Ultra-Sharpen is on sale!

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I don't know if any of your are interested but Ultra-Sharpen is on sale now
for $10. That is $5 less than the normal price. The sale ends on the 23rd. I
just picked up another copy for my laptop and thought I would pass this on.

http://www.ultrasharpen.com

John
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> writes:
> I don't know if any of your are interested but Ultra-Sharpen is on
> sale now for $10. That is $5 less than the normal price. The sale
> ends on the 23rd. I just picked up another copy for my laptop and
> thought I would pass this on.

Sure!

Folks: don't buy from spammers.
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
========================================================================
When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Exactly !

Dave



"Gisle Hannemyr" <gisle+njus@ifi.uio.no> wrote in message
news:q54qimj87o.fsf@viisi.ifi.uio.no...
|
| Sure!
|
| Folks: don't buy from spammers.
| --
| - gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
| ========================================================================
| When you say you live in the real world, which one are you referring to?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:17:49 GMT, "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com>
wrote:

>I don't know if any of your are interested but Ultra-Sharpen is on sale now
>for $10. That is $5 less than the normal price. The sale ends on the 23rd. I
>just picked up another copy for my laptop and thought I would pass this on.
>
>http://www.ultrasharpen.com
>
>John
>
>
>

Aren't you supposed to end this spam with "cheers?"
Like all spammers seem to do?
-Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:ci46s0tugmv4k3t3ln6qvr5936j3ghfvol@
4ax.com:

> Aren't you supposed to end this spam with "cheers?"
> Like all spammers seem to do?

Ouch! This must mean that this spammer is a fake spammer!


/Roland
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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

Dave



"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:liLwd.12980$_3.142994@typhoon.sonic.net...
| I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
| Hardly the moves of a spammer.
|
| John
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:XELwd.124$_62.28@trnddc01...
> Actually, yes, it is. Now you know, PLEASE don't do it again.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> "John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:liLwd.12980$_3.142994@typhoon.sonic.net...
> | I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one
> separately.
> | Hardly the moves of a spammer.
> |
> | John
>
>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

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" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:YlQwd.13049$_3.144739@typhoon.sonic.net...
| That is your opinion. I give as much weight to that as finding a telephone
| pole and playing sit and spin.
|
| John
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

David H. Lipman wrote:

> 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.


You do have to give some leeway to people who simply, exuberantly endorse
products that they believe to be exceptional.

(I have no idea if the thread OP is a spammer or not, but it is high time for
this thread to die ... lest ye give too much attention and victory to the "spam"
if that's what it is ....)

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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John Doe" <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote in
news:liLwd.12980$_3.142994@typhoon.sonic.net:

> 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
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Francis wrote:
[]
>> You know that's been re-launched?
>
> That's a hypothesis.

I was getting at the fact that the Pancake has resurfaced at all, not that
it's an identical lens per se. It will be interesting to see what the
differences between old and new are (apart from the price of course -
bound to be more if it's "digital"!).

Cheers,
David
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <32jchbF3mlu4iU1@individual.net>,
David J Taylor <david-taylor@invalid.com> wrote:
>John Francis wrote:
>[]
>>> You know that's been re-launched?
>>
>> That's a hypothesis.
>
>I was getting at the fact that the Pancake has resurfaced at all, not that
>it's an identical lens per se. It will be interesting to see what the
>differences between old and new are (apart from the price of course -
>bound to be more if it's "digital"!).

Well, the big change is the absence of an aperture ring - it's a DA lens,
intended for use on cameras with body-mounted aperture controls.

I'm not sure whether the image circle is large enough to cover 35mm,
but I don't believe it is. That could mean it's a totally new design,
or it could just mean that Pentax have decided not to try to use the
weakest part of the old design (which got a bit soft in the corners).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

>
> Exactly how are they "discrete?"
> -Rich

Pancake lenses are very flat. A camera with one mounted hardly looks like a
camera (compared to even an ordinary 50mm f/1.8). One can stalk their city
scene without attracting much attention. A stock in trade for the street shooter.

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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <0sc9s01mcqjsp3au7t5g87m78eop0pjf4r@4ax.com>,
RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>Exactly how are they "discrete?"
>-Rich

Have you ever seen two in the same place?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:50:33 -0500, Alan Browne
<alan.browne@freelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>>
>> Exactly how are they "discrete?"
>> -Rich
>
>Pancake lenses are very flat. A camera with one mounted hardly looks like a
>camera (compared to even an ordinary 50mm f/1.8). One can stalk their city
>scene without attracting much attention. A stock in trade for the street shooter.
>
>Cheers,
>Alan

I guess that's what made rangefinders popular in some circles, that,
and the fact they have no shutter sound and mirror slap to speak of.
-Rich
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Francis wrote:

> In article <0sc9s01mcqjsp3au7t5g87m78eop0pjf4r@4ax.com>,
> RichA <none@none.com> wrote:
>
>>Exactly how are they "discrete?"
>>-Rich
>
>
> Have you ever seen two in the same place?

LOL!



--
-- 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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:


> I guess that's what made rangefinders popular in some circles, that,
> and the fact they have no shutter sound and mirror slap to speak of.

Yep. I read about a White House photographer who stated that (when he worked
there) only Leica's were allowed. Not because of optical greatness, but becasue
of the lack of photographer intrusion. Esp. noise. (this doesn't apply to the
press folks, but to the inside photog who follows the Pres and senior cabinet
officials around.)

(I took 4 rolls of a chamber orchestra a few years ago with my Maxxum 9. Most
people didn't know that Mozart, Bach and Albinoni had "loud Maxxum Mirror slap"
notations in the score.)

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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

John Doe <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:

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

Had you crossposted, it wouldn't be spam. Posting to each one separately
makes it spam.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com
 

ken

Distinguished
Jan 15, 2004
208
0
18,830
0
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message news:10sbndg8ebo8g4e@corp.supernews.com...
> John Doe <john_doe@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > I posted it to 4 newsgroups out 30,000+ and posted to each one separately.
> > Hardly the moves of a spammer.
>
> Had you crossposted, it wouldn't be spam. Posting to each one separately
> makes it spam.

Usenet cops are sometimes more annoying than the people they are policing. Think about it.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY