[Aristophanes]

Hey Adam! I have an idea for a new tagline for the site:

PentaxForums.com - where reason and perspective go to die!

(Actually, now that I think about it, that tagline is probably well suited for the Entire Internet.)

No, just where Class A cannot figure out criminal activity from civil marketing.

The hyperbole now used is so far from the reality of what occurred is nothing more than a desperate attempt to make "Ned" a liar.

Using criminal and even wartime analogies is not only silly, but it undercuts your credibility. And it is still shameful and reprehensible.

Are you now calling "Ned" a criminal? Because your logic train is on that path.

And BTW - The estoppel of the perjury is based on these people being corporate executives. You're not even understanding what you are reading, much less writing.

[Aristophanes]

You Tube

You Tube

[jmg257]

...The hyperbole now used is so far from the reality of what occurred is nothing more than a desperate attempt to make "Ned" a liar...Are you now calling "Ned" a criminal? ...

Hmmm...where do you see those things?

It actually appears many here think Ned (the person - not "Ned" the ???) actually told the truth, and Ricoh had little to do with UPP. Without any specific facts to the contrary, personally I too would tend to take him at his word.

From the beginning it was pointed out that those who would think Ricoh was responsible for the Pentax move to UPP would also be accusing Ned of a falsehood.

[Kunzite]

Well said. But people are intentionally missing the point, posting useless Robocop videos instead.

[jmg257]

Well said. But people are intentionally missing the point, posting useless Robocop videos instead.

Agreed.
Maybe Aristo could post a link to Wizard of Oz - that has some parts in it about a Straw Man.

cannot figure out criminal activity from civil marketing.

nothing more than a desperate attempt to make "Ned" a liar.

Using criminal and even wartime analogies...is still shameful and reprehensible.

Are you now calling "Ned" a criminal?

[ofer4]

At the risk of highjacking the liar-liar-pants-on-fire thread...

Has anyone else noticed that these price drops have not propagated elsewhere? Amazon has (mostly) adjusted, but Adorama, PentaxUSA, etc. are all still at the original price points. Did B&H jump the gun, or are they giving UPP the finger, or...?

[FWIW, I pulled the trigger on the 35mm f2.4 from Amazon at the new price. It won't arrive for a few weeks, but I'm excited!]

[vanyagor]

At the risk of highjacking the liar-liar-pants-on-fire thread...

Has anyone else noticed that these price drops have not propagated elsewhere? Amazon has (mostly) adjusted, but Adorama, PentaxUSA, etc. are all still at the original price points. Did B&H jump the gun, or are they giving UPP the finger, or...?

[FWIW, I pulled the trigger on the 35mm f2.4 from Amazon at the new price. It won't arrive for a few weeks, but I'm excited!]

Well, isn't this how it always was? Pentax proper prices were always higher than BH/Amazon/Adorama as well as other dealers (with a few exceptions). MAP doesn't mean everyone is selling at the same price.

Everyone assumes the MAP was lowered, while assuming MAP stayed the same is as valid an assumption. Dealers could have opted for MSRP after the UPP policy was announced and now the bigger ones are starting to drift down to MAP.

[Aristophanes]

Well said. But people are intentionally missing the point, posting useless Robocop videos instead.

Really?

My point is pretty simple. What Ned wrote could have been written by head office, and the defended policy has all the hallmarks of Japanese head office tactics. It's all the same policy propagated by the same company.

Trying to blame the spokesperson "Ned" individually is disingenuous, rude, and below common decency standards set by even a Robocop movie.

The utter ignorance here is people are thinking that if "Ned" is proven to have lied, somehow Ricoh/Pentax did not, only making brand loyalty into a blame fetish. Class A is clinging to that fantasy only demonstrating an oblivion of how multinational corporations and the law (which I posted references to) work. I am not the one who said "Corporations cannot speak", whereas the US Supreme Court says otherwise. Class A wrong. Period. Done. Spanked and back to bed for him as well.*

Being proven 100% factually wrong appears to then send people on a quest to compare this to criminality. And if civil criminality won't do, then let's pull up just short of Godwin's Law and make it wartime criminality to REALLY make the point.

*Class A is, however, free to launch a legal action challenging the findings of the courts to prove his point. Please do, and come back and tell us how it went. Dying to know.

[Kunzite]

Neither Robocop nor repetitio ad nauseam won't persuade anyone; completely ignoring what people said and making up an army of strawmen instead doesn't help, either - why are you insisting with this nonsense?

[mecrox]

Neither Robocop nor repetitio ad nauseam won't persuade anyone; completely ignoring what people said and making up an army of strawmen instead doesn't help, either - why are you insisting with this nonsense?

Nausea ... strawmen ... nonsense ... it's Wicker Man!

[jmg257]

Really?
What Ned wrote could have been written by head office, and the defended policy has all the hallmarks of Japanese head office tactics. It's all the same policy propagated by the same company.

Agree.

Trying to blame the spokesperson "Ned" individually is disingenuous, rude, and below common decency standards...

Don't agree. {the Robo Cop scene was pretty cool though! BTW - Ned IS a real person - so no need for quotes!}

The utter ignorance here is people are thinking that if "Ned" is proven to have lied, somehow Ricoh/Pentax did not

Don't agree, and a Straw Man. The real ignorance is in thinking it disingenious to hold Ned responsible for what Ned does (hence the several analogies showing otherwise). {there are those quotes again - Ned lives!}

repetitio ad nauseam won't persuade anyone

Though possibly helpful to some - analogies, legal proceedings and corporate law did not affect what are simply personal opinions at odds in this discussion.

And so an impass.


As for me - if someone thinks what Ned posted is untrue, they could have the balls to call him on it. But if someone feels doing so would be rude because it is not really Ned's (or is that "Ned's"??) fault, so be it!

[Aristophanes]

Nausea ... strawmen ... nonsense ... it's Wicker Man!

Cool film.

Good this they cancelled its sequel: Rattan Man

[Aristophanes]

Agree.



Don't agree. {the Robo Cop scene was pretty cool though! BTW - Ned IS a real person - so no need for quotes!}


Don't agree, and a Straw Man. The real ignorance is in thinking it disingenious to hold Ned responsible for what Ned does (hence the several analogies showing otherwise). {there's those quotes again - Ned lives!}

Though possibly helpful to some - analogies, legal proceedings and corporate law did not affect what are simply personal opinions at odds in this discussion.

And so an impass.


As for me - if someone thinks what Ned posted is untrue, they could have the balls to call him on it. But if someone feels doing so would be rude because it is not really "Ned's" fault, so be it!

I simply do not personallyattribute to "Ned" statements that come from Pentax corporate about critical Pentax operations.

Other seem to want to make this personal and make him out to be a liar. For all we know his bog is written by a flunkie from Ricoh's internship program. Until proven otherwise, all statements about Pentax from a corporate officer should be seen as indivisible from Pentax corporate.

Nothing that "Ned" says about Pentax is a personal opinion, though some here confuse their personal opinions about that, going so far as to say that "Corporations cannot speak", which is factually wrong. I'll leave aside for the moment the morally wrong hyperbole about comparing "Ned's" actions to wartime criminality. Just set that aside for now.

[Kunzite]

Other seem to want to make this personal and make him out to be a liar.

And again, with this lie. For the billionth time.

[jmg257]

I simply do not personallyattribute to "Ned" statements that could have come from Pentax corporate about critical Pentax operations.

Fixed the assumption, but OK.

Other seem to want to make this personal and make him out to be a liar.

Have not seen that...Only if what Ned said was not true and he knew it wasn't true when he blogged it...then he would be a liar. However very few here are pushing the 'Ricoh was responsible' meme.

For all we know his bog is written by a flunkie from Ricoh's internship program.

True. Though it wouldn't & shouldn't relieve Ned of responsibility for what he says he writes there. Personally I would not go so low as to think Ned is lying about writing his own blog - now THAT is rude!

Until proven otherwise, all statements about Pentax from a corporate officer should be seen as indivisible from Pentax corporate.

OK. Not likely, especially in this case what with Ned addressing this in a personal manner, but an OK opinion none the less. Agree that corporations can lie too (when their officers lie I suppose?).

Nothing that "Ned" says about Pentax is a personal opinion

That's fine, though in this case what Ned said was written as a statement of (supposed) fact. His belief did not come into it. His statement is either true, or not true. (And one I'm supposing he knew was true or untrue at the time he made it).