[monochrome]

Today I'm going to finish my taxes, take product shots of the things I have to sell to pay my taxes and take some nice pictures with my K-01 and the Traveling K-Mount (MX).

I've pretty much said my piece on this thread and the other so this will probably be my last post on this thread.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 04-14-2012 at 09:10 AM.

[Jean Poitiers]

Bonjour,

Just FYI ... the price increase virus is going global ?!

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-news-rumors/182468-uk-lens-price-i...ml#post1910146

Salut, J Frog

[Blue]

Ricoh, come out and play . . . Ricoh, come out and play . . . Ricoh, come out and play . . .

You Tube

You Tube

[jsherman999]

Ricoh, come out and play . . . Ricoh, come out and play . . . Ricoh, come out and play . . .

The Warriors- Come Out and Play - YouTube

That guy is probably about how Ned & John C perceive us

.

[Docrwm]

That guy is probably about how Ned & John C perceive us

.

Yes, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that there isn't anyone out to get you.

[Smeggypants]

So any News from Corporate Ned yet or is he still too busy opening boxes of presents sent by 'dealers' ?

[monochrome]

(Breaking my declaration that I was finished posting to this thread)

RE: Personal Blogs for US employees: I had earlier commented that my company strictly prohibits posting to a personal blog in any shape or form identifiable by real name, including Facebook, Linked-In and other social networking sites. I received many critical replies that I should have a right to a blog and that my company has enslaved me.

We had dinner tonight with three other adult couples. All eight of us are in our 50's and all employed by large entities; two University Department Heads, several business executives, Chair of a non-profit, public school teacher. I asked them to each describe their employer's blog policy.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is subject to an immediate dismissal rule for blogging about our industry or employer, directly or indirectly, for the reasons I ahve described in my posts - there is just too much legal, regulatory (in one case), image and message risk to the company to permit executive employees to maintain a named internet presence..

My employer is not only not unusual, it is normal.

[jsherman999]

(Breaking my declaration that I was finished posting to this thread)

RE: Personal Blogs for US employees: I had earlier commented that my company strictly prohibits posting to a personal blog in any shape or form identifiable by real name, including Facebook, Linked-In and other social networking sites. I received many critical replies that I should have a right to a blog and that my company has enslaved me.

We had dinner tonight with three other adult couples. All eight of us are in our 50's and all employed by large entities; two University Department Heads, several business executives, Chair of a non-profit, public school teacher. I asked them to each describe their employer's blog policy.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is subject to an immediate dismissal rule for blogging about our industry or employer, directly or indirectly, for the reasons I ahve described in my posts - there is just too much legal, regulatory (in one case), image and message risk to the company to permit executive employees to maintain a named internet presence..

My employer is not only not unusual, it is normal.

Well, wait a minute here... You can't have a "personal blog, identifiable by real name" or you can't blog about your industry or employer? Two very different things, and I'm fairly certain any companies that try to restrict the former will find themselves on the wrong side of the law if it ever gets pushed.

My company (huge, huge, and shall stay unnamed ) started to go down that route and was basically warned by legal that it couldn't hold up, and they would have to retract the policy at some point anyway. Posting negative things specifically about your employer on these sites is an easy way to get canned, though - unless you are truly whistle-blowing, in which case you may still have a long legal road ahead of you before vindication.


.

[NZ_Ross]

Regarding Ned,

I have been subscribed to this thread since the beginning and have noted all the comments - mainly because I was communicating with Transit about another matter (since moved to PM) on this tread.

As a result I have received all the update emails and comments.

I am sure that is has been a lot of fun for everyone, and good for you to vent your frustrations at Pentax and Ned.

Looking in from NZ, where we already get badly stung for cameras and lenses (and hence don't have the passion about the recent changes) I would observe that you should consider yourselves fortunate that a senior executive of Pentax has taken the time to blog, and let you know he is considering / listing the concerns raised. He seems a reasonable bloke, with a genuine concern for his user community.

I would also observe that threads like this where there has been a bit of kicking going on are not really going to help improve the communication with Pentax USA or Japan, nor improve Neds likely desire to continue any communication with this user community.

You should all think about that.

My observation of life is that graciousness and good manners go a long way in helping good communication and improving results.

(ready to be flamed )

Ross

[Blue]

Regarding Ned,

I have been subscribed to this thread since the beginning and have noted all the comments - mainly because I was communicating with Transit about another matter (since moved to PM) on this tread.

As a result I have received all the update emails and comments.

I am sure that is has been a lot of fun for everyone, and good for you to vent your frustrations at Pentax and Ned.

Looking in from NZ, where we already get badly stung for cameras and lenses (and hence don't have the passion about the recent changes) I would observe that you should consider yourselves fortunate that a senior executive of Pentax has taken the time to blog, and let you know he is considering / listing the concerns raised. He seems a reasonable bloke, with a genuine concern for his user community.

I would also observe that threads like this where there has been a bit of kicking going on are not really going to help improve the communication with Pentax USA or Japan, nor improve Neds likely desire to continue any communication with this user community.

You should all think about that.

My observation of life is that graciousness and good manners go a long way in helping good communication and improving results.

(ready to be flamed )

Ross

If you would go back and look at his blog all the way back to 2005 to present, you well see periods of showing of new Pentax products surrounded by long gaps of absence from months to nearly a year at a time. Plus, we are talking about his territory being a lot larger than New Zealand. In fact, the state of Colorado alone is roughly the same size as New Zealand. Yet we have had a terrible Pentax network going back at least 25 years. We have 49 other states and 2 territories covered by Pentax U.S.A. (PentaxImaging).

[Blue]

(Breaking my declaration that I was finished posting to this thread)

RE: Personal Blogs for US employees: I had earlier commented that my company strictly prohibits posting to a personal blog in any shape or form identifiable by real name, including Facebook, Linked-In and other social networking sites. I received many critical replies that I should have a right to a blog and that my company has enslaved me.

We had dinner tonight with three other adult couples. All eight of us are in our 50's and all employed by large entities; two University Department Heads, several business executives, Chair of a non-profit, public school teacher. I asked them to each describe their employer's blog policy.

EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US is subject to an immediate dismissal rule for blogging about our industry or employer, directly or indirectly, for the reasons I ahve described in my posts - there is just too much legal, regulatory (in one case), image and message risk to the company to permit executive employees to maintain a named internet presence..

My employer is not only not unusual, it is normal.

The university dept heads are acting like administrators and not professors. That is why associate professors and professors have tenure. As long as they don't break the law or do something unethical, they are insulated from political b.s. to a point.

[NZ_Ross]

If you would go back and look at his blog all the way back to 2005 to present, you well see periods of showing of new Pentax products surrounded by long gaps of absence from months to nearly a year at a time. Plus, we are talking about his territory being a lot larger than New Zealand. In fact, the state of Colorado alone is roughly the same size as New Zealand. Yet we have had a terrible Pentax network going back at least 25 years.

Blue,

I did go back through his blog quickly - I wasn't saying he was perfect

It was more an observation of courtesy and what is likely to get results.

I have been to the USA a couple of times, and it is a lovely big country - NZ is very small by comparison

Ross

[Blue]

Blue,

I did go back through his blog quickly - I wasn't saying he was perfect

It was more an observation of courtesy and what is likely to get results.

I have been to the USA a couple of times, and it is a lovely big country - NZ is very small by comparison

Ross

We are courteous with them. However, they generally ignore us. It takes several months to get a camera or lens repaired on warranty or cash repair. Courtesy is a 2-way street. I could make the argument that Japan is lucky they have had Ned in there for as long as they had. Anyone else and Pentax sales would be worse than they are in the U.S. Most Americans that know anything about photography think Pentax went out of business in 1989.

[monochrome]

Well, wait a minute here... You can't have a "personal blog, identifiable by real name" or you can't blog about your industry or employer? Two very different things, and I'm fairly certain any companies that try to restrict the former will find themselves on the wrong side of the law if it ever gets pushed.

My company (huge, huge, and shall stay unnamed ) started to go down that route and was basically warned by legal that it couldn't hold up, and they would have to retract the policy at some point anyway. Posting specifics about your employer on these sites is an easy way to get canned, though - unless you are truly whistle-blowing, in which case you may still have a long legal road ahead of you before vindication..

There are various sets of rules and regs - the point being each of us is subject to review of our personal internet postings and subject to employment action for violating a set of reules that were imposed on us after-the-fact of hire.

Some of the group can have a personal blog identifiable by name but cannot post anything at all about the employer or industry. Some cannot have a personal blog identifiable by name, but can blog anonymously (but are counseled not to blog about employer). One is subject to continual review of social networking sites. One is regulated and the government would require the ability to subpoena every blog post and email of every employee at will - so that persona may not have any personally identifiable blogs at all, and may not list the employer or discuss the company or industry on Facebook or Linked-In. One of us has personal accounts at social network sites that are rubber stamps of corporate-generated posts. One of us is subject to review of friends on social network sites and subject to a union-endorsed limitation of who such friends may / may NOT be and what may / may NOT be posted - and there may be no personal messages (no DM) between the account owner and certain classes of members of the social network site - in accordance with a state law. Most people in that industry statewide simply canceled their social network accounts rather than comply since anonymous social network accounts aren't permitted either and they didn't want the hassle of compliance.

Each of us has a supervisory or executive role in our entity and each has a public relations department at our entity.

All of us are subject to immediate, unconditional dismissal with prejudice (loss of conditional deferred benefits, etc.) for violations of these rules. In twenty years some Supreme Court case may be voted in favor of us, but none of us is willing to take the risk to make effing blog posts - and we'll all be dead before it is decided anyway.

In fact, given that I buy and sell here and PM individuals with my personal info to do that, I'm probably in violation of my employer's policy if the wanted to make an issue of it.

[Blue]

There are various sets of rules and regs - the point being each of us is subject to review of our personal internet postings and subject to employment action for violating a set of reules that were imposed on us after-the-fact of hire.

Some of the group can have a personal blog identifiable by name but cannot post anything at all about the employer or industry. Some cannot have a personal blog identifiable by name, but can blog anonymously (but are counseled not to blog about employer). One is subject to continual review of social networking sites. One is regulated and the government would require the ability to subpoena every blog post and email of every employee at will - so that persona may not have any personally identifiable blogs at all, and may not list the employer or discuss the company or industry on Facebook or Linked-In. One of us has personal accounts at social network sites that are rubber stamps of corporate-generated posts. One of us is subject to review of friends on social network sites and subject to a union-endorsed limitation of who such friends may / /may NOT be and what may / may NOT be posted - and there may be no personal messages (no DM) between owner and certain classes for members of the social network site - in accordance with a state law. Most people in that industry statewide simply canceled their social network accounts rather than comply since anonymous social network accounts aren't permitted either and they didn't want the hassle of compliance.

Each of us has a supervisory or executive role in our entity and each has a public relations department at our entity.

All of us are subject to immediate, unconditional dismissal with prejudice (loss of conditional deferred benefits, etc.) for violations of these rules. In twenty years some Supreme Court case may be voted in favor of us, but none of us is willing to take the risk to make effing blog posts - and we'll all be dead before it is decided anyway.

In fact, given that I buy and sell here and PM individuals with my personal info to do that, I'm probably in violation of my employer's policy if the wanted to make an issue of it.

If those Dept Heads you mentioned fire a tenure professor other than for wrong doing, breaking the law or ethics violations, they will be "owned" in a wrongful dismissal law suite. I know dept heads and deans that still act like faculty. However, more and more many of them are just administrators. The U.C. system is one of the exceptions, but then they have elected dept chairs and deans.