    > >>> of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    > >>> I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera.  But I've seen this before
    > >>> on optics.  How can anyone do this to a camera?

    >
    > >> Bitch, was this at your "camera store", or did you steal it from a sick
    > >> cancer-stricken senior citizen?

    >
    > >> Either way, go out and smell the roses. I really don't know which is more a
    > >> complete useless whiney ****, you or troll of many nicks. Maybe you both
    > >> could have a whine-off?

    >
    > > Smoker, huh?

    >
    > Nope. Not at all - not even the 'funny weed' that you inhale, Bitch - er,
    > Rich!


    Your cleverness knows no bounds. What next, a Roses are Red poem?
     
    RichA, Aug 8, 2010
    #9
  10. RichA

    ray Guest

    On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700, RichA wrote:

    > I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens
    > had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    > usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    > tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns out,
    > the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The whole
    > lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front element
    > surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed. It took
    > an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back of the lens
    > were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body. I'm glad I didn't
    > have to see the camera. But I've seen this before on optics. How can
    > anyone do this to a camera?


    IMHO - the ones who should be "taken out and shot" are those who ask:
    "should all <fill in the blank> be taken out and shot". What a person
    does with his own personal property and/or his own body is his business -
    not yours.
     
    ray, Aug 8, 2010
    #10
  11. RichA

    Nervous Nick Guest

    On Aug 8, 3:16 pm, tony cooper <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:41:51 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
    > >drugs began to take hold. I remember RichA <> saying
    > >something like:

    >
    > >>I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one.  I noticed the lens
    > >>had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    > >>usually brown-purple.  At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    > >>tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off."  Turns
    > >>out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue.  The
    > >>whole lens was coated with it.  When I cleaned the entire front
    > >>element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed.
    > >>It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    > >>of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    > >>I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera.  But I've seen this before
    > >>on optics.  How can anyone do this to a camera?

    >
    > >Vandal!
    > >You've destroyed many years of patina, puffed out by tens of thousands
    > >of cigarettes and the cost of many thousands of dollars.
    > >That nicotine coating was responsible for the prize-winning portraiture
    > >that lens could make.

    >
    > Exactly.  The original owner was renowned for his portraiture using a
    > nicotine density filter.


    NICE!

    TFTL.

    --
    YOP...
     
    Nervous Nick, Aug 8, 2010
    #11
  12. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Aug 8, 4:55 pm, ray <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700, RichA wrote:
    > > I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one.  I noticed the lens
    > > had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    > > usually brown-purple.  At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    > > tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off."  Turns out,
    > > the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue.  The whole
    > > lens was coated with it.  When I cleaned the entire front element
    > > surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed. It took
    > > an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back of the lens
    > > were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body. I'm glad I didn't
    > > have to see the camera.  But I've seen this before on optics.  How can
    > > anyone do this to a camera?

    >
    > IMHO - the ones who should be "taken out and shot" are those who ask:
    > "should all <fill in the blank> be taken out and shot". What a person
    > does with his own personal property and/or his own body is his business -
    > not yours.


    It is if I'm buy it and am not warned beforehand. How do you think it
    would sell on Ebay:
    "One prime lens in good condition, except it's covered with YEARS of
    tobacco smoke residue."
     
    RichA, Aug 8, 2010
    #12
  13. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Aug 8, 7:46 pm, George Kerby <> wrote:
    > On 8/8/10 5:45 PM, in article
    > , "RichA"
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > > On Aug 8, 4:55 pm, ray <> wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700, RichA wrote:
    > >>> I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one.  I noticed the lens
    > >>> had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    > >>> usually brown-purple.  At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    > >>> tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off."  Turns out,
    > >>> the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue.  The whole
    > >>> lens was coated with it.  When I cleaned the entire front element
    > >>> surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed. It took
    > >>> an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back of the lens
    > >>> were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body. I'm glad I didn't
    > >>> have to see the camera.  But I've seen this before on optics.  How can
    > >>> anyone do this to a camera?

    >
    > >> IMHO - the ones who should be "taken out and shot" are those who ask:
    > >> "should all <fill in the blank> be taken out and shot". What a person
    > >> does with his own personal property and/or his own body is his business -
    > >> not yours.

    >
    > > It is if I'm buy it and am not warned beforehand.  How do you think it
    > > would sell on Ebay:
    > > "One prime lens in good condition, except it's covered with YEARS of
    > > tobacco smoke residue."

    >
    > Who you foolin' Bitch?!? You don't *buy* anything!!!


    You shouldn't address people like that. Not everyone is one of your
    male prostitute friends.
     
    Rich, Aug 9, 2010
    #13
  14. RichA

    ray Guest

    On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:45:52 -0700, RichA wrote:



    Caveat Emptor.
     
    ray, Aug 9, 2010
    #14
  15. On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 22:41:15 +1000, "N" <> wrote:

    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one. I noticed the lens
    >>>had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    >>>usually brown-purple. At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    >>>tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off." Turns
    >>>out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue. The
    >>>whole lens was coated with it. When I cleaned the entire front
    >>>element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed.
    >>>It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    >>>of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    >>>I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera. But I've seen this before
    >>>on optics. How can anyone do this to a camera?

    >>
    >> How you ask?
    >>
    >> Because it's THEIR camera.
    >>
    >> They bought and paid for it and how they use and treat it is their
    >> choice just as how you use and treat your camera is your choice.
    >>
    >> Do you have a problem with free choice?

    >
    >If you sell your house, you are required to clean it when vacating.


    In what Nazi dictatorship country is that a requirement?
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Aug 9, 2010
    #15
  16. On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 22:44:57 +1000, "N" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Outing Trolls is FUN!" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 22:41:15 +1000, "N" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>If you sell your house, you are required to clean it when vacating.

    >>
    >> In what Nazi dictatorship country is that a requirement?
    >>

    >
    >Have you ever sold a house?


    Yes. And I could even burn them to the ground first and sell the charred
    remains and land if I want.

    Like I asked, "In what Nazi dictatorship country is that a requirement?"
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Aug 9, 2010
    #16
  17. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Aug 8, 11:07 pm, ray <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:45:52 -0700, RichA wrote:
    >
    > Caveat Emptor.


    You can't if you aren't told.
     
    Rich, Aug 9, 2010
    #17
  18. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Aug 9, 7:17 am, wrote:
    > On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 20:56:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >I picked up a prime lens today, an older used one.  I noticed the lens
    > >had a light blue coating, which was odd as this prime's coatings are
    > >usually brown-purple.  At home, I gave the lens a swipe with a lens
    > >tissue, and it looked like part of the coating "rubbed off."  Turns
    > >out, the lens was covered in a layer of tobacco smoke residue.  The
    > >whole lens was coated with it.  When I cleaned the entire front
    > >element surface, sure enough, the correct coating colour was revealed.
    > >It took an hour to clean the thing. Luckily, the inside and the back
    > >of the lens were ok, likely because it was inside the camera body.
    > >I'm glad I didn't have to see the camera.  But I've seen this before
    > >on optics.  How can anyone do this to a camera?

    >
    > How you ask?
    >
    > Because it's THEIR camera.
    >
    > They bought and paid for it and how they use and treat it is their
    > choice just as how you use and treat your camera is your choice.
    >
    > Do you have a problem with free choice?


    They have the right to, they just don't have the sense not to.
     
    Rich, Aug 9, 2010
    #18
  19. RichA

    Rich Guest

    On Aug 9, 8:47 am, Outing Trolls is FUN! <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 22:44:57 +1000, "N" <> wrote:
    >
    > >"Outing Trolls is FUN!" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 22:41:15 +1000, "N" <> wrote:

    >
    > >>>If you sell your house, you are required to clean it when vacating.

    >
    > >> In what Nazi dictatorship country is that a requirement?

    >
    > >Have you ever sold a house?

    >
    > Yes. And I could even burn them to the ground first and sell the charred
    > remains and land if I want.
    >
    > Like I asked, "In what Nazi dictatorship country is that a requirement?"


    Even if it isn't a requirement to clean it, you are required to inform
    the buyer if something is going to intefere with the enjoyment or use
    of the property, like the presence of black mold. At least you are in
    Canada, I don't know about the U.S.
     
    Rich, Aug 9, 2010
    #19
  20. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 06:38:16 -0700 (PDT), Rich <>
    wrote:

    >On Aug 8, 11:07 pm, ray <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, 08 Aug 2010 15:45:52 -0700, RichA wrote:
    >>
    >> Caveat Emptor.

    >
    >You can't if you aren't told.


    The whole concept of "caveat emptor" is that you should not expect to
    be told. That's why you should beware.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 9, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. The Freek

    Re: Attention: SMOKERS

    The Freek, Jun 24, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    571
    The Freek
    Jun 24, 2003
  2. Experienced but Undocumented

    802.11b should be taken out and shot!

    Experienced but Undocumented, Jul 25, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    462
    Experienced but Undocumented
    Jul 27, 2004
  3. RichA

    Smokers, again. Or should I say, LOSERS!

    RichA, Aug 17, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    86
    Views:
    1,624
    GregS
    Aug 30, 2010
  4. Zulus Vulva

    Greece in new crackdown on smokers and tobacco ads

    Zulus Vulva, Sep 1, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    343
    Runge 124
    Sep 3, 2010
  5. Old Gringo38

    Smokers in the crowd

    Old Gringo38, Nov 10, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    889
    G. Morgan
    Nov 12, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page