> Chip,
> On what basis do you make this assertion? After all, they could
> have told me
> that the price was X (i.e. more than $150) and proceeded from
> there. Brian, who
> discovered it first, has repeatedly asserted that it could be had
> for far less
> than $150. Moreover, how could this be true since they indicated
> that I could
> have it for less than $150. How do you account for this?
> Furthermore, if you are
> of the opinion that it was underpriced, why don't you buy it?
If the camera is inoperable, despite Brian's having solved the original "ASA
setting problem", why not say so instead of invoking yet another 'defect' of
uncertain significance?
Why don't I buy it? I don't need another 4T, particularly an ugly one.
I suppose I would have to eat my words, though, if a list member does buy it
for less than $150, and reports back that indeed it is a piece of junk.
Somehow I don't think that is going to happen, though.
The whole affair seems very odd, and my statement was based on little more
more than a hunch.
I'm sorry if, as your tone suggests, it offended you in some fashion.....
Chip Stratton
cstrat@xxxxxxxxx
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|