Ultra-Sharpen is on sale!

Actually, yes, it is. Now you know, PLEASE don't do it again.

Dave



"John Doe" wrote in message
...
| I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
| Hardly the moves of a spammer.
|
| John

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:00:01 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:

I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
Hardly the moves of a spammer.

John

Targeted spam. One reason Google reduced the
number you can post to from 10 to 5, which IMO, is
still too many. I remember the pancake lens that
was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
f1.4 lenses.
-Rich

That is your opinion. I give as much weight to that as finding a telephone
pole and playing sit and spin.

John


"David H. Lipman" wrote in message
news:XELwd.124$_62.28@trnddc01...
Actually, yes, it is. Now you know, PLEASE don't do it again.

Dave



"John Doe" wrote in message
...
| I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one
separately.
| Hardly the moves of a spammer.
|
| John

Good for Google, as for the rest of it did you forget some meds?

John


"RichA" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:00:01 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:

I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
Hardly the moves of a spammer.

John

Targeted spam. One reason Google reduced the
number you can post to from 10 to 5, which IMO, is
still too many. I remember the pancake lens that
was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
f1.4 lenses.
-Rich

RichA wrote:
I remember the pancake lens that
was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
f1.4 lenses.

You know that's been re-launched?

That's why you performed the spam in the first place !

I have NEVER confronted a spammer who didn't think what they did wasn't spam. Those that
are confrontable are in denial. Those that can't be confronted know they spam, do it
anyway, and that's why they can't be confronted.

Dave



"John Doe" wrote in message
...
| That is your opinion. I give as much weight to that as finding a telephone
| pole and playing sit and spin.
|
| John

SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM

"John Doe" wrote in message
...
Good for Google, as for the rest of it did you forget some meds?

John


"RichA" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:00:01 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:

I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one
separately.
Hardly the moves of a spammer.

John

Targeted spam. One reason Google reduced the
number you can post to from 10 to 5, which IMO, is
still too many. I remember the pancake lens that
was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
f1.4 lenses.
-Rich

"John Doe" wrote in
:

I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one
separately. Hardly the moves of a spammer.


Telling in 4 newsgroup that something is on sale is SPAM.
One might be a mistake, two or more is SPAM.
It is quite obvious that your intention not was to SPAM,
and that talks well of you. But the result was SPAM.

It would be even better if you just admitted that you
made a mistake. Now it starts to get just embarrising
for you when you try to defend a lost cause.


/Roland

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:46:08 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:

Good for Google, as for the rest of it did you forget some meds?

Well, lets see what this lens performs like, and see how accurate
your ad copy was.
-Rich

John


"RichA" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:00:01 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:

I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
Hardly the moves of a spammer.

John

Targeted spam. One reason Google reduced the
number you can post to from 10 to 5, which IMO, is
still too many. I remember the pancake lens that
was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
f1.4 lenses.
-Rich

RichA wrote:

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 01:00:01 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:


I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
Hardly the moves of a spammer.

John


Targeted spam. One reason Google reduced the
number you can post to from 10 to 5, which IMO, is
still too many. I remember the pancake lens that
was sold about 15 years back, Pentax or Minolta,
I'm not sure which, but it SUCKED compared to a
decent 50mm full size lens, in terms of resolution
and contrast. It's sole purpose was to be slim
and it was inexpensive relative to standard 50mm
f1.4 lenses.
-Rich

The pancake lenses were meant to be discrete street shooting lenses. Scenes
where absolute sharpness/contrast were not as important as the ipmact of the
scene. Shoot with fast, grainy, contrasty, pushed 400 B&W and who cares how
sharp the damned lens is?

Did I say "Cheers?"

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.