Nikon 995

In article , PeterN
wrote:

For me, it's the weight. Last year I tested Nikon's 200-500. Optically,
it was fine. It flunked because I could not carry it around for more
than 45 minutes.

eat more spinach.


You didn't answer my question.

nobody gives a **** about your question and it wasn't relevant to the
discussion. you're just trolling, as usual.

Since you are a pricing expert, you
should be able to make an educated guess. If not an educated guess, make
an uneducated one.

if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it.

On 27-Jul-17 2:29 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

For me, it's the weight. Last year I tested Nikon's 200-500. Optically,
it was fine. It flunked because I could not carry it around for more
than 45 minutes.

eat more spinach.


You didn't answer my question.

nobody gives a **** about your question and it wasn't relevant to the
discussion. you're just trolling, as usual.

You are WRONG about that, 'nospam' .......... and you are VERY rude too.

Since you are a pricing expert, you
should be able to make an educated guess. If not an educated guess, make
an uneducated one.

if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it.

Some folk know the price of everything but the value of nothing!

--
David B.

In article , David B.
wrote:

For me, it's the weight. Last year I tested Nikon's 200-500. Optically,
it was fine. It flunked because I could not carry it around for more
than 45 minutes.

eat more spinach.

You didn't answer my question.

nobody gives a **** about your question and it wasn't relevant to the
discussion. you're just trolling, as usual.

You are WRONG about that, 'nospam' .......... and you are VERY rude too.

i'm not wrong at all, and i'm rude in response to those who are rude,
which includes you.

On 7/27/2017 9:29 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

For me, it's the weight. Last year I tested Nikon's 200-500. Optically,
it was fine. It flunked because I could not carry it around for more
than 45 minutes.

eat more spinach.


You didn't answer my question.

nobody gives a **** about your question and it wasn't relevant to the
discussion. you're just trolling, as usual.


Correct. You are a nobody.
Calling you out is trolling? I see.




Since you are a pricing expert, you
should be able to make an educated guess. If not an educated guess, make
an uneducated one.

if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it.

Original.
You just proved your ignorance of pricing policies.

--
PeterN

On 7/27/2017 10:26 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , David B.
wrote:

For me, it's the weight. Last year I tested Nikon's 200-500. Optically,
it was fine. It flunked because I could not carry it around for more
than 45 minutes.

eat more spinach.

You didn't answer my question.

nobody gives a **** about your question and it wasn't relevant to the
discussion. you're just trolling, as usual.

You are WRONG about that, 'nospam' .......... and you are VERY rude too.

i'm not wrong at all, and i'm rude in response to those who are rude,
which includes you.


And everyone else who will not kowtow to you.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

Since you are a pricing expert, you
should be able to make an educated guess. If not an educated guess, make
an uneducated one.

if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it.

Original.

and appropriate.

You just proved your ignorance of pricing policies.

the discussion is not nor ever was about pricing policies.

On 7/27/2017 12:44 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

Since you are a pricing expert, you
should be able to make an educated guess. If not an educated guess, make
an uneducated one.

if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it.

Original.

and appropriate.

You just proved your ignorance of pricing policies.

the discussion is not nor ever was about pricing policies.

Never said it was.
It was about the extent of your market knowledge.


--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

the discussion is not nor ever was about pricing policies.

Never said it was.

in other words, you're trolling.

On 7/27/2017 1:12 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

the discussion is not nor ever was about pricing policies.

Never said it was.

in other words, you're trolling.

You have come to your usual unsupported and twisted conclusion.

--
PeterN

PeterN, in response to nospam:
You have come to your usual unsupported and twisted conclusion.

So much time you have for arguing? Why not give it a rest. Enough
hobbies you don't have? Model building, stamp or coin collecting,
gardening, all compatible with your photography hobby are.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm